Colour Theory

[Starks333]

But colour system and colour space is something that does not even need to be touched that much in colour theory. Colour spaces are needed when you go from screen to print or manufacturing and need the colours to match between different types of reproduction (screen, paper, toy, furniture, etcetera). When you paint a miniature you would, at worst, use colour spaces when you adjust how your miniature looks in an image. But we are not painting our miniatures resticted to any colour space and do not need that exact reproduction (even for coolminiornot.com). So just forget that (for miniature painting).

 

For colour systems you basically only need to know that an additive colour system works because a light source emits the light. Then you get the whole red, green, and blue when two are mixed the results are cyan, magenta, and yellow, and all three mixed add up to white. That's not how it works with paint as paints (usually) do not emit light like a lamp, they reflect it and depends on an outside light source.

 

the importance of how light works affects how you create your tones later on, it is light colour theory rather than simple colour mixing theory, its important to know that when blue light and yellow light mix, they create green in certain cases, or when red and green light mix they create yellow...this is light theory, not pigment theory and this is how they connect

 

as for RGB=CMY, they both can be used to create each other, and both add or subtract to equal white or black, thats why they are both on this wheel, and why they are incredibly important

 

 

The colour wheel that Starks333 posted is not that great for the theory part. Visit the URL on it and see for yourself. Its details don't help paints made for painting miniatures. A simple one dimensional colour wheel is enough to get you started. Something like these:

http://members.shaw.ca/warmlandcalligraphe...our/colour2.gif

http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00650/.../colorwheel.gif

 

A colour wheel like that is useful to know and once you know what is it about you won't need an actual physical wheel. I mentioned above that everything is relative. Every colour our eyes perceive is not evaluated individualy. Contrasting colours next to each other amplify the contrast and neighbourly colour do not. The further a colour is from another on the colur wheel the bigger the contrast and thus the bigger the amplification of it. That's, sort of, the short version of it. This is one type of contrast that you can use and play with. You could say that contrast breeds attention. So if you want something to look flashy you can go with complementary hues and get a big contrast. That's for contrast in hues.

 

the first wheel lacks blue green and magentas...the second wheel places a non indigo blue as true blue......in the rainbow the blues that appear are cyan and indigo blue(that dark blue)

 

the issue is, i am not talking old colour wheels, or systems because they lack information, theres not much difference, but the difference is significant its pretty simple the way ive explaining it(heck ive used point form and a few direct lines)

 

the wheel is only important as a basis to explain some simple things....the real colour theory forces specifics that requires an understanding of light, not pigment colours

 

pigment colours dont mean a thing if you dont know how light functions, this is my goal....not only to cover it for people who want to learn by to document things for myself!

 

and yes, figure paint is not designed with this in mind, thats a shame, but it doesnt defeat the concept at all

 

 

...the rest of what you cover is definetly agreeable tho! :)

 

Thanks for your reply Alex ^^

 

I tried the experiment. For the first one, I got a question.

You said try to mix a skin tone color, what do the color of the skin tone should looks like?

Because after many mix, what I got are usually some dark+redish+purplish+brownish color. Sometime, I get real brown, sometime, I get red brown or dark purple brown

I dont know do I get it right or wrong... because they do not looks like skin color in my opinion (ummm....i dont know? :lol: )

The second one is kinda fun. (wow, I found some of my faourite color!lol)

but keep opening and closing paint pot is killing me XDD :P (joking)

Actually, the experiment is quite fun! ok now is the time to "digest" what I have learned so far

 

:)

 

just differnt skins...asian, black, mexican, south american, caucasian, whatever, a variety of those types of coluors from browns to tans to ivories and so on...its not really the skin tone that matters, its the process of making and learning how to that does!

 

@hubernator....thats because colour is relative, no matter how its created light is what does the work, and understanding how light creates colour goes a long way into allowing you to understand how to use colour in your work

 

you may notice that until you mix a lot you cant make black, yet with the RCW you can create black by using opposites, however you must use dyes or inks to do this because of their properties, flat acrylics do not work, but thats not the point :P

 

 

 

Alex

[onipunk]

I'm sure I saw a website that showed you how to make every colour in the Citadel Range using only the three primary colours and black and white. Forgot to bookmark it though ;)

[mario]

Starks333, I think you are mixing up two things that can be seperated easily. One being colour theory and the other lighting. Colour theory is about colours; and knowing how you can (ab)use them. It is not fused with reallistic lighting. Knowing colour theory is great because it can help in a realistic painting. For example how specific colour glazes can interact on top of each other to create an illusion of subsurface scattering of light. Another example would be rayleigh scattering: The physics and theoretical information on lighting explain why the sky is blue, and most shadows have a blueish tint caused by the ambient blue secondary light (atmosphere, sky) but colour theory will help you mix the right colours to get that effect.

 

They are two disciplines that interact, and there is no need to label it "old colour wheel". Of course the wheeles lack specific colour because the most important parts that it can show you is to roughly but quickly find the compelements (red - green, yellow - purple, orange - blue) and show how you mix in a hue to wander around the wheel. It's just a crutch and totally useless after you know these basics as you use your paints to paint, and not colour chips cut out from the colour wheel. The wheel that you linked is supplied with recommendations for specific paints and pigments that allow the recreation of the chips on the wheel but it doesn't really help with paints that are not included or anything with realistic lighitng theory. It just focuses on exact complements that create neutral shadows and can be created wth the paints that are referenced. But if you paint any miniature and assume that it is under the sky (its "position") then the neutral shadows that the real colour wheel allows with specific paints do not exist anymore. It could be useful if you were to use the paints that are listed on the site and wanted to compare your miniature with the wheel all the time. It just seems exact to the point of uselessness (especially with fast drying paints) like measuring a person's height in nanometer or something.

 

Paints and pigments (actually colour) mean a lot, even if you do not know much but the basics about lighting (like: photons bounce around). Just open any book. Graphic design, layout, and typography do not need realistic lighting but they can leverage colour (theory) to great effect.

 

I don't know if we are talking past each other but it seems to me that you are mixing lighting theory with colour theory. They do interact and you could for example paint something realistic and use colour theory to adjust parts of the painting to better server your needs by pushing the focus on some detail that the basic realistic representation would not support.

 

And regarding the skin mixing exercise: The main problem is that we are used to seeing human skin on humans, meaning that its impression is not just a colour. It depends on the form (a skintone on a cube would (without any further surface details) look just like a cube painted in a somewhat desaturated colour, not like skin) and on the face in greatly depends on the facial bone structure (we see faces constantly and are biased on how a human face is supposed to look), other factors are subsurface scattering, the basic ambient lighting situation, vellus hair, also physical condition (freezing winter, exausted after a run, etcetera), and other skin conditions (perspiration, greasy, dry, dirty, flushed, sick, etcetera).

 

A similar exercise (but for generic colour theory) would be to buy some tubes of cheapish acrylic paint and a few bigger brushes (bigger than miniature painting brushes), get some clean paper, and try mixing eveything with everything (not at once, try a lot of permutations), as well as trying out how a dot of a specific colour looks on different background colour. That should show you in practice the theory of colour theory, and help you get a more instinctive feeling for how to mix to get an effect you want.

 

Just to repeat it. I do not know exactly where your point of view is coming from and what exactly you are aiming at with this thread (a tutorial sure, but about what exactly: colour theory, lighiting, realistic miniature painting, a mix of all?). It is a bit confusing and it seems that you are trying to wedge lighting theory into colour theory. I am used to letting these two play with each other instead of bashing thier heads together.

 

I like a good discussion, giving comments, and helping to refine things. In what direction is this thread supposed to go?

[Starks333]

Starks333, I think you are mixing up two things that can be seperated easily. One being colour theory and the other lighting. Colour theory is about colours; and knowing how you can (ab)use them. It is not fused with reallistic lighting. Knowing colour theory is great because it can help in a realistic painting. For example how specific colour glazes can interact on top of each other to create an illusion of subsurface scattering of light. Another example would be rayleigh scattering: The physics and theoretical information on lighting explain why the sky is blue, and most shadows have a blueish tint caused by the ambient blue secondary light (atmosphere, sky) but colour theory will help you mix the right colours to get that effect.

 

shadows dont actually often have a blueish tint, which i just found out...it is however a great and simple way to start from, and still a useful basic guide....in sunlight shadows are actually often yellowed, under red light, they are often redened...there are cases that cause interaction, and cases where blue light does its thang, but its nto as simple as shadows are blued...(as i once thought)

 

They are two disciplines that interact, and there is no need to label it "old colour wheel". Of course the wheeles lack specific colour because the most important parts that it can show you is to roughly but quickly find the compelements (red - green, yellow - purple, orange - blue) and show how you mix in a hue to wander around the wheel. It's just a crutch and totally useless after you know these basics as you use your paints to paint, and not colour chips cut out from the colour wheel. The wheel that you linked is supplied with recommendations for specific paints and pigments that allow the recreation of the chips on the wheel but it doesn't really help with paints that are not included or anything with realistic lighitng theory. It just focuses on exact complements that create neutral shadows and can be created wth the paints that are referenced. But if you paint any miniature and assume that it is under the sky (its "position") then the neutral shadows that the real colour wheel allows with specific paints do not exist anymore. It could be useful if you were to use the paints that are listed on the site and wanted to compare your miniature with the wheel all the time. It just seems exact to the point of uselessness (especially with fast drying paints) like measuring a person's height in nanometer or something.

 

the problem is, those are not compliments and do not mix to create neutrals....

 

 

this tutorial on painting green uses the same basic theories as the colour wheel i show:

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech34.html

 

its important to have the correct compliments lined up as to create proper neutrals...orange and blue do not mix to neutral UNLESS the blue is closer to green than purple and orange closer to yellow than red....purple and yellow do not create neutrals....neither does red and green(they create yellow)

 

I don't know if we are talking past each other but it seems to me that you are mixing lighting theory with colour theory. They do interact and you could for example paint something realistic and use colour theory to adjust parts of the painting to better server your needs by pushing the focus on some detail that the basic realistic representation would not support.

 

colour theory is light theory....theres no difference, it all deals with interaction...contrasts, hues, brightness, lightness, saturations, how it mixes, its all light theory

 

And regarding the skin mixing exercise: The main problem is that we are used to seeing human skin on humans, meaning that its impression is not just a colour. It depends on the form (a skintone on a cube would (without any further surface details) look just like a cube painted in a somewhat desaturated colour, not like skin) and on the face in greatly depends on the facial bone structure (we see faces constantly and are biased on how a human face is supposed to look), other factors are subsurface scattering, the basic ambient lighting situation, vellus hair, also physical condition (freezing winter, exausted after a run, etcetera), and other skin conditions (perspiration, greasy, dry, dirty, flushed, sick, etcetera).

 

its a generic basic test to get people to begin to look at colour differently, it is by no means and advanced "how to learn to paint skin tones' experiement

 

A similar exercise (but for generic colour theory) would be to buy some tubes of cheapish acrylic paint and a few bigger brushes (bigger than miniature painting brushes), get some clean paper, and try mixing eveything with everything (not at once, try a lot of permutations), as well as trying out how a dot of a specific colour looks on different background colour. That should show you in practice the theory of colour theory, and help you get a more instinctive feeling for how to mix to get an effect you want.

 

thats one of the tests i describe essentially

 

Just to repeat it. I do not know exactly where your point of view is coming from and what exactly you are aiming at with this thread (a tutorial sure, but about what exactly: colour theory, lighiting, realistic miniature painting, a mix of all?). It is a bit confusing and it seems that you are trying to wedge lighting theory into colour theory. I am used to letting these two play with each other instead of bashing thier heads together.

 

I like a good discussion, giving comments, and helping to refine things. In what direction is this thread supposed to go?

 

colour and lighting can not be divided in essence...however what ive done is aimed for a very simplistic and basic approach without going into major detail.....most people reading this will not be able to figure out the advanced stuff till much later anyways...and id like to build a more concrete understanding of certain aspects first....miniature painting is no different than other types of painting except that it lacks a complete background, it does have a ground and a manufactured "light" and thus you can work with it just as you can a photo with no concept of the things around the photo...and it does not need to be realistic(how people envision realism that is), just make sense....learning how light affects colour allows a person to understand how to begin applying colour and WHY or WHERE to use certain colours

 

 

 

Alex

[LunchBox]

Why?

 

Pigments on a surface work by bouncing certain wavelengths back to our eye, while others are 'absorbed' for lack of a better term. It "subtracts" certain wavelengths of light, while our eyes perceive color. For instance we see black becuase it's absorbing every wavelength in the spectrum and not bouncing that light back to our eyes in the same manner as, say, "red" would. We perceive the absence of this reflection as black.

 

Loltangent

 

Nice...shall I further elaborate by explaining how electromagnetic energy causes electrons to change their energy levels, and when they "come back down" they reflect specific colors based on their atomic structure?

 

OK...seriously, light and color are not the same, but they are dependent upon each other. Color cannot exist in the absense of light...because nothing is being reflected. I prove this every year to my 7th grade science class by holding up a piece of construction paper, noting the color, then turning the lights off. Light is difficult to perceive without color, to clue us in to our surroundings.

[Starks333]

Why?

 

Pigments on a surface work by bouncing certain wavelengths back to our eye, while others are 'absorbed' for lack of a better term. It "subtracts" certain wavelengths of light, while our eyes perceive color. For instance we see black becuase it's absorbing every wavelength in the spectrum and not bouncing that light back to our eyes in the same manner as, say, "red" would. We perceive the absence of this reflection as black.

 

Loltangent

 

Nice...shall I further elaborate by explaining how electromagnetic energy causes electrons to change their energy levels, and when they "come back down" they reflect specific colors based on their atomic structure?

 

OK...seriously, light and color are not the same, but they are dependent upon each other. Color cannot exist in the absense of light...because nothing is being reflected. I prove this every year to my 7th grade science class by holding up a piece of construction paper, noting the color, then turning the lights off. Light is difficult to perceive without color, to clue us in to our surroundings.

 

 

light is perceivable without colour, but colour is not without light :P

 

light itself is colourless until it hits an object but it still affects lightness/darkness(greyscale)

 

in a dark room the colours prevalent are often blued or so desaturated they appear in almost complete black and white

 

you will also find the eye itself sees in black and white in the "peripherals"

 

 

as colour itself depends on light, it is reasonable to say that colour is not possible to discuss(on an accurate level) without delving into light

[Berzerker Pezz]

Why?

 

Pigments on a surface work by bouncing certain wavelengths back to our eye, while others are 'absorbed' for lack of a better term. It "subtracts" certain wavelengths of light, while our eyes perceive color. For instance we see black becuase it's absorbing every wavelength in the spectrum and not bouncing that light back to our eyes in the same manner as, say, "red" would. We perceive the absence of this reflection as black.

 

Loltangent

 

Nice...shall I further elaborate by explaining how electromagnetic energy causes electrons to change their energy levels, and when they "come back down" they reflect specific colors based on their atomic structure?

 

OK...seriously, light and color are not the same, but they are dependent upon each other. Color cannot exist in the absense of light...because nothing is being reflected. I prove this every year to my 7th grade science class by holding up a piece of construction paper, noting the color, then turning the lights off. Light is difficult to perceive without color, to clue us in to our surroundings.

 

Didn't want to get that complicated, but I guess you can

[mario]

Something is really strange. The board often randomy doesn't allow me to reply to this post (I just get an error message that states that I may not reply). And to top it all of the browser crashed and took a long post with it. :)

 

So here is the short version:

• I was talking about rayleigh scattering and a nice blue atmosphere. In that case you have the blueish shadows.
  
• The part where you link to handprint.com: I wrote that the simple colur wheres are just training wheels but the extreme details are only needed if you want proper neutrals.
  
• Colour theory is not lighting theory: Colour theory is a high level abstraction (high level because you do disregard low level details, not because it is better) about visual impact. Lighitng is more about how all these low level details affect the whole. From rayleigh scattering in a landscape, the details of subsurface scattering in leaves and skin, refraction in a lens, to pigments; and of you want to go really deep down into the mechanics of it the quantum electrodynamics of electrons and photons (although that's more of a topic for theoretical physicists). So yes essentialy the same (electrons and photons), just from a different point of view and also the point where we have been talking past each other (I think) because this topic is named after the first and you wanted to talk about the second.
  

 

I think this topic should proably be renamed "Lighting fundamentals for miniature painter" (or something like that) just to reduce further confusion.

[Starks333]

Im not entirely sure why you insist this go that route? Colour theory is simply theory of colour....i dont see how there is any part of that work that says "it must be described with only these things in mind"? maybe how other people like to describe it, but not me, and thats why im writing this, because i have not found many things dealing with this subject that actually make sense or are helpful to something trying to APPLY the theory

 

I am describing and explaining with some light concepts intertwined because thats what colour is...you cant learn to use colour without it, so why break the two apart? it would be like explaining to someone how to train(athletically) and then leaving out human kinetics and biomechanics and simple physics...its not going to help them learn what they are trying to accomplish

 

Anyone can walk in and say "this is how you run" but to explain why? thats the most important part....why would i explain how to do colour, without any of the why? the why requires discussion on light

 

next, this is on a miniature painting website, but it is not limited to simply painting miniatures....colour is colour no matter the surface, you simply change some parameters here and there to adjust

 

 

this would be an example of using the colour wheel and its proper organisation to help develop colour sense

 

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/mixmech2.gif

 

i am not after complex stuff, i am just tyring to get a simple generic thing out there for people to go by...the advanced stuff im learning im keeping seperate from this and will study it on my own time....yes some simplifications using the wheel will lead to some minor confusion or idea changes in the future if people choose to pursue it...but for th emost part miniature painters dont pursue true technical accuracy(mostly because they dont study colour, but instead study painting...)

 

what i am bringing forth will help in some technical aspects, while still being generic and simple(not easy at first necessarily tho)

 

 

 

Alex

[Ekadeath]

Great thread, helped me work out a few things I have been struggling with. The colour wheels are a big help too, especially that last one Starks, thanks!

[Berzerker Pezz]

I was experimenting on a fig a lot tonight. I have scab red with glazes of a liche purple/scab red mix, and then pure liche purple. This has intensified the piece greatly while cooling off its lower halves, but its' still left me with little contrast. So I tried adding every color... green made it too brown, though, but I found it to be a perfect "dirt base" that would tie in with the rest of the piece. I added stuff until I had a soupy desaturated almost black, but it was too gray, so it made everything still lack the desired contrast.

 

Bad pic so you can see what I mean:

 

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee236/berserkerp/JuggernautInProgress3.jpg

 

However, after I added my desat soup, I realized it wasn't going to work so now I'm glazing back up to purple, only to find it's deepend my purple just a bit - not a bad thing, but still not what I was after.

 

Would it work to do pure glazes of say GW Midnight Blue or to mix it in with the red gore? How do I get that really good contrast, must I mix with black?

 

Sorry my brain still trying to process all it is learning at once, like bombardment.

[mario]

Starks333 I think I know what you mean but wouldn't it be easier if you pace it and structure it a bit more ordered? I am not talking about breaking things apart. I wrote that these are two different points of view of the same topic.

 

To use your example: You are jumping from athletics to physics up again to biomechanics. Colour theory without the physics gives you a a fast access to useful information and the "big picture" idea of it all. With some simple mixing explanations and examples someone who is interested in the topic is ready to start experimenting and trying. And that confers a practical (and not just theoretical) understanding of the topic.

 

The last image posted (from handprint) is much better than the "real colour wheel". It doesn't reference any specific paints and pigments (which are not even readily identifiable in a miniature paint range). And it doesn't mention true neutrals on or anyting else just for the sake of mentioning the terms. The "real colour wheel" works for that guys painting process and for his paints. But the good fundamental parts of that site are too much bound to his process and tools, both of wich we lack in miniature painting (we paint toy soldier with your paints).

 

He most probably is used to having a few chunks of paint and mixing the rest as needed (especially with oils where the drying time is much longer) while we (with acrylics for the most part) have much shorter drying times (and even shorter as we have these tiny paint dots on a palette). A wet palette helps, but even with that we have a much smaller scale where we need to control the different colour properties (hue, value, chroma) much more precisely as tiny variations create a much bigger impact that on a comparatively gigantic canvas painting.

 

I don't know. Does this explain my point of voew better? It's not about the content but more about the pedagogic approach (I think).

 

Berzerker Pezz: The question is "What exactly do you want ?". Scab red is very not sparky (rather low chroma, value) so creating contrast will be harder, meaning you need to go up. You could try glazing blood red or some orange (or even yellow), red on the rather flat sides, orange/yellow on the top. That should add some value and chroma. You could try blue-green (cyan, teal, turquoise, auamarine) glazes on the lower areas where you want the shading to me. Just be careful that you do not add too much value or chroma or will starting to compete with you highlighs for attantion. In the end your main chroma information is in the middle colour. The highlights tend to show more value information (human eyes can see a subtle value change much better than a corresponding chroma or hue change) and the shadows show less chroma because of their shadowy nature and lack of values, neaming that the values in the middle (on average) show the most chroma.

 

You could also give the gold parts a nice greenish patina for contrast, or change the other metallic parts to something that oxidises in nice greenish hues. And if you keep the greenish gumk near the reds it should pop a bit more.

 

But it also depends on how you want it to look. Like a nice new car, plastic (matte or glossy), old beaten metal, organic, et cetera. Also if you want it to look rather dark then you could up the values of other parts (base, babber, weapon, rider) so the beast looks darker. But in this case you also have to remember that the same colour would look brighter on the beast as it itself is bigger and does reflect a bit more light than the rider (it has more flat areas that can reflect light).

[Berzerker Pezz]

Well, I was hoping the purple would add a slighty biological look to his mechanical form. Also, I've glazed a mixture of blood red and scab red on top, which is making that pop significantly, but the purple in it's pure form is very high chroma, so it's competing with the red. I wanted it as a sort of transitional color, and am glazing scab red back over it. However, I want something just a little deeper in the recesses.

 

The rider is going to have a bit more of a bright red with less purple, so he stands out, but is still tied into the Juggernaut.

 

I will try turquoise, I don't know why it did not occur to me.

[Starks333]

The last image posted (from handprint) is much better than the "real colour wheel". It doesn't reference any specific paints and pigments (which are not even readily identifiable in a miniature paint range). And it doesn't mention true neutrals on or anyting else just for the sake of mentioning the terms. The "real colour wheel" works for that guys painting process and for his paints. But the good fundamental parts of that site are too much bound to his process and tools, both of wich we lack in miniature painting (we paint toy soldier with your paints).

 

He most probably is used to having a few chunks of paint and mixing the rest as needed (especially with oils where the drying time is much longer) while we (with acrylics for the most part) have much shorter drying times (and even shorter as we have these tiny paint dots on a palette). A wet palette helps, but even with that we have a much smaller scale where we need to control the different colour properties (hue, value, chroma) much more precisely as tiny variations create a much bigger impact that on a comparatively gigantic canvas painting.

 

I don't know. Does this explain my point of voew better? It's not about the content but more about the pedagogic approach (I think).

 

ah ok, thats what i thought this involved...i am not discussing HIS intent for the wheel, in fact i think he over uses "neutrals" in his work, the point im trying to get across is that the arrangement of colours(and their opposites) is more correct, and that the added colours just gives a better idea of colour variations

 

the numbers and references, and specifics he use it for are not what im after

 

Berzerker Pezz: The question is "What exactly do you want ?". Scab red is very not sparky (rather low chroma, value) so creating contrast will be harder, meaning you need to go up. You could try glazing blood red or some orange (or even yellow), red on the rather flat sides, orange/yellow on the top. That should add some value and chroma. You could try blue-green (cyan, teal, turquoise, auamarine) glazes on the lower areas where you want the shading to me. Just be careful that you do not add too much value or chroma or will starting to compete with you highlighs for attantion. In the end your main chroma information is in the middle colour. The highlights tend to show more value information (human eyes can see a subtle value change much better than a corresponding chroma or hue change) and the shadows show less chroma because of their shadowy nature and lack of values, neaming that the values in the middle (on average) show the most chroma.

 

You could also give the gold parts a nice greenish patina for contrast, or change the other metallic parts to something that oxidises in nice greenish hues. And if you keep the greenish gumk near the reds it should pop a bit more.

 

But it also depends on how you want it to look. Like a nice new car, plastic (matte or glossy), old beaten metal, organic, et cetera. Also if you want it to look rather dark then you could up the values of other parts (base, babber, weapon, rider) so the beast looks darker. But in this case you also have to remember that the same colour would look brighter on the beast as it itself is bigger and does reflect a bit more light than the rider (it has more flat areas that can reflect light).

 

the main thing you need to do is keep in mind what you are after, applying colour just to get contrast is not gonna build an atmosphere, emotion, or deliver a consistent "message"

 

if you are adding high amounts of blue it means the atmosphere is darker, which means you likely want to add colder colours to the highlights or tint the entire red blueish.....

 

remember beautiful colour is created in the highlights, not the shadows, so use that to develop colour in your highlights...shading is simply to define a shape....more advanced stuff, like taking into account reflections from the environment, rayleigh scattering, and so on, will affect what colour you use in shadows, but thats more advanced and complex stuffs

 

 

 

Alex

[Berzerker Pezz]

remember beautiful colour is created in the highlights, not the shadows, so use that to develop colour in your highlights...shading is simply to define a shape....more advanced stuff, like taking into account reflections from the environment, rayleigh scattering, and so on, will affect what colour you use in shadows, but thats more advanced and complex stuffs

And I am sure soon I will learn it all, Alex. Thank you. I want to go with a more warm overtone on the juggernaut, so perhaps sticking with my mixture of red and purple was better than pure liche purple because it's inherently colder? maybe warlock purple if we're sticking to gw colors?

 

I'll keep experimenting.

[mario]

remember beautiful colour is created in the highlights, not the shadows, so use that to develop colour in your highlights...shading is simply to define a shape....more advanced stuff, like taking into account reflections from the environment, rayleigh scattering, and so on, will affect what colour you use in shadows, but thats more advanced and complex stuffs

Shading (which defins the form) ismade with highlights and shadows. I don't know what you mean with "beautiful colour" but if you are talking about accurate colour information then the answer is not highlights but midtones. The highlights and shadows have aberrant value information and overpower the "correct" information of the midtones.

 

 

And I am sure soon I will learn it all, Alex. Thank you. I want to go with a more warm overtone on the juggernaut, so perhaps sticking with my mixture of red and purple was better than pure liche purple because it's inherently colder? maybe warlock purple if we're sticking to gw colors?

 

I'll keep experimenting.

 

If you want the juggernaut to be warmer then you should have used orange instead of purple hues for the red. With the red and purple you have some of the coldest reds that you can have (except if you were to also reduce chroma even more into something greyish). Scab red is already a bit purplish and lacking in chroma. It might be relativeley warm from a purple's point of view but from an average red's perspective it's a move towards the cold side.

[wiplash]

when i get the time i will read this thread but many thanks for putting this up here its always good to know the science (well ya know what i mean) behind the things you do

 

would you be able to update your posts with picture examples? its much harder to visualise mixing colour without a picture, i know its the theory but it still has to be put into practice doesn't it?

[Berzerker Pezz]

If you want the juggernaut to be warmer then you should have used orange instead of purple hues for the red. With the red and purple you have some of the coldest reds that you can have (except if you were to also reduce chroma even more into something greyish). Scab red is already a bit purplish and lacking in chroma. It might be relativeley warm from a purple's point of view but from an average red's perspective it's a move towards the cold side.

 

I kind of dont know what I need. I'm basing them with rich jungle sort of foliage and such. I wanted something to go with that environment, and yet still stand out, though I think the red does a good job by itself >.>; . I'm kind of liking the cooler hues I am getting the more I play with the colors. I glazed blood red on the highlights and then I'm using a sort of white-yellow-ornage mixture for the highilghts. We'll see how it goes

[Starks333]

Shading (which defins the form) ismade with highlights and shadows. I don't know what you mean with "beautiful colour" but if you are talking about accurate colour information then the answer is not highlights but midtones. The highlights and shadows have aberrant value information and overpower the "correct" information of the midtones.

 

just a quote from davinci:

 

"WHY BEAUTIFUL COLOURS MUST BE IN THE [HIGHEST] LIGHT.

Since we see that the quality of colour is known [only] by means of light, it is to be supposed that where there is most light the true character of a colour in light will be best seen; and where there is most shadow the colour will be affected by the tone of that. Hence, O Painter! remember to show the true quality of colours in bright lights.

"

 

this is and reviewing work(especially on figures) you can find many examples where dull highlights ruin the colours

 

so with this in mind, emphasize your colour in the highlights.....now your "original" colour is built in midtones yes, but not beautiful colour :)

 

 

If you want the juggernaut to be warmer then you should have used orange instead of purple hues for the red. With the red and purple you have some of the coldest reds that you can have (except if you were to also reduce chroma even more into something greyish). Scab red is already a bit purplish and lacking in chroma. It might be relativeley warm from a purple's point of view but from an average red's perspective it's a move towards the cold side.

 

its not the colour of shades that determine the red...the key is placement....a warm red can still have cold shadows(or blued) in some cases

 

what you need to work on is LESS purple or cold, keeping it to areas that would hit by the opposite angle your light source is hitting

 

and then use warmer tones in the highlights(and dont be afraid to go bright in some cases)

 

 

 

 

 

@wiplash, i will not be able to add photos for now, you will have to just roll with it....its too time consuming to go through everything myself, however whenever I finalise things I will include photos...this likely wont be for awhile as i continue to learn and progress in colour science!

 

Alex

[wiplash]

@wiplash, i will not be able to add photos for now, you will have to just roll with it....its too time consuming to go through everything myself, however whenever I finalise things I will include photos...this likely wont be for awhile as i continue to learn and progress in colour science!

 

Alex

 

no problem, just dont let us get too confused ;)