Cream&Sugar - an N9 reflective screen mix.

[cynical2]

Harp,

Just wanted you to know I've been keeping an eye on this thread. It's a great piece of work! This is further confirmation that having (and using) the right equipment sure does make things more efficient. I'm sure there exist a few people in the world that really can look at a sample and figure out what to mix with it to bring it to neutral. But, there always seem to be some surprises along the way (at least for the 99.99% of us that can't perfectly mix by eye). I only know of one confirmed truly neutral mix that was done by eye (Ben's)...others claim it, but to my knowledge don't have supporting data (at lease I don't think he used a spectro...which to me is incredible given the outcome). That tells you how hard it is to do...and how it's easy to spin your wheels for years and never quite get there. I haven't even attempted it without a spectro, 'cause I know I'd be wheel-spinnin'!

Anyways, I admire the data-based approach you're taking! Just wanted to chime in and let you know...

[Harpmaker]

cynical2 wrote:

Anyways, I admire the data-based approach you're taking! Just wanted to chime in and let you know...

Thanks Jim, it's appreciated!

[MississippiMan]

I can add another older, and more original version to the slowly growing list of Neutral White / Silver mixes that include C&S.

RS-MaxxMudd dates to early 2005.

16 oz. Delta Pearl Metallic #02601
10 oz. Delta Silver Metallic #02603
7 oz. UPW flat
3 oz. Folk Art (Plaid) Champaigne Metallic "Gold"
14 oz. Minwax Polycrylic - Satin finish
14 oz. distilled/tap water

The above is a VERY neutral mix, and one that outperformed the Stewart FireHawk completely across the Spectral Curve. It was also the first DIY Mix / Application that specifically improved Contrast (...hence ambient viewing potential..) while maintaining virtually pristine white levels. (...with some of the newer finds...what might it do today?)

Obviously, the addition of the Metallic Gold was to balance the small degree of Blue shift the metallic induced Gray hue introduced. The substitution of the Delta Ceramcoat paints for the Behr paints made for spectacular results that were lacking in the use of the coarser Behr Metallics. It was a Silver Metallic that was several shades lighter in hue, so by virtue of that, correcting any introduced push was all the more easier.

Tod (Tiddler) did extensive testing on the RS-MaxxMudd application, so in that respect, it was a "proven" example of a Neutral "Light Silver-White" screen.

All that remained to complete the trip into a truly dedicated Ambient Light Screen was the addition of specific Red-Green-Blue elements (w/Antique or Champagne Gold) to achieve as Light into Dark a surface as was needed.

Simple? No. Many chose to find fault with that when no other fault was found. But it really was only being compared to neutral Grays....and those applications didn't stand a chance in comparison. Benven's CGII & CGIII were Polar opposites to RS-MaxxMudd, but they of course were based primarily on "Increased gain".

But is RS-MaxxMudd doable by today's DIY standards? You betcha! It Rolled on and Sprayed like a dream.

Harp, your efforts to try to find a White that will mix with Silver without a Push might help simplify things a bit, but it is a hearkening back to simple basics that guided all of us long before. What we did not possess was the definitive "Base that does it all" That does seem to be getting awfully close though!

And yes, many of us did indeed develop the ability to "reckon" our way into neutrality, and we had to, because anything that had a undesirable "push' was simply....well, undesirable. It's not as if we were blind to the obvious miscues. No....we tried, and if something died, it was cast away ad another "idea" took it's place.

Funny thing was....back then, there were a few souls who took it upon themselves to make sure we all knew that they themselves had "been there...done that". But the real truth was we were revisiting their older applications and doing them netter, and from some of it actually coming up with original ideas as well.

To have a wealth of data and confirmed tests that show what is "neutral' and what is not is the real advantage many such as yourself now enjoy. The lessons learned since '02 on AVS pointed the direction toward the plateau we all exist on nowadays. While it can be honestly said that the effort to qualify and quantify potential ingredients is really just a reshuffling of the components of older known concepts, what's really important is the improvement such reshuffling can bring / is bringing.

In my reasoning, the real advance made recently is a completely color correcting "Base" to which Silver or Aluminum can be added. (BB)

Adjusting a "off Base" Base to compensate for varying amounts of introduced "Blue Push" needs no magical spell....the way has been know for sometime. Add some degree of hue between Red and Yellow. But it can be time consuming and frustrating if you don't nail it down quickly. Take it too far and you have a Red Push, and that is harder to deal with.

As I said above, C&S is noteworthy because it is both trying it's hand at reducing the Mix down to two components. You want to / have to add yellow, then try doing it as a original component of the Base. T'would be more original a find fer sure!

Good luck with it all, and I hope you can go on to create something really original to honor the C&S moniker. Everybody would benefit from such a simple creation.

[mechman]

MMan,

Hopefully that wasn't tested by prof55. I know that a lot of what he's done previously was in error. I believe everything was measured in C or something like that.

[MississippiMan]

mechman wrote:

MMan,

Hopefully that wasn't tested by prof55. I know that a lot of what he's done previously was in error. I believe everything was measured in C or something like that.

No...it was a "Todd" thing completely. Was it accurate? Well, no one seemed to dispute the findings at the time. I myself was wary of the whole thing, but eventually after examining the method and results, I was convinced because what was being stated corresponded with what I had been / was seeing.

I do hope that the "neutral" findings do lead Harp further down his path toward a perfect helping of C&S, because as it was originally presented...and much like BW, the simpler it remains, the more impressive any degree of performance increase becomes.

Somewhere out there awaits a real "Mongrel Mix" of a DIY Screen that has all the "cuteness' any of us could hope for, or would / should ever need. The DIY Kennel is getting quite crowded....a virtual "Puppy Mill" as it were.

[mechman]

MississippiMan wrote:

No...it was a "Todd" thing completely. Was it accurate? Well, no one seemed to dispute the findings at the time. I myself was wary of the whole thing, but eventually after examining the method and results, I was convinced because what was being stated corresponded with what I had been / was seeing.

You said it not me!

MississippiMan wrote:

I do hope that the "neutral" findings do lead Harp further down his path toward a perfect helping of C&S, because as it was originally presented...and much like BW, the simpler it remains, the more impressive any degree of performance increase becomes.

Somewhere out there awaits a real "Mongrel Mix" of a DIY Screen that has all the "cuteness' any of us could hope for, or would / should ever need. The DIY Kennel is getting quite crowded....a virtual "Puppy Mill" as it were.

We still have several things up the old sleeves! Both Bill and I have found some things that haven't been tried before - that we can recall anyways. And progress is being made on a 'white killer'.

[Harpmaker]

Does anyone know what N value RS-MaxxMudd is?

MMan, I never pretended that I was breaking new ground with Cream&Sugar (other than the catchy name ). C&S will always remain a SIMPLE mix; easy to find, mix and apply (at least in North America). If improvements can later be made by adding more components, a new mix will be introduced (perhaps called Cream&Sugar Ultra or somesuch), but I'm trying not to go down that road.

The trick is getting a neutral gray reflective screen and maintaining a true N9 (which is bloody close to most white paints as they come out of the can!). Most "white" paints I have measured have come in at around N9.5. This leaves precious little room to add a reflective paint, let alone correct a mix by adding red or yellow pigments, since doing so will darken the mix.

I have tried, with some success, to add nothing but metallic colors to the white base to color-correct it. I have also seemingly had some success with finding a custom-color base that corrects the blue push of the CSMS in a similar fashion as BB does with AAA. BB does not work with CSMS.

More on these matters when the samples have time to not only dry, but cure a bit. I learned that lesson some time ago when I reported, luckily via PM, that I had found a VERY neutral BW mix that hadn't been tried before only to test it the next day and find that it had changed color drastically (this mix was never reported to the public).

[MississippiMan]

I hate when this happens.

I misspoke earlier. Upon further reflection (...ie: a PM from Todd) I discovered that Todd did a "Gain" measurement, and Gary was in fact the "Tester' who ascertained the neutrality factor.

Back to the question of whether or not Gary's test was accurate....that I cannot validate. But his approach seemed to be no less intensive and well intended than anyone else's, and a whole lot more involved than my own (...which is to say none at all but the "Eye"...)

So I apologize to all for posting what might...or might not be an inaccurate statement.

Harp,

It hard to point to the past as a reference without inferring that such overt similarities exist between applications and ideas, because after all, before us were many others who had the "Bug" and sat around dreaming of something better. Much of such dreaming was exactly that....dreaming. And some things were "almost" realities. Taking those "almosts", adding a dash of "dreaming", and a smidgin of "reality", can often lead to a revamping of older premises.

Ain't nothing wrong with that!

You go, Guy! As someone who re-did Goo as a one coat Application, (MMud 1:1:1) and gave it a different name, I'd never deny anyone similar leeway. Especially if their creation turned out to be superior. That alone merits consideration as to both a Name change and a no small amount of Credit being due the Creator.

Not for pride's sake mind you...but because being "better', it means than many will benefit from that effort.

'Tis what we all strive for, yes? No? Something worth consumption that does not give one indigestion.

[Harpmaker]

I finally found some time this weekend to make this post, and my sample chits have cured so their measurements should be stable.

First, I want to state that the simplest way to make a good C&S mix is to use the Luminous White/CSMS mix from post #1, but the following two mixes will also give good results and may be a bit cheaper as you don't have to buy a $30 gallon of white paint.

C&S#2
The first of the two is a more complicated mix than I wanted to use for C&S, but I'll list it since it is the most neutral mix I have tested so far and the paints, except the white paint, should be in the same area at Michael's since they are the same brand. It goes against my stated "3 paints or less" rule for C&S, but...

The down-side to this mix is it is a bit darker than N9 coming in at N8.8 for my sample chit. The up-side is it is the most neutral C&S mix yet.

You will need 4 different paints to make C&S#2 (I guess that makes the original formula C&S#1).
Behr UPW #1050 (acording to my spectrophotometer, Valspar int. flat Ultra White enamel should work as well, perhaps better since it has a bit of sheen than UPW doesn't)
Craft Smart Metallic Silver
Craft Smart Metallic Gold
Craft Smart Metallic Bronze

The Gold and Bronze paints are needed to color-correct the mix. The neat thing is that ALL paints added to the white base are metallic so they all help make the mix reflective. The ratio of white paint to metallic paint is still 2:1.

The ratio of paint is:
UPW 8 parts
CSMS (silver) 2 parts
CSMG (gold) 1 part
CSMB (bronze) 1 part



C&S#3
This mix is based on a custom-color paint from True Value hardware stores called "Refinement".

I theorized what base paint color I wanted and went to EasyRGB.com and did a search; the closest match was a True Value TruColor paint. I wrote down the name and went to Lowe's to have it color-matched. The "paint guy" entered the name into the computer, but the computer told him to sell me a can of premixed Valspar white paint and then told him how much "off" it would be. The problem was that the color I was asking for was brighter than they could mix! We tried every paint brand Lowe's sells and the result was the same. I stopped at a True Value store on the way home and got a quart of the real stuff. I watched as they added the tints to the can of "pastel base"; they put in 1/96th of an ounce (the smallest their manual machines can measure) of two different colors and then put in 1/2 ounce of White! Even with all that added white pigment the mix was still way less bright than EasyRGB said it should be.

I was going to show a SC of "Refinement" alone, but I think that would be over-kill. One of the C&S mix based on it will be enough. First I'll show the page from EasyRGB for those that like to follow along.



Instead of the stated 246-241-233 my mix came in at 242-237-233, 4 points lower on the Red and Green values. It still gave a neutral result, but not as neutral as I would have liked. It is N9 though, in fact, almost a N9.1. If I was going to try this again I think I would go with the "Marshmallow" color and have them put a bit more white pigment in than their formula calls for, just in case.

[mechman]

I'll take door number two please! KISS!

That's an awful lot of metallic in that one mix! One would more than likely need sunglasses!

I don't think the first is more neutral at all by looking at the spectrum. The second one... brilliant! Plugging numbers the firs is closer by about 30 degrees but I think they both fall within the classification. Those 2 blue points could vary well be the store variance!

[mechman]

Ooops, I forgot to ask....

Have you done sheen tests on this yet?!?!?! Maybe you could rig up a glossometer with a spatula and light bulb?


Seriously though Harp, if you think this may be ready for prime time I think we need to add it to our N9 list.

[Harpmaker]

mechman wrote:

That's an awful lot of metallic in that one mix! One would more than likely need sunglasses!

Nope, the ratio of white to metallic is the same for all C&S mixes. The metallic gold and bronze are simply replacing 1/2 of the metallic silver, not being added to it.

I don't think the first is more neutral at all by looking at the spectrum. The second one... brilliant! Plugging numbers the firs is closer by about 30 degrees but I think they both fall within the classification. Those 2 blue points could vary well be the store variance!

I thought we were going by the L*a*b* values to determine neutrality. Am I doing it wrong? I know what you mean though about the spectral curve of C&S#2, I almost dubbed it "The Sine wave version".

Have you done sheen tests on this yet?!?!?!

Even thought you were asking in jest, I can see no sheen in the samples or the original test panel. When I make up future test panels I'll use the Valspar flat enamel because I think the smallest bit of sheen would be a good thing here. The paint guy at my local Lowe's seems very accommodating, I'll see if he can do a custom color for me from scratch and follow the formula for TV-Marshmallow.

Seriously though Harp, if you think this may be ready for prime time I think we need to add it to our N9 list.

The original C&S mix, LW/CSMS 2:1, is good to go. I still need to test the others under PJ light.

BTW, I made some sample chits using Delta Silver metallic just to see how they looked, and even in a 1:1 mix with LW (50% silver paint!) there were NO visible sparkles in the mix!

[mechman]

Harpmaker wrote:

I thought we were going by the L*a*b* values to determine neutrality. Am I doing it wrong? I know what you mean though about the spectral curve of C&S#2, I almost dubbed it "The Sine wave version".

Lab values are one of many factors.

So is a -.6/.6 worse than a -.09/.9? Only by about 30 degrees Kelvin!

[cynical2]

mechman wrote:

Ooops, I forgot to ask....

Have you done sheen tests on this yet?!?!?! Maybe you could rig up a glossometer with a spatula and light bulb?


Seriously though Harp, if you think this may be ready for prime time I think we need to add it to our N9 list.

Do you want to borrow my eyelumenoscope?

[cynical2]

Harpmaker wrote:

The original C&S mix, LW/CSMS 2:1, is good to go.

Awesome, Harp!

[Harpmaker]

Just a note to let any that are interested in the C&S mixes know that I have finished spraying test panels of the C&S#2 and C&S#3 mixes, and they are performing better than the sample chits! Both are extremely neutral, with the most improvement showing in the C&S#2 mix that had a very bumpy SRC in the sample.

I hope to get photos done later this week, but for now here are the Spectral Reflectance Curve charts for the full size test panels.

C&S#2


C&S#3

[mechman]

Photos shmotos! The spectrum tells me everything I need to know and it looks great!

Nice job Don!

[Harpmaker]

mechman wrote:

Photos shmotos! The spectrum tells me everything I need to know and it looks great!

Nice job Don!

Thanks mech!

The True Value "Refinement" worked out better than I had hoped! My next step is to take the tint formula from the can to Lowe's and have it made using Valspar int. latex enamel. At that point I think I'm done for awhile with the super light gray paints.

BTW, the main, and perhaps only, difference between the Valspar int. latex enamel "Base 1" and "Ultra White" is the "Base 1" has one half ounce less paint in the can to leave room for tint! I'll be using all that space since the formula for "Refinement" is 1/2 ounce White + 1/96 ounce Yellow Oxide + 1/96 ounce Exterior Red for a quart.

I just got done spraying a RS-MaxxMudd-LL test panel using the formula MMan gave earlier in this thread. I'll test it with the spectro tomorrow.

One thing you can't tell from spectral charts is how the paint performs under PJ light (angular gain). I'll probably stick with the white and color bar images I used before, plus one of a gray scale. Screenies look nice, but really don't tell you much. Reference images are boring, but tell you a lot.

[tweakophyte]

Hi-

Looks good. Do you mind rolling your samples, too? I wonder how that effects the performance. (...and MMan, no, I am not getting a sprayer... )