Further Investigations...

[mechman]

Some odd things here!!

First off I took the Sugar Blossom and added 3 drops of red to it. This is roughly 7-8oz of paint.

The original numbers

245 228 221
0.329 0.336 80.3
91.8 4.68 5.34

The new numbers

244 222 219
0.330 0.332 76.5
90.1 7.21 3.94

I think it needs more red!! And I wish I would've purchased some green!!

Here's the new SB 4:1 readings

186 189 194
0.306 0.323 50.7
76.5 -0.20 -2.98

Three other experiments.

The new color match for Essential Gray in a flat enamel 4:1

158 153 151
0.319 0.332 32.2
63.5 1.44 1.63

the original

160 159 157
0.316 0.332 34.6
65.4 0.30 1.15

Which of course has cured to 160 159 159.


LA White Clay 4:1 with 3 drops red added

179 183 190
0.304 0.320 47.3
74.4 -0.22 -3.91

the original for reference

180 187 192
0.303 0.322 48.9
75.4 -1.34 -3.41

It may be working....

And LA Sterling 4:1 with 3 drops of red

175 177 180
0.309 0.324 43.8
72.1 0.18 -1.94

the original for reference

176 179 181
0.308 0.326 44.7
72.7 -0.64 -1.53

Jury's out on this one...

Color scientist's, artist's, tinkerer's unite and give me feedback!

mech

[Harpmaker]

Mech, sorry if you gave this info before, but what is the spectro reading of your red paint? And, what brand and color is it?

I know when I made up my batch of Silver Fire it was way too blue. I ended up adding 128 drops MORE of Cardinal Red paint to a 64 oz. mix. I only stopped adding the Cardinal Red when it started visibly upping the blue component as well.

Got a question: I just picked up some Liquitex color charts, they give color values for their paints in HUE, VALUE and CHROMA. For example, their Cadmium Red Deep Hue is 5.00R, 3.29, 8.25 (this is a very dark, deep red) while their Cadmium Red Light Hue is 7.50R, 5.01, 13.4 (it is the last red color before they start being labeled as orange). Neutral Gray Val. 5 is 9.97BG, 5.03, 0.15 (I believe this is a Munsell N5). Does anyone know how to convert these values to RGB or L*ab?

[mechman]

It is Liquitex Primary Red. Product number etc. I can't recall as I'm at work. Cost me $8 in the artist's area at Michaels if I recall correctly. I haven't bothered measuring it. Didn't intend to anyways as I'm just adding to help even out the flop of the Auto Air. I just want to come up with something that works well with the Auto Air and then spectro that. Once I've got those numbers I can use EasyRGB to match it up and just tell folks to go get a quart of matte XXX XXX. Know what I mean? I don't want to create Silver Fire again! lol!

I'll get one tomorrow. Actually I'll put a dab on something for measuring tomorrow and have a measurement for ya tomorrow night or Friday.

How goes the spraying? And did ya get the DTP22 working yet? I believe Bill's on the verge of picking up an i1pro or a PocketSpec.

mech

[mechman]

Harpmaker wrote:

Got a question: I just picked up some Liquitex color charts, they give color values for their paints in HUE, VALUE and CHROMA. For example, their Cadmium Red Deep Hue is 5.00R, 3.29, 8.25 (this is a very dark, deep red) while their Cadmium Red Light Hue is 7.50R, 5.01, 13.4 (it is the last red color before they start being labeled as orange). Neutral Gray Val. 5 is 9.97BG, 5.03, 0.15 (I believe this is a Munsell N5). Does anyone know how to convert these values to RGB or L*ab?

I hate when I don't read complete posts!! Sorry Harp!

Did you try the Lindbloom calculators?

mech

[Harpmaker]

The data Liquitex gives for Primary Red in their BASICS line (in tubes and tubs) is H=4.68R V=4.12 C=10.85 and the only pigment is Quinacridone Violet (PV19). I tried the Lindbloom calculator and EasyRGB for conversion to numbers I can understand, no joy.

I would think you would want to know what colors you're putting into you're mixes to balance them. Reds usually contain a good bit of green and blue too! The RGB of the Red Universal Tint you measured for me was 182-67-54.

I'm taking advantage of our warm weather (it goes away tomorrow) to do some spraying. I'm priming some more test panels and I did a panel of Sherwin Williams Gray Screen to compare with other gray mixes (like Black Widow ).

No more SW paint for me! The stuff is THIN! When I thin it with water like I do other brands of latex paint it's TOO thin if I use the same amount of water as for the others. The left-over paint in the container I mixed the Gray Screen in has separated with a blue transparent layer on top! Strange... I have found that Lowe's, Ace hardware, and a local hardware chain that sells BM paints, can ALL duplicate SW colors by name.

Tiddler asked me to see if I could spray a mix he came up with; it actually corresponded with something I've been wanting to try anyway. He used Folkart Pearlizing Medium in the formula, but I can't get that in my area, so we talked it over and I used Liquitex Iridescent Medium instead. Got it sprayed tonight and hope to get PJ light on it tomorrow. It looks interesting! I can tell you that there is NO prism effect with the LIM! Not with warm fluorescent light, bright LED flashlight beam or halogen lighting. If the sun comes out tomorrow I'll check it in direct sunlight.

As for the DTP-22 X-Rite spectros; they're not up and running yet, but I have high hopes they will be this weekend or early next week! Both DTP-22's have the 8 pin DIN connector to work with the old Apple Mac computers. I've ordered an adapter cable that lets Apple serial devices work on a standard PC with a DB9 serial connector.

I wasn't happy yesterday when I got the 2nd spectro. When I opened the box I found that the Calibration Reference plaque didn't have the same serial number as the spectro! I thought I was screwed so I sent X-Rite an email explaining the situation and asking for help. I got a call today from them and they stated that the serial numbers of spectro and Cal. Ref. DON'T have to match! They also gave me a URL to download the old version of their Toolkit program that works with DTP-22's. The newer one doesn't.

[wbassett]

Harpmaker wrote:

Got a question: I just picked up some Liquitex color charts, they give color values for their paints in HUE, VALUE and CHROMA. For example, their Cadmium Red Deep Hue is 5.00R, 3.29, 8.25 (this is a very dark, deep red) while their Cadmium Red Light Hue is 7.50R, 5.01, 13.4 (it is the last red color before they start being labeled as orange). Neutral Gray Val. 5 is 9.97BG, 5.03, 0.15 (I believe this is a Munsell N5). Does anyone know how to convert these values to RGB or L*ab?

IF they are going by Munsell denotation, BG means Blue/Green, R means Red, and N means neutral. I also have the Liquitex N5 here right now, as well as their Titanium White and other colors. The Neutral Gray Val. 5 does look gray, but according to the codes, it's confusing as to what they are saying. It would have to be tested to make sure.

Munsell has a defined color and neutral shade structure. Like I said, Neutral is 'N', not BG. Without testing I am not sure what they are saying. As far as the other values, no, they do not correlate to XYZ, xyY or L*ab values.

[wbassett]

Harpmaker wrote:

The data Liquitex gives for Primary Red in their BASICS line (in tubes and tubs) is H=4.68R V=4.12 C=10.85 and the only pigment is Quinacridone Violet (PV19). I tried the Lindbloom calculator and EasyRGB for conversion to numbers I can understand, no joy.

I would think you would want to know what colors you're putting into you're mixes to balance them. Reds usually contain a good bit of green and blue too! The RGB of the Red Universal Tint you measured for me was 182-67-54.

Knowing the originating color value is important, but the end result is really what matters. Now if the originating color or pigment was of an unknown quality and consistency, that could be an issue, but again the end result will be a color match and not rely on a mix or independent colors. This isn't intended to be a mix of complex colors, but an aluminum base and a latex color base added in a ratio. If we were going so granular as to list individual color components, then yes that would be critical, but that's not what this thread is about. It is about testing and evaluating alternative PFG methods and determining an aluminum base and a color base and then the proper ratio between the two, not a complex mix.

This is why it is so difficult to make a gray from RGB. If the color is pure and the luminance value of all three primary colors are exactly the same, then if mixed in an exact equal ratio they would produce a gray. If the pigments aren't pure, or the luminance values are not the same, or the exact amount is off, then you don't get gray. It can be done, but is very difficult. Your statement did nothing but back that up 100%.

Red should be pure red if it is a primary color, else it is not a primary color. It doesn't matter if it is additive or subtractive colors... you can make all colors from a combination of primary colors, but you can't make a primary color. So if Red has blue or green in it, then it's not pure and not a true primary color. That's a contradiction of what a primary color is... think prime numbers... same concept.

I'm taking advantage of our warm weather (it goes away tomorrow) to do some spraying. I'm priming some more test panels and I did a panel of Sherwin Williams Gray Screen to compare with other gray mixes (like Black Widow :big smile.

No more SW paint for me! The stuff is THIN! When I thin it with water like I do other brands of latex paint it's TOO thin if I use the same amount of water as for the others. The left-over paint in the container I mixed the Gray Screen in has separated with a blue transparent layer on top! Strange... I have found that Lowe's, Ace hardware, and a local hardware chain that sells BM paints, can ALL duplicate SW colors by name.

Explain thin? Less clay? I've sprayed SW and it went down fine, so this is an interesting comment and topic. When you say "I thin it with water like I do other brands of latex paint it's TOO thin" are you using the same amount of water/thinner? You can't go by that. Different paint brands have different consistencies. You need to run it through a viscosity tester to determine the proper amount of thinning that is required. What works for one brand surely may not work for another brand and guaranteed won't work for all brands.

In the big scheme of things...

Walmart house brand is some of the worse paint anyone can get. Glidden and Behr are a step above that. Valspar is better, but still close to the same quality. Sherwin Williams is respectable, but still not what contractors use, but a better quality. Benjamin Moore as well as PPG/Prat & Lambert are among the best.

You can't take a general mindset when it comes to different brands of paints. Some will thin different than others. If you thin them wrong, they won't spray well, and that's not the fault of the paint. Same goes with brightness and coverage... BM tends to use higher concentrations of Ti02 so it's not only brighter, but also covers better, meaning less transparent. You have to treat the paint independently and not use one method for all brands.

I am not trying to be condescending here, but this is part of painting and spraying 101... you can't treat all brands the same way.

Sherwin Williams is not the best paint, but also not the worse paint out there. I have used it both with rolling and spraying and it will work as well as any other brand as long as it is thinned properly. You can't do everything the same.

Tiddler asked me to see if I could spray a mix he came up with; it actually corresponded with something I've been wanting to try anyway. He used Fol kart Pearlizing Medium in the formula, but I can't get that in my area, so we talked it over and I used Liquitex Iridescent Medium instead. Got it sprayed tonight and hope to get PJ light on it tomorrow. It looks interesting! I can tell you that there is NO prism effect with the LIM! Not with warm fluorescent light, bright LED flashlight beam or halogen lighting. If the sun comes out tomorrow I'll check it in direct sunlight.

Pearls... ugh. I can't say it enough, pearls are mica, and mica is an iridescence, and by nature they cause a color shift. Even if a base is developed that will 'look' neutral, by the sole nature of mica and iridescence it will still refract light and color shift. Maybe not as bad, but it still will be there.

It is most likely the Liquitex is a better quality and a finer flake, so to get the same 'pop' and sparkle, you would have to use more, and that's when the problem would come out. Iridescence is the nature of mica, period. It can be made finer to have a lesser affect, but then to get the same 'pop' more would be needed and we're right back where we started.

I don't want to sound harsh, but this thread is about further investigations of non-interference methods, not further discussions of known interference/iridescence methods. Mica is mica, and pearls are made of mica. Their sole purpose is to have an 'oil slick' or iridescent look to things... we really don't want that with a screen. I'm not trying to be argumentative, that's what mica does and why it is used. I'm not making that up either, that's what it does and has done for centuries... and why artists use it.

If you don't want light to refract at all, then don't use something known to refract light. Non-interference methods do exactly that... they reflect light without refracting it. (I actually took a college course on this, so this isn't me just making something up for the sake of argument...)

Some mica's are coated with Ti02 or other elements to reduce their translucence and hence refraction of light. That's fine, but why go to those measures when there are non-interference methods readily available? Aluminum has been proven to make a silvery gray look when added to white, but did anyone know that there is also Ti02 coated aluminum? Lighter but not refractive at all.

We can keep going in the same circles, or look for something new, and I honestly believe this is something new when it comes to DIY. If not 'new' over looked and cast aside because of other methods that were deemed better but without any real data behind them.

I know what some are going to say, what about commercial screens that use pearlescents? They use a much higher quality for one, and secondly, most commercial screens do not use them. It does provide some 'pop' (but I know of a cereal that also has 'Snap', 'Crackle', and 'Pop', but we wouldn't grind that up and add it to paint would we?) but there also is a trade off, and that is a shimmer or shift.

I think we are still forgetting that we shouldn't be adjusting the picture at the screen, the screen should be a blank or 'neutral' palate that allows the projector to present the image as it is produced, at least as far as color balance and temperature.

Sure some projectors may need some help in certain areas, but the screen shouldn't be looked at as a dial to turn to balance things out. Doing that would created a screen for specific projectors and even at that settings would dictate different screens... there is no way that DIY or commercial can accommodate every projector and every setting on a custom basis like that. So the best screen is the most accurate one under all circumstances, and that would be a D65 neutral screen that introduces no color shifting on or off axis.

As for the DTP-22 X-Rite spectros; they're not up and running yet, but I have high hopes they will be this weekend or early next week! Both DTP-22's have the 8 pin DIN connector to work with the old Apple Mac computers. I've ordered an adapter cable that lets Apple serial devices work on a standard PC with a DB9 serial connector.

Make sure you can read or convert to D65 iluminant, and try to find out what equivalent observer setting it uses. That way we can correlate things and have a common reference.

I wasn't happy yesterday when I got the 2nd spectro. When I opened the box I found that the Calibration Reference plaque didn't have the same serial number as the spectro! I thought I was screwed so I sent X-Rite an email explaining the situation and asking for help. I got a call today from them and they stated that the serial numbers of spectro and Cal. Ref. DON'T have to match! They also gave me a URL to download the old version of their Toolkit program that works with DTP-22's. The newer one doesn't.

Good info from Xrite, but if they don't match, they should still be verified and calibrated.

The key to being able to take readings and discuss them across the globe is calibration standards. Even if the card matched the unit, seeing it is a used unit and not factory refurbished, it still should be sent in for recalibration. If it has been more than 18 months since the last time it was calibrated (as indicated on the calibration cert sticker) then it needs a recal. Without that any readings are questionable.

[Harpmaker]

wbassett wrote:

IF they are going by Munsell denotation, BG means Blue/Green, R means Red, and N means neutral. I also have the Liquitex N5 here right now, as well as their Titanium White and other colors. The Neutral Gray Val. 5 does look gray, but according to the codes, it's confusing as to what they are saying. It would have to be tested to make sure.

Munsell has a defined color and neutral shade structure. Like I said, Neutral is 'N', not BG. Without testing I am not sure what they are saying. As far as the other values, no, they do not correlate to XYZ, xyY or L*ab values.

Thanks Bill! I knew those color designations looked familar, but I couldn't place them. They are indeed the Munsell Color System.

While I haven't tried it yet, there is a free Munsell to L*a*b* conversion program from X-rite here:
http://www.xrite.com/product_overvie...SoftwareID=554

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system

[wbassett]

There are also some good Pantone conversion programs out there too.

I think we need to keep in mind that different people and companies may not all use the same standards. What one company calls neutral may be dead on, but another company could be pretty liberal with their terminology. For painters and artists, it's not a major issue. With house paints they do tend to have a 'close enough is good enough' mentality (after all, it's not art, it's a wall to them right?). We are much more demanding and critical with color balance.

Sure, close can be used, never said it couldn't. But the closer we are to our reference point the more accurate it will be.

Sometimes there can be trade offs though, but if it's within specs, or close to specs and has no appreciable color shift or color skew then it will work. The further out we go from neutral or the more color shifting that is added, the worse it is for our purposes.

A car looks super cool when it changes colors in different lighting or depending on the angle that you look at it... that's mica and pearls... a screen... well we don't want that at all even if it's minor.

Like the analogy of Regular gasoline vs Premium gasoline that I've used before... if it's easy to get and the same price, who'd buy Regular gas? Quality mica is harder to get than craft brands, and many times it needs to be ordered online. So if someone was going to order from say Dick Blick anyway, why not just get Createx Auto Air Aluminum Fine? If some one needs a screen right now and that fast... I'd recommend an OTS gray or a known white. People wait a week for laminates, the waiting time for AA or HE558 is no different and the improvement is worth the extra day or two. Besides... unless a person already has a screen up, for a new install they should spend a couple days calibrating and getting a baseline. By the time they are done, their permanent screen materials will have arrived. Can't wait... go with an OTS.

[Harpmaker]

No more SW paint for me! The stuff is THIN! When I thin it with water like I do other brands of latex paint it's TOO thin if I use the same amount of water as for the others. The left-over paint in the container I mixed the Gray Screen in has separated with a blue transparent layer on top! Strange... I have found that Lowe's, Ace hardware, and a local hardware chain that sells BM paints, can ALL duplicate SW colors by name.

Explain thin?

I meant that Sherwin Williams paint is thinner in viscosity than the Behr, Ace and True Value paints I have used lately (which all seem to be in the same viscosity ballpark). I realize this is something that can easily be compensated for when mixing, but why bother if I don't have to? SW paints are also harder for me to obtain, so I, personally, won't mess with them any more since other stores much more accessible to me can match their colors.

I can tell you that there is NO prism effect with the ***!

I don't want to sound harsh, but this thread is about further investigations of non-interference methods, not further discussions of known interference/iridescence methods.

Gotcha! My bad. No more talk of "that which shall not be named" in this thread.

[wbassett]

Harpmaker wrote:

I meant that Sherwin Williams paint is thinner in viscosity than the Behr, Ace and True Value paints I have used lately (which all seem to be in the same viscosity ballpark). I realize this is something that can easily be compensated for when mixing, but why bother if I don't have to? SW paints are also harder for me to obtain, so I, personally, won't mess with them any more since other stores much more accessible to me can match their colors.

If they can color match, then you're right, no reason to try to get to Sherwin Williams. One thing I don't like about them are their hours. They are one of these stores that are open during the hours I work, and closed by the time I get off work. That never made sense to me why some stores do that. Why not open later in the day and stay open later? People usually shop after work, at least I do!

Thicker paint usually (not always though) is a sign of more clays and fillers in the paint, and that is an indication of a lower quality paint, so keep that in mind too.

I just didn't understand what you were saying and it sounded like you said you thinned it the same way as you thinned the other paints, which as you know obviously won't work in all cases.

As far as mica goes, if that's the way you want to go, knock yourself out. Don't avoid it because of me.

[mechman]

Lindbloom has something that can give you an approximation.



I don't think I need to comment on much more than that. I'd love to see a magnification of your mica! I doubt it shows anything but iridescense. I've seen his stuff over at LumenLabs and I'm not impressed. It appears brighter on axis but off axis it's a lot darker. I have some pearls still. This week I'll mix them up and get some more readings.

Some of the things that have gone on in the past are coming up again it seems in the DIY world. One of the things that Bill and I wanted to do when we came here is to build a forum on hard data, not conjecture. We worked hard to do that and to make it so. And it never would have been possible without the few knowledgeable folks who followed us here from elsewhere - <^..^>Smokey Joe, benven, biglyle, etc. And then some of the new folks such as our third moderator Jim. Things here need to be as scientific as we're capable of, or else we've become what we feared.

That being said, mica is an iridescent. The scientific community states as such and I accept it. Not only because they say as much but because I've witnessed it, documented it, and tested it. So to say that it exhibits no iridescence I'd need proof. And then I'd need to conduct my own tests. Because if it's color shifting spectrally, as we've shown all the pearl topcoats to do in the past, then it will color shift the image being projected.

Now on the flip side of things. When used intelligently, mica exhibits none of the ill effects of previous (and more than likely new) formulas. All one has to do is take a good hard look at CGiv and at some of the screens DaLite makes. Find the correlation!

Let's hear the formula, I'll paint up a panel and check it out with HCFR.

Certain folks, while under the guise of helping - and helping they do - usually, are usually nothing more than glory seekers. I have no time for glory seekers. And I have no time for individuals who can be 'nice' one minute and then downright mean the next. These types of folks love the drama of being involved. They send out pm's, start threads with something along the lines of "my wife's upset with the wires hanging in the living room" to "I'm having health issues" to "there's been an intervention". All under the guise of quitting in order to gain sympathy. I've witnessed one individual do this over six times in the last two years! I felt bad for him at first but now it's kinda like the boy who cried wolf! Oh yeah I believe he's currently on a reprieve from quitting as he has a few things he wants to finish up! Same guy who won't send any samples to be spectro'd!

Harp and other members who read this, you gotta ask yourself, "do I really want to trust this individual?" I chose after the last battle he dragged me into that I do not. Especially after the Black Widow release and the constant 'badgering' of both Bill and I on how to paint metallics! As if he invented it! As if there were no directions! Some folks think they're bigger than all of us. Me? I think we're all the same until someone shows me otherwise.

Your mileage may vary, but just because someone posts a lot doesn't make them smart! Look at me!

mech

PS - Shoot me his SNOW mix so I can look at it next week. At least I've always been honest, brutally honest... and I think I always will.

Now back to the investigations.

[mechman]

Also to add briefly, Rosco's off broadway white is reported to be the whitest white around. And this was brought to us from bruce can. One of the early testers elsewhere along with mission313 (who frequents here occasionally ). I'm sure Bill could add to that!

mech

[cynical2]

At one point when Bill mentioned the Off Broadway, I called a store near me that specialized in theater (as in drama/production...not home theater) sales, and they sold it. Told me they could get it in one day, and the price wasn't bad at all given that it's a specialty paint. As I recall, it was something in the $30-40/gallon range (but don't hold me to that). The main point is...try a theater/drama store if you're interested in it. I think I've seen Bill refer to it as "Liquid DW"...so it should make a great screen in a light-controlled environment.

[wbassett]

It's $30 a gallon. Cool thing about it... if you call Rosco and ask them about it they'll say "Oh sure, it is used all the time as a screen paint and that's one of its uses."

What Bruce said about it was it's like liquid Designer White.

We're straying though... unless we're going to do a Black Widow with Rosco

[mechman]

wbassett wrote:

We're straying though... unless we're going to do a Black Widow with Rosco

Maybe....

mech