| Revision as of 17:07, 8 December 2008 editDrollere (talk | contribs)484 edits →Paint Lightfastness← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:50, 1 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,382,323 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (82 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Visual arts|class=start}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| Any particular reason why the link to handprint.com was removed? It's a non-commercial comprehensive description of watercolour materials and techniques. I've added it again: if there's a good reason to remove it please do. Anon2 | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Visual arts }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo=old(90d) | |||
| | archive=Talk:Watercolor painting/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter=1 | |||
| | maxarchivesize=100K | |||
| | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}} | |||
| | minthreadsleft=4 | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive=1 | |||
| }} | |||
| == External links == | |||
| Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. | |||
| -anon April 06 | |||
| Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Any particular reason why the link to handprint.com was removed? It's a non-commercial comprehensive description of watercolour materials and techniques. I've added it again: if there's a good reason to remove it please do. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == |
== Change in intro == | ||
| I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. ] (]) 11:01, 17 February 2007 | |||
| - ideally grouped by date &/or nationality | |||
| ] 17:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == French pronunciation of "aquarelle" == | |||
| the grouping "by date &/or nationality" is clumsy and counterproductive. the section headed "United States" seems stimulated by a single sentence about 19th century american painters, and includes subsequent discussion about watercolor tutorials (published in england) and industrial pigments (developed and primarily manufactured in europe). similarly, "20th century" marks one sentence about 20th century painters and then an extended discussion of u.s. regionalism, in particular california and ohio painters. ] (]) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The page lists the french pronunciation of "aquarelle" as /akarel/. That's not the right pronunciation, or at least I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that. The pronunciation I'd use, and the one wiktionary lists, is /akwarel/: https://fr.wiktionary.org/aquarelle <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Change in intro== | |||
| == Melayu == | |||
| I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. ] | |||
| Solid Watercolor paint set and pigment ] (]) 11:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Format == | |||
| I've tried to make the Format better and put in a ''See also'' section to make it easier for users to find information on the wikipedia. I will try and get back to work at this page again sometime. ] 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Spelling== | |||
| Why is this page called watercolor, it is not an american article, surely it should be spelled in the correct as opposed to the american manner, that is, Watercolour.--] 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It was apparently begun in American spelling, and is not on a specifically Brit subject, so those are the rules. Of course W-colour redirects. ] 12:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It was begun in the correct (that is American, also Shakespearean) spelling. No reason to change it to the incorrect Commonwealth variant, created by the Norman upperclass to make things less Latin, and more French. --] ] 2007-07-31 18:54 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==revisions== | |||
| i have substantially edited, corrected, augmented and fact checked this uneven and incomplete article, and added several references. random typos or lapses may remain. with the visual arts project in mind, i have tried concisely to describe the important techniques or technical issues in a way that the reader can accurately visualize and understand. i have also explicitly addressed several misconceptions that have been handed down from the 19th century. i regret that i do not have the wikipedia expertise to integrate the article into other aspects of wikipedia or harmonize it entirely with wiki style, but i hope a wiki guru will offer the charity of his or her assistance. i believe this is now the best single document reference on watercolor painting available from any source on the web. | |||
| ] 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)bruce macevoy | |||
| : Thanks Bruce. Your website, (handprint) is a truly remarkable achievement for which I am very grateful. Your website is better than this article because it contains advice and original research which are not suitable here. I expect that over time this article will attract editors because of the quality of the contribution you have made to it and will become a highlight of Misplaced Pages. Thanks again ] 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is a really well written, interesting read, with a lot of useful information. There is a lot to laud as good, but I have two criticisms. It is meant constructively, to point room for improvement. I am not going to be editing this article, so take of it what you will: | |||
| ::* Tone. (See ]). Much of the writing seems to be written in an informal way that good in a magazine article or instruction guide (maybe ]!), but isn't a factually precise style suitable for an encyclopedia. There are subjective statements like "the best art papers are designated archival," questionable statements like "most watercolorists prize brushes from kolinsky (Russian or Chinese) sable", and speculation like "watercolors seem poised to enter yet another 'golden age'." (It's not really a fact that water colors seem poised to do this, it's someone's opinion. From ]: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," and "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating 'some people believe...' as is common in political debates. A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is.") | |||
| ::* Source citation. (See ] and ]). With so many references, and no footnotes with page numbers, it would be difficult to verify any individual fact. I think it would benefit from inline citations, when a particular book is only used for a relatively small amount of information. From ]: "Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements." Unfortunately, I think only Macevoy would be able to do this at this point, and it would be a lot of work. | |||
| ::-] 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Palettes?== | |||
| "In the 19th century a six paint 'split primary' palette became popular and is still advocated by older painters." I have trouble believing that this claim of an age bias is a verifiable fact. As mentioned above, I'm not going to get 20 books to find the exact source, but it sounds like a non-neutral point of view (see ]). | |||
| I never heard of "the hexachrome palette" before, and the only google mentions of the term are to 90 derivatives of this wikipedia article, plus a couple mentions about Pantone's ](tm) process. Can anyone verify that this is currently the predominant approach worldwide, and that the terminology is standard? | |||
| Also, are the specific colors listed part of the definition of those palettes, or just examples? I think the split primary is a general palette (two of each primary), not a specific one. | |||
| only turns up one corroborating source, handprint.com, and a spanish copy of handprint.com, which I gather from the above discussion is by the same author here. If the colors are just examples, clarification would be helpful. | |||
| -] 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Paint Lightfastness == | |||
| The Paint Lightfastness section seems to have a number of factual errors (and / or lack of references) | |||
| It's got PY40 Aureolin as "should never be used under any circumstances" whereas that pigment is ASTM rated II and article goes on to say "painters should only use paints that have a lightfastness rating of I or II under the testing standards published the American Society of Testing and Materials (now ASTM International)." ! I've seen one particular artist on web advising against Aureolin but don't think its generally accepted fact that there is a problem with it. | |||
| "and paints premixed with a white pigment, including paints marketed under the names naples yellow,..." | |||
| where does evidence for that come from - seeing as most whites (except flake white) are ASTM I - problems only arise if you mix with a fugitive yellow! | |||
| How about using Michael Wilcox "Guide to the Finest Watercolour Paints" ISBN UK 0 89134 4098 for this? | |||
| It lists lightfastness ASTM and his research for all pigments and for specific manufacturers paints. | |||
| I'm considering making changes to this, but would like other peoples comments... -] (]) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| the previous comments are either conjectural or misinformed. the article on cobalt yellow (aureolin) by maura cornman in "artist's pigments: a handbook of their history and characteristics" (national gallery washington, 1986) states (p.38-39): "Experimentation over the years has indicated that cobalt yellow is given to apparently capricious reactions. Thus, the evidence in the literature concerning its permanence is contradictory -- some reports suggest that it is extremely stable while others indicate that it may turn brown on exposure or contribute to the degradation of admixed organic pigments. An inconclusive picture remains, and cobalt yellow's replacement by more reliable and less expensive pigments has all but eliminated interest in further investigation of its properties and value as an artists' colorant." to that i would add that aureolin is also listed as suspect by the michael wilcox paint guide (for all its flaws) and thoroughly disapproved by the hilary page paint guide. my own lightfastness testing of this pigment (in watercolors) shows obvious problems (see my results at http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/watery.html#PY40). | |||
| deference given to the 1996 ASTM testing results is unproductive, as those lightfastness tests include anomalous results. the wilcox guide merely parrots that publication (in an inappropriate extension of the ASTM test of a single pigment sample from one manufacturer to all the pigments from all manufacturers as used in all commercial paints); his "tests" concerned painting out a sample to see if it was "gummy". the hilary page tests, though outdated now, are much more reliable. my own tests of about 750 paints in 2004 are the most recent available, and already out of date. the larger point is that lightfastness is not a fixed attribute, like the atomic number of an element, but a continually moving target. there is no ultimate reference. | |||
| the comment about "flake white" (actually, only zinc white or titanium white are used in watercolors) is ignorant: the atiolation of colors mixed with white paint is well known to watercolor painters, emphasized by michael wilcox in his "blue and yellow don't make green", and repeatedly uncovered in my own tests (see for example the naples yellow result: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/watery.html#PY42). | |||
| == External Links == | |||
| I've culled the external links section, which seemed to have accumulated a lot of individual artists sites. I don't think artist 'x' demonstrating method 'y' (or trying to sell pictures of same) are relevant links for this article. If anyone disagrees please discuss here: -] (]) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Split article== | |||
| The article is very long and I wonder if it is worth splitting into two smaller articles "history of watercolour painting" and "Techniques of water colour painting"? ] (]) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :hmm, its 63kb which is a bit large according to ] in the probably should be divided category, just. "History of watercolour painting" sounds like a good idea, I'd beware of "Techniques of..." though the article's already a bit ']' ish. Watercolour materials maybe? Oil painting is split ] and ] -] (]) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, but I think it's ok for now. The hisory, nearly all from EB, badly neglects early periods though. ] (]) | |||
| == Jose Fadul's image == | |||
| I've removed since it's obviously a photograph with several Photoshop filters applied (including the watercolor filter). A look at shows that all of this guy's work is made of photographs that are heavily Photoshopped with various art/effect filters. None of it appears to actually involve the artistic techniques with which the images are tagged. | |||
| Further, a look at ] shows what seems like a vanity page for a somewhat accomplished person, though with misrepresenting his artwork I'm uncertain how credible the contents of the "artist"'s page should be considered. ] (]) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :have moved your comment to bottom of page where more users are likely to notice it as new section. I tend to agree with your assessment, it was link to his site that I'd removed on previous edit, someone seems to be on a promotional spree. Some of 'references on the ] page do look dodgy but those are probably best discussed on that articles talk page. -] (]) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==edit== | |||
| I removed the following as it blanked part of the article in what I assume was an editing mishap | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| , ]]s, gouaches and modern acrylic paints. The term '''watercolor''' refers to paints that use water soluble, complex carbohydrates as a binder. Originally (16th to 18th centuries) watercolor binders were sugars and/or hide glues, but since the 19th century the preferred binder is natural gum arabic, with glycerin and/or honey as additives to improve plasticity and dissolvability of the binder, and with other chemicals added to improve product shelf life. '''Bodycolor''' is a watercolor made as opaque as possible by a heavy pigment concentration, and '''gouache''' is a watercolor made opaque by the addition of a colorless opacifier (such as chalk or zinc oxide). Modern acrylic paints are based on a completely different chemistry that uses water soluble acrylic resin as a binder. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| You guys can reinsert if you see fit ] (]) 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a good move - look at the edit before yours. Always look at the history to try to see what has happened. ] (]) 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image copyright problem with Image:Latefall.jpg== | |||
| The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check | |||
| :* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article. | |||
| :* That this article is linked to from the image description page. | |||
| <!-- Additional 10c list header goes here --> | |||
| This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --08:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:50, 1 March 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watercolor painting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
External links
Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.114.54 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason why the link to handprint.com was removed? It's a non-commercial comprehensive description of watercolour materials and techniques. I've added it again: if there's a good reason to remove it please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.94.250 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Change in intro
I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. Smilegood (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2007
French pronunciation of "aquarelle"
The page lists the french pronunciation of "aquarelle" as /akarel/. That's not the right pronunciation, or at least I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that. The pronunciation I'd use, and the one wiktionary lists, is /akwarel/: https://fr.wiktionary.org/aquarelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.50.201 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Melayu
Solid Watercolor paint set and pigment 113.211.111.53 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories: