[BooMSticK]

Hi

Yesterday I had a very interesting argue with a good friend of mine.

The diskussion was about how we (as artists) define form. Whether we do it with hue or with value. Since we're both pretty stubborn we really couldn't figure out who was right and who was wrong - probably since we both lack traditional schooling and thus we lack the techical terms.

We are both agreeing that one can define form with value. But hue on the other hand - is it really possible to define form with hue alone??? One of us thinks form is done with value only and one believes form also can be done with hue alone...

One of us did this fast scribble trying to define form/depth with only two colors with same hue.



Now, We would like to have your view on this topic. Possible even some argument if possible would be great! The point is not who is right, but to enlighten us (and everybody else) who has a bit of a hard time understanding this technical babble...

,Boom

PS. to test this out yourself with the image above, take the image into Photoshop and press CTRL-U and pull the saturation slider to -100

edit> som disagreement on how this post should sound like...

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: BooMSticK ]

[SporQ]

those dont have the same hue, they have the same value. just being picky. but this is a great question, and i really dont know, id really like to hear what people have to say as well.

[Sukhoi]

I must point out that form is created by the mind and not by colors on a piece of paper. Weather you're drawing one way or another, the mind constantly tries to make sence of the lines and forms on the paper.
Why do you think psycologists uses those images of black and whute blobs to determine your state of mind....? Because YOU create living breathing creatures and people out of it! It's part of our survival instict. We need to be able to identify dangers as quickly as possible, to avoid getting in harms way. That's why it's easy to "see" faces in random shapes and forms.

My point is that it's not wheather you utilise this technique over the other, because the mind will always find a way to make it into an image that you can understand.

Sukhoi

[bld]

Both, in a monochromatic image you have to use value, in a full color orgy you can use hue to define form.

Depends on the mood of the image I guess.

[Derek]

Light reveals color, shadows and contrast defines form. Value defines your forms.

[Sukhoi]

But still, it's not as "simple" as that...
I see your point Derek (very nicely put I must say, very clear), but that is a very scientific way to explain how we see form.
There is also our memory affecting our judgement of shapes....Ok damned...I just realized my own mistake.

Forget everything I said...It belonged in some other thread. "brain stuff" or something, and not in a thread about light and shadow..SORRY!!

Sukhoi

[Derek]

Sukhoi...
don't go yet!
You see, there is definitely room for a thought about our perception too.
Yes, what I said is true. However, at times we tend to forget that we also see what we 'expect' to... and this throws us off. We tend to try to grasp things too quickly, classify them or prioritize them by checking them against our 'symbol set'... and it's not really helpful for artists. How does this relate to light/shade?
Well, in one way that is painful: we tend not to take the time to really understand the values we see. We immediately see a 'really light' value against a darker one and think we 'know it'. But... is it really so much lighter, or does it just appear so because it's next to such a dark one? Where would it fall on a value scale? This lighter value, it would appear darker next to a ligther one, no-brainer. So, it is really important to not just get the lights in the right place and the darks in the right place for our forms, but to intimately understand how they all relate to each other. This is why you should start with your lightest light, and darkest dark in your image. Then you have immediate gauges for your other values by which to measure, and don't have to rely on how you think, or how your symbols would tell you, that an object looks.

[Steven Stahlberg]

You can of course do it with hue alone, but it limits you, and depends a lot on which hues you place next to each other.

With value it's very clear, the human eye is very good at distinguishing nuances in shades of gray. We see details very clearly in a grayscale image.

But with hues it's different - details get blurred, we may have to squint, some of us are even color blind and can't distinguish between any hues at all. The hues you've chosen above are fully saturated reddish purple and yellow, among the most contrasting difference you can find on the color wheel. And actually hardly ever found in real life, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if one or both were outside of the printing gamut.
But if you start adding other hues, and if you reduce the saturation to get more realistic and esthetic, you'll soon have a very messy and unclear image.

[Derek]

You can't separate value from hue; every hue, every color, has a value. They're absolutely inseparable... You could set up a palette so that you had 'ideal' representations of twelve basic colors from a color wheel, and use them in a pure state so to speak and let them stand in for your values, many color theory classes will have you do this. But it's sill an exercise in understanding the relationship of various colors and the values of 'pure' hues in their color wheel positions.
Color or hue, in good picture making, is essentially irrelevant. Nail the value, and the hue/color can be anything that you want it to be.

[SporQ]

yeah, but his question is about using all hues with the same value. not hues without value.

[aquamire]

Of course you can define form with just hue, you just proved it above, I obviously see some trees. Its the shapes that matter. Value just gives things a depth and allows the eye to sort distances and texture. It makes one thing pop out over another or recede into the distance.

[Jaysin]

The answer is simply yes, and there's an easy way to prove it (keep in mind I just got home from a 9 hour graveyard shift so my mind might not be working as clearly as I think it is). Open up Photoshop an click on your foreground color to get your color picker window. Then click on one of the Lab color radio buttons to bring up the Lab color selection method. Now in the main window every color displayed is of the same value. See how it almost looks like the colors form ridges or peaks at certain points. Now take the slider on the left and drag it up and down and you can see those ridges move and shift.

If we could not perceive form through hue alone then it should not look like there are ridges of color that seem to come closer to us. Hope that made sense, I'm going to bed now.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Jaysin ]

[Derek]

Sporq
His question was about whether we define form with hue or value. Hues without value can't happen; once you place a color down it has a definite value to it. You can have an image where everyting is the same value, but images produced like that really have no form or depth in them, simply shapes of varying color or hue. The one above is two different values that aren't really all that close. Hence you have the illusion of some form in the tree, the building, etc. Open it in photosop and turn it into a grayscale image.
Now, you can use simple areas of value without any type of rendering to produce an image, sure... again that's done in a lot of color theory classes. But, in answer to how we define or produce forms, by which is meant a dimensionality to an object, you have to use different values.

Jaysin
That gets us back to the question of what we see versus what we perceive in our minds. We don't see the form as much as recognize patterns that we categorize and know to represent certain things.

Gotta say, I like this topic and the posts so far though... lots to think about.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Derek Smith ]

[Sukhoi]

Derek: "That gets us back to the question of what we see versus what we perceive in our minds. We don't see the form as much as recognize patterns that we categorize and know to represent certain things."

I would say that pretty much summs up the point as far as I'm concearned. The above image has no depth (value), but still we create depth in our minds because we recognize the basic shapes as being things we know from everyday life.




^Just experimenting. One can certainly alter our perception with value...

Sukhoi

[Derek]

Sukhoi
Yep.
That's one of the hardest things we all have to overcome, taking the time to really look instead of just jumping at what we 'know' and throwing it down on the paper.

[Jason Manley]

lots of discussion going on...lets create some solutions...

color has three properties....thus light also has three visual properties which are relative to an artists needs. ALL THREE CAN CREATE SPACE AND FORM.

value (light to dark)

temperature (warm to cool or blue to orange)...there are cool oranges and warm blues..it is all relative...

intensity (saturation)

Rather than answer this question I will ask my own in hopes that you all can provide a better answer than I. I do have my own ideas..but Ill wait for yours to spew them out.

WHAT are ways that each property of light/color can be used in paintings to create visual space and form?

please provide examples to support your answers to the above question.


lets hear it...see it...


jason

PS..the above image is flat...no space is suggested by the color..there are a few ways to suggest space in images (change in color value temperature intensity...edge variation and edge atmosphere...overlap...size perspective and scale...linear perspective etc...) the above image suggests space..it only suggests space because of the scale used on the visual symbols. IMHO.

[CyberArtist]

Artists define form with contrast. That contrast can be in shape, hue, value, depth, saturation, specularity, etc. Even subtle shading has contrast, it's extremely small, but the hue / value / etc is different, thus they are contrasting.

Contrast does not explicitly mean opposites, only that there is an opposition, ie. there is a difference. For the human eye to percieve anything, contrast must exist.

Speaking of human eyes ... that image hurts mine.


[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: CyberArtist ]

[BooMSticK]

hi,

Sorry I couldn't reply to my own thread sooner. Its chistmas and I'm not by my computer all the time.

I posted this same question at Lumental. Some good discussion there - go check it out.

hue vs. value on Lumental

SporQ - yes, you're right. The colors above has different hue but same saturation and value.

Sukhoi - I agree with you. Before I started this discussion I had a feeling that you could break this down into some general scientific/arty formula. But I see a trend that this is purely up to each individual artist to define. Very capable artists have diffent views on this. I had my mind set up before throwing this in for discussion... And I still have the same meaning on this subject... but now I don't think my point of view is the only and right one...

Derek Smith - Good suggestions. Still having the 'contrast makes form'-theory incorporated in perseption might really be the only way to define value as the key to get form. I will try and explain this further in a day or two. This stuff gets on to you

Steven - hmmm... good points.

Derek and SporQ - my question was this: Can you define form within an image using only hues with the same value. Sorry if I was being alittle unclear.

Jaysin - I Don't have PS here. I dont know if this is a way to prove anything. I will try it out when I get back home from my christmas trip. As Derek I have a feeling this is mostly based on perseption... But I have to try it out myself... Anyone else have a meaning on this statement and proof???

Jason - I was hoping you would join in! I went through most of the other threads that you have participated in before on colortheory and so on. I'm looking forward to see you go scientific, Jason (hint hint). I do agree with your last paragraph. Lots of ways to suggest space. But form... much harder to explain... also harder to show artisticly I believe.

CyberArtist - lol. Didnt mean to hurt you. Sorry about that. But what you say is comparable to what Derek and Sukhoi discussed earlier.

Wow! Lots of great posts. Be sure to read through posts at Lumental also!

I will be back soon... when I have been sorting out my own thoughts on the subject. I must say this really has been an interesting ride and a opinion mover for me.

merry chistmas everyone!
,Boom

[Novacaptain]

I've made a .tif file using lab colors to keep everything on the same value (if i grayscale the imagee it dissapears). I maybe didn't understand the purpouse of it all but I've illustrated some ways of giving both volumes and shapes to things using perspective and "optical illusions" but isn't everything just that in the end?

samevalue.tif

[Novacaptain]

you have to right click and "save as"

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Novacaptain ]

[Jin]

Without analyzing, what is your first impression when looking at this image? Does each of the circles appear to be the same distance from your eye?

[Novacaptain]

The yellow dot seems closer than the rest.

[Jin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Novacaptain:
The yellow dot seems closer than the rest.

---

Hi,

Can you say why the yellow dot seems closer?

[Derek]

The yellow dot looks closer because objects closer to you have greater contrast. Even though the contrast is with the background and not within the object itself, it still appears closer because of this.
This is a very basic element of perspective and color.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Derek Smith ]

[Novacaptain]

Without analyzing, my first impression was that yellow was closer to me.

During a conversation about colors i faintly remember hearing something about color opposites...red-green and yellow-blue etc. I'm not sure however if the background was red, I believe the green dot would pop out more than the rest...If you were to use a grey background they might all look the same. Probably not though since each and every monitor is bound to have a calibration that leans a little to one of the RGB colors.

Anyways, the yellow dot creates a more noticable contrast with the background as said by Derek Smith.

[Sukhoi]

Novacaptain kindly showed us with his teenie-weenie .tif that you can define form using only colors of the same value. But as said earlier, you only see images of trees and skies because of the minds ability to create sensible images from what seems meaningless.
I cant help but comparing this to how Corg the robot is learning to "see" and recognize faces. (Do you know "him"?)
It's a very complicated thing, the human eye and brain, and how we see things.

Ofcourse we cannot see whithout light passing into our eyes, but from to go from there to having a full explanation as to why and what it takes for us to see shapes, is a daunting task.

Which is what I tried to illustrate with the two boxes...and take infra-red for instance. With thise contraptions we suddenly "see" heat and not light, but we are still able to make sence of it.

Please tell me if it doesn't make sence, I will then shut my trap, I have a tendency to think aloud you see....

Sukhoi