Hi Pete,
Check out this thread in Home Decorating Forum's "Gallery" section. It's all EK paint. Some older photos have been removed (it's a long thread) so be sure to scroll to the bottom, more recent.

Also, another recent thread in Home Decorating "Discussions" with photos of EK paint can be seen here.

I'm a paint nut. Love color (hobby artist), love to paint, love to make my world change with paint ;) With that said, I will admit to being a FS skeptic, too. I will also admit, however, that photos I've seen of EK paint have a depth and 'dimension' that other paints do not reflect in photographs. So much so, after all these years of watching full spectrum/EK paint debates come and go, I am seriously considering trying it. My only drawback is that light seems to have a dramatic impact. Since I have low light in my current home, I wonder if that scenario would not do a disservice to EK colors...

Moon, I think a low light environment is a great place to experiment with FS paint. Think about it...the black in regular paint just sucks the light out of your eye.

Pete, you should look at this recent thread. It's more than just pretty colors...

Here is a link that might be useful: Another skeptic!

Thanks for the links. In reading them quickly, it seems to be a lot of subjective opinion (and bickering).

I suspect that since color is so subjective, no one has really made a scientific effort to address the issue. The human brain is an amazing thing, but it is very good at fooling the human mind. It can convince people that they are seeing/hearing/perceiving things that are not reality.

I am frankly not even sure how one could scientifically test FS paint.

Maybe a study could be performed using a double-blind evaluation of paint samples using FS paint vs regular paint. The two paints could be mixed to the same color under a given light (which could be confirmed spectrographically). Subjects could be asked to pick their favorite of the two chips after viewing them under different light conditions. Surely, the FS paint would perform better and people would be able to pick out the FS paint the vast majority of the time?

I realize I am way over analyzing this, and it has been done quite a bit already. I searched this forum and the web and did not find much. Obviously, the discussions have been heated in the other forum.

As a home theater enthusiast, I am used to people claiming great advantages from things that cannot be supported scientifically - that is where the brain plays tricks...

Thanks,
Pete

Pete, what I find interesting is that EK has ICI mix up her paints - you pay her and then go to your local store where they mix it according to her formula using the same equipment they use for their ICI paint. In otherwords, there is nothing special about the colorants themselves, just that her formula may use more colorants. What I don't understand then is if FS paint is so special, why aren't the big paint companies offering FS paint? They have the colorants and equipment. When you go in to SW and ask for e.g. Compatible Cream they have to mix colorants into a base paint - they could easily mix what people refer to FS paint. FS paint shouldn't cost more money except for the fact you're reimbursing an artist like EK for their work in developing the FS. But the big paint companies already have artists developing their paint line and I'm sure they are experienced and knowledgeable to make FS paint? If it was such an advancement over current paint, wouldn't the big paint companies see FS paint as a new revenue source?

I have never seen FS paint IRL. I do find many of the FS paint colors on line are very attractive and currently popular for use in decorating. I would love to see a FS paint next to the none FS version. I'm very sensitive to color and the effects light can have with color so I wonder if I would see a difference or not.

Sky

Sky, I bet you would see the difference. I can. My painter can't. Some of my friends can. I think everyone's visual acuity is different, sort of like our ability to hear subtleties in music or taste seasoning components of the food we eat. Some people have sensory abilities that lie further out on the bell curve...

As for the big boys getting into full spectrum paint...just wait. It is coming. Sherwin Williams has an agreement in the works with a FS company. And look at C2. It's not technically FS, but it is moving along those lines....lots more pigment per can and a wider range of pigments used for each color = more complex result. And Benjamin Moore's Aura, which isn't FS either, but a direct response to C2. I think the sleeping giants are waking up...

If you think about the way they match colors...just scan and feed it into a computer...it will take some work to reformulate all those colors into full spectrum recipes. That's why we'll probably only see limited palettes for now, like the Aura line.

As for reimbursing Ellen for her development time, yes that's one facet of the cost. But Ellen herself is incredibly generous with her time and advice. And even though she's grown, you still get very personal service from her. You'll never get that from Ben Moore! Or the guys behind the counter at Sherwin Williams!

Amysrq, I wish I had the opportunity to see FS. It's my understanding that BM Aura isn't FS, rather it's an environmentally friendly paint with good performance characteristics which is why I'm going to use it in my home. I know they have a novel colorant system for VOC free mixing but I don't think that equals FS in concept. I am aware that EK provides personal service and clearly that kind of service is definitely iffy at your local paint store.

You're right about abilities, I am more sensitive to variations in color and I definitely have more than my fair share of taste buds, but apparently I was behind the door when they were handing out hearing because you have to be really out of tune for me to notice.

Oh boy this topic again! I'd like to take a crack at it...

OP, the 7 colors your kids mix together is not the same black that black paint is usually made of.

Black paint is generally a single pigment - carbon, or black iron oxide, or whatever. This black is not as complex or subtle a black as the 7 colors your kids mix. It can add a harsh "grayed" or dingy tone to colors depending on the light and/or the sensitivity of the viewer. If you mix up 7 colors for your "black", though, then the quality of light as it bounces off of this "black" (or more accurately "mud color") will be different. The light in the room as it changes throughout the day brings out various aspects of the pigments that have gone into the mixture, ie sometimes it'll look more yellow, more green, or red whatever--depending on how the light is hitting it and what other colors being reflected from outside, or from your furniture or whatever.... But it won't reflect back that harsh gray/black tone of the black carbon pigment, because that pigment has not been added.

That's why in beginning art classes your taught to try to use other colors and avoid using the blacks for toning down your colors ... the quality of color is just richer and more vibrant.

Although yeah in art as well as in decorating there certainly is a place for the solid plain old really black type of BLACK.

Your kids in mixing the 7 colors are practicing "full spectrum" color mixing!

you know I'll bet there is some way to measure this - there is after all such a thing as computerized color matching. There must be some way to measure the quality of light that reflects off of carbon pigment paint VS.a mixture of blue/brown/red

I'm not particularly interested in researching it myself but I'd definitely be interested in reading what you might find out!

BTW wasn't Martha Stewart's old K Mart paints based on the FS idea? I seem to remember reading that...?

Let's look at some facts of human color perception. Our eyes are equipped with cones that are sensitive to either Red, Green, or Blue. As a result, all of the colors that we can perceive are derivations of mixtures of red, green, and blue. Thus, the origination of the RGB color model that is used in high definition color displays. Using this model and by varying the mixtures of these three colors (and the brightness of each), literally billions of colors can be created.

So, any color could be created in paint by using only red, green, and blue, along with black or white to adjust the tone (brightness). Now, I think the rub comes when one wants to create nuanced colors.

Slight variations in color require micro-adjustments of the RGB ratios. Because the addition of the pigment to the paint is only so accurate (I am not sure how accurate, but it is limited by the accuracy of the dispensing devices available to the mixer), the use of other colors besides Red, Green, and Blue becomes advantageous. The reason for this is so you can create pigments that are accurate mixtures of these colors, eliminating error at the end of the line when placing the individual pigments into the base.

At this point, I believe that "full spectrum" or at least mixing paint with more pigments can increase the accuracy of the desired color, by pre-combining RGB at precise ratios into the various color pigments in advance of the final mixing into the base paint.

Now, maybe the addition of black or oxides changes the paint chemistry for off-the-shelf paint as compared to these full spectrum paints, but I do not think the colors themselves are unique or at least not mixable in other colors, if the exact RGB ratios can be calculated and accurately placed into another base.

I have no problem believing that some paints look better than others, even when the colors are identical. Sheen alone makes a huge difference in the way paints look and if they appear alive. Maybe the full spectrum paint chemistry is superior in some way to the paint being compared to by the people who love the FS results.

Regarding the descriptions I have read from people raving about their full spectrum paints, I have had similar reactions to Benjamin Moore paints (Regal Pearl on walls) and also to a Martha Stewart blue from her Sear days (not full spectrum).

I am leaning toward trying an FS paint just to see how it goes. I do not like the descriptions of them as thick, though. I recently tested Muralo Ultra Satin Flow waterborne - what a dream to apply!

Pete

It is actually pretty rare to mix colors and produce a decent black, thus the reason for black pigments.
browns and grays are usually the outcome, NOT a solid black.

I agree with the OP that most of the 'Full Spectrum' is just marketing hype.
You can look through hundreds of shades in the paint mixing book and never see black pigment added.
Unless the base paint is nothing but clear binder with no pigment, you are still getting a bunch of titanium dioxide white as the starting point.

:) you could use 'hyper-pigmented' as easily as 'full-spectrum' I suspect -

technically, you can get any color by combining the three primaries, black, and white in specific and precise ratios - but it takes the paint companies how many 'pigments' to actually DO that?

the EK paints never look as 'deep' as some of the other's I've seen - the Kaufman paints in particular. from reading this, it may well be the paint base that makes the difference? they, more so than others, do what these paints are 'supposed' to do - which is react to lighting, such as the way sunlight shifts as it moves from dawn through noon.

but heck - I can see that on a contractor-white wall, nu? and I've 'faked' the depth, and color shift, by a number of means - adding small amounts of 'interference' pigments and pearl powders to my washes (I predate glazing, and think it's a goopy way to go about adding a transparent coating to a wall) layering nearly-identical washes over a base color, tinting the wall unevenly (I've actually tracked the shadows and bright spots in a room over the course of a day)...

and honestly, I think all 'premium' paints are a bit stiff or thick - they're meant for rollering onto broad expanses, not the kind of fidgety work I'm used to.

"technically, you can get any color by combining the three primaries, black, and white in specific and precise ratios - but it takes the paint companies how many 'pigments' to actually DO that?"

Not correct.
Not all of the pigments are actually compatible with each other.
There are yellows for mixing with cyan and yellows for mixing with magenta.
Use the wrong yellow and the color will have a gray/brown tinge.
There are no 'pure' pigments that are exact colors.

OK....that's got to be enough of this.

Brickhead...buddy...you have GOT to stop posting to subjects you clearly know nothing about.
Why you insist on doing it is a matter for you and your therapist to delve into.

People come here for information. They expect and deserve correct advice from people who know what they are talking about or have certain experiences. Where you pull your "information" from is beyond me...because it is complete "bovine scatology".

Paint, color, and chemistry are obviously not your field of study or work experience. That's OK. But posting things that are insanely off base is not. It gives people the wrong idea.

I am a 3rd generation painter...have a very large business...am a paint formulator...and own a paint manufacturing facility. I deal with these issues and products every day.

So enough (please) of your completely incorrect statements about VOCs, pigments, and anything else related to paints or coatings. What you claim to know only serves to confuse and misdirect people who deserve better.

BTW...and FYI..."pigments" are what is incorporated into paint at the time of mixing. "Colorants" are what is added afterward to the finished product. You should at least get that right when posting additional incorrect information.

If you want to run with the big dogs...head over to http://www.specialchem4coatings.com/
that's where we industry people spend time.
They would love to see you...as your "opinions" have provided some interesting discussion.

Know your limitations...and realize that sometimes it's just best to walk away from the keyboard.
Consider it 'community service'.

Hey Homeprotex,
This may shock you, but I actually DO read the weekly "Specialchem4coatings" weekly bulletin. I signed up for it early last yr.
I'm kinda geeky...I was searching for some detailed TI02 info., stumbled across that site, and decided to read more from it!!
As more of a retailer (obviously!), the hardcore science of it is a little over my head, but I'm trying to be real knowledgeable for our retail clients.

There are however, certain facets of Full-spectrum ideas that intrigue me. Kind of the "Mr. Spock" in me!!

Faron

OK, I am one of those people that can see a difference with FS paints, (I think there are people who can't, so no offense meant.)

And I have used Kaufman, Citron and EK paints, rather than just looking at pictures, which no matter what media are always an inexact rendering of the colors. Even the best photographed "atmospheric" shots are laregly the effect of the photographers' and printers' techniques rather than the actual effect of the paint. If you want to see how it might actually look in your setting, there is no way other than making a sample board.

Is there something different about FS paints, in my experience, yes. But it's not so much the effect you get by mixing the visible colors in a particular paint shade, but rather about the largely un-seen components in the apparent colors.

We "see" light in the form of varying wave-lengths reflected back from a colored surface to our amazing eyes, where the wave energy is converted into electrical impulses that are sensed in our brain, giving us the experience of color. An object with a complex array of pigments is going to reflect back to us a more complex admixture of wave lengths. The tiny, added amounts of non-dominating pigments (meaning not the "obvious" component colors in the shade) that are used in FS paints provide a richer visual effect.

That is also the explanation of why FS pigments seem to be so changeable over the course of a day length cycle. Different times of day (and exposures, and latitudes) produce different assortments of incoming light waves, which in turn interact with the complex pigment mixtures in FS paint, reflecting different wave lengths back out to our eyes.

Anyone can fool around with this with some unneeded paint and few tubes of artists colors and some sample boards. Just remember that the extra colorants are added in tiny amounts, as you begin to experiment.

However, I do take some of the mystical claims regarding color selection and mood or room purpose that are often attributed to EK with a grain of salt. I think we are all very different in our ability to percieve and respond to colors, so maybe it does work for some people, but not for me.

Regarding the cost of FS paint: yes, it does seem more expensive than other best quality paints, but if you find the right shade for your project, the extra cost is not great compared to the effect. But not all shades are available in FS paint, and even my fave brand -Kaufman - doesn't produce the paint I have in my mind about half the time. Paint is the cheapest part of a painting project, IMO.

Molly~

Paint prices shouldn't even be considered an obstacle to any repainting project. The average premium quality product is .14 per square foot. Therefore, it's nonsense (IMO) to ever consider the cheap selection. What do you hope to save? A dollar a wall?

Michael

Faron,
Normally I would be completely shocked to hear that a retailer pays attention to the tech sites.
With you, however, I'm not shocked at all based on what I've seen from you on the boards. It's obvious that you are nowhere near what we consumers have become used to as the "normal" retailer.
You clearly enjoy what you do and take it very seriously. This translates into doing it well.

Being a retailer who goes the extra mile to learn as much as possible about the products you sell makes you smart...an asset to your customers...and a true professional.

Your customers are quite fortunate...and I'm sure they know it if they've ever made a trip to another store only to be met with a blank gaze from the kid who grudgingly takes a break from his cell phone conversation when they ask him a question.

"OK....that's got to be enough of this."

Good for you,. The guy that said Floetrol does not thin paint.
ANY additive that does NOT have pigment is a thinner.
"Brickhead...buddy...you have GOT to stop posting to subjects you clearly know nothing about.
Why you insist on doing it is a matter for you and your therapist to delve into."
I will not dignify a personal attack with an answer.
"People come here for information. They expect and deserve correct advice from people who know what they are talking about or have certain experiences. Where you pull your "information" from is beyond me...because it is complete "bovine scatology". "

I would suggest you investigate chemistry a little more.
"Paint, color, and chemistry are obviously not your field of study or work experience. That's OK. But posting things that are insanely off base is not. It gives people the wrong idea. "
Nice try, but I will lay my chemistry knowledge agasint yours any day.
PhDs in engineering end up with a pretty good pile of it under the belt.
"I am a 3rd generation painter...have a very large business...am a paint formulator...and own a paint manufacturing facility. I deal with these issues and products every day."
So what?
"So enough (please) of your completely incorrect statements about VOCs, pigments, and anything else related to paints or coatings. What you claim to know only serves to confuse and misdirect people who deserve better."

You can go look in the Federal regs and see EXACTLY what chemicals are DEFINED as VOCs.
There are numerous other ones that while a chemist would put them clearly in the VOC category the regulatory apparatus does not.
You might look into hiring an actual chemist who can help you learn to use these compounds in your paints to produce products that handle better and still comply with the law.

"BTW...and FYI..."pigments" are what is incorporated into paint at the time of mixing. "Colorants" are what is added afterward to the finished product. You should at least get that right when posting additional incorrect information."

You are full of your own hot air.
You can call them pigments or colorants, but the base material giving the actual color are pigments. Finely powdered solids.
Or are you claiming they are dies?

Floetrol does not thin paint, it extends the open time.

I'm sure the Flood Company knows more about their product than the casual user.

Michael

"Floetrol does not thin paint, it extends the open time."

This discussion may be a semantic issue.

What does Flood mean by "thinner"?

Acceptable definitions for a thinner include a diluting agent - the paint must be diluted after adding a liquid - no way around this one. They even indicate on their web site that adding too much may reduce "hiding power".

A thinner can also be used to lower viscosity. Maybe their product does not do this and that is what they mean; that it simply extends drying time. I am not sure.

They also might mean "our product is not just paint thinner", so buy Floetrol instead of that metal can of low odor petroleum distillates sitting on the shelf next to the Floetrol...

I admit I am somewhat puzzled by Floetrol's language...I buy some of their product to try on some RL paint that I don't like (too thick) just to see how it works.

Thoughts?

Pete

You should never add any additive to a paint until after you have tested it. If it flows properly and levels to a smooth finish, no additive is required.

Floetrol wasn't formulated to be used unless the circumstance warrants it.

Michael

"You should never add any additive to a paint until after you have tested it. If it flows properly and levels to a smooth finish, no additive is required.

Floetrol wasn't formulated to be used unless the circumstance warrants it."

I agree.

Pete

"I can detect it on side by side samples."

With all due respect, I doubt you can scientifically substantiate this assertion. For example, you would need to be consistently able to pick out the full spectrum paint in a double blind test (neither the people presenting the chips nor the participants know which are which before or during the study).

The world is full of examples of people thinking they perceive a certain difference in quality, taste, sound clarity, etc. between two products that just do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Now, I am not stating this is the case with full spectrum paint. You may be 100% correct and able to pick out the full spectrum paint chip 9 out of 10 times....I don't know.

In order to test this, the same base for tinting and the same quality pigments would need to be used in this test to eliminate all of the other variables. While I bet you could pick out the same color from two different manufacturers, I am far from convinced that you could pick out the full spectrum color, if you compared it to the same color mixed with the same base paint and same quality pigments (but using black instead of an FS mix). Without those controls, comparisons are meaningless (scientifically) or analogous to testing two different types of tires on two different cars. i.e. It is like stating "Well these cheap retreads handle better than these $300 Michelins", while neglecting the fact the retreads were on a new Civic and the new Michelins were installed on a 1978 Pinto...

Don't get me wrong...I don't expect anyone to have gone through this effort. The only people who would be motivated to do this would be the manufacturers/sellers of the FS paint and we would only know if the results were favorable, of course.

Thanks,
Pete

Pete,

To set up your experiment you would need to control for paint base, pigment types, surface materials, room size and shape, and the color of objects in the test rooms.

Yes, you have to have rooms because light behaves differently in 3-dimensional space than in 2-dimensional space. Also, even fairly large paint samples don't have sufficient surface area for a meaningful experiment with viewing angles.

Next set up different test combinations of light source locations, light source types, and viewing angles. Then measure metamerism. (Most paint manufacturers try to minimize metamerism. Full spectrum paints tend to go the opposite direction.)

A double-blind experiment with humans is pretty much useless unless you're looking for something fluffy like preference. Human vision adds far too many variables. Even if you could control for the mechanical functioning of the eyes from person to person, there's no way to control for the neurological components. The processing part of vision isn't even necessarily consistent within a single individual.

I agree with most of what you say yogacat.

I would be interested in seeing the results of something as fluffy as preference. If people truly prefer it and can pick it out full spectrum consistently that would be enough for me and their preference would probably be based on some measurable effect.

If people can't perceive the difference (eg in a double-blind test) then even if there are differences that are scientifically measurable, it would not be perceivable. When talking paint and how it looks, that is really what matters (assuming the quality of the paint is the same). So I would argue that measurable but not perceivable differences in appearance would be useless for evaluating the worth of FS paint.

To me, that would be like having amazing speakers that reproduce very high frequencies accurately, but those frequencies are above the range of human hearing. Why bother?

Pete

Suppose it could happen, but I've yet to get stumped by a faux FS sitch. I know why. It has nothing to do with how good I am at this color thing either. The paint store folks will spend hours - and I literally mean hours - trying to get a match to FS colors. EK's Cognac is almost a dead ringer for Restrained Gold, so they always get pretty close on that one -- and props to them. Other colors like Tulip Leaves, Mushroom, Pueblo, Slate, Pumice, are harder. In fact all of those colors I listed, and more that I haven't listed, have been attempted at my local paint stores. All of the attempts were so bad, the cans never left the store.

If a hell-bent painter goes the distance and ends up taking a "match" out of the store, the color is so over-worked, muddy, and heavy, it's something that I think anyone could see and feel. They have tried too hard to get the match and it ends up being too much, the hand is too heavy. They didn't know how to achieve that "just right" balance.

So it's that *part* of the attempted matching that leaps out at me and makes it so darn obvious -- to me. They (painters/paint store) usually end up being so invested and obsessed with trying to match it, that they don't initially see how bad the quality is of their "match". It's not that FS is necessarily sooooo superior or the most dazzling, it's that the attempted matches so far have been so freakin' bad. What they need to do is try it once and when it gets to the point that they have to laddle paint and colorant out of the can so they can shoot more and add more base, they should just quit, go get a new can of base and use what they learned and start over. But, it's addictive. You think it will be that very next shot of colorant that will do it!!! Plus, it gets expensive to fart away can after can of paint just trying to match one stupid color.

Guess my story would be better if I was so *gifted* that I could never be fooled or if FS was so incredibly mesmerizing that it simply stunned people in their tracks; but that really isn't the case. It's just that the other side has totally sucked at trying to match the colors so far.

I do have regular colors coverted to FS, do it all the time. I can tell the difference chip to chip, have to because I use both the regular and FS versions of the color (different homes). If I didn't have an initial awareness and conciousness of the two versions of the same colors, I don't really know if I could tell the difference or not. Pretty sure I could, but never tried to say one way or the other.

As far as what is perceiveable by the human eye, we all have the same visual equipment to see color. Biology is more alike person to person than it is different. Of course, there are exceptions like color blindness, and women being able to see an additional wavelength in the red part of the spectrum, even reports of some people having some kind of additional cones or something -- anyone see that story? Can't exactly remember what it was.

However, I think we all agree that there are many factors that play into why my definition of say, aqua, would vary from yours. So there is that discussion of perception and how it varies person to person, basically what yoga was talking about.

Pete you are assuming that the measurable differences between the two hypothetical grays would not be perceptable. Why why would you assume that? If it is measurable with the spectro-thingy-ma-jigs then why would a human eye not be able to see it? Even if it is just chip to chip instead of room to room?

I could be wrong, but I think measurements like the bumpier vs. even comparison are exactly what is currently being used in practice to aid various corners of the color industry to avoid metamerism -- the measurements are used so the color lab folks can get color to look the same to the greatest extent possible. ???? Anyone?

I agree with yoga's statement that color shifts have not exactly been embraced up to this point. Achievements of color constancy seems to have been more desirable.

Pete brought up a good point:

"Let's look at some facts of human color perception. Our eyes are equipped with cones that are sensitive to either Red, Green, or Blue. As a result, all of the colors that we can perceive are derivations of mixtures of red, green, and blue. Thus, the origination of the RGB color model that is used in high definition color displays. Using this model and by varying the mixtures of these three colors (and the brightness of each), literally billions of colors can be created."--Pete

You are speaking to additive color here. So the following is not exactly right.

"So, any color could be created in paint by using only red, green, and blue, along with black or white to adjust the tone (brightness). Now, I think the rub comes when one wants to create nuanced colors."--Pete

Nope, I'd have to say that is incorrect. You are confusing two separate models or spaces of color, additive and subtractive. Paint color mixing is subtractive. I think Goethe and other early color theorists made the same mistake so don't feel bad. :-) The confusion goes back aways, see the link below.

Having a solid foundation of both models or spaces of color, can help in the understanding of why various methods of mixing color is a really cool, fun thing to have available to us -- or heck even learn how to do yourself! When I say do not confuse paint with color, that statement goes several layers deep, make sense? Architectural color is an amalgamation of additive and subtractive. Paint world usually likes to focus on a two-dimensional subtractive, i,e, chip-to-chip, controlled light source to controlled light source mentality. Sometimes totally alienating the human visual system, which is additive, as well as the fact that our built environment is 3D.

Lastly, it is important to consider that there is no such thing as conclusive primary colors. In elementary school we are taught a version of color theory that might not be totally accurate. i.e. red, green and blue are the primary colors and mixing them equally will give you black. In reality, you're more likely to get a dark brown not black. As brickeye alludes, the actual components of a paint color, and even the terminology, gets rather complex.

Here is a link that might be useful: Just a few color theory references

"Nope, I'd have to say that is incorrect." - funcolors

I disagree. I did not say they could be easily created - I said "could be created". Our perception of color is limited to combinations of RGB. In fact, I indicated that it is no doubt easier to create many colors in paint by using other colors besides RGB. There is are obviously different color models in play, even ones as simple as magenta, cyan and yellow.

If any color could not be created using red, green, blue, (and black and white to adjust tone and brightness) how does one explain that modern display devices (plasma TVs for example) can produce BILLIONS of colors using just combinations of R G and B?

Pete

Funcolors:

I do realize what you mean about additive versus subtractive in paint mixing. Let's say you are correct that some other color is needed to mix because of the subtractive nature of mixing color in paint. Whatever is left for our perception is still just combinations of RGB - that is all our eyes can see.

My skepticism about FS paint comes back to the same point:
If the colors of two paints are the same (reflecting the same proportions and intensities of RGB back to our eyes), how can the number of colors used to create the mix possibly be perceived by our eyes, which can only perceive RGB?

Pete

FC, even though you aren't buying onto it, it was great to see you even mention metamerism and constancy - I'd like to think I may have worn you down even a little bit on the HGTV site.

To be clear, most of the conversation above does indeed seem to describe the metamerism effect as well as what is referred to as full spectrum. Since metamerism is the change in color between two samples that appear to be the same in one light but change in different light, and is primarily driven by the use of different pigments/dyes in those colors, it best describes the color change phenomenon being discussed here that frankly, is very easy to see. I doubt there is anyone that would not be able to see how differently the two grays from FC's example would look as you moved through different light sources. Same goes for FC's experience with getting a two or three colorant color matched with 6-10 colorants (and vice-versa) - again, it's a given that those two samples will appear different as the light changes. The real question here is whether the eye perceives one changing more than the other - that is, is one more inconstant than the other. Again, I think we all get that any color will appear to move based on the light source (inconstancy), some just move more than others. I have argued in the past that a given blue (blues are relatively inconstant) whether made with two or 10 pigments will move a great deal since the very nature of the color is that it is inconstant. FC fundamentally agrees (I think you do) but argues that the one with 10 pigments simply changes better. I for one have come to accept that she (and evidently many others), sees what she sees.

Paintguy, there are several things that you have said that I have paid attention to and thought about. It costs me nothing and it doesn't hurt a bit to play color the way other people do. I reserve the right to change my mind as it grows and is exposed to other's interpretations and understanding of color :D -- isn't that the reason we all participate and read these forums to begin with? That's why I'm here. I actually even understand where Homepro is coming from and probably why, but I wouldn't tell him so. lol!

Pete, I still believe the sticking point that is giving you the most trouble is additive color vs. subtractive color. Your question makes sense, but it just doesn't work as literally as you make it sound i.e. eyeballs, RGB, and all. I've never had a similar thought process or vein of thinking as you have, so I'm not sure where to look for info that explains why the eye compensates and bridges color between color spaces. It's almost as if additive can *simulate* subtractive, but subtractive can never simulate additive -- maybe gamuts and all that stuff. That's not a very good explanation and I'm out of town this week to thumb thru my color geek collection of info to figure out a better way to say it.

FS or not, your trying to find logic between what the human eye can see and thus the human brain interprets and deciphers, and what subtractive color can do is truly very interesting. Someone else might have better words for you, and I'll certainly see what I can find and check back in.

"I've never had a similar thought process or vein of thinking as you have, so I'm not sure where to look for info that explains why the eye compensates and bridges color between color spaces."

I am sure you are much more creative than I am. I was given the analytical brain that for better or worse wants to see proof of things. At times I do wish I was more creative, but if everyone was the same the world would be really boring.

"FS or not, your trying to find logic between what the human eye can see and thus the human brain interprets and deciphers, and what subtractive color can do is truly very interesting. Someone else might have better words for you, and I'll certainly see what I can find and check back in."

I think I can state this more simply. I am looking for proof that the FS effect is not a figment of people's imagination. The brain is very good at fooling the mind, and does not always represent things accurately. Think of optical illusions, false eye witness accounts, placebo effect, etc. I am not saying that FS paints are in people's imagination, just trying to understand the concept.

I suppose a good starting point for me would be to try some FS paint and make my own observations. Of course these days, I am more excited to try some truly durable matte finish paints - either Muralo or Aura.

I appreciate your input.

Pete

Well, Pete, if you do have a scientific mind, you should know that it's impossible to measure accurately when the tools themselves are not accurate. How do you measure perception of colors when our eyes are not calibrated to be the same. This would be like trying to test the difference between good wine and average wine. I am sure if you compare Chateau Margaux vs Kendall Jackson in a Walmart, the result would be very different than if you had run the test in CIA (culinary institute of America) :-) Even after you run all the so-called double-blinded test, what you will get is a 'statistical average' which in itself does not prove anything a/b the paint itself. If the average American cannot tell the difference between Chateau Margaux and Kendall Jackson, does it mean CM is not a better wine than KJ??

If you are interested in FS, try the paint yourself. IF you cannot tell the difference, then why waste the money. Really, even if all the test showed that FS paint has more depth, more wonderful, more etc, will you fork out the extra bucks if your own eyes cannot tell the difference. I myself will not pay 1 grand for a glass of wine that I cannot appreciate but I am sure there are plenty of folks out there who will..

bellaflora said just what I have been itching to say for the past week! Try it for yourself Pete. Although, as one engineer to another, I will say that I've been quite baffled that this black/no-black should produce so much confusion especially to an engineer. You must know (and in fact, I expect you do coz I think you've alluded to it) that black modulates energies by absorbing incident energy, so aesthetics aside, it should be easy to work out even on paper, the spectral profile of the reflected energy due to a pure colour plus some amount of black (reduces the gain of that tonal frequency relative to the incident energy), and something made from that pure colour and then an amalgamation of other frequencies.

But, yes, instead of an endless paper-study here, do that other thing that engineers do best: Do a test for yourself.

I'd love to know what your conclusion is after your own test flight and compare notes with you. I did mine, and the results surprised me. I agree completely with advocates at some level and I can argue/defend those findings at the technical level, but as far as personal preferences go, I find my opinion is much more nuanced and complex than that one is better than the other.

"Although, as one engineer to another, I will say that I've been quite baffled that this black/no-black should produce so much confusion especially to an engineer."

My point regarding black vs no black was that if the full spectrum paints are using multiple pigments, some portion of that mixture is likely forming black to modulate the tone in the full spectrum paint. So what is the difference if the black is formed within the paint or before it is added?

Also, my field of engineering has nothing to do with color, light waves, or sound. I am relying on my memory of learning that was long ago at this point in high school.

Pete

"Well, Pete, if you do have a scientific mind, you should know that it's impossible to measure accurately when the tools themselves are not accurate. How do you measure perception of colors when our eyes are not calibrated to be the same. This would be like trying to test the difference between good wine and average wine. I am sure if you compare Chateau Margaux vs Kendall Jackson in a Walmart, the result would be very different than if you had run the test in CIA (culinary institute of America) :-) Even after you run all the so-called double-blinded test, what you will get is a 'statistical average' which in itself does not prove anything a/b the paint itself. If the average American cannot tell the difference between Chateau Margaux and Kendall Jackson, does it mean CM is not a better wine than KJ??"

I did not say (or mean if I did) average people. I meant a test of the people who claim to see the difference. This type of test is quite scientific for determining if THEY CAN REALLY SEE a difference, or if it is in their mind because they already know which is which.

I dare say a group of taste testers or wine aficionados will pick the difference between the KG and the fine wine everytime (or almost). Regarding not buying expensive wine, I understand completely. However, that analogy doesn't fit for me in this case. FS spectrum paint is not that much more expensive than regular paint, especially when you consider time or labor. And if it looks really good to some people, they can enjoy it when they come over your house because it doesn't get consumed...IMO all paint is cheap, some is just cheaper than others, when you look at the cost of other renovation projects or the cost of paying someone to paint for you.

That is one option I put forth. Another option could be instrument measurements. For example, instrument measurements could be used to demonstrate how two paints that emit the same color under a 5600 K light for example, emit different colors under a 3000 K light.

Pete

When I started this thread, I had not found much of the information that I now see is out there.

I do not like flame wars and I hope that no one who enjoys these paints has been insulted by my questions.

I do plan to try these myself at some point, but I believe in doing some research first.

Thanks for all who have contributed to this thread.

Pete

"...I did not say (or mean if I did) average people. I meant a test of the people who claim to see the difference. This type of test is quite scientific for determining if THEY CAN REALLY SEE a difference, or if it is in their mind because they already know which is which."..

Again, this only showed these pple are poseurs and pretenders, and not really say anything a/b FS paint itself.

Even if some high tech method show there IS a difference between fs vs. non-fs, if your own eyes cannot perceive the difference then IMO it's a waste of money to buy something you cannot physically appreciate. My friend who is an artist can tell hundreds of shades of whites apart. I am sure most people can't. The thing a/b FS paint is that the color supposed to be more nuanced and variable throughout the days. However, if your eyes cannot detect these nuances and variations then you might as well paint w/ non FS and save the money for window treatment. :-)

If you are doing research, I recommend reading Donald Kaufman's books. He explained FS paint very eloquently. Maybe his books would be a good start for your color journey. :-)

"...and not really say anything a/b FS paint itself."

Not true if the crew of people picking the chips was Ellen Kennon, Donald Kaufman, and the color person at Citron paint.

"Again, this only showed these pple are poseurs and pretenders..."

Exactly! The experts should be like the wine tasters and pick out FS paint every time (or almost).

I understand your point about paying for something not appreciated, but the Aura paints are only a few bucks cheaper than Citron.

I appreciate the tip on the Donald Kaufman books.

Thanks,
Pete

Pete, Again, instead of getting wound up on definitions it is IMO worthwhile to just test for yourself. Personally, again speaking as an engineer, it is much easier for me to "get" the concept at a technical level than ultimately at the aesthetic level where I have to determine whether I "like" the colour I'm getting, or not! I think if you try it, you may be able to work out on paper the technicalese of what you're seeing. Dollars to donuts you'll spend MUCH more time after that trying to figure out if you like the FS paint or if you prefer the non-FS!

Paint and colour etc. are SO subjective, that it doesn't matter how many frequencies and colours there are in the paint, if they are not the ones you like, you aren't going to like the wall colour. This is what I found to be the case. Just like I rejected a tonne of BM colours, I also rejected a tonne of EK and Citron colours because they were just a bit too bright for me. I did however LOVE the Donald Kaufman colours.

I had written up a post for you trying to give a technical definition of the interaction between light and colour in terms of modulations or cross-correlations of two frequency responses but then erased it coz it was too long. But if you think in terms of two signals - one the transfer function representing your paint colour and the other the transfer function of your incident light beam, which note, will be time-varying - and then realize that the output is the input transfer function correlated with the paint colour . Then hopefully things will become clearer. This is what Funcolours had been alluding to, also.

The non-FS signal will be a band-pass signal at only a couple of frequencies with black providing a reduced gain at those frequencies. The FS will be a much wider signal profile, with no black and likely the dominant frequencies standing up beyond the signal floor by about the same amount as the non-FS signal where you might assume zero signal content outside the band.

To me, this was the easiest way to comprehend the difference and that is why I say that it is much easier for me to understand the difference between the two paints at a technical level than at an aesthetic level and which is why it is almost irrationally frustrating to read your posts because you keep saying that as an engineer you want to understand this technically. Well, I think that with a little bit of seeng the stuff go down, it will be easier for you to work the technical bit out. To me, the harder part by far and away is, which is the more visually appetizing for me! :-)

Is this helping? I am a control systems engineer but anyone who's take courses on Fourier transforms and is comfortable with the basics of signal processing should comprehend the concept?

Dang! Didn't review my post well. Paragraph 3 needed to say:

But if you think in terms of two signals in the frequency domain - one a transfer function representing your paint colour and the other the transfer function of your incident light beam, which note, will be time-varying - and then realize that the frequency domain representation of the output or perceived colour (assuming an unbiased observer) will be the frequency profile of the incident illumination (driving signal or signal 1) correlated with the spectral transfer function of the paint (signal 2 ).

Hopefully that makes para 3 read better.

Thanks mindstorm!

I think I am starting to see the light (or should I say color).

I finally got a chance to surf the web some more after rereading the above posts, in particular the ones from mindstorm, funcolors, and paintguy1.

Check out the link below - a website put together by Bruce MacEvoy - pretty interesting stuff. It really helped me put it all together in my head and made me realize how much physics I forgot! He mixes the scientific and artistic perspectives together.

The only thing left is the immersion test - to see how it looks to me.

BTW, for the FS colors that you have not liked, was it strictly the brightness or how the color shifted in different light as well that turned you off to those particular colors?

Pete

Here is a link that might be useful: Color Vision

The only thing left is the immersion test - to see how it looks to me.

Now THAT is the toughie! ;-)

Your link sounds fascinating - I just skimmed it since I ought to be doing something else technical just now but I intend to go back to it and read it;-)

Seriously, I was quite impressed by the radiance and vibrance (can't think of a better word) of the EK, Devine, and Citron FS paints but decided that the brightness of their paints just wasn't my cuppa. I eventually settled on a Restoration Hardware paint for the first go around.
Then, when it came to the next room that begat a paint job, I really wanted to give these FS paints another shot and again the EK and Citron didn't work for me in my room. But Donald Kaufman sure did! I found a couple that I adored.

Then, to come full circle, I dug deeper into paint world and found out about Farrow and Ball paints which are not full spectrum in that they happily use blacks and umbers BUT do use a large array of other pigments; I am loving this paint too.

That said, I will also say that my runaway preference is for very very pale colors - basically shades of whites. If you do go to a more prominent colour, your experience with different paints can and likely will be vastly different than mine. Caveat emptor!

Just to jump in here for a second...this has been a great progression with some very good points made.

I did see one analogy stated that is quite topical.

"I dare say a group of taste testers or wine aficionados will pick the difference between the KG and the fine wine everytime (or almost). Regarding not buying expensive wine, I understand completely."

Here's a study I enjoyed....
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/national/20080115_Wine_taste_test_finds_pricier_is_tastier.html

It sums up how I feel about things like FS paint and SO many other things that people work so hard at making more than they really are. But...it makes them happy...so logic be damned.

Sometimes the emporer truly has no clothes...
but there will never be a shortage of people who believe otherwise...and those who will take advantage of that fact.
That...drives our economy.

We only have three types of basic mindsets.
Sheep.
Sheepherders.
Fleecers.

Once in a while you see someone like pete who can actually see the forest... and the trees.

Now that's a refreshing take on things.

Here is a link that might be useful: perception...

"I finally got a chance to surf the web some more after rereading the above posts."

That is so awesome! Color per se is so not the point, is it? Paint and color have the ability to enhance and improve quality of life. It's hardly going to dramatically change the world as we know it, but it sure can make it prettier and more fun. The more you know, the better it gets. :-)

I would like to invite all who are interested to a Color Round Table I am moderating/facilitating tomorrow night at 8 pm EST. It is public and it is totally free, no strings attached at all.

It's being hosted on rococogurl's (she's a poster on the Home Dec Forum) website, atticmag.com. The Forum is called "About Color". There will be a variety of posters from color pros to DIYers.

All are encoraged to participate and all opinions, comments, and questions will be respected and welcome. We'll probably only do this once, but we'll see how it goes. The posts and attachments will all remain open available for viewing indefinitely.

Our goal and focus is sharing individual points of view about color without anyone being flamed or any cheap cyber punches being thrown. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about gaining insight and knowledge from as many different corners of color world as we can gather.

Here is a link that might be useful: About Color - Color Round Table, Cyber-Meet-Up

"Because subtractive color mixing is actually an indirect manipulation of additive color mixing (cone responses), the two types of color mixture can be demonstrated in superficially similar ways. To avoid confusion, remember that the fundamental difference is whether light wavelengths are excluded by the colored substances before the light reaches the eye (the light mixing occurs in the external world), or light wavelengths are separately able to reach the receptor cones (the light mixing occurs in the eye)."

Uhhh, ummm, oh yeah, sure..... that's exactly how I was going to explain additive vs. subtractive. Darn that Bruce. He beat me to it. (snort :D)

Hey Fun-C....
Do you have an "approximate" FS formula that you could post, that ICI tints!??!?

Faron