From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 09/12/03-05:10:46 AM Z
Yu rei wrote:
>
>
> And equally...
> I guess if a very dark (intense?) color, did not stop you
> from seeing the undercolor (or the surface of the base
> material), you would call this
> "transparent"?
>
> Is this correct?
>
> If so, wouldn't that mean that the paint, which is very
> dark (intense?) is incompletely opaque???
>
I missed this last question in my earlier reply. I don't know how many
more ways I can say this. No, a dark transparent paint is not
"incompletely opaque;" it's simply a dark transparent paint, complete in
itself. A dark transparent paint and a dark opaque paint can be equal
in value, both in tonal value and in desirability. It just depends what
kind of look you want in your prints which kind of paint you find most
desirable to achieve a particular darkness of tonal value.
If one needs an image to think about this, think about a watercolor
painting, in which deep darks can be achieved without sacrificing
transparency, and how those deep darks glow with life and interest. And
compare that to a gouache painting, in which there might be an equally
deep dark, but it will have an entirely different character. To me it's
about luminosity.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST