Pigments,
colours

[professional translation]
French text
Recommended Visit:
Chroma at Pourpre.com
|
Introduction
Whether they know it or not, artists who use colour are handling
pigments.
To be short, we can say that these are nothing else than a very finely
powdered substance with an intrinsic colouring property. Even though
not all colourings are pigments, they nevertheless represent the vast
majority of colourings.
In order to be used they must be mixed with a binding agent
("moistened by a binding agent" say the chemists) thereby forming
paint that we call a "colouring".
The
binding agent does not only moisten the pigment, it also weaves a
fibrous or crystalline network around it in drying.
This is what is called
reticulation.
During the mixing of the pigment with the binding agent, we are
sometimes disappointed by the darkening of the colour. It is
practically impossible to keep the original shade and the pulverulent
aspect
of
the pigment. "Almost impossible" because the only way to achieve this
would be to expose it raw, without protection, which would present all
kinds of problems for preserving it. The
binding agent
likewise
alters the aspect and colour of the
pigment.
A few visual artists have gotten around the problem by photographing
compositions
made with pure
pigment.
Even though certain pastel artists who do not seal their work approach
perfection
(dry
pastel
is
particularly rich in pigment), there is not really a solution to this
problem for the moment. |

Introduction
- Pourpre.com and
Dotapea: complementarity in the treatment of the theme of colour
The pulverisation finesse; an essential factor
Covering factor
Colouring factor
Permanence
Flocculation
Absorbing power and siccative power
Stability, miscibility, compatibility
Brilliance
Toxicity
A pigment is not a colour
- Physical phenomenon (the spectrum)
- The
cognitive phenomenon
- Illusions (a
page at Pourpre.com)
- Cultural
and imaginary phenomenon
The variability of the colour composition of a pigment |
But let's not lament this state of affairs: binding pigments, manufacturing
colours is also a way of discovering a new beauty and new pictorial
characteristics of unexpected richness, notably with respect to
visual
aspects. See
a pigment is not a colour.
Anyone looking for more detailed
information
about
colours, which is to say
the
scientific characteristics
of colours and not just
pigments,
is invited to visit the excellent
pourpre.com site.
In particular
Colour explained,
the
colour charts
and also the astonishing
curiosities.
The linguistic
aspect is also fascinating. This theme is thoroughly explored in the
"The
colour and language"
section.
Pulverisation finesse: an essential factor
Xavier de Langlais rightly confirms that the more finely a pigment is
ground the better it covers and colours. A very fine powder causes the light
to deploy an infinite number of trajectories that prevent any transition of
it in the lower layers, giving the colour a great visual impact that is very
enriched, almost saturated.
Almost any pigment's
properties can be transformed by simply grinding it more or less fine.
Today all pigments are
ground very fine thanks to the evolution of industrial techniques.
However, did not the
Flemish and Venetian masters consider transparency a virtue, widely used to
great effect in their incomparable works?
And are not
smalt,
lapis lazuli,
malachite, and
turquoise more beautiful when they are "badly ground"?
Does the "grinding
perfection" evoked by the great Armorican master really consist in an
infinitesimal finesse or rather in the harmonic "pictorial intention" of the
artist?
Let's take pigment for the
perfection... that it is! It is one of the roles of the artist to know how
to look, and with respect to pigment, to know how to discover the remarkable
reality of a pigment that may seem imperfect according to criteria that are
ultimately shaped by the punctual evolution of techniques and tastes.
Covering factor (opposite of: transparency)
The
term "covering"
probably comes from
decorative painting. A recurring question in this domain is knowing which
surface a paint or a filler can "cover".
A coloured substance
"covers" a surface all the better the more opaque it is (notably because
there are always ways of diluting it or adding
colourless fillers
to it). Thus the term "covering" is substituted, in artistic painting as
well, by the term "opaque".
Several factors determine
the covering characteristics of a paint:
*
the finesse of the grinding (see
above),
*
the intrinsic opacity of the pigment, which is determined above all by its
nature at a molecular level, but also by the finesse of the grinding.
The physical nature,
whether organic or inorganic, is essential above all because it varies from
one pigment to another. In terms of tendencies, organic pigments (synthetic,
vegetable, or animal
carbides)
are generally rather transparent, whereas inorganic pigments (mineral) are
often opaque
See Organic vs. inorganic.
the way in which the
binding agent coats the pigment. This is directly decisive where mineral
binding agents are concerned. The white "covering" of plaster employed as a
binding agent is radically different from what one can obtain with lime. As
for organic binding agents, which are by far the more common, they can offer
diverse thicknesses, which is not without consequence on the opaque or
transparent aspect of the final result.
*
the condition of the paste
is also very decisive and this is something that should not be forgotten.
Certain binding agents are white and
opaque when they are wet
and transparent when they are dry. Others tend to accentuate transparency
when they are wet.
There are
also a few "tricks"
that make it possible to measure how important an issue the "covering
factor" is. Certain so called covering paints like
gouache were
initially nothing other than regular paints to which a white pigment was
added to increase refraction. On the other hand,
certain oil colours
called
"lakes"
are covering
pigments that are
added to
colourless fillers.
Though the binding agent
and the additives can play a role in the covering capacity of a paint, it is
the properties of the pigments that clearly dominate, to such a degree that
covering pigments and fillers
are sometimes employed to
modify this essential aspect of the pictorial surface.
Colouring factor
Covering or
transparent,
a
pigment is
susceptible to more
or less tinting whatever surrounds it. This capacity becomes all the more
interesting when colourless (mediums, fillers) substances are added to the
paste
The "colouring factor" is
not, a priori, a very sensitive characteristic as it often masks the
"covering factor". It is generally difficult to show in what sense a pigment
colours more than another if one is not dealing with very colouring
varieties such as
certain iron oxides.
And there...
the
surprise is great.
Permanence (adherence, lightfastness)
The faculty a pigment has
of keeping its properties over a long period: intensity, vivacity, and
exactness of colour, covering capacity, etc. Exposure
to light is considered to be the most important alteration factor. Sunlight
is rarely advisable but it should be pointed out that mineral
pigments (notably
earth pigments)
resist very well.
The separate case of
photo-luminescent materials is treated apart on this site.
Click here.
By analogy, the permanence
of tinctorial substances
is sometimes referred to as
the tint.
Ability to flocculate (granulation)
This priority is not
important for watercolour, nor is it negligible for paints that are highly
diluted, whatever they may be. It is moreover not without importance for
other materials used in the visual arts (see
barbotine).
The
earth pigments
in particular are renowned for their tendency to gather together in grains
or flakes. Under the action of drying, these agglomerates settle in the
cracks, colouring the painted surface
in a heterogeneous manner,
emphasizing the relief of the support.
Certain
extra fine
water-colour
manufacturers
offer an indication
in their colour charts making it possible to locate the colours having this
power.
In other domains -
including industry - a deflocculant is a product that makes it possible to
accentuate the homogeneity of a mixture or an
emulsion.
Absorbing power and siccative power
We have tested it for you:
there is nothing like speaking with a chemist of the "siccative capacity of
a pigment" for producing an amused smile.
Certain teachers,
certain pedagogical
works, certain
painters confuse - like
everyone, quite naturally - absorbing capacity and the aptitude for
drying or siccativation.
...
and this
mocking chemist is not wrong: a pure pigment is solid. It can neither dry
nor siccate. It can combine more or less rapidly with such and such binding
agent with respect to its own capacity to enter into a solution
and
to absorb.
This is
essential.
Following this, it is the binding agent that dries, aided or not by the
pigment. This plays a
siccative
role only if it contains a veritable siccative element
for the binding agent used,
which is not that common. A
siccative pigment
for oil
is not necessarily absorbing and does not accelerate the drying of another
binding agent. The absorbing faculty of a
pigment is a different property from siccativity.
The
confusion
principally concerns oil paint as the other procedures make it possible to
obtain solidification much more rapidly without there being any question of
siccativation.
Concerning siccativity independent of absorbing power,
numerous authors speak, perhaps a little too jovially, of the "excellent
siccativity" of such and such a pigment or contrarily, of the
"execrable siccativity" of another (at times with a surprising degree of
animosity - tell-tale of first-hand experience). Whereas, in either case it
is neither about qualities or defaults. A pigment containing a not
inconsiderable quantity of siccative elements creates the same potential for
danger as a neutral pigment; the real menace is too much of a "differential
of siccativation" when layers containing pigments that do not have the same
properties are put in contact with one another. It is this "differential"
that creates accidents in the first place: folds, cracks, irreducible
sinkage, etc.
It is however perfectly true that pigments containing a particularly
siccative element (manganese or cobalt oxides) can also engender annoying
mechanical phenomena when they are employed alone, especially in impasto
work. Thus the manganese blue, for example, is practically never used in
oil paint.
Curiously, a large part of
lightly covering pigments
(lakes, green earth, etc.) have the reputation - for the most part
erroneous - for not being very "siccative". Now there's a troubling
coincidence! Is the problem of siccativity perhaps not linked to an error of
binding caused by an intrinsically strong transparency that we have not
known how to take into account?
Something very obvious
appears when we explore the world of pigments, which marks our editorial
line:
it is the
painter that should adapt to the pigment's properties and not the contrary
because
colours
are never without
defects for certain uses and alternative solutions are not that numerous.
Even the term "doubtful pigment or colour" makes no sense.
Stability in mixtures (miscibility):
compatibilities and incompatibilities
a)
Lead
and
sulphur
In effect, it
isincompatibility
between sulphur and lead
that is by far
the most notorious in paint, particularly in the oil process where lead is
still used. Putting these two elements together provokes
very significant blackening.
Paint manufacturers of
tubes or ranges of pigments generally watch out and avoid this combination.
They manage to do so by three methods:

*
getting rid of these two
components (rare)
*
getting rid of one of these
components (common)
*
by eliminating the excess
sulphur
that is non-molecular.
Thus, if lead has luckily
disappeared from tubes and pots of pigments (except for
lead white,
which is still available under certain brands, see photo) sulphur is still
very present. This latter is above all an "additive"
(in fact a component)
that is
indispensable for
cadmium and
natural whites,
but also
for
ultramarine and
numerous other key colours. It is difficult to get around it!
Certain manufacturers of
high-quality products have regrouped their pigments in groups: a group that
mixes with lead and a group of colours that
can be mixed with each
other.
Using a sulphurised pigment
poses hardly any problem in itself, but in oil paint it poses a major one:
the best siccative is nothing other than lead oxide.
White or
brown Courtrai,
Flemish, Harlem, "cooked
oils",
"classic"
siccatives and litharges
can
be incompatible with sulphur pigments when these are not sufficiently
"washed" of their non-molecular sulphur.
For this
reason, all the
elements containing sulphur on our site are marked with the following sign:

Or in french, ATTENTION SOUFRE !
Substances
containing lead are
accompanied by the following image:

Or in french, ATTENTION PLOMB !
ATTENTION:
it is not because a material contains sulphur that there is necessarily a
risk of reaction. Free sulphur, a kind of waste matter from incomplete
preparations, is otherwise more likely to produce interactions than
molecular sulphur. Without comparison, it is undeniable. But there we are
talking about phenomenon that happens at a "probabilistic" level, notably in
liaison with
the electronegativity of the atoms that are present, which partly
determines the solidity of the bonds. It so happens that certain bodies
"break", notably in the presence of heat. But let's not be alarmist: only
complex bodies (for example
polysulphides), which are often more fragile, are really concerned, but
as pigments, rather as supports - and this is rare.
In other words, our
warning is not uniquely but principally valid for
pigments that are not sufficiently well
prepared, for example, old jars of cadmium. Preparation
techniques seem to have evolved in the right direction. However, a certain
mistrust endures (even among manufacturers,
see above) and we are not in a position to refute their arguments
for the time being. In order to reduce this mistrust, we think that
manufacturers of quality products would certainly benefit from providing
more information on this subject, backed up with relatively detailed
scientific and or historic arguments for the consumer, who moreover, always
justly appreciates it when their concerns are addressed.
Some authors assert that
chrome poses the same problem as
lead: notably, that it is incompatible with sulphur. In reality, orange and
yellow chromium pigments - today rare because they have turned out to be
toxic and even highly toxic under a certain form - were associated with
lead. Lead chromates effectively turned black in contact with sulphur, but
not because of chrome (a non-confirmed hypothesis).
This latter is finally
very present in palettes in forms that are without danger:
chromium oxide green,
viridian green.
However, it seems the authentic
emerald green, composed nonetheless of copper arsenate - so
neither of lead or sulphur - and happily impossible to find today, is very
sulphur reactive, and even
so
with lead,
according to certain sources. This horrible poison has given way to
imitations that are less
unhealthy and more stable.
b) Pigments
that are
too alkaline and thick (grease) paints
The binding agent of an
oily paint is a
fatty acid
esther. The use
of alkaline pigments
like
white earths
with a binding agent like an oil paint can cause
saponification.
This generally translates into browning that is accentuated over time.
Brilliance
The
pigments themselves
are more or less brilliant independent of the aspect that the
binding agents
and
mediums, confer
upon them, which are capable of considerably
modifying these characteristics.
On the whole, organic
pigments are
brilliant and inorganic,
matt.
Certain
pigments, which are
generally synthetic
are
literally
"dedicated to
brilliance":
interferential or iridescent pigments
and
metallic pigments.
Toxicity, precautions
Pigments
and
colours
are not all harmless
products. The rulings governing the obligation for manufacturers to place a
warning pictogram on products fluctuates in France.
Certain North American brands carry the health label,
which can only be
applied when it is paid for, which a priori
implies neither
a guarantee of impartiality nor the contrary.
We advise our European
readers to take into account (neither more nor less) any warnings while
waiting for clear and lasting rulings to be established throughout the
European Union. In the case of other Francophone countries and the other non
European countries, we are unfortunately not in a position to comment at
this time, but
any information will be welcome.
Certain
pigments display
pictograms.
Toxic
pigments (see
pictogram
opposite).
They are highly dangerous.
It is best to buy them in liquid or semi liquid form and to avoid any type
of contact. Wearing
appropriate masks, gloves and other protective
material is necessary in most cases. It is highly recommended that you
inform yourself about the measures to be taken by consulting the services
specialized in this
field (see
Art, security, pollution).

Noxious pigments
- see
pictogram opposite.
They should be
handled and stored with a few elementary precautions:
work
calmly, hold open jars of pigments away from the face and open them only
when covered with a transparent plastic or paper that prevents the powder
from diffusing in the air during the few seconds following this operation;
wash your hands often and avoid any sustained contact with the skin; store
them out of reach of children and animals. Do not panic:
these products,
contrary to toxic pigments, only have pathogenic effects if they are
repeatedly handled in unsatisfactory conditions or if they are massively
inhaled or ingested.
A pigment is not a colour
The
chemical and physical considerations evoked below remind us of an essential
point:
a
pigment
is not a
colour.
It is a material. Its
composition
is more or less precisely
defined. Very often, in reflecting light, it absorbs some of it and becomes
what we call "its colour". A fact which is also just as decisive; it is
altered by the kind of source(s) of light and by its environment:
binding agents,
additives,
the
surface and of course
lighting and atmosphere. Not to mention
the
eye
of the observer
(cf.
The Eye
and
Observing at
Pourpre.com), which
is the other half of the phenomenon.
So we naturally come
to ask ourselves just what exactly is a colour?
Light
that reaches us is characterized by what physicists call a
spectrum
(see
photo above -
thanks to
Alain Klotz).
The
spectrum is, among all the light rays of all possible wavelengths, that
which actually reaches our eyes, divided into rays, which is to say,
frequencies. Blue takes up such and such a frequency; yellow such and such
another, etc. Certain "rays"
can
be emitted (emission
rays);
others
represent the absorption of emitted light
(absorption
rays).
Each ray is
representative
of the
presence
and state
of an
element,
of
an atom,
in the field being viewed.
Certain
radiances
can either not be emitted, not reflected
or
be absorbed. Moreover one must take into account the intensity of the
radiance of each wavelength
(see
diagram in black body)
and this
for each phenomenon:
reverberation, absorption,
and
emission.
The
purely physical approach is therefore centred on radiance. It essentially
describes colours in terms of emission rays, absorption rays and the
intensity of radiance for each ray - a "point of view" that cannot be
ignored because it describes a concrete reality.
However, in
the context of visual arts, as in daily life, colour takes on more the
meaning of a
cognitive
phenomenon.
On the
basis of electric impulses provoked by an outburst of photons striking the
retina, our neurons can interpret the world: "I guess" that between me and
the pigment
there is a
hazy air, I guess the time it is and the season with respect to the colours
I see, but I also guess the emotions of a living being and the passion of a
painter, etc. Sometimes
too "I let myself be taken in" by pure illusion.
Read
Illusions in Pourpre.com.
Colour is certainly, in our human
sense, mainly an
"imaginary
phenomenon".
From
this imaginary dimension
are
born all kinds of taboos,
of fears
("peurs
bleues"),
of
connotations
and
preferences
interwoven
in cultural dimensions, anchored
notably in language (read
Colours on the Tongue in Pourpre.com).
The same
goes for pigments. From this point of view, the status of
pigments
is often
directly associated with
that of colours, but exceptions have existed.
For
example, purple probably succeeded
saffron
for religious and political reasons linked to the exceptional cost of these
two substances,
in
addition to the symbolism of their
hues.
In
India, certain
colourings
must not be touched, while others, like turmeric, continue today to bring
good luck. Lapis lazuli
survived a certain blue hobia in the West
because it had an intrinsic value.
There are certainly other examples because human beings have never been able
to fully ignore -
even in
fundamentalism -
the
material dimension
of
pigments.
The variability of composition and colour of a pigment
A
pigment is therefore
not an abstract concept.
In decorative painting,
there is a relatively common practice: mixing
jars of paint or pigments of the same colour to obtain maximum homogeneity.
Which
is to say to what degree only in a statistical
manner a
pigment corresponds to a colour.
Painter decorators know
how multiple factors intervening in the place where they are extracted,
discharged or synthesized can yield products and thus colours that are
perceptibly different.
An edifying experience
consists of comparing two tubes or pots of pigments that are supposed to be
the same colour.
To a certain degree,
these divergences are not flaws, especially when they concern
mineral pigments.
Manufacturers are limited
by what nature imposes on them: deposits are what they are and it is up to
the painter, artist or decorator to address the task and manage the
differences in composition
with all that this implies
in terms of colour, siccativity, absorbing power, etc.
Go back
to the top of the page