Re: Traditional palette vs. modern 565 by Ed on 05/22/01 at 5:11 PM
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern

In Reply to: Re: Traditional palette vs. modern posted by Steve Sauer on 05/21/01 at 8:37 PM:

Your point about purity of pigment is well taken but even without any pollutants it can be make the irreversible change to the black form when exposed to light. However the problems with Vermillion are more wide reaching than that. Sure it can be reliable when used correctly - adequate protection from the medium/varnish AND mixed knowledgeably (its use with Flake White for example is potentially disastrous) but you are assuming a lot with the second point when talking about the majority of artists today! I’m not the only one who thinks its day as an artist’s pigment is long past.

But apart from all of this, it is EXTREMELY toxic - your recommendation to grind your own paint would pose a severe health risk even with a level 2 respirator! You should look up the WHO guidelines for safe levels of mercury...

Next you’ll be recommending we all go looking for genuine Emerald Green (amazingly also still available) just because Cézanne used it :-)

Do you know the colour index number(s) of the paint you mention? Naphthol colours are not like the cadmiums - there is a range of ratings from pigment to pigment. Naphthol Carbamide, the one I specifically mentioned is ASTM 1. It’s also possible it may have been a mix along the lines of what you mention historically for Vermillion. As an example Naphthol AS-D (PR112) fared poorly under ASTM testing while Naphthol AS (PR178) rated ASTM I. That’s why a sound knowledge of the index numbers and their associated ASTM ratings is so important.


Follow Ups:

Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Steve Sauer   Posted at: 05/22/01 (8)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Ed   Posted at: 05/23/01 (4)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Steve Sauer   Posted at: 05/26/01 (3)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Ed   Posted at: 05/26/01 (2)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Steve Sauer   Posted at: 05/27/01 (1)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Ed   Posted at: 05/28/01 (0)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Steve Sauer   Posted at: 05/22/01 (2)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Ed   Posted at: 05/23/01 (1)
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern Steve Sauer   Posted at: 05/26/01 (0)

Post a Followup 545,548,555,560,565"> Ed"> ed1177_yahoo.co.ukRe: Traditional palette vs. modern_05/22/01 at 5:11 PM"> "Re: Traditional palette vs. modern"
: Your point about purity of pigment is well taken but even without any pollutants it can be make the irreversible change to the black form when exposed to light. However the problems with Vermillion are more wide reaching than that. Sure it can be reliable when used correctly - adequate protection from the medium/varnish AND mixed knowledgeably (its use with Flake White for example is potentially disastrous) but you are assuming a lot with the second point when talking about the majority of artists today! I’m not the only one who thinks its day as an artist’s pigment is long past. : But apart from all of this, it is EXTREMELY toxic - your recommendation to grind your own paint would pose a severe health risk even with a level 2 respirator! You should look up the WHO guidelines for safe levels of mercury... : Next you’ll be recommending we all go looking for genuine Emerald Green (amazingly also still available) just because Cézanne used it :-) : Do you know the colour index number(s) of the paint you mention? Naphthol colours are not like the cadmiums - there is a range of ratings from pigment to pigment. Naphthol Carbamide, the one I specifically mentioned is ASTM 1. It’s also possible it may have been a mix along the lines of what you mention historically for Vermillion. As an example Naphthol AS-D (PR112) fared poorly under ASTM testing while Naphthol AS (PR178) rated ASTM I. That’s why a sound knowledge of the index numbers and their associated ASTM ratings is so important.

 
A. A. Art. This Site designed and maintained by Alexei Antonov
Translation from Russian Copyright (c) 1999 Vladimir Pavlov.
Copyright (c) 1999 Alexei Antonov. All rights reserved.