Testors reaction to grumbling MRR's

[sirenwerks]

But, I just can't help myself to post this.   I was one of the people that blasted Floquil for horrible online color charts, mostly on the reefer yellow that looked buff but actually was the right color when you got it.  Well, here we go again... this is possibly the worst online color chart I've ever seen.  I pray it's dead wrong on some of them (rail brown looks greenish to me), and will assume so, but holy smokes...!

The problem is that the online chart and emitted light systems in general, like a monitor or projector, uses additive color and these rely on the RGB model - where paints and inks are based on the subtractive system and use the CMYK model. 

I know the terms additive and subtractive don't make sense to many.  I mean, you add pigments to create color so you would think it would be called additive.  But the terminology refers to the absorbing of light by the pigments, so the spectrum of colors not intended to make it to your eye are subtracted by the pigments - they are absorbed.  Since a monitor is a direct light source, the parts of the color spectrum needed to make the intended color are added to the light point viewed directly by your retina and cones.  And then there's the rest of color theory, like the compliment/contrast effect on color translation created by colors juxtaposed to what you intend to view... don't get me started.

Moving between RGB and CMYK is not easy and green outcomes are the most affected range.  Physical color charts are still the best way to go for paints, if you can get one from the manufacturer.

[DKS]

What we need is 8-12 base colors; blue, red etc...  And a chart that tells us how to mix what we want.   It would solve all problems.

Doubt it would come anywhere near solving all problems. The base colors would need to be locked in tighter than most existing paints in order to differentiate between caboose and signal reds--and we already know how badly some paint products tend to drift. Also, I'd wager quite a few modelers would be adverse to mixing, which is at best an imprecise method of creating colors (unless you're equipped with calibrated micro-pipettes).

[C855B]

Well... it sort of depends on which Pantone system you use. If you confine yourself to the CMYK-compatible systems, the gamut has lots of holes. The solid color systems are a lot closer to what you're looking for, taking a handful of colors as a base and specifying mix recipes.

Up until a few years ago, Pantone was promoting "Hexachrome" a... yes... six-color system, adding a process green and process orange to the CMYK. It was geared at more accurate photo rendering. Pantone killed acceptance by hanging a whole boatload of licensing restrictions on its use.

Physical color charts are still the best way to go, ...

Welllllllll... maybe. Most I've seen in the past couple of decades have gone cheaps---, with printed CMYK color charts, and we're back to the previous discussion. Color charts using actual chips of actual paint mostly went the way of the dodo bird. Can't say that I blame them, back in my printshop days we were asked to quote on color chip sheets a couple of times, and the cost to produce them was simply outrageous. If you're in the biz of selling $60/gal. cans of "industrial coatings", you can afford to give away chip sheets. $3 bottles of model paint? Not so much.

[TrainCat2]

I guess the color test renders the Mark-1 Eyeball useless.   

I really don't like acrylics with brass. They work, but solvent based still get the best results. Canyon Diablo will be painted with a base of flat solvents with acrylic fading & weathering.

[sirenwerks]

Well... it sort of depends on which Pantone system you use. If you confine yourself to the CMYK-compatible systems, the gamut has lots of holes. The solid color systems are a lot closer to what you're looking for, taking a handful of colors as a base and specifying mix recipes.

Up until a few years ago, Pantone was promoting "Hexachrome" a... yes... six-color system, adding a process green and process orange to the CMYK. It was geared at more accurate photo rendering. Pantone killed acceptance by hanging a whole boatload of licensing restrictions on its use.

Welllllllll... maybe. Most I've seen in the past couple of decades have gone cheaps---, with printed CMYK color charts, and we're back to the previous discussion. Color charts using actual chips of actual paint mostly went the way of the dodo bird. Can't say that I blame them, back in my printshop days we were asked to quote on color chip sheets a couple of times, and the cost to produce them was simply outrageous. If you're in the biz of selling $60/gal. cans of "industrial coatings", you can afford to give away chip sheets. $3 bottles of model paint? Not so much.

My challenge to Pantone is that it does not represent the full range of colors and more often than not you're going to be trying to match to its samples rather, and finding your color is somewhere in between two of Pantone's.  Pantone is made for designers and colorists in mind, not a minority market such as ours.  A manufacturer's color chart provides the color manufactured, the end product on the shelf.  Granted, as in any industry, cost of manufacturing is a consideration and a manufacturer may vary ingredients between paint batches to affect cost savings; and the result may create a difference in the absorptive/reflective qualities of the new product compared to prior batches.  But color is their business and  changes usually garner complaints and complaints garner response.

[peteski]

Color charts using actual chips of actual paint mostly went the way of the dodo bird. Can't say that I blame them, back in my printshop days we were asked to quote on color chip sheets a couple of times, and the cost to produce them was simply outrageous. If you're in the biz of selling $60/gal. cans of "industrial coatings", you can afford to give away chip sheets. $3 bottles of model paint? Not so much.

Mike, forst of all, that $3 per bottle nowadays is more like $5 per 1 fl. oz. bottle!  But even at $3/fl. oz. that is about  $384 per gallon of paint!!   Not $60 per gallon.   But seriosuly, I understand what you're saying.

But about 25 years ago, when Flowuil paint bottles were even less that $3/bottle, they (Floquil Corp.) used to sell actual pain chip charts.  Yes, actual paint swatches. I still have them (although they won't be of much use anymore).  But they weren't provided for free. They were sold for rather high price. But I think that Floquil figured out that the modelers who were serious enough to need actual color chips, would be willing to spend money to get them (like I did).  I bought 2 sets of paint chip charts for Floquil, and one for Polly-S.

I wish that Tru-color paints sold actual color chips catalog. I would be willing to spend a reasonably high sum of money to get my hands on a full range of their color chips.  I haven't contacted them about it yet, but I am planning on it.

[randgust]

There's really a lot to it.  I only made the 'grimy black' comment to note that Floquil was notoriously inconsistent between formulations (classic vs. Pollyscale) and even between Pollyscale batches, as Dave noted.  I don't expect different manufacturers to match on non-specific colors, but it would be nice if they stayed consistent themselves.   

I have the sense that MM/Vallejo is trying to come up with color-matched equivalents for the discontinued Floquil colors and we'll see how close they hit.  I'm glad to see it.

I don't buy the paint chart thing.   I've seen some pretty good online paint charts, actually, the original Floquil one was pretty good until they revised it.  Sure, monitors, etc., etc., etc., but to me its more of a matter of simply not bothering to care and scanning in a color chart and posting it, rather than seeing if the end result looks anything, anything at all, like the actual product in a digital representation.

Now if you think it really can't be done.... look at this.  Everybody is about as color-sensitive to cars as they are trains, you can look up darn near anything ever made on this one and be your own judge on how 'accurate' the paint representations are to you.  Enjoy....
http://www.tcpglobal.com/autocolorlibrary/default.aspx

No, it's not perfect.... but .... it shows the level of detail that really can be done if a product seller cares to work at it.  There's a lot of original paint chip charts scanned in there and what would appear to me to be sincere effort in getting the scanned colors 'right' to some manner of a standard baseline.

[peteski]

I don't buy the paint chart thing.   I've seen some pretty good online paint charts, actually, the original Floquil one was pretty good until they revised it.  Sure, monitors, etc., etc., etc., but to me its more of a matter of simply not bothering to care and scanning in a color chart and posting it, rather than seeing if the end result looks anything, anything at all, like the actual product in a digital representation.

Now if you think it really can't be done.... look at this.  Everybody is about as color-sensitive to cars as they are trains, you can look up darn near anything ever made on this one and be your own judge on how 'accurate' the paint representations are to you.  Enjoy....
http://www.tcpglobal.com/autocolorlibrary/default.aspx

Seeing actual paint swatch and seeing the approximate representation on the screen is like comparing apples to bricks.  Not only the color of the sample and the ambient light play important role, the glossiness or flatness of the finish makes a big difference in the appearance of the paint.  And the fact that computer monitors are all over the place as far as color accuracy goes has been already beaten to death here.  For goodness sakes, even moving my head up or down a bit from my eyes being perfectly perpendicular to the screen's surface changes the hue of the displayed color. The old CRT-based monitors did not have that problem.

As far as the autocolorlibrary goes, those scanned pages (of actual paint swatches) are there merely as a place holder for the color identification.  It is supposed to give someone an rough idea what a certain color looked like. This is sepecially true with many metallic colors used on cars).  Nobody in their right mind would try to match their car colors to something they saw on the computer screen.  You simply get an idea of what some specific paint code will look like, then the company making the paint, based on the code you provide, will mix the color from a formula book which gives a recipe for mixing that paint. It is not based on what is scanned and visible on the website. 

I actually use that website when selecting a color for my automotive models. it is a great reference to see all the colors available during some given year, and their names and codes. Then I go to a custom model paint mixing company and order my chosen paint code to be mixed for the model I'm building.

[VonRyan]

Cody,
alcohol is not potent enough (even after soaking) to really dissolve dried-up paint. Lacquer thinner would be a better choice.  But even lacquer thinner will not be able to liquify hardened up enamel paint.  I said hardened, because enables harden through a chemical reaction, rather than solvent evaporation which occurs in lacquers.  Solvents will soften dried up enamel film, but it will not turn back into liquid (like it would happen to lacquers) which can then be blown out of the airbrush. 

Sounds like your airbrush just needs a full disassembly and a thorough cleaning.

You have to develop certain cleaning habits while using the airbrush and rigidly adhere to them. This is especially important when spraying water-based acrylic enamels.  That is one of the reasons I don't usually spray those paints through the airbrush.  I prefer spraying organic solvent based paints.

It's already in a landfill. Been there for a month or so now.

[DKS]

Seeing actual paint swatch and seeing the approximate representation on the screen is like comparing apples to bricks.  Not only the color of the sample and the ambient light play important role, the glossiness or flatness of the finish makes a big difference in the appearance of the paint.

This is exactly why Pantone colors for printing inks are provided for uncoated (more or less flat) or coated (more or less glossy) paper stock: surface texture plays every bit a significant role in color rendition as do the color temperature of light sources and a plethora of other factors. At best color swatches displayed on a monitor are gross approximations.

And the fact that computer monitors are all over the place as far as color accuracy goes has been already beaten to death here.  For goodness sakes, even moving my head up or down a bit from my eyes being perfectly perpendicular to the screen's surface changes the hue of the displayed color. The old CRT-based monitors did not have that problem.

QFT. Most people can't afford calibrated reference monitors, and even they won't impart the true quality of a paint color since they don't provide any surface texture information.

[Chris333]

We still have one of these laying around:

[kalbert]

I can only think of one Pantone color that would be 100% accurate for a model... 102c! 

[Kisatchie]

Hmm... that's beautiful.
It's... it's like a rainbow...

[peteski]

We still have one of these laying around:

And it is probably just sitting in some drawer, unused.

[Chris333]

And it is probably just sitting in some drawer, unused.

yep.