Realistic Color in Painting – Direct Comparison Method by Oleg Buiko

The ability to see the world in color is an extraordinary gift of evolution. But do we see color as it truly is? Alas, no.
Strictly speaking, “color” as such does not exist in nature.

This is a brilliant illusion our brain creates by processing light waves reflected from objects.
And this illusion is always subjective.
Our perception of color depends on many factors: lighting, neighboring hues, past experience, and even mood.

To avoid drowning in a sea of visual information, the brain is constantly constructing and filling in reality. In the end, we do not see an exact copy of the world, but rather our personal version of it.

This often gets in the way of artists: our internal idea of an object’s color can differ greatly from what is really there.

Fortunately, there is a way around these traps of perception.
The method of direct comparison makes it possible to see and reproduce color as it is. Reproduce it precisely, or, using the natural color as a starting point, change it in a controlled way.

But first, let’s take a look “behind the scenes” of our vision and sort out the main “obstacles” an artist runs into: these are
simultaneous contrast,
color constancy,
color adaptation,
psychological association with the object.

Simultaneous Contrast: The Surroundings Decide Everything


One of the most subtle traps of our vision is simultaneous contrast.
The idea is simple: an object’s color changes significantly depending on what surrounds it.
Why does this happen? It is an ancient survival mechanism.

To make it easier to notice a red fruit in green foliage or a snake in the grass, our brain evolved to amplify differences between neighboring colors.

It automatically “pushes” them farther apart in our perception.
This helps us see boundaries and nuances more clearly and makes it easier to recognize objects in complex conditions.
How does this work in practice?

Value:
A dark patch on a light background appears even darker, while a light patch on a dark background appears even lighter.

Color:
Any color “pushes” its neighbor toward its opposite on the color wheel.
That is why a red square on a green background looks even redder (and the green even greener) than it does on neutral gray.

Saturation:
A vivid color “mutes” its neighbor, while a pale one, on the contrary, makes the neighboring color appear visually more saturated.

A painter mixing paint on the palette may arrive at the right hue, but among other paints or against the white of the canvas this color will always look different, which often leads to mistakes in painting.
This can distort color perception to such an extent that even experienced artists make serious errors.

(More examples of simultaneous contrast illusions at this link)

Color Adaptation: The Brain “Tweaks” Reality

Imagine that an invisible “Photoshop” is built into your brain, constantly adjusting colors depending on the lighting. This is exactly what color (chromatic) adaptation is

Why? So that we can recognize objects in light and in shadow, in bright midday sun, and at dusk.

Our vision automatically “subtracts” the color cast of the light (yellowish from a lamp, bluish from the sky) in order to show us the “true” color of an object, the way we know it.

A classic example is a white sheet of paper.
It appears white to us in sunlight, in shadow, and under lamplight. But if we were able to see objectively, we would notice that its tint is constantly changing.

Our brain stubbornly wants to see the “familiar” color of an object, ignoring the real lighting.

And this is where the trap lies for the artist.
For example, the foliage of trees in sunlight and in overcast weather consists of two very distant colors, yet a beginner often mistakenly paints them as roughly the same color.

Color Constancy: Do We See What We Know?

Another trick of our brain is color constancy.
It is our tendency to see not the actual shade of an object, but its “familiar”, well known color.

The world is full of countless variations of color, and in order not to get lost, the brain resorts to a shortcut.
It simplifies and sorts colors into “shelves” (red, blue, green…), often ignoring more subtle nuances.

The roots of this lie in childhood.
We learn: grass is green, the sky is blue. These labels help us make sense of the world, but over time they turn into stereotypes.

And here is the trap for the artist: they look at the subject, but instead of real colors they see these “learned” symbols from their own internal catalog.
A beginner, for example, may completely fail to notice a cool gray green tone on a tree trunk on an overcast day and, out of habit, paint it with a “correct” brown from their “childhood catalog.”

In my own practice, I have encountered students for whom this habit of seeing went as far as a true “color blindness” to nuances.
Overcoming it, learning to see real color rather than its symbol, can sometimes require considerable effort.

Psychological association with the object: how to see color, not the “apple”

Perhaps one of the most important tasks for an artist is learning to separate color from the object itself.

In everyday life, we perceive the world through a prism of meanings.
We see an object as something whole, automatically assigning it meaning, where color is only one of its characteristics.

For example, when looking at an apple, we do not just see a set of red shades, but an “Apple”.
Round, smooth, red, sweet, and so on.
Here, color is only one parameter.
And knowledge about the object often prevents the artist from seeing it objectively.
Instead of noticing a complex combination of red hues, shadows, and reflections, the brain perceives all of this as a “red apple that can be eaten”.

As a result, a beginner often draws not what they see, but what they know.
The brain helpfully “fills in” the image, averages the colors, smooths the forms, and adjusts them to a familiar, “correct” template.
Striving for simplification, it literally blurs the complexity of color and form, making them more “ideal” than they really are.
A beginner may paint an apple almost with a single red color, simply because they “know” it is red.

For an inexperienced artist, it is psychologically difficult to connect the color of the object with the color of the paint.
They see an apple and a red patch on the palette, but cannot link them in their mind:
“This is an apple, and this is just a brushstroke of paint. They are not connected.”
They do not see a familiar object in the paint.

Painting requires, to some extent, isolating color.
The ability to see it abstractly, as a set of patches.
Without linking color to the meaning of the painted object (this is especially important in portrait painting).

This is not easy, but direct comparison is precisely what helps to “break” this connection.
When you bring a sample of red paint up to the subject on a single line of sight, the “Apple” stops being an apple, and the paint stops being paint.
In front of you are two color patches that can be compared directly, without reference to their object meaning.
The “magic of objecthood” disappears.
You are simply comparing color with color.

The method of direct comparison. How does it work?

So, we have covered the main traps of color perception. How does the direct comparison method help us bypass them?

For a long time, artists lacked the ability to compare colors directly, the way specialists in applied fields do.
In design, restoration, or printing, color samples are placed side by side, under the same lighting, and compared within a single field of view.

In painting, such conditions do not exist. The palette, the canvas, and the subject are located in different places and different surroundings. The gaze constantly moves between them. Color is not compared directly, but through a brief visual impression.
That is why accurate color reproduction in painting is a much more complex task.

The method of direct comparison solves this problem.
Its principle is simple and effective: you need to place a paint sample on a single line of sight with the subject of the painting and see both colors side by side, at the same time.

What does this give us? Such alignment removes the influence of different surroundings.
The paint and the subject exist within the same color environment. This allows the eye to compare two colors objectively, without distortions or “corrections” imposed by the brain.

Direct color comparison is a way to bypass the limitations of human perception.
It allows the artist to “switch off” the automatic mechanisms by which the brain adjusts color, described above: color constancy, color adaptation, psychological anchoring of color, and simultaneous contrast.

We perceive color only by comparing it with other colors nearby.
The brain does not see a shade “in isolation”. It always determines how light, warm, or intense it is in relation to what surrounds it. This is the basis of how we perceive color relationships.
That is why, when two colors are placed side by side, comparing them becomes easiest of all.
This is exactly what the method is built on.

*********

The area of sharp color vision in humans is very small.
Imagine a narrow beam of a flashlight. The zone where we see color clearly is limited in much the same way. This area fits within the palm of an outstretched hand.
And the area of maximum visual acuity is smaller than the width of your finger at arm’s length.
Color vision outside these areas is not sharp at all.

While working, an artist is not able to clearly see the colors of the subject and the palette at the same time if they are even a short distance apart.
And when the gaze shifts from the object to the palette, colors that exist in different color environments begin to distort due to the “effects” of simultaneous contrast, color adaptation, and other factors.

Surrounded by other hues on the palette, a color will always look different, even if it has been matched correctly.
This is how contrasts work, and there is nothing you can do about it. It is a fundamental property of our vision.

But when paint and subject are placed on a single line of sight, they fall within the zone of maximum color vision.
The eye sees two colors at the same time, within one color environment.
The artist does not need to shift their gaze and can objectively assess their differences.
This makes it possible to literally adjust color correctly on the spot and manage it with confidence.

It is important to emphasise that the task of the direct comparison method is not only to “hit the color accurately”.
Its purpose is broader. To give the artist a tool for conscious work with color in a painterly, artistic sense.
The method offers not only accuracy, but also freedom. The ability to consciously intensify, weaken, shift, and complicate hues, starting from the color observed in nature.

The two pillars of the direct comparison method: Stability and exposure

Have you ever wondered why artists do not compare color simply by bringing a brush with paint onto the same line of sight as the subject?
At first glance, this seems logical and convenient.

In reality, artists throughout history have consciously or intuitively tried to match color directly. However, such attempts proved ineffective for two reasons: the lack of a stable device for comparison and a lack of understanding of the need to synchronise the lighting of the paint and the subject.
Without meeting these conditions, this approach lost its meaning.

Stability of comparison is a fundamental requirement for accurate color matching.
Let us take as an example an artist who tries to match the required hue using a brush for comparison.

With each color check, the angle of the brush inevitably changes, as does its position and, as a result, the lighting of the paint.
In addition, because of the brush’s volume and uneven surface, different amounts of reflected light fall onto the paint.
This is enough for each new color measurement to differ slightly from the previous one, creating the effect of a “floating” color.

The correct hue constantly slips away from the artist, because each subsequent adjustment is made under conditions that differ slightly from the previous ones.
This leads to a large number of comparisons and a sense of approximation in the work.

With a palette knife, the situation is similar.
The plane with paint, even with a small change in its angle relative to the light source, can change noticeably in lightness.
Accordingly, the palette knife also requires stability during color checks in order to avoid the effect of a “slipping” color in comparisons.

The plane with the paint sample must return to exactly the same position as in the previous comparison, ensuring precisely the same amount of light on the surface.
In this case, color matching will be accurate and fast.

But an even more important aspect is the synchronisation of lighting (exposure).

Here the word ‘exposure’ means the amount of light falling on the paint sample, which the artist controls by tilting the sample plane toward or away from the light (not camera exposure).

Let us assume that our artist has somehow achieved stability and, at each comparison, returns the paint sample to exactly the same position.
However, even in this case, they will face a problem caused by differences in lighting between their working area and the subject.

Artists rarely work under ideal lighting conditions, such as a stable overcast day outdoors, when the lighting of the paint and the subject is almost identical.
Much more often, they work in conditions where the lighting of the working area and the subject differs significantly.

Let us imagine that an artist is painting a still life.
They are working near a studio window, while the setup is placed slightly farther away.
As is well known, illumination does not decrease simply with distance, but with the square of the distance.
This means that if you move twice as far from the light source, illumination drops fourfold.
If three times farther, ninefold.
Therefore, even a small difference in distance from the light source is very significant, even though we do not always notice it.

More light falls onto the artist’s working area.
When the artist directly compares the color of the paint with the color of the subject, the paint appears lighter.
The artist is forced to darken all the paints in order to match the tones.
As a result, all the colors in the painting turn out darker than they should be.
If the finished work is brought closer to the subject, the difference becomes obvious. The painting will look too dark.

And conversely, if the setup is lit more strongly than the artist’s working area (for example, by a bright lamp), then during comparison the paints will appear darker.
The artist will automatically lighten them, and the work will turn out too light, washed out.

The solution to this problem is controlling the illumination of the paint sample itself.

Since we cannot change the brightness of the light on the still life or move the window, we change the angle of the plane on which the paint lies (this is exactly what exposure adjustment is).

This works the same way as with a sheet of paper. Turn it toward the window and it becomes blindingly white. Turn it away into shadow and it becomes gray.
By controlling the angle of the plane with the paint sample, we can artificially “add” or “reduce” light on the paint, thereby synchronizing it with the lighting of the subject.

Such an adjustment has a fundamental impact on the final result of the painting.
A simple inverse relationship works here.

If we turn the plane with the paint sample toward the light (increase exposure), the paint on it becomes brighter.
To visually match the subject during direct comparison, we will have to mix darker paint so that it matches the color of the subject.
As a result, the entire painting will shift toward the dark side.

If we turn the plane away from the light (reduce exposure), the paint on it becomes darker.
To match the subject, we will have to mix lighter paints.
As a result, the painting will turn out lighter overall.

In short.
If there is a lot of light on the sample, the painting is dark.
If there is little light on the sample, the painting is light.

By understanding this principle, the artist gains a powerful control lever.
Simply by changing the angle of the plane with the sample, it becomes possible to consciously regulate the overall tonality of the future work or its individual areas, compensating for differences in lighting.

For a long time, artists did not consciously recognize this simple but crucial condition: adjusting the exposure of the comparison plane. In practice, this slowed the adoption of direct color comparison in painting. Such attempts repeatedly ran into a fundamental problem: the paint and the subject were not equally illuminated. Without synchronizing their illumination, the painting turned out either too dark or too light, and direct comparisons lost their meaning.

Fixed and dynamic exposure.

The direct comparison method at a distance works in two modes: fixed exposure and dynamic exposure.

With fixed exposure, it does not change.

With dynamic exposure, the artist turns the plane toward the light or into shadow, adjusting it to the brightness of the area being compared.

Fixed exposure works very well in conditions where the scene fits within the tonal range of the paints themselves. For example, when working from a photograph, from an electronic device screen, or when refining a painting.

You can also work with fixed exposure en plein air or in studio conditions (still life, portrait) when the light is soft and the setup has no sharp, deep shadows. When white paint is comparable in brightness to the light areas of the subject, and black to the shadows.

Fixed exposure is a full comparison mode that makes it possible to match three parameters at once: value, color, and saturation.

Before starting, the artist sets the tool according to the illumination and does not change it during the session. More details in the video below.

Dynamic exposure

In conditions of strong contrast (for example, en plein air under direct sun), fixed exposure no longer works. Here you have to work differently. The artist turns the plane with paint toward the light or into shadow, adjusting its illumination to the brightness of the specific area of the subject being compared.

Dynamic exposure is a working compromise that is necessary when working from life in conditions of strong contrasts.

Because of physical limitations, the tonal value of all areas of the subject here, unfortunately, cannot be taken directly (the reasons for this paradox are discussed later).

But if you match the illumination of the plane to the brightness of the area of the subject being compared, you can accurately determine color and saturation. The value itself is then built in the usual way, through a system of relationships on the palette and the canvas.

This technique makes it possible to radically expand the working range of paints for comparison.

(More details on working with dynamic exposure are in the video above)

By the way, the artist can also use this technique deliberately. For example, deliberately move the plane as far as possible into shadow so that comparison requires lightening the paint. This leads to the final color becoming lighter, and the shadows in the painting do not "collapse", retaining color saturation and legibility. In this way, this technique can work as a tool for tonal correction already at the stage of color selection.

(The direct comparison method will work in principle with any flat tool, for example, an ordinary palette knife, if its stability and exposure setup are ensured. There are also specialized tools with adjustable exposure, designed specifically for working by direct comparison. For more — see ChromaStick and the Disc Palette )

The tonal paradox: why our paints cannot cope with light and shadow (and how to help them)

Every artist, especially one working from life, has faced the question: why, even having extremely white and deeply black paints at their disposal, is it impossible to fully reproduce the entire range of tonal differences found in nature? Why does everything outdoors look dimensional and luminous, while the study we bring back to the studio usually looks dull and gray?

It is well known that paints, unlike the sun or a lamp, do not emit light on their own, but only reflect it. This already creates a huge difference compared to actively glowing objects in nature. But that is not the main point. The main reason lies in the fundamental difference between the three-dimensional world and the two-dimensional surface of a painting.

In volumetric space, light is distributed across object surfaces very unevenly: one part can be dazzlingly lit, while another is plunged into the deepest shadow. Human vision, thanks to adaptation, easily perceives this enormous range (the difference between light and shadow can easily reach 1000:1 or more).

The paradox is that our paints, by themselves, are perfectly capable of reproducing the tonal brightness and depth of objects if they are placed under the same lighting conditions as the objects in nature.

Imagine, for example, if we painted birch bark with titanium white. Lit by the sun, it would become incredibly bright, possibly the brightest object in the forest (apart from the sun itself and its highlights). And if we covered the ground under a dense, shady bush with black paint, that spot would look like a black hole.

However, a painting is a flat, two-dimensional surface. It cannot imitate volume. On the plane of the canvas, it is impossible to simultaneously create areas brightly lit by the sun and areas plunged into deep shadow.

The tonal range available to paints is at most 30:1 (titanium white can reflect up to about 97 percent of incoming light, while black paint reflects around 3 percent).

At the same time, being on a flat surface, this ratio remains unchanged under any lighting conditions. No matter where the study ends up. In the sun, in the shade, or indoors. The difference between the lightest and darkest areas will not exceed these 30:1.

This same limitation also applies when trying to compare paint with nature directly. No matter what the lighting is, the difference between white and black paint on any flat surface remains unchanged, at about 30:1. We can rotate the plane, change the angle, but this thirtyfold difference between white and black will not change.

Let us take an example: an artist is painting a birch tree flooded with sunlight, and its own shadow in dense grass. If the comparison plane is turned toward the sun, the artist can easily match a white paint in brightness to the sunlit side of the trunk.
But as soon as they try to take the deep shadow, even the darkest paint will turn out to be too light. Black paint lit by the sun will be brighter than the shadow under the bush. In this position, comparison with shadows becomes impossible.

If, on the contrary, the plane is turned into the shade, everything reverses: it becomes possible to accurately match the color of shadows and halftones, but the sunlit birch bark can no longer be matched. White paint on the shaded plane will turn out darker than the trunk in the sun.
This is the key point: if the sample plane is kept in one fixed position, it is possible to accurately match either light or shadow, but not both at the same time. This is a limitation of the physics of light itself.

Hence the solution - dynamic exposure: rotating the plane toward a specific light zone.
That is, the paint sample must be lit by the sun or the sky when comparing with light areas, and darkened when comparing with midtones and shadows.

In practice, this means:
For bright areas, turn the plane toward the light.
For midtones, move it away from direct light.
For shadows, turn it as far into shade as possible.

A short rule - the lighter the object, the brighter the exposure of the paint on the comparison plane. And vice versa.

It is precisely this technique that makes it possible to radically “stretch” the working tonal range of paints far beyond the 30:1 limit, making direct comparison of color and saturation possible even under conditions of extreme contrast.

The benefit of the method in education. From doubt to confident painting.

One of the main problems faced by beginner artists is a lack of confidence in their abilities and a poor understanding of color.
This often leads to procrastination or to piles of “unfinished works” that remain incomplete because of mistakes.

The method of direct comparison, thanks to its objectivity and simplicity, gives the artist an intuitively clear tool that removes part of this uncertainty.
This is especially important at early stages of learning, when mistakes can be strongly demotivating.

In traditional work from the palette, the student moves almost blindly, relying more on memory and knowledge about the object.
Without a point of reference, each mix turns into guesswork, which quickly exhausts and inevitably leads to errors.

With direct comparison, the question “is the color correct?” disappears, because the answer is obvious. The student simply sees what needs to be done.
When the decision system becomes clear (“darker - lighter”, “warmer - cooler”), the process becomes simpler and anxiety goes away. The artist gains a reliable point of support.
The student does not blindly search for the correct hue, but simply brings it to the required state.

Moreover, correct color relationships in the student’s work lead to a convincing result, which in turn creates a positive cycle, increasing motivation to learn and improve.
In the end, this helps beginners overcome the fear of “doing it wrong”, reduces stress, and increases confidence in their work.

The main advantage of the method at the initial stage of learning is that it turns color selection from an intuitive and often erroneous process into a conscious, controllable, interactive action.

The transition from a childlike, intuitive perception of color to a conscious one is an important stage in an artist’s development.
The method of direct comparison helps a beginner move beyond vague ideas about color and learn to see it as it really is.

And if a young artist in an art school can be told that their works are, for example, too saturated, muddy, or over-lightened, and they are able to correct their painting, then a beginner self-taught artist may not have such competent advisors.

A self-taught artist can spend years, even decades, painting, for example, overly saturated or muddy works, with a bias toward one temperature direction, and not even notice it.
The method of direct comparison can put them on the rails of competent painting.
Sometimes it is enough to make a few studies from life, copies of classical works, or works by recognized masters for this correction to begin happening automatically.

Each direct comparison is a small lesson, during which the artist learns to see color objectively.
This skill is reinforced in memory, forming a rich, realistic palette.
And over time, the artist will inevitably begin to intuitively feel what a real color should look like, even without direct comparison with nature.

And of course, accuracy in color reproduction is an important stage, but not the final goal.
As mastery grows, the artist will inevitably begin to search for their own paths of self-expression, experiment with color, and create more expressive and emotional works.
The artist will naturally strive to develop their own individual pictorial language, building upon real color.

The use of direct comparison in work helps avoid visual fatigue and loss of concentration, which beginners are often not prepared for.
The artist does not need to constantly analyze color, which is extremely energy-consuming.

For inexperienced artists this is especially important, because at the beginning of training they often become overloaded by the complexity of the task.
Direct comparison simplifies the process, allowing the student to focus for now only on the skill of adjusting color, which over time will develop their color vision.

The method also reduces the effect of so-called “tunnel vision.”
When a beginner, concentrating on a particular area, may psychologically exaggerate its importance and excessively increase contrast or saturation.

An inexperienced artist is often inclined to perceive more saturated and brighter colors as preferable, especially those associated with pleasant emotions.
For example, an ideally blue sky in imagination, or an overly saturated green of an “ideal” meadow.
Beginners, wanting to make their work more expressive and attractive, usually unconsciously intensify color brightness in an attempt to convey emotion to the viewer.
Direct comparison helps avoid these traps. It shows the real difference between what the artist “thinks” about color and what actually exists.

Direct comparison undoubtedly speeds up the painting process.
It minimizes errors at the initial stage of color selection, removing the need to repaint individual areas of the painting.

Works become cleaner due to the absence of frequent color re-selection on the canvas and subsequent corrections.
And since working with color requires less effort, the beginner has more time left for refining drawing, composition, and other tasks.

Important to understand: the method of direct comparison is not a way to paint the entire picture, but a way to lay its foundation.
It is enough to find several basic color samples that set the overall structure of the painting. Further work is then carried out within these relationships. Color harmony, nuances, and generalization are built in the usual way.

This method protects the beginner from major mistakes, makes it possible to find correct color relationships in work, and improves the ability to convey color from memory or imagination.

A proper understanding of color and the ability to control it comes with practice fairly quickly.
Over time, as mastery grows, the artist can move away from direct comparison. But at the early stages it is a powerful way to speed up learning and avoid many disappointments.

The Method of Direct Comparison and Creative Freedom

A fair question arises: will such a method turn the artist into a simple copyist? Will accuracy kill the flight of imagination?
In fact, it is rather the opposite. The artist is not obliged to limit themselves to blind copying. They can and should introduce their own creative adjustments.

An accurately found color is “raw material”. Painting begins at the moment when the artist starts to control color in order to achieve their own goals.

Having obtained objective information about the color of an object, the artist can consciously deviate from it. They can strengthen or mute certain hues, change saturation and brightness to create the desired effect and convey a specific mood.

The artist should always remember their creative freedom and their right to work with color in accordance with their own intent and style.
Relying on real color, they can consciously improvise, transform color, and make the painting convincing.
Without a reference to nature, any color fantasy often turns into a random set of brushstrokes. To see and understand true color is the foundation on which the entire structure of painting is built.

By the way, looking into the mirror of direct comparison is useful even for experienced masters.
Over time, everyone develops their own techniques and patterns, as well as unconscious blind spots.
Direct comparison is an excellent method of self-checking. It allows one to shake up habitual templates and look at color with a fresh eye.

Applying the Method in Practice

When working on a painting, only a few thoughtful and precise color measurements are truly important at the initial stage.
It is essential to correctly establish the main tonal relationships, a few basic color notes of the subject. After that, even without further measurements, the work can be carried out competently without breaking these relationships.

Once all the main color masses are established, making a mistake becomes difficult, because any error will clearly stand out from the overall structure. And even if the lighting conditions change, for example if the sun comes out or it gets darker, you will be able to continue working competently. Especially if the basic color mixtures on the palette have been preserved.

Three main ways of working using the comparison method can be distinguished: