A method of direct color comparison. Full version of the article

Evolution has equipped humans with the ability to distinguish between light waves of different lengths and to perceive them as different colors.

But can we see color objectively? Can we describe or reproduce it with precision?
The answer is no — we cannot. If only because, in nature, color as such does not actually exist.

Color is an illusion created by the brain.
Objects do not possess “color” on their own — they merely reflect light of certain wavelengths.
Color arises in our subjective perception, as the result of a complex process in which the eyes and brain interpret light.

Our psyche always interprets color individually, depending on context and surrounding conditions.
Color perception is influenced by nearby colors, lighting, and—very significantly—by personal visual experience.

To handle the overwhelming amount of visual data, the brain constantly interprets and constructs what we call "reality."
As a result, our perception of the world is a subjective version of reality, not an exact replica of what surrounds us.

This feature of human vision creates serious challenges for painters: our internal impression of a color often differs greatly from its actual appearance.

Yet despite these limitations, there is a way to perceive and match color more objectively.
The direct color comparison method, supported by a simple and effective matching tool, makes it possible to accurately reproduce a color as it truly is.

But before we look at the method itself, let’s explore how our perception works.
In painting practice, four major problems affect color matching: simultaneous contrast, color constancy, chromatic adaptation, and psychological color anchoring.
A separate issue is the translation of the enormous light range of the three-dimensional world into the limited capabilities of paints on a two-dimensional surface.

Simultaneous Contrast

There are several types of contrast, but one of the clearest examples of how surrounding colors influence our perception is the effect of simultaneous contrast. In this phenomenon, the perceived color of an object changes significantly depending on the colors around it. This creates difficulties for painters, since the same color may look completely different on the object and on the palette, depending on the neighboring paints.

The evolutionary development of contrast enhancement mechanisms, including simultaneous contrast, is linked to survival and adaptation to the environment. Enhancing contrasts allows our vision to better distinguish objects from their background and to recognize edges—critical for detecting potential threats or sources of food.
By automatically increasing contrast, the brain helped us spot a slightly ripening fruit among green leaves, notice a snake in the grass, and so on.

Because the visual system tends to exaggerate differences, two colors placed next to each other are perceived as being further apart than they really are.

How simultaneous contrast works:

Lightness: A dark color on a light background appears darker, while a light color on a dark background appears lighter.

Hue: Each color "pushes" the adjacent color toward its complementary (opposite) hue on the color wheel. For example, a red square on a green background will appear more red than the same red square on a neutral gray background. Likewise, the green background will appear more green.

Saturation: A saturated color makes a neighboring color appear less saturated, and vice versa: a desaturated color enhances the saturation of the adjacent one. For example, a bright red circle on a pale blue background will make the blue look even paler, and the red even more intense.

A painter may mix the correct color on the palette, but due to the influence of surrounding paints or the white of the canvas, that color will always look different—often leading to errors in painting. This effect can distort color perception to such a degree that even experienced artists may make serious mistakes.

(More examples of simultaneous contrast illusions at this link)

Color Adaptation

The human brain constantly and unconsciously makes adjustments for the nature of lighting — daylight, evening, twilight, etc.

Color constancy (or chromatic adaptation) helps us recognize objects regardless of conditions, which is critically important for survival and interaction with the environment.

This is primarily the result of the visual system, which automatically compensates for changes in lighting so that we perceive the color of an object as stable under different lighting conditions (for example, when moving from bright light into shadow).

We perceive the "typical" color of familiar objects even when lighting conditions significantly alter their actual color.
A sheet of paper appears white to us in sunlight, in the shade, near a window, or under artificial light — although in all these cases the paper has an objectively different tint.

Our brain insists on seeing the "familiar" color of the object, ignoring the real lighting.

The strength of the light affects how saturated we perceive the color of objects to be.
For example, the foliage of trees in sunlight and on a cloudy day represents two very different shades, but we often mistakenly classify them as approximately the same color.

This phenomenon often leads the painter to depict the "typical" color of an object without noticing the actual color shaped by the environment, surroundings, lighting conditions, and so on.

Color Constancy

Color constancy is the brain’s ability to "correct" the perceived color of an object based on knowledge of its "typical" color.

Each color can have countless variations in tone, saturation, and brightness, which makes their identification extremely difficult for the human brain.
People tend to simplify and categorize colors, assigning them to broader groups (such as red, blue, turquoise), losing more precise nuances in the process.

Cataloging and simplifying colors is a way for our brain to efficiently process a vast amount of visual information.
By grouping similar colors into categories, we can make decisions more quickly and respond to our surroundings.

From childhood, people learn to associate specific objects with certain colors.
For example: grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun is yellow, and so on.
In an effort to create a stable and predictable picture of the world, the child’s brain tends toward simple categories to ease information processing.

This helps with learning and adaptation, but over time, these categories can become too simplistic for the real world—especially in complex tasks such as painting.

As we grow older, these early associations and stereotypes become fixed in memory.
Beginner painters may not realize how strongly they rely on these "catalogs" of symbolic colors, especially if they have not yet developed the skill of observing the effects of lighting and interactions between objects in the environment.

For example, an inexperienced painter may overlook the cold daylight on a gray-green tree trunk and instead use a stereotypical brown from their "childhood catalog," or a pure turquoise to depict the sea surf.

In my many years of teaching painting, I’ve seen striking examples of this way of seeing in fully grown students.
For some of them, it manifests as a kind of "color blindness" to subtle shades—something that can only be overcome with great effort.

Psychological Color Anchoring. Separating Color from the Object

In the learning process, it is important for beginner painters to learn how to separate color from the object itself.
This is especially relevant when working with portraiture.

In everyday life, we perceive the world through the lens of meaning — the brain recognizes an object as a whole, automatically assigning it meaning, where color is just one of its characteristics.
This process is fundamental to our ability to quickly identify objects in our environment.

Color objectness is the brain’s tendency to perceive color as part of a complete image of the object, rather than as an independent phenomenon.
For example, when looking at an apple, we don’t just see a collection of red shades, but “an Apple” — round, large, smooth, red, sweet, and so on.
Color is only one of these parameters.
And our knowledge about the object often prevents us from seeing it objectively.

Instead of noticing the complex arrangement of red shades, shadows, and reflections, the brain interprets it as “a red apple you can eat.”

A beginner often paints not what they see, but what they know.
The brain automatically “fills in” information based on prior knowledge and experience.

So, knowing that an apple is round and red, the brain smooths out irregularities in shape and color, making the image more “correct” according to personal expectations.
In its effort to simplify, the brain essentially “blurs” the complexity of color and form, making them more “ideal” than they are in reality.

A beginner may end up painting the apple almost entirely in one red color, simply because they “know” it’s red.

An inexperienced artist finds it psychologically difficult to connect the color of the object with the color of the paint.
They see an “apple” and a “red spot” on the palette but can’t mentally link them: “This is an apple, and this is just a dab of paint — they are not connected.”
They don’t see the familiar object in the paint.

Painting requires, to some extent, isolating color — the ability to see it abstractly, as a set of patches with specific characteristics (hue, value, saturation).
It means perceiving color as an independent element, not bound to the meaning of the painted object.

This is a difficult task.
Our brain is programmed for efficiency. It is used to perceiving the world and objects as whole and generalized entities, because that is convenient and effective for everyday life.
Breaking an object down into components requires conscious effort.

Moreover, we often focus on the object itself and treat the background as secondary.
In painting, it is important to see all elements — both object and background — as equally important areas of color.

The method of direct comparison helps eliminate this “objectness.”
When a beginner brings the paint close to the subject, they begin to see the two side by side — as two color patches, not tied to the identity of the object.
This allows them to focus entirely on comparing their hue, saturation, and value.

At that moment, the paint stops being “just red paint,” and the apple loses its “objectness.”
They become equal, abstract patches that can be directly compared.

Tonal Paradox – From Three-Dimensionality to a Flat Surface

Every artist, especially one working from life, faces the question: why, having at their disposal extremely white and deeply black paints, are they still unable to fully reproduce the entire range of tonal differences observed in nature? Why does a plein air study seem so lively and radiant, yet under studio conditions it inevitably appears dull, with collapsed shadows?

It is widely known that artistic paints, unlike the sun or a lamp, do not emit light by themselves but only reflect it. This already creates a huge difference from the actively glowing objects of nature.
But the main issue is not this. The main reason is the fundamental difference between the three-dimensional world and the two-dimensional surface of a painting.

In volumetric space, light is distributed across the surfaces of objects extremely unevenly: one part may be dazzlingly lit, while another is immersed in the deepest shadow. Human vision, thanks to its ability to adapt, perceives this enormous dynamic range (the difference between light and shadow can easily reach 1000:1 or more).
The paradox is that our paints are quite capable of reproducing the tonal brightness and depth of objects—if they are placed in the same lighting conditions as the objects in nature.

Imagine: if we, for example, painted the bark of a birch tree with titanium white. Lit by the sun, it would become incredibly bright—possibly the brightest object in the forest (except, of course, for the sun itself and its highlights).
And if we coated 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 the volumetric distribution of light and shadow. On the canvas, it is impossible to simultaneously create areas brightly lit by the sun and areas immersed in deep shadow. The entire painting is perceived as a single surface illuminated by a general light source.

It is precisely this flat limitation that leads to the loss of tonal power.
In the studio, under weaker general lighting, the painting "dims"—the light areas stop glowing, the halftones lose saturation, the shadows become “dead.”
This happens because the practical tonal range available, for example, to oil paints, is approximately 30:1 (high-quality titanium whites can reflect up to 97% of the incoming light, while the darkest black paints reflect about 3%).
And when placed on a flat surface, these brightness ratios remain unchanged.

Even if you take the study back into sunlight, the difference between its light and dark areas will be a maximum of 30:1. In low light conditions, this difference will also remain within those limits.

It is this fundamental difference between the enormous range of lighting in volumetric objects in reality and the reflective properties of paints on a flat surface that forces artists to traditionally work by relationships—conveying not the absolute, but the relative brightness of objects within the range of their paints.

The method of direct comparison can help the artist accurately capture the color and saturation of objects even in such extreme lighting conditions.
But one important condition must be met: the color comparison must occur under dynamically changing exposure on the surface of the sample.
That is, the sample with paint must be lit by the sun when comparing with bright objects and must also be darkened when comparing with midtones and shadows.

A short rule: the brighter the object, the higher the exposure of the paint on the surface for comparison—and vice versa.
This allows the tonal range of the observed scene to be significantly "compressed" to a range acceptable for our paints, except, of course, for sun highlights or clouds.

(A special tool has currently been developed for artists that allows the use of direct comparisons with consideration for exposure adjustment.)

The Direct Comparison Method: Principle of Operation

In applied fields — such as design, printing, and restoration — color samples are placed within the same field of view and compared directly.
The eye sees both colors simultaneously, in a unified context, and can accurately assess the difference.

In painting, this approach was technically impossible.
The subject, the palette, and the canvas are located in different areas, and the painter is forced to shift their gaze between them.
Colors are perceived sequentially, each in its own environment and lighting.

This key limitation — the inability to see the color of the object and the color of the paint simultaneously — makes accurate evaluation difficult and makes painting particularly susceptible to perceptual distortion.

The direct color comparison method, adapted for painters, largely removes these difficulties in color perception.
The essence of the method is to place a paint sample on the same line of sight as the subject and see both colors side by side and simultaneously.

By doing this, we effectively eliminate the surrounding context and allow the eye to compare the two colors more objectively and abstractly. The influence of cognitive distortions is minimized under such comparison.

Direct color comparison is a way to bypass the limitations of human perception. It allows the artist to "switch off" the brain’s automatic color interpretation mechanisms.

When placed on the same line of sight, the paint sample is subjected to the same surrounding environment and to the same effects of simultaneous contrast as the object itself — in the same “color environment”.

The method of direct comparison is not fundamentally different from the traditional approach in which the painter selects color by alternating visual comparison between the subject and the paint.
The only difference is that, in the traditional method, the painter cannot see the colors simultaneously and in the same context, but instead sees them separately, in isolation.
They are forced to compare the colors alternately, which almost always leads to mistakes.

An analogy: trying to pour the same amount of water into two glasses located in different rooms. If they were side by side, you could top off one until the levels matched.
But when they are apart, you have to remember how full the first one was, go back and forth, and so on.

Color perception is always comparative. We do not see color "in itself" — we perceive it in relation to the colors around it.
The brain cannot recognize a shade in isolation — it always places it on a scale: lighter or darker, warmer or cooler, more vivid or duller than its neighbor.
This is the foundation of how our color vision works.
Direct comparison of two adjacent shades creates the cleanest possible conditions for evaluation. This is the core of the method.

When side by side, on the same line of sight, the paint sample and the object are perceived more abstractly and in isolation.
The eye, seeing both colors at once and in the same environment, can objectively assess their differences — without cognitive distortions or simultaneous contrast.
This allows the artist to correct and control the color directly and accurately.

During work, the painter cannot clearly see the colors of the subject, the palette, and the painting all at once if they are even slightly apart. They are forced to shift their gaze.
Each time the gaze moves — for example, from the subject to the palette — the colors, being in different environments, start to distort due to simultaneous contrast, chromatic adaptation, and other factors.

On the palette, surrounded by other colors, a tone will always look different — even if it’s technically correct.
That’s how visual contrast works. It’s a fundamental property of our vision.

Looking at the color of an object, it is impossible to mentally classify it and then reproduce it accurately on a palette surrounded by entirely different colors.
A person cannot do this without direct comparison.
Unlike music, where there is a clear system of notes and intervals, color is a continuous spectrum, blending gradually from one hue to another with no obvious boundaries.
Color also varies smoothly in brightness and saturation, making the task even harder.

When we look at an object, the brain cannot retain precise information about the spectrum of light reflected from it.
This is physically impossible. Instead, it stores a vague “impression” of the object’s color in its context — and that impression quickly fades and becomes distorted.

Color memory is one of the shortest and least reliable.
Despite our ability to distinguish colors, the human brain was not designed to classify and memorize them accurately — evolutionarily, this was never necessary.

That is why the traditional method of color matching (from the palette) is always approximate and can cause great uncertainty in beginners.
Even experienced painters may stray significantly, especially when eye fatigue sets in.

The yellow spot on the human retina (macula lutea), which is responsible for color vision, measures about 5 mm and covers a visual angle of about 10°.
If you extend your arm and look at your hand, this is roughly the width that fits within that field.

The angular radius of the central fovea (fovea centralis), the area of sharpest vision, is even smaller — about 1.3°, which is less than the width of your index finger at arm’s length.
Outside these zones, color vision is much less precise.

Look at any colored object, then shift your gaze slightly to the side — you’ll notice that the color becomes less clear and defined.
Peripheral vision poorly detects subtle color differences.

Direct comparison creates the most accurate conditions for evaluating two shades.
Moreover, when the sample is aligned with the subject, it fits not only within the macula but also within the fovea centralis — the area with the highest density of color-sensitive cones.
Both colors are simultaneously located within the zone of maximum visual acuity.

The Two Foundations of the Direct Comparison Method: Stability and Exposure


Have you ever wondered why painters don’t simply compare color by holding a brush with paint up to the line of sight with the subject?
It would seem logical and convenient.

In fact, artists throughout history have consciously or instinctively tried to match color directly.
However, such attempts often proved ineffective for two reasons: the lack of a stable tool for comparison and the failure to synchronize the lighting between the paint and the subject.
Without both of these conditions, this method of working loses its effectiveness.

Let’s look at the two key requirements that make the direct comparison method possible: stability and lighting adjustment (exposure).

Stability of Comparison is a fundamental requirement for accurate color rendering.
Take, for example, a painter who tries to match a color using a brush for comparison.
Each time they check the color, the angle or position of the brush inevitably changes, altering how the paint reflects light.
Additionally, due to the shape and uneven surface of the brush, varying amounts of glare appear on the paint.

This alone is enough for each new measurement to differ slightly from the previous one, creating the effect of a “floating” color.
The correct shade keeps “slipping away,” as every adjustment is made under slightly different conditions.
This leads to a large number of comparisons, repeated corrections, and, ultimately, a cumulative distortion of color accuracy in the painting.

With a palette knife, the situation is similar.
Even a slight change in the angle of the paint surface relative to the light source can significantly affect its lightness.
Therefore, palette knife comparisons also require stability.
The paint surface must return to exactly the same position each time, ensuring the same amount of light falls on it.
Only then will color comparison be consistent and accurate.

Lighting Synchronization (Exposure)
Let’s assume the painter somehow achieves perfect stability, and each time returns the sample to the exact same position.
Still, a second problem will likely arise — the difference in lighting between the workspace and the subject.

Painters rarely work in ideal lighting conditions — such as an evenly overcast day outdoors, where the subject and the palette are lit identically.
More often, they work in situations where the lighting on the subject and the palette differs significantly.

Suppose a painter is working on a portrait.
They are positioned near a window, while the model is seated a little farther away.
As is well known, illumination decreases not linearly with distance, but by the square of the distance.
This means that if you double the distance from a light source, the illumination decreases by a factor of four.
If the distance triples, it decreases by a factor of nine.
So even a small change in distance can cause a large difference in brightness.

More light falls on the painter’s workspace than on the model.
When the painter compares the paint with the model’s skin tone, the paint appears lighter.
They are forced to darken all the paints to match the tone in direct comparison.
As a result, the colors on the portrait become darker than necessary.
If the finished portrait is then brought close to the model, the difference will be obvious: the painting will look too dark.

Conversely, if the model is more brightly lit than the painter’s workspace (for example, by a strong lamp), the paints will appear darker.
The painter will automatically lighten them during comparison, and the portrait will turn out too pale and washed out.

For the direct comparison method to function correctly, two conditions must be met: the stability of the sample and sufficient illumination — the paint sample must receive at least as much light as the object being painted.

(Today, universal tools are available that provide the necessary sample stability along with adjustable lighting compensation. These allow artists to effectively apply the direct comparison method in their work. For more information — see ChromaStick and the Disc Palette.)

The Benefits of the Method in Learning

One of the main problems faced by beginner painters is a lack of confidence and poor understanding of color. This often leads to procrastination, and to stacks of unfinished paintings that remain unresolved due to mistakes.
The direct comparison method, thanks to its objectivity and simplicity, gives the painter an intuitively clear tool that helps reduce some of this uncertainty.
This is especially important in the early stages of learning, when mistakes can be highly discouraging.

How does it work?
With the traditional method (from the palette), the beginner faces many unknowns. The brain must process multiple variables at once:

– Is this shade correct?
– How will it look next to other colors?
– Is it too dark or too light?
– Too saturated?
– Will it fit into the overall color harmony?

And so on.
In essence, the student is forced to guess without a solid point of reference.
This process requires constant mental calculation, which leads to tension, uncertainty, fatigue — and eventually, mistakes.

With direct comparison, the question “Is this color right?” disappears — the answer is visually obvious.
The student simply sees in which direction the color needs to be adjusted.
When the decision-making system becomes binary (“darker–lighter,” “warmer–cooler”), the task becomes clearer and anxiety disappears.
The painter gains a stable reference point.
Instead of blindly searching for the right shade, the student simply adjusts it until it fits.
This approach turns color selection into a series of specific steps, rather than vague guesswork.
And when there is clarity, fear disappears.

Correct color relationships in the student’s work lead to convincing results — which, in turn, creates a positive cycle, boosting motivation to continue learning and improving.
Ultimately, this helps beginners overcome the fear of “doing it wrong,” reduces stress, and builds confidence in their painting.

What’s more, the student’s paintings automatically become more harmonious.
The traditional method (from the palette) assumes that the painter selects one color and uses it as a base for mixing neighboring shades — so-called “relational” color work.
However, even a small error in choosing the initial color can distort the entire palette.

Each subsequent color is checked against the previous one.
If the first color is wrong, all subsequent colors will carry that error, plus additional inaccuracies introduced during mixing.
These errors can accumulate and multiply.
The result is often a chain reaction, and the student’s color harmony veers off course.
The painter senses something is wrong but can’t figure out what or how to fix it.

An experienced artist, thanks to years of practice and intuition, may be able to integrate such errors into a harmonious whole.
But a beginner, lacking that experience, often ends up with a painting that feels disjointed and disharmonious.
Even if they try to fix things later, the errors are already embedded into the structure of the work.

With direct comparison, each color is corrected independently — not in relation to previous mistakes.
As a result, the palette develops cleanly and confidently, without cumulative distortion.

The main advantage of the method at the early learning stage is that it transforms color selection from an intuitive and often flawed process into a conscious, controlled, interactive one.
The student isn’t guessing — they begin to understand why a color works in a given context.
They naturally start noticing how lighting affects surfaces, begin to see reflections, atmospheric perspective, and more.

And while a young painter studying at an art school may be told that their work is, for example, too saturated, too muddy, or too pale — and may be able to correct it — a self-taught beginner often lacks such informed feedback.
A self-taught painter may spend years — even decades — painting with excessive saturation or with a strong warm or cool bias, without understanding how to correct it.
The direct comparison method can help put them on the track toward sound painting.
Sometimes, copying just a few classical works or paintings by recognized masters is enough to trigger such a correction automatically.

The transition from childlike, intuitive color perception to conscious observation is a critical step in becoming a painter.
The direct comparison method helps the beginner move beyond vague impressions of color and teaches them to see it as it truly is.

Using direct comparison is not just a technical trick that limits creative freedom.
Just like literacy — learning to read and write doesn’t stop a person from thinking independently — mastering color literacy opens new paths for creativity and expression.

A painter who regularly uses this method gradually frees themselves from the illusions of perception.
Each direct comparison is a mini-lesson in seeing color objectively.
This ability becomes internalized, forming a rich, realistic visual memory.
Over time, the painter begins to intuitively sense what the real color should look like — even without comparing it directly to the subject.

This process is similar to learning music.
At first, the musician plays from sheet music — but with practice, they begin to play by ear and eventually to improvise.
Likewise, a painter who masters the direct comparison method gains a solid foundation from which they can create realistic and expressive work.

Accuracy in color is an important stage — but not the final goal.
As skill develops, the painter naturally begins to explore personal expression, experiment with color, and create more emotional, individual works.
The artist inevitably moves toward building their own unique visual language.

Additional Benefits of the Method in Learning

This method greatly simplifies work with the effects of visual and color adaptation, and helps reduce the impact of so-called “tunnel vision.”

This occurs when a beginner, deeply focused on a particular area of the painting, may subconsciously exaggerate its importance and unnecessarily increase contrast or saturation.
This often explains the visual fragmentation and lack of color unity in the work of beginning painters.

In addition, inexperienced artists tend to perceive as more saturated and vivid the colors they associate with pleasant emotions or familiar images — such as the idealized blue of the sky or the overly intense green of a “perfect” meadow.
Bright colors are often associated with positive emotions, joy, energy.

Beginners, trying to make their work more expressive and appealing, often unconsciously intensify color brightness in an attempt to convey these emotions to the viewer.
The direct comparison method helps avoid these traps by training the painter to see the true color and work with it more consciously.

For example, when painting a landscape, a beginner often struggles to represent the color of tree foliage, especially under unusual lighting conditions.
If the painter tries to match the paint based only on their perception or memory of the “typical” green of leaves, the result may appear unnatural.

But when the paint sample is brought directly onto the same line of sight with the object, the artist immediately sees the difference between what they think the color should be — and what it actually is.
This gives the painter an opportunity to correct the color on the spot, making it appear natural and harmonious in the context of the entire scene.

This method also helps avoid visual fatigue and loss of concentration, which beginners are often unprepared for.
They no longer need to constantly analyze color — a mentally exhausting task for those still learning.

In early training, when a student has not yet developed strong skills in color work, this challenge can lead to overload and frustration.
The direct comparison method eases the process, allowing the student to focus at first on a single skill: adjusting the color to match.
Over time, this strengthens their ability to perceive and understand color.

It’s also important to note that using this method speeds up the painting process by minimizing mistakes during the initial stages of color selection.
This reduces the need to repaint areas of the work.
Paintings become cleaner and more confident, since the artist isn’t constantly applying and correcting test patches of color.

And because less energy is spent on fighting with color, beginners are left with more time for refining the drawing, the composition, and other tasks.

This method helps protect the beginning painter from major errors, enables them to find correct color relationships in their work, sharpens their eye, and improves their ability to paint from memory or imagination.
With practice, accurate color understanding and control come quickly.

Over time, as their skills grow, the artist may no longer need direct comparison — but in the beginning, it’s a powerful way to accelerate learning and avoid many common disappointments.

The Direct Comparison Method and Creative Freedom

It is important to remember that visual art is not only about accurately reproducing reality — it is also a means of creative interpretation and of expressing the artist’s emotions and ideas.

Therefore, when learning the direct comparison method, the painter should strive not only for accuracy, but also for expressiveness and individuality of style.

An artist should not be limited to blind copying — they can, and should, make creative adjustments.
They must always remember their artistic freedom and their right to interpret color in a way that supports their intent and personal style.

A major advantage of the direct comparison method is that it gives the artist the ability to creatively reinterpret color — to make it more interesting, more expressive.

When working with the traditional method on a standard palette, it is much harder to do this.
The colors are perceived in isolation (affected by simultaneous contrast, color constancy, and so on).
It is unclear how the paint will actually fit into the painting.

The first strokes on the canvas don’t provide much clarity either — surrounded by the white of the canvas, the colors also appear isolated and overly contrasted.
All of this creates uncertainty, and as a result, the brain, in an effort to avoid mistakes, tends to follow the safer path — to simply copy the colors of the subject as they appear.
It’s easier, and less stressful.

The direct comparison method removes this uncertainty.
Even a beginner, through side-by-side comparison, can immediately see how to “push” a color so that it starts to resonate.
The artistic color correction needed to make a painting expressive becomes intuitive.

As a result, the painter begins to feel more freedom in choosing and using color.
A precisely matched color is just raw material.
True art begins when the artist starts to control color deliberately to achieve their creative goals.

Once they have objective information about the color of the subject, the artist can consciously deviate from it — intensifying or softening certain tones, adjusting saturation or brightness to create the desired emotional effect or mood.

They gain the ability to highlight key colors and direct the viewer’s attention to important parts of the composition, to soften background elements for harmony, or to introduce dissonance to express an emotional state.

Only after learning to see color relationships objectively can an artist improvise intentionally — creating personal, artistic interpretations of reality.

To see and understand true color is the foundation upon which the entire structure of painting is built.

Even experienced professionals may overlook subtle color nuances due to long-established habits.
They may have “blind spots” or unconscious routines they are not aware of.

In this case, direct comparison can serve as a tool for self-checking, helping the artist step outside their habitual perception.
It can “shake up” ingrained patterns and allow them to see color with fresh eyes — to re-evaluate their preferences and their approach.

The direct comparison method is a starting point that helps the artist better understand the real colors of objects and how they interact under specific lighting conditions.
It can be a powerful tool for rethinking and consciously working with color in representational art.

Applying the Method in Practice

When working on a painting, only a few thoughtful and precise color comparisons are needed at the very beginning.
It is important to establish the main tonal relationships and identify several base colors from the subject.

After that, the work can usually continue without further comparisons, as long as these relationships are maintained.
Once the key color areas are established, it becomes difficult to make a mistake — any incorrect tone will immediately stand out from the overall structure.

And even if the lighting conditions change — for example, the sun comes out or it gets darker — you can still continue working with confidence.
This is especially true if some of the original color mixes remain on the palette.

There are three main ways to use the direct comparison method in practice: