Realistic Color in Painting – Direct Comparison Method by Oleg Buiko

The ability to see the world in color is an incredible gift of evolution.
But do we actually see color as it truly is?
Unfortunately, no. Strictly speaking, “color” does not exist by itself in nature.

It is a brilliant illusion created by our brain as it processes light waves reflected from objects.
And this illusion is always subjective.
Our perception of color depends on many factors: lighting, surrounding shades, past experience, and even mood.

To avoid being overwhelmed by the flood of visual information, the brain constantly constructs and fills in our reality.
As a result, we don’t see an exact replica of the world, but rather a personal version of it.
This often creates problems for painters: our internal idea of an object’s color can be very different from what is actually there.

Fortunately, there is a way to bypass these perceptual traps.
The direct comparison method allows us to see and accurately reproduce color as it truly is.

But before we examine this method, let’s look behind the scenes of our vision and understand the main “distortions” that painters face:
simultaneous contrast,
color constancy,
color adaptation,
psychological color anchoring.
and the huge difference between the contrasts found in nature and the capabilities of our paints

Simultaneous Contrast: The Surroundings Decide Everything

One of the most deceptive traps of our vision is simultaneous contrast.
The idea is simple: the perceived color of an object changes significantly depending on what surrounds it.
Why does this happen?
It’s an ancient survival mechanism.
To help us spot a red fruit among green leaves or notice a snake in the grass, the brain evolved to enhance differences between adjacent colors.
It automatically “pushes” them further apart in our perception.
How does this work in practice?

Lightness:A dark spot on a light background appears even darker, and a light spot on a dark background appears even lighter

Hue:Any color pushes its neighbor toward its opposite on the color wheel. That’s why a red square on a green background looks even redder (and the green even greener) than it would on a neutral gray

Saturation: A bright color dulls its neighbor, while a pale one makes the neighboring color appear more saturated

A painter may mix the right color on the palette, but when it is surrounded by other paints or by the white of the canvas, it will always look different.
This often leads to errors in painting.
The distortion can be so strong that even experienced artists make serious mistakes in color perception.

(More examples of simultaneous contrast illusions at this link)

Color Adaptation: The Brain “Tweaks” Reality

Imagine your brain has a built-in invisible “Photoshop” that constantly adjusts colors depending on the lighting.
This is what we call color (or chromatic) adaptation.

Why does it exist?
So that we can recognize objects both at noon and at dusk.
Our vision automatically “subtracts” the color of the light (yellowish from a lamp, bluish from the sky) in order to show us the “true” color of the object — the way we know it.

A classic example is a white sheet of paper.
It appears white to us in sunlight, in the shade, or under artificial light.
But if we could see objectively, we would notice that its shade constantly changes.

Our brain insists on seeing the “familiar” color of the object, ignoring the actual lighting.
And this is where a painter can be misled.

For instance, the foliage of trees in sunlight and on a cloudy day represents two very different hues — but a beginner often paints them using more or less the same color.

Color Constancy: Do We See What We Know?

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

The world is full of countless color variations, and to avoid confusion, the brain takes a shortcut: it simplifies and sorts colors into basic categories (red, blue, green…), often ignoring subtler nuances.

The roots of this go back to childhood.
We learn: grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun is yellow.
These labels help us understand the world, but over time they become fixed stereotypes.

And here lies a trap for the painter: they look at the subject, but instead of seeing the actual colors, they see these learned symbols from their internal catalog.
A beginner, for example, may completely miss the cold gray-green hue of a tree trunk on a cloudy day and instead paint it with the “correct” brown from their childhood catalog.

In my teaching experience, I’ve encountered students whose habit of seeing in this way amounted almost to “color blindness” toward subtle shades.
Overcoming it — learning to see the real color rather than its symbolic stand-in — can require a great deal of effort.

Psychological anchoring: how to see the color and not the "apple"?

Perhaps one of the most important tasks for a painter is to learn how to separate color from the object itself.

In everyday life, we perceive the world through the lens of meaning — we see an object as a whole, automatically assigning it meaning, where color is just one of its characteristics.
For example, when we look at an apple, we don’t just see a range of red shades — we see “an Apple”: round, smooth, red, sweet, and so on.

Color is just one parameter.
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 all as “a red apple you can eat.”

As a result, a beginner often paints not what they see, but what they know.
The brain helpfully “fills in” the image, averaging the colors, smoothing the forms, and adjusting everything to match the familiar “correct” template.
In its attempt to simplify, it literally blurs the complexity of color and form, making them more “ideal” than they really are.
A beginner may paint the apple almost entirely with one red color — simply because they “know” it is red.

For an inexperienced painter, it is 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 cannot mentally link them: “This is an apple, and this is just a dab of paint — they have nothing to do with each other.”
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 spots.
Not associating the color with the meaning of the painted object.
(This is especially important in portrait painting.)
This is not easy, but direct comparison helps to break that link.

When you bring a sample of red paint up to the subject, on the same line of sight, “the Apple” stops being an apple, and the paint stops being paint.
You are left with two color patches that can be compared directly, without reference to what they “are.”
The “magic of objectness” disappears.
You simply compare color to color.

The Direct Comparison Method: How Does It Work?

So, we have examined the main traps of color perception.
How does the method of direct comparison help to overcome them?

For a long time, painters were deprived of the ability to compare colors directly — unlike professionals in applied fields.
In restoration, design, or printing, color samples are placed side by side and compared within the same field of view.
Everything happens simultaneously, without delays, guesswork, or reliance on memory.

Painting offered no such luxury.
The palette, the canvas, and the subject are located in different places and different surroundings.
The eye is constantly shifting between them.
The color is not compared directly, but rather through a short-term impression.
This is why accurate color rendering in painting is a much more difficult task.

The method of direct comparison solves this problem.
Its principle is surprisingly simple and effective:
the paint sample must be placed on the same line of sight as the subject, so that both colors can be seen side by side and at the same time.

What does this give us?
Such alignment eliminates the influence of different surroundings.
The paint and the subject are in the same color environment.
This allows the eye to compare the two colors objectively — without distortions or “interpretations” imposed by the brain.

Direct color comparison is a way to bypass the limitations of human perception.
It allows the painter to “switch off” the brain’s automatic mechanisms of adjusting color.
This is the fundamental difference from the traditional palette-based method.
With the traditional approach, the painter cannot see the colors simultaneously — they must compare them alternately, which often leads to mistakes.

We perceive color only by comparing it with the colors around it.
The brain doesn’t see a hue “in pure form”; it always evaluates how much lighter, warmer, or brighter it is compared to its surroundings.
This is the basis of how we see color.
So when two colors are next to each other, they are easiest to compare — and this is exactly what the method is built upon.

The area of sharp color vision in humans is very small.
Imagine a narrow beam from a flashlight — this roughly represents the zone in which we see color clearly.
This area fits within the width of your outstretched hand.
And the area of maximum visual acuity is even smaller — less than the width of your finger at arm’s length.
Outside these zones, color vision becomes much less accurate.

While working, a painter cannot clearly see both the subject and the palette at the same time if they are even slightly apart.
As the gaze moves from the object to the palette, the colors — each in their own context — begin to shift due to simultaneous contrast, color adaptation, and other effects.
Surrounded by other hues on the palette, a color will always appear different — even if it is technically correct.
That’s how contrasts work, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
It’s a fundamental property of our vision.

But when both the sample and the subject are placed on the same line of sight, they fall within the area of maximum color perception.
The painter no longer needs to rely on unreliable color memory or subjective impressions.
The eye sees both colors at once, in the same environment, and can objectively assess their differences.
This allows for precise and confident color correction right on the spot.

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 directly in line with the subject?
It seems logical and convenient.
In fact, artists throughout history have consciously or instinctively tried to match color directly.
However, such attempts proved ineffective for two reasons: the absence of a stable tool for comparison, and a lack of understanding of the need to synchronize the lighting between the paint and the subject.
Without these conditions, this way of working loses its meaning.

Stability of Comparison is a basic requirement for accurate color matching.
Let’s take a painter who tries to match a color using a brush for comparison.
Each time they check the color, they inevitably change the angle or position of the brush, and therefore the lighting on the paint.
Additionally, because the brush has volume and an uneven surface, different amounts of reflection fall on the paint.
This is enough for each new comparison to differ slightly from the previous one, creating the effect of a “floating” color.
The correct shade keeps “slipping away,” because each adjustment is made under slightly different conditions.
This leads to a large number of comparisons and accumulated errors.

The situation is similar with a palette knife.
Even a small change in the angle of the paint surface relative to the light source can significantly alter its lightness.
That’s why a palette knife also requires stable positioning during comparison — to avoid the same “slipping” effect.
The surface with the paint sample must return to the exact same position as before, ensuring the same amount of light hits it.
Only then can the color match be accurate and efficient.

Lighting Synchronization (Exposure)
Let’s assume the painter has achieved full stability and always returns the paint sample to the same position.
Even then, another issue arises — the difference in lighting between the working area and the subject.

Painters rarely work in ideal lighting conditions, such as a steady overcast day when the subject and the paint are lit almost identically.
More often, they work in situations where the lighting on the palette and on the subject differs significantly.
Suppose the painter is working on a portrait.
They are near the studio window, and the model is seated slightly farther away.

As is well known, illumination does not decrease linearly with distance — it decreases 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.
Triple the distance — and it decreases by a factor of nine.
So even a small change in distance can result in a major difference in brightness, even if we don’t consciously notice it.

More light falls on the painter’s working area than on the model.
When comparing the paint to the skin tone, the paint appears lighter.
The painter is then forced to darken all the paints so they match the tone in direct comparison.
As a result, all the colors in the portrait turn out darker than they should be.

If you bring the finished portrait close to the model, the difference will be obvious: the portrait will look too dark.
And the opposite is also true:
If the model is more brightly lit than the painter’s workspace (for example, by a strong lamp), the paint will appear darker in comparison.
The painter will instinctively lighten it, and the portrait will end up 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, tools are available that provide the necessary stability and allow for lighting synchronization. These make it possible for the artist to apply the direct comparison method effectively in practice. For more — see ChromaStick and the Disc Palette.)

Why Our Paints Can't Cope with Light and Shadow (and How to Help Them)

Every artist, especially one working from life, has faced the question — why, with pure white and deep black paints at their disposal, can they still not fully reproduce the entire range of tonal differences found in nature? Why does everything appear voluminous and radiant outdoors, yet the study we bring back to the studio usually looks dull and gray?

Everyone knows that artistic paints, unlike the sun or a lamp, do not emit light on their own, but only reflect it. This already creates a huge difference from the actively glowing objects of nature.
But that's not the main point. The core issue lies in the fundamental difference between the three-dimensional world and the two-dimensional surface of a painting.

In three-dimensional space, light is distributed over object surfaces very unevenly: one part may be blindingly lit, while another is plunged into deep 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 quite capable of reproducing the tonal brightness and depth of objects — if they are placed in the same lighting conditions as the real-life subjects.

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 (except, of course, for the sun and its highlights). And if we painted 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’s impossible to simultaneously create areas brightly lit by the sun and others immersed in deep shadow.

The tonal range available to paints is at most 30:1 (titanium white can reflect up to 97% of incoming light, black paint reflects about 3%).
At the same time, when on a flat surface, this ratio remains unchanged regardless of lighting. Whatever the lighting conditions — sun, shade, or indoors — the difference between the brightest and darkest areas will not exceed that 30:1.

This same limitation applies when trying to compare paint directly to nature. No matter the lighting, the difference between white and black paint on any flat surface remains the same — about 30:1.
We can rotate the palette, bring it closer to the object, or change the angle, but this thirtyfold contrast between white and black will not change.

Let’s take an example: an artist is painting a birch tree bathed in sunlight, along with its shadow in dense grass. If the comparison plane is turned toward the sun, they can easily match the white paint to the brightness of the lit side of the trunk.
But as soon as they try to match the deep shadow — even the darkest paint will appear too light. Sunlit black paint will be brighter than the shadow under the bush. In this plane, comparing shadows becomes impossible.

If, on the other hand, the plane is turned into shadow, everything flips: it becomes possible to match the shadow and halftones accurately, but the sunlit birch bark can no longer be matched — the white paint on the shaded side will appear darker than the trunk in sunlight.
This is the key point: if you keep the comparison plane in a fixed position, you can only accurately match either light or shadow, but not both at the same time. This is a limitation of the physics of light itself.

So how can an artist accurately match color in conditions of high contrast?

The solution – dynamic exposure: rotating the plane to match a specific light zone.
That is, the sample with paint must be lit by the sun or sky when comparing to light objects, and darkened when comparing to midtones and shadows.

In practice, this means that:
-for comparison with bright areas, the plane should be turned toward the light
-for comparison with midtones of nature — turned away from direct light
-for shadows — turned as much as possible into shadow

A simple rule — the brighter the object, the brighter the exposure of the paint on the comparison plane. And vice versa.

It is precisely this technique that allows you to radically "stretch" the working tonal range of paints far beyond the 30:1 limit, making direct comparison possible even under extreme contrast.

By the way, it was exactly this simple but crucial condition — setting the exposure of the comparison plane — that for a long time was not recognized by artists and actually hindered the spread of the direct color comparison method in painting.


Fixed and Dynamic Exposure

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

(Exposure – the level of illumination on the surface with paint)
With fixed exposure, it remains unchanged.
With dynamic — the artist rotates the surface toward the light or into the shadow, adjusting it to match the brightness of the area they are comparing to.

Fixed exposure works perfectly in situations where the scene fits within the tonal range of the paints themselves — about 30:1, from white to black. For example, when working with two-dimensional objects like photographs, screens of electronic devices, or when refining a sketch or painting.

You can also work with fixed exposure from life in studio conditions (still life, portrait), when the light is evenly distributed and the setup lacks sharp, deep shadows. When white paint is comparable in brightness to the light areas of the subject, and black paint to the shadows.

Fixed exposure is a complete comparison mode that allows you to match all three parameters — tone, color, and saturation — across the entire range, from the brightest to the darkest area.

Dynamic exposure is a practical compromise necessary when working with three-dimensional subjects and strong contrasts.
Due to physical limitations, tonal value here, unfortunately, cannot be captured directly. But if you adjust the lighting of the comparison surface to the brightness of the subject area, you can still accurately determine color and saturation.
The tone itself is then constructed manually — through a system of relationships on the canvas.

This technique allows for radically expanding the working range of direct comparison far beyond 30:1, while still staying within the limits of what paints can do.
(on the surface of the painting, all these “stretched” brightness values are once again perceived as the familiar 30:1)

By the way, this technique can also be intentionally used by the artist — for example, deliberately turning the plane deep into shadow so that comparison requires the paint to be lightened. This leads to a final color that is lighter, and shadows in the painting don’t "fall through", but retain color saturation and readability.
Thus, exposure adjustment works not only as a means of comparison but also as a tool of tonal correction already at the stage of color selection.

(For the practice of direct comparisons from life, a special special tool has been created for artists today, allowing them to work with exposure adjustment in mind.)

The Benefits of the Method in Learning: From Doubt to Confident Painting

One of the main problems faced by beginning artists is a lack of confidence and a poor understanding of color.
This often leads to procrastination — or to piles of “unfinished works” that remain incomplete due to errors.
Thanks to its objectivity and simplicity, the direct comparison method provides the artist with an intuitively understandable tool that helps reduce this uncertainty.
This is especially important in the early stages of learning, when mistakes can be very demotivating.

How does it work?
With the traditional method (from the palette), the beginner is surrounded by many unknowns.
Their brain must process several variables at once:
– Is this shade correct?
– Is it too dark or too light?
– Too saturated or not enough?
– Will it fit the overall color scheme? And so on.
Essentially, the student tries to guess the right color without a solid reference point.
This process requires constant mental effort, which leads to stress, uncertainty, fatigue, and mistakes.

With direct comparison, the question “is this the right color?” disappears — because the answer is visible.
The student simply sees what needs to be done.
Once the decision system becomes clear (“lighter or darker,” “warmer or cooler”), the process becomes simpler and less stressful.
The artist gains a reliable point of reference.
Instead of blindly searching, the student adjusts the color to where it needs to be.

What’s more, correct color relationships in the student’s work lead to convincing results — which, in turn, creates a positive feedback loop and increases motivation to keep learning and improving.
In the end, this helps the beginner overcome the fear of “getting it wrong,” reduces stress, and builds confidence in their work.
The main advantage of the method in early training is that it transforms color selection from an intuitive (and often error-prone) process into a conscious, controlled, and interactive action.

The transition from a childlike, intuitive perception of color to an informed, conscious one is an essential step in an artist’s development.
The direct comparison method helps the beginner move beyond vague ideas about color and teaches them to see it as it truly is.

And while a young painter studying at an art school may be told that their work is, for example, too saturated, muddy, or chalky — and may be able to correct it — a beginner who is self-taught may not have access to such informed guidance.

A self-taught artist may paint for years, or even decades, with overly intense color or a strong shift toward one temperature range, without understanding how to fix it.

The direct comparison method can help place them on the path to sound, well-structured painting.
Sometimes, making just a few copies of classical paintings or works by recognized masters is enough to trigger this correction almost automatically.

Each direct comparison is a small lesson in which the painter learns to see color objectively.
This skill becomes anchored in memory, forming a rich, realistic internal palette.
Over time, the artist begins to intuitively sense how a real color should look — even without directly comparing it to the subject.

Accuracy in color rendering is an important step, but not the final goal.
As skill develops, the artist naturally begins to seek personal forms of expression, experiment with color, and create more expressive and emotional work.
Eventually, the painter moves toward building their own unique visual language.

Additional Advantages of the Method in Learning

Using direct comparisons in painting helps prevent visual fatigue and loss of concentration — something many beginners are not prepared for.
The artist no longer has to constantly analyze color, which is extremely energy-consuming.
This is especially important for inexperienced painters, as they are often overwhelmed by the complexity of the task at the beginning of their training.

Direct comparison simplifies the process, allowing the student to focus for now only on the skill of adjusting color — a skill that, over time, will develop their overall color perception.

The method also helps eliminate the so-called “tunnel vision” effect.
A beginner, concentrating on one area of the painting, may psychologically exaggerate its importance and make the contrast or saturation too strong.
Inexperienced painters often perceive colors as more saturated and bright if they are associated with pleasant emotions (for example, the perfectly blue sky of imagination or the overly vivid green of an “ideal” meadow).
Trying to make their work more expressive and appealing, beginners often unintentionally exaggerate color intensity in an effort to convey emotion.
Direct comparison helps avoid these traps.
It shows the real difference between what the painter thinks the color is — and what it actually is.

Direct comparison also clearly speeds up the painting process.
It minimizes errors at the initial stage of color selection, eliminating the need to repaint areas of the canvas later.
The work becomes cleaner, since there are fewer adjustments and corrections.
And because working with color requires less effort, the beginner has more time for refining drawing, composition, and other tasks.

It’s also important to note that the student’s work automatically becomes more harmonious.
With direct comparison, each color is adjusted independently, without being based on the errors of previous colors.
As a result, the overall color harmony is built cleanly and confidently, without the accumulated distortions that often occur with traditional palette-based methods.

The traditional method of painting involves selecting one color that then serves as a reference point for choosing neighboring or related shades (so-called relational painting).
However, even a small error in choosing that first color can lead to distortion of the entire color scheme.
Each subsequent color is checked against the previous one.
If the first color was inaccurate, all the following colors will contain that same error — plus additional ones introduced during selection.

These mistakes can accumulate and multiply.
Each new error compounds the previous ones, distorting the overall picture.
As a result, even if the painter tries to fix things later, the errors are already embedded into the color harmony.

An experienced painter, with years of practice and developed intuition, may be able to turn these errors into a harmonious whole.
But a beginner, lacking sufficient experience, will almost always find that their work looks fragmented and disharmonious.
The traditional approach becomes labor-intensive for a beginner, requiring constant corrections and rarely delivering the desired result.

This method helps protect beginners from major mistakes, allowing them to find correct color relationships in their work, develop a sharp eye, and improve their ability to paint from memory or imagination.

A solid understanding of color and the ability to manage it will come quickly with practice.
Over time, as their skills grow, the artist may move beyond the need for direct comparison — but at the beginning, it is a powerful tool for accelerating learning and avoiding disappointment.

The Direct Comparison Method and Artistic Freedom

A fair question: doesn’t this method turn the artist into a mere copyist?
Doesn’t such precision kill creativity?

In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
The artist is not required to copy blindly — they can and should make their own creative adjustments.
A precisely matched color is just raw material.
Painting truly begins when the artist starts to shape and control that material to achieve their goals.

Once you have objective information about the color of the subject, you can deliberately shift it — enhance or mute certain tones, adjust saturation or brightness — to create the desired effect or express a particular mood.
An artist should always remember their creative freedom and their right to use color according to their own intent and style.

Direct comparison isn’t “paint-by-numbers.”
It’s more like learning the grammar of color.
Just as knowing the alphabet and grammar doesn’t prevent a writer from thinking or creating — it gives them the tools to do it — the same goes for a painter.

Only when you learn to see color relationships objectively can you begin to improvise consciously, building your own artistic version of reality.
Without this foundation, any color improvisation becomes a random collection of brushstrokes, disconnected and unstable.

Seeing and understanding true color — that’s the foundation everything in painting is built on.

And by the way, looking into the “mirror” of direct comparison is useful even for seasoned painters.
Over time, everyone develops habits, shortcuts, and blind spots.
Direct comparison is a great tool for self-checking — a way to shake off old patterns and take a fresh look at color.

Applying the Method in Practice

When working on a painting, just a few thoughtful and accurate color checks at the very beginning can make all the difference.
The key is to establish the main tonal relationships and a few basic hues from the subject.
After that, it’s often possible to continue the work without further comparisons — and still stay within the correct relationships.
Once the main color spots are in place, it becomes difficult to make a mistake — any incorrect color will stand out clearly against the established structure.

Even if lighting conditions change (for example, the sun comes out or it starts to get dark), you’ll be able to continue working confidently — especially if some of your base mixtures are still on the palette.

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