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 really is? Unfortunately, we do not. Strictly speaking, “color” itself does not exist in nature.

It is an ingenious 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 hues, past experience, and even our mood.

To keep from drowning in a sea of visual information, the brain is constantly constructing and completing reality. As a result, we do not see an exact copy of the world, but rather our own personal version of it. This often creates difficulties for artists: our internal conception of an object’s color may differ greatly from what is actually there.

Fortunately, there is a way to avoid these traps of perception. The direct comparison method makes it possible to see and reproduce the visible color of the subject much more accurately. It allows us either to reproduce that color faithfully to the subject or, using the color observed in the subject as a basis, to modify it in a controlled way according to the artistic objective.

But first, let us look “behind the scenes” of our vision and examine the main sources of “interference” artists encounter:
Simultaneous contrast,
Color adaptation,
Memory color.

Simultaneous Contrast: Surroundings Determine Everything

One of the most insidious traps of our vision is simultaneous contrast.
The principle is simple: our perception of an object’s color can change dramatically depending on what surrounds it.
Why does this happen? It is an ancient survival mechanism.
To make it easier to spot a red fruit among green leaves or a snake in the grass, our brain evolved to enhance the differences between adjacent colors.

In our perception, it automatically “pushes” them farther apart.
This helps us see boundaries and variations in color more clearly and makes it easier to recognize objects under difficult conditions.
How does this work in practice?

Lightness:
A dark area against a light background appears even darker, while a light area against a dark background appears even lighter.
Color:
The color of the surroundings often visually “pushes” an adjacent hue in the opposite direction. This is why a red square against a green background looks even redder, and the green even greener, than it does against a neutral gray background.
Saturation:
A saturated color usually “mutes” an adjacent color, while a low-saturation color, conversely, makes the adjacent color appear more saturated.

An artist mixing paint on a palette may obtain the desired hue, but when surrounded by other paints or by the white canvas, that 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 often make serious mistakes.

(More examples of simultaneous contrast illusions at this link)

Color Adaptation: The Brain “Tweaks” Reality

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

Why? So that we can recognize objects in light and shadow, at bright midday and at twilight.
Our vision unobtrusively adapts to any lighting. The brain works like a built-in “auto white balance”: it seems to subtract the yellow tint of an evening lamp or the bluish cast of the sky from the image. Because of this constant automatic adjustment and analysis of the surrounding scene, objects appear to retain their familiar color, both in the dim light of a room and in bright sunlight.

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

Our vision persistently strives to preserve an object’s familiar color, smoothing out the effects of the actual lighting.
And this is where the trap lies for the artist.
For example, a white wall in the light and in cool shadow may have two very different hues, yet a beginning artist often paints them too similarly because they continue to see the wall as simply white.

Memory Color: The Traps of “Familiar Color”

Another trick of the brain is its habit of attaching “color labels” to objects.
This is our tendency to see not the object’s actual hue, but its “usual,” familiar color.

The world is full of countless variations in color, and to keep from becoming confused, the brain resorts to a trick: it simplifies and sorts colors onto “shelves” (red, blue, green...), often ignoring subtler nuances.

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

And this is where the trap lies for the artist: they look at the subject, but instead of its actual colors, they see these “learned” symbols from their own catalog.

For example, a beginning artist may completely fail to notice the cool gray-green hue of a tree trunk on an overcast day and, out of habit, paint it the “correct” brown from their “childhood catalog.”

In my practice, I have encountered students whose habit of seeing in this way had developed into genuine “color blindness” to certain hues. Overcoming it and learning to see the actual color rather than its symbol can sometimes require considerable effort.

So How Do We See the Color Rather Than the Apple?

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

For example, when we look at an apple, we see not merely a collection of red hues, but an “Apple”: round, smooth, red, sweet, and so on. Color here is only one of its attributes.

And our knowledge of the object often prevents the artist from seeing it as a combination of specific color patches.

Instead of noticing a complex composition of red hues, shadows, and reflected colors, the brain perceives all of this as “a red apple that can be eaten.”

As a result, a beginning artist often paints not what they see, but what they know. The brain obligingly “completes” the image, averages the colors, and smooths the colors, and smooths out the forms, adjusting them to fit 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 entirely in a single red color because they “know” that it is red.

It is psychologically difficult for an inexperienced artist to connect the color of an object with the color of paint.

They see an apple in front of them and a red patch on the palette, but cannot connect the two in their mind: “This is an apple, and this is just a patch of paint. They have nothing to do with each other.” They do not see the familiar object in the paint.

Painting requires, to some extent, the isolation of color, the ability to see it in abstraction, as a collection of patches, without associating the color with the meaning of the object being painted. This is particularly important in portraiture.

This is not easy, but direct comparison helps to “break” this connection. When you bring a sample of red paint up to the subject so that they are on the same line of sight, the “Apple” ceases to be an apple, and the paint ceases to be paint.

Before you are two color patches that can be compared directly, without regard to their meaning as objects. The “magic of objecthood” disappears. You simply compare color with color.

The Direct Comparison Method. How Does It Work?

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

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, these conditions do not exist. The palette, the canvas, and the subject are located in different places and different surroundings. The artist’s gaze constantly moves between them. Color is compared not directly, but through a fleeting impression. This makes color rendering in painting a much more difficult task.

The direct comparison method solves this problem. Its principle is simple and effective: a paint sample must be placed in the same line of sight as the relevant area of the subject so that both colors can be seen side by side and simultaneously.

What does this achieve? This alignment largely eliminates the difference between two separate color surroundings. The paint and the area of the subject being compared end up in practically the same color environment. This allows the eye to compare the two colors objectively, without significant distortions or “corrections” by the brain.

Direct color comparison is a way to bypass some limitations of human perception. It does not literally switch off our visual mechanisms, but it noticeably reduces the influence of the traps described above: color adaptation, memory color, and different color surroundings.

*******

The area of sharp color vision in humans is very small. Imagine a narrow beam from a flashlight. The area in which we see color clearly is similarly limited. It fits within the palm of an outstretched hand.
And the area of maximum visual acuity is narrower than the width of your finger at arm’s length.
Color vision outside these areas is far less acute.

While working, an artist is unable to see the colors of the subject and the palette clearly at the same time if they are some distance apart.
And when the artist shifts their gaze from the subject to the palette, the comparison inevitably begins to rely on a short-lived color impression, while each color continues to be perceived in isolation.

We perceive color not in itself, but in the context of the surrounding colors. This is one of the principles of color vision.
Therefore, surrounded by other paints on the palette, canvas, and in the subject, the same color will always look different.
This is how simultaneous contrast works, and nothing can be done about it. It is a fundamental property of our vision.

But when the paint and the subject are placed along the same line of sight, they both fall within the area of maximum central vision. The eye sees the two colors simultaneously, within the same color surroundings. The artist does not need to shift their gaze and can directly assess the differences between them.
This makes it possible to correct color properly and control it with confidence.

The Two Pillars of the Direct Comparison Method: Stability and Lighting Synchronization

Have you ever wondered why artists do not compare color simply by bringing a paint-loaded brush into the same line of sight as the subject? It would seem logical and convenient.

In fact, artists from different periods have consciously or instinctively tried to match color directly. However, these attempts remained isolated and never developed into a stable system. Historical examples of such attempts, from Leonardo to Ruskin, Collier, Krymov, and contemporary artists, are collected in a separate article.

It is the combination of stable positioning of the sample and deliberate adjustment of its illumination that turns individual comparisons into a stable and reproducible method.

Stability of comparisons is a basic requirement for accurate color matching. Let us take the same artist who is trying to match the required hue using a brush for comparison.

Each time the artist checks the color, they inevitably change the angle of the brush, its position, and, consequently, the lighting of the paint. In addition, because of the brush’s three-dimensional and uneven shape, different amounts of reflected light fall on the paint. This is enough for each new color comparison to differ slightly from the previous one, creating the effect of a “floating” color.

The correct hue will constantly elude the artist because each subsequent adjustment will be made under conditions slightly different from the previous ones. This leads to numerous comparisons and an “approximate” quality in the work.

The situation is similar with a palette knife. Even a slight change in the angle of the plane holding the paint relative to the light source can significantly alter its lightness, which in turn slightly changes the color of the sample each time. Therefore, the palette knife must also be held in a stable position for every measurement to avoid the effect of an “elusive” color during comparisons.

The plane holding the paint sample must return to the same position it occupied during the previous comparison, ensuring exactly the same amount of light on its surface. In this case, color matching will be accurate and quick.

But there is an even more important aspect:

Lighting Synchronization

Artists rarely work under ideal lighting conditions, such as a consistently overcast day when painting en plein air, when the paint and the subject are illuminated almost identically. Far more often, they work under conditions in which the lighting of the working area and the subject differs significantly.

Suppose the artist is painting a still life. The artist works near the studio window, while the arrangement is positioned a little farther away. As is well known, illumination decreases not simply with distance, but with the square of the distance. This means that if you move twice as far away from the light source, the illumination decreases fourfold. If you move three times as far away, it decreases ninefold. Therefore, even a small difference in distance from the light source is very significant, although we do not always notice it.

More light falls on 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 will be forced to darken all the paints so that they match in value. As a result, all the paints in the picture will be darker than necessary. If the finished work is brought up to the subject, the difference will become obvious: the painting will look too dark.

Conversely, if the arrangement is illuminated more strongly than the artist’s working area, for example by a bright lamp, the paints will appear darker during comparison. The artist will automatically lighten them, and the resulting work will be too light and chalky.

The solution to this problem is to control the illumination of the paint sample itself. Since we cannot always change the lighting of the still life, we can change the angle of the plane holding the paint. This is how the lighting adjustment of the sample is carried out.

It works just as it does with a sheet of paper: turn it toward the window, and it becomes dazzlingly white; turn it away into the shade, and it becomes gray.

This relationship had been noticed before. John Ruskin advised changing the tilt of a card relative to the light and placing the drawing under the same lighting, while John Collier warned that the color of the paint on a palette knife changes when the knife is turned toward the light. However, they did not propose a systematic way to control this difference. More details can be found here and here.

By controlling the angle of the plane holding the paint sample, we can artificially “add” or “reduce” the light on the paint, thereby synchronizing its illumination with that of the subject.

This adjustment has a fundamental effect on the final result of the painting. A simple inverse relationship is at work here:

If we turn the plane holding the paint sample toward the light, the paint on it becomes brighter. To obtain a visual match with the subject through direct comparison, we will have to mix a darker paint so that it matches the subject’s color. As a result, when working with the plane adjusted in this way, the entire painting will be shifted toward darker values.

If we turn the plane away from the light, the paint on it becomes darker. To match the subject, we will have to mix lighter paints. With this adjustment, the entire painting will be lighter.

In short:
More light on the sample means a darker painting.
Less light on the sample means a lighter painting.

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

It was this simple but important condition, the adjustment of the lighting of the comparison plane, that remained unrecognized by artists for a long time and effectively hindered the spread of the direct color comparison method in painting.

Such attempts invariably encountered a fundamental problem: a mismatch between the illumination of the paints and the subject. Without synchronizing them, the painting turned out either very dark or very light, and direct comparisons lost their meaning.

Fixed and Dynamic Adjustment.

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

With a fixed lighting adjustment, the illumination of the plane holding the paint sample is matched once to the illumination of the subject by rotating it relative to the light source, and is then kept unchanged throughout the entire session.

A fixed lighting adjustment works very well under conditions where the scene falls within the tonal range of the paints themselves. For example, when working from a photograph, from the screen of an electronic device, or when refining a painting.

A fixed lighting adjustment can also be used en plein air or in the studio (still life, portrait), when the light is soft and there are no sharp, deep shadows in the setup. When white paint is comparable in brightness to the light areas of the subject, and black paint to the deep shadows.

A fixed adjustment is a full-fledged comparison mode that makes it possible to evaluate all three main parameters simultaneously: lightness, hue, and saturation. More details in the video below.

(The direct comparison technique will work with any flat tool, such as an ordinary palette knife, provided that its position is stable and its illumination is synchronized. However, specialized tools with adjustable exposure are more convenient. For more — see ChromaStick and the Disc Palette )

Dynamic Lighting Adjustment

Under conditions of strong contrast, for example when painting en plein air in sunlight, fixed adjustment is no longer sufficient. A different approach is required: the artist turns the plane holding the paint toward the light or into shadow, adjusting its illumination to the brightness of the specific area of the subject with which it is being compared.

Dynamic adjustment of the paint sample’s illumination is a practical compromise required when working from life under conditions of strong contrast. Because of physical limitations, it is unfortunately impossible to match the value of every area of the subject directly under these conditions. The reasons for this paradox are discussed below.

But if the illumination of the plane is adjusted to the brightness of the area of the subject being compared, the color and saturation can be determined quite accurately. The value itself is then established in the usual way, through a system of relationships on the palette and canvas.

This technique radically expands the usable range of paints for comparison. More details on working with dynamic illumination adjustment are provided in the video above.

The artist can also control this technique deliberately. For example, the plane can be turned as far into shadow as possible so that the comparison requires the paint to be lightened. As a result, the final color becomes lighter, and the shadows in the painting do not “sink”: they retain their color saturation and remain clearly readable.

In this way, the technique can serve as a tool for tonal correction even at the color-matching stage.

The Tonal Paradox: Why Our Paints Cannot Cope with Light and Shadow (and How to Help Them)

Every artist who works from life has faced the question: why, even with the whitest whites and deepest blacks at our disposal, is it impossible to fully reproduce the entire tonal range of nature?
Why does everything look three-dimensional and luminous when painting en plein air, 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 themselves, but only reflect it. This alone creates an enormous difference from luminous objects in nature.
But this is not the main point. The main reason is the fundamental difference between the three-dimensional world and the two-dimensional plane of a painting.

In three-dimensional space, light is distributed very unevenly across the surfaces of objects: one area may be dazzlingly illuminated, while another is immersed in deep shadow. Thanks to adaptation, human vision can easily perceive this enormous range (the difference between light and shadow can easily reach 1000:1 or more).

The paradox is that our paints themselves are quite capable of reproducing the brightness of light surfaces and the depth of dark ones if they are placed under the same lighting conditions as the objects in nature.

Imagine, for example, that we painted the bark of a birch tree with titanium white. In sunlight, it would become incredibly bright, perhaps the brightest object in the forest (except, of course, for the sun itself and its reflections). And if we covered the ground beneath a dense, shady bush with black paint, that area would look like a black hole.

However, a painting is a flat, two-dimensional surface. It is impossible to create real relief on it in which some areas are brightly illuminated while others are simultaneously in deep shadow.

The tonal range available to paints is approximately 30:1 (titanium white can reflect up to 97% of the incident light, while black paint reflects about 3%).
At the same time, on a flat surface this ratio remains unchanged under any lighting. Whatever conditions the study is placed in, whether in sunlight, in shade, or indoors, the difference between its lightest and darkest areas will not exceed this 30:1 ratio.

The same limitation applies when attempting to compare paint directly with the subject. Whatever the lighting, the difference between white and black paint on any flat surface will remain unchanged, at about 30:1. We can rotate the plane and change its angle, but this thirtyfold difference between white and black will not change.

Consider an example: an artist is painting a birch tree flooded with sunlight and its own shadow in dense grass. If the comparison plane is facing the sun, the artist can easily match white paint to the brightness of the illuminated side of the trunk.
But as soon as the artist tries to match a deep shadow, even the darkest paint will be too light. Black paint illuminated by the sun will be brighter than the shadow beneath the bush. With the plane in this position, direct comparison with deep shadows becomes impossible.

If the plane is turned away into the shade, the opposite happens: it becomes possible to match the colors of the shadows and middle tones, but the sunlit birch bark can no longer be matched. White paint on the shaded plane will be darker than the trunk in sunlight.

This is the key point: under conditions of strong contrast, if the sample plane is kept in one fixed position, it is possible to match either the bright lights or the deep shadows directly, but not the entire range at the same time. This is a limitation imposed by the physics of light itself.

This leads to the solution — dynamic adjustment of the sample illumination: turning the plane to suit a specific lighting zone.
In other words, when comparing with light objects, the paint sample needs to be illuminated more strongly by turning it toward the sun or sky. When comparing with middle tones and shadows, the plane is gradually turned away from the light.

A short rule — the lighter the object, the more we turn the plane with the paint toward the light when making comparisons. And vice versa.

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

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 in their abilities and a poor understanding of color. This often leads to procrastination or stacks of “unfinished works” that remain incomplete because of mistakes.

Thanks to its objectivity and simplicity, the direct comparison method gives the artist an intuitively understandable tool that relieves some of this uncertainty. This is especially important in the early stages of learning, when mistakes can be highly demotivating.

When working from the palette in the traditional way, a beginning artist, especially one who is self-taught, proceeds almost at random, relying more on memory and knowledge of the subject. Without a point of reference, every mixture becomes guesswork, which quickly becomes exhausting and leads to mistakes. John Collier noted that, for a beginner, directly comparing paint with the subject is one of the most reliable ways to reproduce natural hues.



With direct comparison, the question “Is this the right color?” no longer arises, because the answer is apparent: the student can simply see the actual difference between the colors.
Once the logic of the adjustments becomes clear (“darker or lighter,” “warmer or cooler”), the process becomes much easier. The artist gains a reliable point of reference. The student is no longer blindly searching for the right hue, but consciously refines it to the desired state or alters it in accordance with the artistic objective.

Moreover, correct color relationships in a student’s work lead to a convincing result, which in turn can increase their motivation to learn and improve.
Ultimately, this helps beginners overcome the fear of “getting 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 matching from an intuitive and often error-prone process into a conscious, controlled, 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 direct comparison method will help a beginning artist move beyond vague ideas about color and teach them to see it objectively.

A young artist at art school may be told, for example, that their work is too saturated, muddy, or chalky, allowing them to correct their painting. A beginning amateur artist, however, may have no knowledgeable advisers to offer such guidance.

A self-taught artist may spend years, even decades, painting, for example, with colors that are too saturated or muddy, with a bias toward one side of the temperature spectrum, without even noticing it. Direct comparison can open the artist’s eyes to such errors and put them on the right track toward competent work with color.
Sometimes it is enough to make a few studies from life, copies of classical works, or copies of works by recognized masters for this kind of correction to occur automatically.

Using direct comparisons in one’s work can help prevent visual fatigue and loss of concentration, for which a beginner is often unprepared. The artist does not have to analyze color constantly, a process that requires an enormous amount of energy.

This is especially important for inexperienced artists because, at the beginning of their training, they are often overwhelmed by the complexity of the task. Direct comparisons make the process easier, allowing the student to focus initially on the clear and understandable skill of matching color. Gradually, this practice develops more refined color vision and the ability to evaluate hues independently.

In my experience working with students, beginning artists often unconsciously intensify the saturation and brightness of their paints in an effort to make the work more expressive and emotional. Instead of painting the complex world of hues, they continue for a long time to use familiar color symbols formed in childhood.

This method will protect the beginning artist from serious mistakes, make it possible to find correct color relationships in their work, and gradually improve their ability to work with color more consciously and freely.

With regular practice, a correct understanding of color and the ability to control it can develop much faster. Over time, as the artist’s skill grows, they will be able to stop using direct comparisons, but in the early stages, this is a powerful way to accelerate learning and avoid many disappointments.

Direct comparison is also useful for experienced artists. Over time, everyone develops their own techniques and formulas, as well as unconscious blind spots. Direct comparison is an excellent means of self-assessment, an opportunity to shake up familiar patterns and look at color with fresh eyes.

The Direct Comparison Method and Creative Freedom

A natural question arises: won’t such a method turn the artist into a mere copyist? Won’t precision kill the freedom of imagination?

In fact, rather the opposite. The artist is not obliged to limit themselves to blind copying, but can and should make their own creative adjustments.

If only because exact copying quickly reveals its limits: after just a few studies from life, the artist no longer wants simply to repeat the color, but to select, intensify, and organize it.

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

Having obtained objective information about the color of an object, the artist can consciously depart from it, intensifying or muting certain colors, changing saturation and brightness to create the desired effect or convey a particular mood.

The artist should always remember their creative freedom and their right to work with color in accordance with their own intention and style. Accurately perceived color is only a foundation on which painting can be built with confidence. Without reference to the observed colors of the subject, any color fantasy often turns into a random collection of brushstrokes.

It is important to understand: the direct comparison method is not a way to paint the entire picture, but a way to establish its color framework. It is enough to find several basic colors that will set the overall structure of the painting, after which the work continues within those relationships — the color scheme, nuances, and generalizations are developed in the usual way.

Applying the Method in Practice

When working on a painting, only a few thoughtful and accurate color matches are needed at the initial stage. It is important to establish the main tonal relationships correctly and identify several basic hues of the subject. These should preferably be established at the beginning of the session, while the lighting remains sufficiently stable. After that, the work can be continued properly even without measurements, without departing from the relationships already found.

Once the main color patches have been established, it becomes difficult to make a serious mistake because it will clearly stand out from the overall structure. Even if the lighting conditions later change, for example if the sun appears or it grows darker, you will still be able to continue working properly. This is especially true if unused mixtures of the basic colors remain on the palette.

There are three main ways of working with the comparison method: