|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Color||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
merge from burnt sienna
I don't think there's enough to be said separately about the two to warrant separate articles. Enough of the description and images would be duplicated to make it not worth the effort. So they should be merged, and "burnt sienna" should just be one section of this article. --jacobolus (t) 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should be kept as is. When I needed to jog my noodle on what burnt sienna paint looks like, I put in "burnt sienna." I haven't ever noticed a tube of acrylic sienna paint, and would not have thought to put it in. With proper disambiguation, this would become less of an issue (and I did learn more about the basis of the pigment because of the "merge" header), but why not give it its own section. It has its own color code, after all. Kencomer (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the image descriptions for burnt and raw are switched around. I've always thought of raw as being lighter and more orangish, and burnt being darker and duller. Erp Erpington (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the labels seem reversed
- Raw sienna http://www.creativecoldsnow.com/browse.cfm/4,3681.html?AFF=BASE
- Burnt sienna http://www.creativecoldsnow.com/browse.cfm/4,3643.html
- Yes, the chart at http://www.goldenpaints.com/international/danish/products/color/conservation/msa1.php provided by User:Treedonkey with a recent correction confirms this. Barring reasonable objection I'll relabel the top image as raw sienna and the lower one as burnt. --CliffC (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, Crayola's crayon naming convention contradicts the "burnt is the darker one" perspective on the issue. Also I have read that the "chemical burning process" causes the color of sienna to become more vibrant. I would interpret that to mean lighter or brighter.
I see the error here still persists. Thanks for posting the crayola chart but there are two problems with relying on that for accuracy: 1) it's just another wiki article, and 2) the colors they show for both burnt and raw are light and do not match the pictures here. I contacted Michael Wilcox, Dean of the School of Color http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/philosophy.html to verify my own understanding and he said, "I have also tried to make the changes, also without success. I agree that they have the pictures the wrong way round." Some can someone PLEASE stop reverting the changes back once they are corrected again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedonkey (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Just about every colour chart available, including those of art material manufacturers who have been in business for over 100 years, right up to recent ones, also any suitable book on art or colour theory show that the burnt version of Sienna is the *lighter* colour. Presumably the error was introduced by an enthusiastic editor who knew little about pigments used in art and, instead, extrapolated a hypothesis from first-hand knowledge of what happens to paper, wood and other familiar carbon-based materials when they burn, i.e. they get darker. This is not so with many materials, including Sienna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- May I suggest you review this issue again? Sienna, like all yellow ochre pigments, turns reddish and darker when roasted, due to the formation of iron oxide. -- GRuellan Hmm? 05:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Removed Popular Culture section
Perhaps this was originally added tongue-in-cheek but if every Wikipedia page had to be footnoted with obscure pop groups that once happened to mention the subject in a line of a song, then I don't think even cyber-space would be big enough. I removed this section because it just didn't seem to have any direct relevance to the subject... SkinheadEscapes (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Pigment sienna raw iconofile.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Pigment sienna raw iconofile.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
Not just oil paints
"Sienna is a form of limonite clay most famous in the production of oil paint pigments."
Not so... the same pigments, as with just about *all* pigments used in art, are used for oil paints, watercolour paints, pastels and acrylics. The pigments are identical, it is the binders / mediums that vary between different paint / pastel types.
This is generally known by people familiar with art, pigments and paints and the role of an encyclopaedia should be to make the knowledge more widely known.
"Sienna is a form of limonite clay most famous in the production of pigments used in paints, including in oil, watercolour, acrylics and pastels." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sienna and web color Sienna
The color box at the top labeled as sienna has the same hex number as the web color sienna, but the RGB numbers and the numbers for HSV are quite different from those on the X11 web color list, though im not sure why. I think we should include the official Web color as described on the X11 color list, as is done in the major color articles, and check why the composition is different for the title box. SiefkinDR (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I looked at our list of web colours, and it gave hex A0522D for Sienna. I tried that on the forret.com converter and it called it "Sienna". So I've added it back in. But please check the RGB values, as I didn't. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned about some of the images that have recently been added here, and one older one. In general, I'm in favour of relevant images in articles; my concern is some of these may not be directly relevant:
- File:Monteriggioni0001.jpg: this indeed shows some earth near Siena (though the colour may have been bumped in Photoshop). But it is not the earth that was used as a pigment, which was mined from two deposits near Arcidosso (now in the Province of Grosseto, formerly in the Republic of Siena), about 90 km from there. I suggest removing this image.
- File:Pigment sienna burnt iconofile.jpg: this has been here for a while, but appears to show a colour quite unlike burnt sienna. I will try to upload a more realistic image in the near future.
- File:Giorgio Vasari II - The Last Supper - Walters 371177.jpg: this is indeed a painting by Vasari, and he does indeed mention earth pigments. But without a reliable source that attests to the interpretation given by by scholars to terra gialla and terra rossa, and a reliable source that confirms that sienna pigments were used to make this particular painting, the image and caption look a bit like WP:SYNTH. I suggest either supplying those sources or removing the image.
- Pretty much the same argument applies to File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg: is there a reliable source that states that this painting uses sienna colours? The reference for the general statement that he used them is a blog site, so probably not reliable (even if it is the Smithsonian); but that should be easy to replace with a better source.
You've made some very good points, and I've tried to address them.
-The image of Tuscan farmland is included to show that the earth of that region is rich in clay with limonite and haematite that are the ingredients of sienna pigment. They give it the characteristic color.
-I've switched from the Last Supper because I don't have a citation for the composition of that picture (though it is certainly done with sienna and ochre) to one of the paintings in the Hall of the Five Hundred. These are cited in Web Exhibits - Pigments through the Ages as an example of red ochre, or sienna. (As Web Exhibits notes, they have the same ingredient, hematite, and the same color.)
I'm also completely perplexed by the Maerz and Paul colour; that is nothing like the artist's colour burnt sienna. Is theirs a catalogue of wall-paints, perhaps? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
-I have the same problem with Rembrandt. I have two good sources that say Rembrandts paintings used the earth colors, including raw and burnt sienna, but the sources don't cite specific paintings. The umber in this picture is easily seen, and the reddish colors are either sienna or crimson lake or more likely both. Perhaps someone else can get a breakdown of the pigments in a specific picture. But since Rembrandt is the most famous and documented user of sienna, I think one of his pictures should be included.
-I agree with your comment about the Maerz and Paul color- I think it's either a mistake or a poor reproduction of a paint swatch. It doesn't look like any burn sienna I've ever seen. I would take it down. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)