What do you mean by that?

[joerobson]

Based on recent discussion one of my pet peeves has reared its ugly head again. To this end I think we need a more specific discussion of the materials we use. Personally I am not in need of in depth clinical scientific definitions. More important, I think, is developing a common understanding of what we collectively think of as the components of the varnish system. Demystified language is a wonderful thing. I will be participating in the Makers' Forum at VSA. Two of the sessions will have the topic "What do you mean by that?" So perhaps we should start now....

On the subject of mass tone and pigmentation. What do I mean by that?

Zero mass tone = as close to water clear as possible. So anything we add to the liquid builds mass tone. The trick is to know how much to add and when.

I find the differentiation between "transparent" and "non-transparent" pigments misleading. As far as I can understand these are terms more suited to oil painting than violin varnishing.

So, what do I mean by that?

Particulate matter [size, hue, and origin are immaterial] adds mass tone and subtracts from transparency. If transparency is a goal in varnishing, then control of mass tone is critical. But pigments are particles and you can't see through them. Nature of the beast..... So I as far as I am concerned they are all rocks of some sort floating in the varnish.

on we go,

Joe

[Michael Darnton]

I don't think your definition matches that used in painting, where mass tone is the color of a pigment when it's applied thick, and undertone is the color of the pigment laid thin. Most painters' pigments have identical mass and undertone, in which special case your definition would work, but there are many which are different thin or thick, in which case the mass tone is ONLY the thick tone.

[Matthew Noykos]

I agree Joe. I often feel like some of these discussions (particularly varnish ones) are just going in circles because people are either saying the same thing or completely missing the boat. All because no one has the same terminology. It would be nice to have actual examples for qualitative terminology though. I don't know how that would be feasible though in a situation like Maestronet.

[joerobson]

I don't think your definition matches that used in painting, where mass tone is the color of a pigment when it's applied thick, and undertone is the color of the pigment laid thin. Most painters' pigments have identical mass and undertone, in which special case your definition would work, but there are many which are different thin or thick, in which case the mass tone is ONLY the thick tone.

Michael,

Yes, what you say is true...and pertinent to a discussion among painters. The painters have a good language. We do not. For our purposes I find the simplified concept more useful.

Joe

[Michael Darnton]

If the painters already have a language with a well-defined vocabulary, and in this instance, it seems to work, since it describes a situation involving varnish particularly well, is it really necessary that we steal their words, and give them new, different meanings, when the ones they already have are old, understood, and work? Having stolen their terms for how paints act when thin and thick and redefined them in an incompatible way, now you have to write a new term for something they've already explained and defined with their words.

If that's how it's going to be, you can count me out. We need to build on what's already understood in other fields; we do not need to make ours different and incompatible by using old words in new ways that confuse anyone outside the field who already knows the way the words are defined in other fields.

You picked a particularly good place to start the discussion with, I'll say that!

[Bill Yacey]

What's wrong with hue, saturation, transparent and opaque? I think this covers the parameters we are interested in, and are direct and to the point. It really bothers me when someone tries to confuse and obscure something that can be described in very simple terms.

[joerobson]

If the painters already have a language with a well-defined vocabulary, and in this instance, it seems to work, since it describes a situation involving varnish particularly well, is it really necessary that we steal their words, and give them new, different meanings, when the ones they already have are old, understood, and work? Having stolen their terms for how paints act when thin and thick and redefined them in an incompatible way, now you have to write a new term for something they've already explained and defined with their words.

If that's how it's going to be, you can count me out. We need to build on what's already understood in other fields, not make ours different and incompatible by using old words in new ways that confuse anyone outside the field who already knows the way the words are defined in the real world.

Michael,

I think we need to agree to disagree. There are well defined languages in chemistry, varnish making, painting, optics, physics, and cooking....all of which have parallels to violin varnishing. These languages work well for painters and chemists and cooks. However the bulk and differing goals of these languages has contributed to the confusion surrounding violin varnish. All I intend is that people understand what I am saying when I say it. If there is a better term, I am willing to adopt it. In the meantime, at least you know what I am saying.

on we go,

Joe

[joerobson]

What's wrong with hue, saturation, transparent and opaque? I think this covers the parameters we are interested in, and are direct and to the point. It really bothers me when someone tries to confuse and obscure something that can be described in very simple terms.

Bill,

Good examples.

As I use the terms....

Hue is the color, independent of the source of the color.

Saturation is a murky [forgive me on that one] term for me. How do you use it in varnish terms?

Transparent vs opaque works as well as the use of mass tone or the lack of mass tone. I have found that discussion of varnish using these terms has been confused [loaded? obscured?] by past confusion and discussions ....Your varnish is too opaque, Your varnish is too transparent...I like the terms better, but not the baggage they carry.

Joe

[Janito]

Some observations from a 'know nothing'...

- Descriptive terminology without objective linkages will be fraught with potential confusion.

- In other words, can mass tones be defined quantitatively?

- If not, then Bill Yacey's simple classification is immediately understandable

[Craig Tucker]

Michael,

I think we need to agree to disagree. There are well defined languages in chemistry, varnish making, painting, optics, physics, and cooking....all of which have parallels to violin varnishing. These languages work well for painters and chemists and cooks. However the bulk and differing goals of these languages has contributed to the confusion surrounding violin varnish. All I intend is that people understand what I am saying when I say it. If there is a better term, I am willing to adopt it. In the meantime, at least you know what I am saying.

on we go,

Joe

Well, as an example, it's easy to see that the phrase "tone weight" has already been misunderstood by most posters, and that they think something from slightly to very different from individual poster to individual poster about what is being discussed using that phrase.

Perhaps if we all agree on one specific set of definitions, we can at least learn what it is we are agreeing or disagreeing about - which currently I do not believe is happening. If we adopt the already rigidly defined language of classical art training (say, terms as defined by the Artists Handbook - or some such other text), then we will not have to compile our own dictionary, and invent our own specialized language- which we would have to do, if we redifine basic art/physics/and ordinary related terms to suit our particular violin related needs...

Either way will work, but one way (using an already established nomenclature) is a whole bunch less labor intensive and the other way (substituting our own specialized definitions) would never happen in any case.

[Janito]

So what I am trying to say is, use the parameters that can be measured and are relevant to varnishing to establish the terminological parameters needed.

----------

no gaffaw intended.

[David Beard]

If the painters already have a language with a well-defined vocabulary, and in this instance, it seems to work, since it describes a situation involving varnish particularly well, is it really necessary that we steal their words, and give them new, different meanings, when the ones they already have are old, understood, and work? Having stolen their terms for how paints act when thin and thick and redefined them in an incompatible way, now you have to write a new term for something they've already explained and defined with their words.

If that's how it's going to be, you can count me out. We need to build on what's already understood in other fields; we do not need to make ours different and incompatible by using old words in new ways that confuse anyone outside the field who already knows the way the words are defined in other fields.

You picked a particularly good place to start the discussion with, I'll say that!

Yes!! It's confusing to diverge from the general pigments and paints vocabulary when there isn't a need.

[joerobson]

Well, as an example, it's easy to see that the phrase "tone weight" has already been misunderstood by most posters, and that they think something from slightly to very different from individual poster to individual poster about what is being discussed using that phrase.

Perhaps if we all agree on one specific set of definitions, we can at least learn what it is we are agreeing or disagreeing about - which currently I do not believe is happening. If we adopt the already rigidly defined language of classical art training (say, terms as defined by the Artists Handbook - or some such other text), then we will not have to compile our own dictionaty, and invent our own specialized language- which we would have to do, if we redifine basic art/physics/and ordinary related terms to suit our particular violin related needs...

Either way will work, but one way (using an already established nomenclature) is a whole bunch less labor intensive and the other way (substituting our own specialized definitions) would never happen in any case.

So we are making progress....We now have

Hue

Transparent

Opaque

Agreed?

on we go,

Joe

[Janito]

So what I am trying to say is, use the parameters that can be measured and are relevant to varnishing to establish the terminological parameters needed.

I realised too late that I had erased my previous post - oh well.

[joerobson]

So let's take this up a notch....

Ground.

What do I mean by that?

Non-film forming material applied to the wood after physical surface preparation and before the application of film forming materials... including the introduction of colorants to the prepared wood.

on we go,

Joe

[David Beard]

I don't think your definition matches that used in painting, where mass tone is the color of a pigment when it's applied thick, and undertone is the color of the pigment laid thin. Most painters' pigments have identical mass and undertone, in which special case your definition would work, but there are many which are different thin or thick, in which case the mass tone is ONLY the thick tone.

We aren't the first or the only community to tromp through these issues.

While modern pigments and paint vendors often strive to make the mass tone and undertone equal, part of the appeal and special character of actual natural ground historical pigments is how mass and undertone DON'T neccesarily match. We do ourselves a disservice to confuse issues of transparency versus opacity with issues of change in the apparent color tone between thick and thin applications. Similarly, we probably shouldn't reinvent vocubabularies of hue or transparency, as both are highly develop in other fields --both arts and science.

transparency and pigments

[Janito]

So what I am trying to say is, use the parameters that can be measured and are relevant to varnishing to establish the terminological parameters needed.

- Apply material to standardised glass plate

- Determine parameters to be measured (for example by turbidimetry)

- Define parameters based on readings: Ground = material with quantitative values of 0-14.0 (or whatever); Varnish = material with quantitative values from 14.1-27.0; mud = material with quantitative values from 27.1-xx

[David Burgess]

What's wrong with hue, saturation, transparent and opaque? I think this covers the parameters we are interested in, and are direct and to the point. It really bothers me when someone tries to confuse and obscure something that can be described in very simple terms.

I'm with Bill, but I might simplify it even more. How about color, color intensity or color loading, transparency and opacity? Why not use simple terms that almost anyone can understand? No need to act all artsy fartsy.

[Bill Yacey]

Bill,

Good examples.

As I use the terms....

Hue is the color, independent of the source of the color.

Saturation is a murky [forgive me on that one] term for me. How do you use it in varnish terms?

Transparent vs opaque works as well as the use of mass tone or the lack of mass tone. I have found that discussion of varnish using these terms has been confused [loaded? obscured?] by past confusion and discussions ....Your varnish is too opaque, Your varnish is too transparent...I like the terms better, but not the baggage they carry.

Joe

Saturation is simply the quantity or density of the hue.

As an example, madder in small quantities in a varnish will result in a slight pinkish color in a thin film. Add lots of it, and it appears a deeper red. The hue hasn't changed, but the saturation or density of the color has. It seems that these parameters all interact with each other. Increasing the saturation of color will eventually limit the transparency.

Edit: I guess saturation could be quantified 0 to 100%, 0 being water clear, and 100% being an opaque color. Hue would be the color temperature measured in Kelvins or wavelength.

[joerobson]

I'm with Bill, but I might simplify it even more. How about color, color intensity or color loading, transparency and opacity? Why not use simple terms that almost anyone can understand? No need to act all artsy fartsy.

Ok so we start our minimalist dictionary

Hue = color independent of the source

Transparent / opaque = Water clear / you can't see through it

Saturation = strength or intensity of the hue.....not a measure of transparency/opacity

I suggest

Colorant = adds hue, independent of the source

Pigment = particulate material which is a colorant that increases opacity

Joe

[jezzupe]

When I think "varnish" which I am often known to do. I think the most important "things" are things that related to either eliminating, troubleshooting, fixing or understanding what went "wrong".

I think "terminology" plays a large role in "mistakes" for example "shellac sealer" was that wax free, I assume? If someone is novice, they might not know that. A wax laden shellac sealer could repel or cause adhesion problems with an oil finish on top of it. "spirit varnish" should be "ethanol alcohol based varnish" in my opinion. Oil base varnish, say that to many people and they think your talking about polyurethane, and they wouldn't be wrong, because it is an oil base varnish, petroleum oil based, that is. These seeming built in exclusions in the descriptors of the bases has always bothered me personally. I prefer "Linseed oil/turpentine conifer resin varnish". A Gelatin sealer, come on, its frickin glue or is it gelatin? these kind of things become "confusing" I think for many starting out.

I think having a troubleshooting "legend" is a good idea, for example what Apartment luthier was describing was a type of "fisheye" "surface tension" "color separation" issue that could be described in several ways, but I feel a standard "we call this problem this, and these are the probable causes". Orange peel, fisheye, bubbling, checking, cracking, alligator,streaking,haloing,not drying,drying too fast etc. are all important to have in your vocabulary and to understand what each one looks like and what causes it.

Related to color, I keep it real simple. Either you have too much "color" and it looks like paint, or it don't, or anywhere in between. Regardless of the source or type of pigment or colorant.

[David Burgess]

Well, as an example, it's easy to see that the phrase "tone weight" has already been misunderstood by most posters, and that they think something from slightly to very different from individual poster to individual poster about what is being discussed using that phrase.

Perhaps if we all agree on one specific set of definitions, we can at least learn what it is we are agreeing or disagreeing about - which currently I do not believe is happening. If we adopt the already rigidly defined language of classical art training (say, terms as defined by the Artists Handbook - or some such other text)...

If we adopt an existing set of definitions, I'd suggest those of the modern coatings industry, rather than those from whacked-out artists.

[joerobson]

If we adopt an existing set of definitions, I'd suggest those of the modern coatings industry, rather than those from whacked-out artists.

David,

Unfortunately the modern coatings industry dismissed cooked organic resin/oil/terpene high temperature cooked varnishes about 1932....hence an experience gap which is unlikely to be bridged.

Joe

[lyndon]

may be we could greatly simplify by dividing varnish into three simple categories; good, bad, and cremonese, if you can find a way to make varnish that fits into the third category, joe, i dont think youll need all these descriptive terms, and people will be beating a path to your door

[joerobson]

may be we could greatly simplify by dividing varnish into three simple categories; good, bad, and cremonese, if you can find a way to make varnish that fits into the third category, joe, i dont think youll need all these descriptive terms, and people will be beating a path to your door

lyndon,

Interesting observation....one of the forum topics at VSA will be "What do you mean by that? ....Cremonese varnish..........

joe