Why paintings are always framed in gold ? You can go to any museum
to verify this. Because color of gold improves saturation of other
colors. NO OTHER COLOR HAS THIS PROPERTY !
No, colours appear more saturated when viewed against a less
saturated background:
Brown, Richard O., and Donald IA MacLeod. “Color appearance depends
on the variance of surround colors.” Current Biology 7.11 (1997):
844-849.
For that matter, in the UK most paintings don’t seem to be framed in
gold either.
Why are paintings always framed in gold? I bow to your knowledge
when you present scientific or technical and object to
the way many correspondents have behaved in recent prolonged
arguments. But really, choice of colour for picture frames or stone
setting is subjective, it is a matter of personal choice. There is
no right or wrong in this matter.
With your permission I will rephrase the question. Why color of gold
is so special ?
To answer I would have to start with silver. Silver is the most
reflective metal that we have.
Mechanism of reflectivity is when photon (light particle) hits
surface of metal, electrons absorb it’s energy and that causes some
of them to jump to higher orbits (in modern parlance it will be
energy levels).
This transition is accompanied by energy, which in case of silver is
equal to ultraviolet light. That means that none of visible light
spectrum is absorbed. That what accounts for silver been the most
reflective metal. It reflects every little bit of visual light
hitting it’s surface.
Gold is heavier than silver and energy corresponding to electron
transition has frequency of blue light.
So gold reflects all the visible spectrum except blue. The color of
gold is combination of all the colors, but blue.
There are no other metals to compete with gold in this department.
Let’s consider paintings now. If we were to use copper, than all the
colors that artist used will be skewed by red, because copper reflect
only red part of spectrum and absorbs all the rest. No matter what
material we select, the problems persist.
Only gold provided reflective background for all the colors there
are, but blue.
You probably wondering, " what if artist selects entirely blue
palette for his painting ?" Gold still is the best choice. Because
gold reflects no blue color, the blue will stand up very saturated
and clear. It is a good place to mention that gold and blue is one
of the classical color combinations.
It was known as far down as Ancient Egypt.
I know what some of you thinking. It sounds like I am having it both
ways. Consider this. In the ideal world, the colors used in paining
would stand up on their own. But we do not live in ideal world. Gold
skews the colors, no question about it.
But it does it equally, so the relationships between colors does not
change. No other material has gold’s gamut, which means that some
colors will be influenced in larger degree than others.
You may be asking if silver would be a better choice for framings.
The answer is no because human color vision depends on perception of
green and red light. Bees can see portion of ultraviolet, so they
probably would find silver frames more attractive.
Everything above applies to Diamonds beauty depends
primarily on reflection and scintillation, so silver is the best for
them. We use platinum as a compromise between appearance and
strength. Gemstone who depend on color tone and saturation must be
mounted in gold for best results. There are always special cases.
Hope diamond is of Type IIb. As any Type IIb, it phosphoresces, but
not blue as expected but bright red. Subjected to sunlight, this red
phosphorescence would give brown cast (blue and red combination).
Mounting it in gold would accentuate the phenomenon, mounting in
while metal suppresses it. That is why it was mounted in platinum.
Now, we can consider alloys. 18k yellow gold. For every 2 atoms of
gold, 1 atom of silver. Reflective light will consist of 66.6% gold
color and 33.3% of silver, which is complete visual spectrum. In a
way it is even better than pure gold. Such alloy has more reflectance
than pure gold. But once we start adding other atoms in the mix, the
color become muddy and appearance suffers.
After working in platinum for over 40 years I would say it is much
safer to bend and set then any other metal. it has no memory so when
you push a prong into place it stays. Much less chance of causing
damage to a stone then about any other precious metal. My guess it
had nothing to do with the ecstatic’s then the fact if you were
given one of the most valuable stones in the world and had no limits
on the cost to mount it what metal would you chose. no doubt.
Platinum would be the only safe and best choice to use. I never use
anything else and have not for the last 40+ years. White gold is
soooooo much more work and not worth the effort. including18 it…
Just the way I think. BTW have never had a client bring back a ring
due to prong failure…
Just thought I’d toss in that in traditional European high jewelry
emeralds are set in 22K prongs. There are two reasons: one is that
the warmer color of 22K looks better against the deep green of a fine
emerald than does 18K, whether French or Italian color, the other is
that, as emeralds are not especially tough stones, 22K prongs
require less pressure to push, thus lessening the chance of a
fracture.
Anyway, my old boss always put emeralds in 22K prongs.
We framed some paintings in gold, some in scratched silver, some
in wood etc. There are basic facts which require no proof. Some of
them are 2 + 2 = 4; water is wet, and painting are always framed in
gold by people who know what they are doing.
FGS Leonid
2 + 2 = 4, but somehow you’ve got 2 + 2 = 7
As of last Monday, I was a professional picture framer, in a company
that supplied the frames to the National Gallery of Australia, those
credentials are pretty solid here in Australia, maybe not in Leonid
land.
Let’s face is Leonid, not every painting looks good in a gold frame,
and that’s a fact supported by framing works from every level of
artist, from the $200 dollar vanity artists to the $million plus
known artist. Framing art is an art form in itself. If you don’t
understand that, I don’t really know how to explain it to you.
Your observations, and opinions are interesting, but they’re far
from the facts gained by experience.
If you want to go into the different ways to frame a painting, or an
object (yes, you can make a box frame to display your jewellery),
and the colour theory behind it, then sure I could bore the leg of an
iron pot giving you details
There are basic facts which require no proof. Some of them are 2 +
2 = 4; water is wet, and painting are always framed in gold by
people who know what they are doing.
In most things on this forum, I will defer to your knowledge because
of your obvious experience. I’ve only been doing jewelry for a few
years, so that makes sense. But I’ve been a painter all my life, and
I’ve also had way-too-much art education (I say “way-too-much”
because I don’t think you can actually be taught to paint, even
though I have all the degrees that say you can), so I do have some
experience with framing. (I’ve also cut matts for etchings and
lithos, but I’d rather have a root canal.) Sometimes you frame in
gold and it looks amazing, and sometimes it takes away from the
painting. I like to frame in gold, sometimes. But sometimes a very
basic wood frame works best. It depends. I could see always framing a
Klimt in gold, but Schiele looks best in black to me. But whenever
I’ve seen either of their work in real life, I tear up in worshipful
awe and don’t even notice the frame. And that’s the point.
Sometimes you frame in gold and it looks amazing, and sometimes it
takes away from the painting.
Color is only part of the solution in framing. Frame design,
thickness, volume, dozen or so other factors, - all play role in how
framed paintings works.
There is no need for spending anymore time on this argument. Just go
to a museum and see how they display paintings.
you need an acid to make a galvanic reaction- so that theory
doesn’t work.
No, just an electrolyte so will work just fine in combination with
water to create the galvanic reaction.
Strong acids, strong bases, and soluble ionic salts that are not weak
acids or weak bases are strong electrolytes. I was CLEARLY speaking
about what is classed as a “strong electrolyte” in relation to
galvanisation. to clarify for those of you that don’t, apparently,
tend to believe anything other than what is within your own scope of
knowledge. in Relative to the poster’s theory his solution wasn’t
working. what i suggested was CORRECT from my experience. and that
of applied chemistry. its not always as simple as one person’s
summation, and there are USUALLY TWO EQUALLY VALID interpretations of
what is necessary to a chemical reaction. in the case I was
responding to. a strong acid would have worked for him as I explained
it.
Again- anyone can take a SINGLE line out of any post and refute it
according to their - perhaps limited- knowledge of chemistry as it
relates to jewellery making applications. I have gotten a galvanic
reaction when necessary by using acids (strong acids if you want to
get technical) and /or salts-although quite strong salts. As I
prefer an acid based electrolytic reaction for galvanizing metals,
with strong salts used only, or rather in particular for ferrous
metals not intended for jewelery but more towards household repairs
that must be exposed to weatherisation and outdoors 24/7…It works
better than what Mr. Binnion describes as what sounds like “free
ambient salts that just happen to be floating around in the
environment”…
According to the letter of his post Mr. Binnion states.: ."…salts
which are abundant in the environment ".will work just fine in
creating galvanisation…
That is not how I personally define an electolytic solution in any
case! I personally don’t live in a salt air environment. nor have I
EVER had galvanisation occur with ambient salts and water…
So, when a SINGLE phrase from any post is taken out of context the
room for individual interpretation is vast. and often incorrect, if
not nonsensical and seemingly for the sake of argument, not to assist
in any real way by providing a formulae or recipe that a novice or
pro could use to create galvanisation in the home studio or shop! I
find it ever so interesting that whenever I post anything regarding
my - more than ample grasp of chemistry, it is refuted, To all you
readers on Orchid, I can assure you I indeed know what I write about
and don’t submit superfluous posts for the hell of it…despite
what persons that insist on taking lines of a post out-of-context, or
that are simply under-informed thinking theirs is the only " right
way" as it relates to jewellery making - With jewelry making there is
no single absolute right way of doing anything: Each day there is an
opportunity to learn something new even if you have done x the same
way for over 25 or more years. and chemistry is an ever expanding
science with broad and varied applications and admixtures, etc. of
elements and compounds that may produce like actions or reactions
with different combinations or simples.
.New things are learned every day. New things are interpreted every
day.
and no single individual on Orchid corners the market in an absolute
knowledge of all topics, questions and posts consistently giving a
complete and accurate response that cannot be reproached or examined
and found to have its own flaw(s)…However, when I make a mistake I
do admit it, what I posted was NOT a mistake and was intended to be
said as I explained incontext, given the entire post to the person
asking the question. rer
you need an acid to make a galvanic reaction- so that theory
doesn't work.
No, just an electrolyte so will work just fine in combination with
water to create the galvanic reaction.
Strong acids, strong bases, and soluble ionic salts that are not
weak acids or weak bases are strong electrolytes. I was CLEARLY
speaking about what is classed as a "strong electrolyte" in
relation to galvanisation. to clarify for those of you that don't,
apparently, tend to believe anything other than what is within your
own scope of knowledge. in Relative to the poster's theory his
solution wasn't working. what i suggested was CORRECT from my
experience. and that of applied chemistry. its not always as simple
as one person's summation, and there are USUALLY TWO EQUALLY VALID
interpretations of what is necessary to a chemical reaction. in the
case I was responding to. a strong acid would have worked for him
as I explained it.
BS, once again you try to impress with a voluminous, mostly
meaningless reply. You very clearly state in the post I responded
that an acid is needed to make a galvanic reaction. It does not
require an acid, tap water is a dandy electrolyte just ask any
plumber or home owner who has had their pipes corroded away by
contact between tap water, iron and copper piping. Metal alloys are
not uniform in their distribution of the constituent elements and
can often be subject to galvanic corrosion within the confines of a
single object without even having to have a second metal in contact.
You might want to read up on galvanic corrosion. And in the context
of the original post most metal items from antiquity buried in the
ground dissolve away from galvanic corrosion due to the presence of
water and electrolytes in the soil. Even some gold alloys will show
some minor amount of this corrosion.
So while you claim to have vast chemistry knowledge I have my
doubts, weren’t you the one who was recently trying to convince us
that you use dry nitric acid a few months ago.
weren't you the one who was recently trying to convince us that you
use dry nitric acid a few months ago.
dry sodium nitrate is what I use- dry “chilean Saltpetre”…I also
have reagent grade liquid but its far more dangerous than the far
cheaper dry NaNo3…and not that much more effective than the
liquid. rer
dry sodium nitrate is what I use- dry "chilean Saltpetre"..I also
have reagent grade liquid but its far more dangerous than the far
cheaper dry NaNo3...and not that much more effective than the
liquid. rer
Really? Sodium nitrate is not dry nitric acid. Sodium nitrate when
dissolved in water has pH of about 7. Not going to be a very good
acid.
