I have both (Daniel Smith) cobalt blue and ultramarine blue in my palette. I prefer cobalt blue for most things because it looks more like a natural color of nature than ultramarine (unless you’re at the ocean or some beautiful waters). I use cobalt blue in all my mixing of colors and haven’t ever felt the need for something darker or punchier. I really think eventually I will just eliminate ultramarine blue because I just never use it whereas cobalt blue is an essential color on my palette. Thanks for the comparison!
I wouldn’t really consider Ultramarine Blue & Cobalt Blue to be interchangeable substitutes… They are similar in that they both granulate beautifully (though the style of the granulation patterns are a bit different to my eye), but crucially- especially as pertains to creating your palette- Ultramarine Blue is a *very warm blue*. Cobalt Blue is a cool blue, though I’d say it’s more neutral (not as cool as Ultramarine is warm, but it definitely leans towards green rather than purple). If anyone doesn’t understand why that’s important, I recommend studying the theory behind a split primary color palette. If you already know about that then you can skip the following paragraph. Basically, the gist of it is that, in order to mix a very vibrant, saturated, pure version of a secondary color (purple, orange, & green), you want to use the versions of primary colors that are closer to the desired color on the color wheel, that won’t muddy/neutralize that color at all by contributing some amount of the third primary color (the one you aren’t explicitly trying to use to mix that secondary color). So for example, to mix a very vivid purple, you want a cool red (because to get to purple from red you move towards blue, in the cooler direction, whereas a warm red is leading towards orange) & a warm blue (for the same reason- to get to purple from blue you’re moving toward red, in the warmer direction, whereas moving towards yellow gives you a green)… Now, of course, it’s not always a bad thing to mix a cool blue & a warm red- if you want a very muted, desaturated, darker purple then that’s what you’d do (what you’re doing by using a cool blue [one closer to green, a color that includes some yellow] & a warm red [one closer to orange, also including some yellow] is adding a little bit of yellow into the mix, & because yellow is the compliment of purple, that will tend to neutralize & darken it compared to mixing a red & blue that don’t have any trace of yellow). This is also the same logic behind why a lot of people will use a full-on rose or magenta color as their “cool red-“ because these colors are even cooler, have even more blue in them already, & so when mixed with a warm blue, like Ultramarine, they produce a range of extremely vibrant & saturated purples/violets. So the idea between a split primary palette, where you have a warm & a cool version of each primary color, is that it enables you to mix colors ANYWHERE on that spectrum, from the most saturated & vibrant, pure versions of the secondary/tertiary colors to very muted, subtle neutrals & Earth tones. Anyway, Cobalt Blue leans much cooler/greener compared to Ultramarine Blue. So if you are mixing saturated purples, Ultramarine Blue will always be preferable. If you’re trying to mix a bright, saturated green, then Cobalt Blue will work better, though you can get even brighter & more saturated with a Pthalo Blue (Green Shade). On the other hand, Prussian (Iron) Blue is similar to Pthalo in that it’s an extremely strongly tinting, vibrant, staining color, but it’s more of a warm blue, like Ultramarine (or a Red Shade Pthalo Blue). If you try to mix a green with Ultramarine Blue or another warm blue, even if you use a cool yellow, it will tend to be a much darker, less saturated green. Those can be perfectly good if you’re trying to paint a dark forest or something like that (nothing wrong with darker, more naturalistic greens), but if you are trying to achieve a bright, very saturated pure green, then you need a cool blue & a cool yellow. A painter also needs to be mindful of the opacity/transparency of the pigments they use in a given use-case, & in watercolor there’s also the additional variable of how granulating vs staining the pigments are (with non-granulating, non-staining pigments tending to fall in the middle of that spectrum, because whether a pigment stains or granulates is related to the size of the pigment particles). Don’t get me wrong, especially if you’re a new painter, you don’t need every color in the book just to get started. There’s nothing wrong with dipping your toes in & you can make some lovely work with just a simple split complimentary palette (being mindful of what kind of effects you’re trying to achieve, what kinds of techniques you want to use, & choosing pigments that will suit your purposes- either making sure you use all transparent staining pigments or all liftable granulating pigments, or all non-granulating, non-staining pigments, can be useful, but you don’t need one in every possible combination). But in watercolor in particular, as a largely transparent medium & a fluid, water-based medium, these properties are actually *extremely* important & as you become more experienced & invest more in your practice, it absolutely can be desirable to have an opaque cool yellow & a transparent cool yellow, an opaque warm yellow & a transparent warm yellow, & so on. Or, if you use a style/workflow where you integrate both staining AND granulating pigments, a granulating warm yellow & a staining warm yellow, a granulating warm blue & a staining warm blue, & so on. Because these paints are really not interchangeable- you may be able to do without some of them, for sure. But in a use-case where you NEED a staining, transparent cool red, if you just try to substitute a granulating, opaque cool red because you don’t care that much about these properties, it won’t work out the same way. For example, if you’re trying to do a glaze over a color, but you use a pigment for the underpainting layer that will reactivate & lift extremely easily, you won’t end up with a clean glaze. You’ll end up with a mixture of the underpainting & the glaze color, & a bunch of details from the underpainting getting reactivated & smeared around. Or if you’re trying to do some texture work suited to granulation on top of a staining layer, but you use another transparent, highly staining pigment, you won’t get granulation texture- you’ll get another transparent, smooth layer of color that will optically blend with the color underneath. A really skilled watercolorist needs to understand & consider all these properties, both as they pertain to the techniques & methods they use in their paintings, & as pertains to crafting their palette. But yeah, even though they do share similarities in some of these properties (granulation, similar semi-opaque opacity, & not staining), Cobalt Blue & Ultramarine differ in the basic property of hue. It is perfectly reasonable to have both of them on your palette as a warm, granulating, semi-opaque blue (UM Blue) & a cool, granulating, semi-opaque blue (Cobalt Blue). I wouldn’t talk about them as being substitutes for each other, unless you’re JUST doing a 3 primary color palette… In which case, unless it’s for cost reasons & you cannot afford to diversify, I recommend trying a split primary palette, because it really will open up colors you cannot mix with only 3 primary color paints, & it’s still way cheaper than buying every pre-mixed convenience color out there. You also don’t HAVE to use Cobalt Blue to begin with (it’s a beautiful, wonderful paint, but if it’s a choice between buying the most expensive pigments out there & only having 3 primaries, vs buying some more affordable but still excellent alternatives & getting a full split primary palette, I would highly recommend the latter, & then if you make some money & can upgrade to Cobalt or Cadmium or whatever then go for it. But it’s definitely not as necessary/beneficial starting out as having colors that can mix any color you might want. Also, if you do want a Cadmium Yellow or a Cadmium Scarlet or whatever (I’d say those opaque warm reds & opaque warm yellows are the ones where I haven’t come across a great substitute for the Cads, whereas there are plenty of gorgeous granulating blues cheaper than Cobalt), you can try the ones by Turner, a watercolor company which I’ve found to be really good quality for a very affordable price compared to W&N or Daniel Smith or some of the other big names. At least locally I’m able to get a solidly sized tube of Cad Yellow, Cad Red/Scarlet, or Cobalt Blue from Turner for like $11 max, & with sales you can get them even cheaper (they were 30% off recently so I stocked up on a couple). I will say that their Cobalt Blue Deep is even way more granulating & doesn’t have the same elegant, smooth coverage that you get with Daniel Smith’s normal Cobalt Blue (I haven’t tried Turner’s normal Cobalt Blue, so I can’t compare)… Still nice & useful in the right application, but not interchangeable with a main-use Cobalt Blue… But their Cad Reds & Yellows seem perfectly good from what I’ve seen so far. If anything I’d say they maybe were a little light (a bit more binder & air in the tube), but given how much bigger of a tube you’re getting for less than the price of one of the tiny, 5mL tubes from the bigger names, I think it still comes out to be a great deal for great pigments. But check out Handprint’s list of watercolor pigments (any of the ones labeled as Top 40 pigments which aren’t the more expensive ones, with excellent lightfastness, are probably perfectly good alternatives to the more expensive ones with similar properties, & they give tons of info about the pros & cons of each).
Cobalt blue is ideal for skies and first layers; it spreads out well and it’s transparent enough for great mixing, but it doesn’t mix to create deep darks. Rosa Gallery makes a beautiful, gently granulating Cobalt Blue for an affordable price. Ultramarine blue leans red, so it mixes muted greens and good purples. It mixes for darks, but doesn’t get as dark as Phthalo blues. I use Ultramarine for smaller areas of muted greens and grays, and granulation effects. However, Ultramarine that granulates doesn’t spread out in large areas very easily. I use Phthalo blues for coverage over large areas wet-in-wet, and in mixes for the darkest darks. It spreads out quickly and easily, is very transparent for non-muddy mixes, and has a huge range of values. It does tend to create hard lines at the edges because its pigments are really tiny, so they float out on wet paper and might collect too much on the edges. Phthalo blues are sold in either green shade and red shade for mixing purposes. I have all three blues on my limited palette because of their very different characteristics. It’s ok to have one or two yellows, and minimally one red, a Permanent Rose, but I need at least 3 blues on my palette.
I don't like any of the colors mixed using ultramarine 🤣 But I know I have to be an exception because wherever I look, ultramarine is there... every palette.
Also, I think to get a really fair comparison you really need to use the same brand of paint. You used Daniel Smith ultramarine blue but used Michael Harding cobalt blue. They both may have a completely different tinting strength and punch. Michael Harding might not mix as well with other colors either.
Those colors mixed with ultramarine are more muddy and uglier, simply speaking. I think many people have found out about this fact, or say "truth" to people's eyes. I never use ultramarine. It's so synthetic, and unnatural, pushing every color into a more degenerate degree. It should be eliminated from the mass-producing lines, the so-called universal palette. Cobalt blue is definitely better in its nature.
![All My Blue Colors [Why I Chose Them]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3tv40hdXf2s/mqdefault.jpg)
For more comparison videos ❤ Daniel Smith Professional Watercolors
th-cam.com/play/PLH6gy0TgTjz_5Qk-bglJYZ_ed5VQssYGt.html
I have both (Daniel Smith) cobalt blue and ultramarine blue in my palette. I prefer cobalt blue for most things because it looks more like a natural color of nature than ultramarine (unless you’re at the ocean or some beautiful waters). I use cobalt blue in all my mixing of colors and haven’t ever felt the need for something darker or punchier. I really think eventually I will just eliminate ultramarine blue because I just never use it whereas cobalt blue is an essential color on my palette. Thanks for the comparison!
I wouldn’t really consider Ultramarine Blue & Cobalt Blue to be interchangeable substitutes… They are similar in that they both granulate beautifully (though the style of the granulation patterns are a bit different to my eye), but crucially- especially as pertains to creating your palette- Ultramarine Blue is a *very warm blue*. Cobalt Blue is a cool blue, though I’d say it’s more neutral (not as cool as Ultramarine is warm, but it definitely leans towards green rather than purple). If anyone doesn’t understand why that’s important, I recommend studying the theory behind a split primary color palette. If you already know about that then you can skip the following paragraph.
Basically, the gist of it is that, in order to mix a very vibrant, saturated, pure version of a secondary color (purple, orange, & green), you want to use the versions of primary colors that are closer to the desired color on the color wheel, that won’t muddy/neutralize that color at all by contributing some amount of the third primary color (the one you aren’t explicitly trying to use to mix that secondary color). So for example, to mix a very vivid purple, you want a cool red (because to get to purple from red you move towards blue, in the cooler direction, whereas a warm red is leading towards orange) & a warm blue (for the same reason- to get to purple from blue you’re moving toward red, in the warmer direction, whereas moving towards yellow gives you a green)… Now, of course, it’s not always a bad thing to mix a cool blue & a warm red- if you want a very muted, desaturated, darker purple then that’s what you’d do (what you’re doing by using a cool blue [one closer to green, a color that includes some yellow] & a warm red [one closer to orange, also including some yellow] is adding a little bit of yellow into the mix, & because yellow is the compliment of purple, that will tend to neutralize & darken it compared to mixing a red & blue that don’t have any trace of yellow). This is also the same logic behind why a lot of people will use a full-on rose or magenta color as their “cool red-“ because these colors are even cooler, have even more blue in them already, & so when mixed with a warm blue, like Ultramarine, they produce a range of extremely vibrant & saturated purples/violets. So the idea between a split primary palette, where you have a warm & a cool version of each primary color, is that it enables you to mix colors ANYWHERE on that spectrum, from the most saturated & vibrant, pure versions of the secondary/tertiary colors to very muted, subtle neutrals & Earth tones.
Anyway, Cobalt Blue leans much cooler/greener compared to Ultramarine Blue. So if you are mixing saturated purples, Ultramarine Blue will always be preferable. If you’re trying to mix a bright, saturated green, then Cobalt Blue will work better, though you can get even brighter & more saturated with a Pthalo Blue (Green Shade). On the other hand, Prussian (Iron) Blue is similar to Pthalo in that it’s an extremely strongly tinting, vibrant, staining color, but it’s more of a warm blue, like Ultramarine (or a Red Shade Pthalo Blue). If you try to mix a green with Ultramarine Blue or another warm blue, even if you use a cool yellow, it will tend to be a much darker, less saturated green. Those can be perfectly good if you’re trying to paint a dark forest or something like that (nothing wrong with darker, more naturalistic greens), but if you are trying to achieve a bright, very saturated pure green, then you need a cool blue & a cool yellow.
A painter also needs to be mindful of the opacity/transparency of the pigments they use in a given use-case, & in watercolor there’s also the additional variable of how granulating vs staining the pigments are (with non-granulating, non-staining pigments tending to fall in the middle of that spectrum, because whether a pigment stains or granulates is related to the size of the pigment particles). Don’t get me wrong, especially if you’re a new painter, you don’t need every color in the book just to get started. There’s nothing wrong with dipping your toes in & you can make some lovely work with just a simple split complimentary palette (being mindful of what kind of effects you’re trying to achieve, what kinds of techniques you want to use, & choosing pigments that will suit your purposes- either making sure you use all transparent staining pigments or all liftable granulating pigments, or all non-granulating, non-staining pigments, can be useful, but you don’t need one in every possible combination). But in watercolor in particular, as a largely transparent medium & a fluid, water-based medium, these properties are actually *extremely* important & as you become more experienced & invest more in your practice, it absolutely can be desirable to have an opaque cool yellow & a transparent cool yellow, an opaque warm yellow & a transparent warm yellow, & so on. Or, if you use a style/workflow where you integrate both staining AND granulating pigments, a granulating warm yellow & a staining warm yellow, a granulating warm blue & a staining warm blue, & so on. Because these paints are really not interchangeable- you may be able to do without some of them, for sure. But in a use-case where you NEED a staining, transparent cool red, if you just try to substitute a granulating, opaque cool red because you don’t care that much about these properties, it won’t work out the same way. For example, if you’re trying to do a glaze over a color, but you use a pigment for the underpainting layer that will reactivate & lift extremely easily, you won’t end up with a clean glaze. You’ll end up with a mixture of the underpainting & the glaze color, & a bunch of details from the underpainting getting reactivated & smeared around. Or if you’re trying to do some texture work suited to granulation on top of a staining layer, but you use another transparent, highly staining pigment, you won’t get granulation texture- you’ll get another transparent, smooth layer of color that will optically blend with the color underneath. A really skilled watercolorist needs to understand & consider all these properties, both as they pertain to the techniques & methods they use in their paintings, & as pertains to crafting their palette.
But yeah, even though they do share similarities in some of these properties (granulation, similar semi-opaque opacity, & not staining), Cobalt Blue & Ultramarine differ in the basic property of hue. It is perfectly reasonable to have both of them on your palette as a warm, granulating, semi-opaque blue (UM Blue) & a cool, granulating, semi-opaque blue (Cobalt Blue). I wouldn’t talk about them as being substitutes for each other, unless you’re JUST doing a 3 primary color palette… In which case, unless it’s for cost reasons & you cannot afford to diversify, I recommend trying a split primary palette, because it really will open up colors you cannot mix with only 3 primary color paints, & it’s still way cheaper than buying every pre-mixed convenience color out there. You also don’t HAVE to use Cobalt Blue to begin with (it’s a beautiful, wonderful paint, but if it’s a choice between buying the most expensive pigments out there & only having 3 primaries, vs buying some more affordable but still excellent alternatives & getting a full split primary palette, I would highly recommend the latter, & then if you make some money & can upgrade to Cobalt or Cadmium or whatever then go for it. But it’s definitely not as necessary/beneficial starting out as having colors that can mix any color you might want. Also, if you do want a Cadmium Yellow or a Cadmium Scarlet or whatever (I’d say those opaque warm reds & opaque warm yellows are the ones where I haven’t come across a great substitute for the Cads, whereas there are plenty of gorgeous granulating blues cheaper than Cobalt), you can try the ones by Turner, a watercolor company which I’ve found to be really good quality for a very affordable price compared to W&N or Daniel Smith or some of the other big names. At least locally I’m able to get a solidly sized tube of Cad Yellow, Cad Red/Scarlet, or Cobalt Blue from Turner for like $11 max, & with sales you can get them even cheaper (they were 30% off recently so I stocked up on a couple). I will say that their Cobalt Blue Deep is even way more granulating & doesn’t have the same elegant, smooth coverage that you get with Daniel Smith’s normal Cobalt Blue (I haven’t tried Turner’s normal Cobalt Blue, so I can’t compare)… Still nice & useful in the right application, but not interchangeable with a main-use Cobalt Blue… But their Cad Reds & Yellows seem perfectly good from what I’ve seen so far. If anything I’d say they maybe were a little light (a bit more binder & air in the tube), but given how much bigger of a tube you’re getting for less than the price of one of the tiny, 5mL tubes from the bigger names, I think it still comes out to be a great deal for great pigments. But check out Handprint’s list of watercolor pigments (any of the ones labeled as Top 40 pigments which aren’t the more expensive ones, with excellent lightfastness, are probably perfectly good alternatives to the more expensive ones with similar properties, & they give tons of info about the pros & cons of each).
Cobalt blue is ideal for skies and first layers; it spreads out well and it’s transparent enough for great mixing, but it doesn’t mix to create deep darks. Rosa Gallery makes a beautiful, gently granulating Cobalt Blue for an affordable price.
Ultramarine blue leans red, so it mixes muted greens and good purples. It mixes for darks, but doesn’t get as dark as Phthalo blues. I use Ultramarine for smaller areas of muted greens and grays, and granulation effects. However, Ultramarine that granulates doesn’t spread out in large areas very easily.
I use Phthalo blues for coverage over large areas wet-in-wet, and in mixes for the darkest darks. It spreads out quickly and easily, is very transparent for non-muddy mixes, and has a huge range of values. It does tend to create hard lines at the edges because its pigments are really tiny, so they float out on wet paper and might collect too much on the edges. Phthalo blues are sold in either green shade and red shade for mixing purposes.
I have all three blues on my limited palette because of their very different characteristics. It’s ok to have one or two yellows, and minimally one red, a Permanent Rose, but I need at least 3 blues on my palette.
There is a lot of good info! Thank you!
Good info!
I don't like any of the colors mixed using ultramarine 🤣
But I know I have to be an exception because wherever I look, ultramarine is there... every palette.
@@Music-ct4cj it is! I am not sure why it is chosen over other blues.
I always love having a Cobalt Blue in my palette.
Me too! For skies!
Enjoyed video found it interesting and informative 👩🎨🎨🇺🇲🇨🇦💙
Thank you!
I prefer phtalo blue.
I do too, sometimes!
Also, I think to get a really fair comparison you really need to use the same brand of paint. You used Daniel Smith ultramarine blue but used Michael Harding cobalt blue. They both may have a completely different tinting strength and punch. Michael Harding might not mix as well with other colors either.
She used Daniel Smith French Ultramarine, and Daniel Smith Cobalt Blue!
The MH was also Ultramarine, she wasnt comparing the way you say.
Those colors mixed with ultramarine are more muddy and uglier, simply speaking. I think many people have found out about this fact, or say "truth" to people's eyes. I never use ultramarine. It's so synthetic, and unnatural, pushing every color into a more degenerate degree. It should be eliminated from the mass-producing lines, the so-called universal palette. Cobalt blue is definitely better in its nature.
@@helixfrechette3405 I agree!