Does grayscale to color work well? I'm working on a large

Coloring over greyscale has been around for a while. Afaik, Rembrandt worked like that as well.

Just do a bunch of color studies of a similar subject or palette, you'll have to learn color eventually, grayscale or not.

Value does all the work, color gets the glory

>>3042308
It's not a good way to work. You can always tell when a painting started out greyscale.

>>3042308
is the only sensible way to work: it allows you to focus on one thing at a time: composition - value - saturation - hue

that said, i don't think is possible to emulate that in traditional media

Grisaille is a technique that has been around since the 16th century and the level of ignorance on this board is at an all time high.

>>3042400
Oh dear
As the anon below you said, check out grisaille techniques.

>>3042373
That's not true. You can make a greyscale piece look much better or worse by using colour differently. You can choose to shade an object in one hue, but you can also pick to make every plane a different hue, creating something much more interesting and realistic.

>>3042320

I don't recall Rembrandt using this technique. You're remembering incorrectly.

>>3042308
It's one way to work, it's as valid as any other technique, if done correctly. I personally think it's something that should be done after learning or getting into controlling values with color, but that's my opinion, other's may vary. If it's what you need *right now* to get the job done, then it's fine.
You didn't specify that you're working digitally? Are you? If so, then it's a lot easier to experiment, by having the color work on a separate layer from the B&W.
If you're doing actual painting, you may want to practice with glazes on another piece, before jumping into a final piece.
Grisaille is one way to work. I personally don't care for it, but that's me. But it can't hurt to explore it, and try it, along with learning to control value with color.

So how would you go about this? Gradient maps?

>>3043403
"I don't recall" isn't really a compelling argument. This argument is moot until one of us provides a source, and I don't care enough to do so.

>>3043633
Thanks for namefagging, filtered

>>3043641
Bye, Felicia.

It works, but you end up painting everything twice.

>>3043459
Color layer in Photochop works fine.

honestly it's not a great way to do it. bw->colour never comes out as vivid and whenever I see a picture that does it, it's immediately obvious to me, the colours always have a muddy kind of look to them.

>>3043403
He did, but not always

>>3043963
It helps to change the greyscale to brown, then paint over the image once you fill in the colors.

>>3043633
I wasn't fucking arguing, you goddamned spastic.

>>3043963
That's not why I don't care for it, at least painting with oils - it locks in values once the first layer of glaze goes on - so you better have it perfect, or you're locked into whatever it is.
I don't care for it digitally, because you don't get the way the light transmits through the glaze to the whites, causing a "glow" effect to the color.
That's me. If you like it, go for it.

A fellow student painted a portrait of me and he did an "underpainting" on the canvas before the real thing. Not a full grayscale but major lines, some shading and shadows etc. Sure couldn't tell that painting has anything under it. But again, wasn't a full grayscale

For digital it works best for tightly rendered and polished stuff were everything can be neatly separated with masks and layers IMO. Doesn't seem very effective for more painterly styles. I personally layer color with different textured brushes a lot and it would be imposible or atleast not practical to do that in b/w first. With that said I do make sure the painting gets a clear read with the major shapes and value masses in monochrome or few colors before I render, approximate to a traditional underpainting. I would never RENDER in b/w though because it doesn't make any sense for my work flow.