There has recently been a lot of conversation on social media regarding what pigments are used to make Daniel Smith Primatek colour and the levels of lightfastness their colours possess, so we decided to speak directly to Daniel Smith and allow them to respond and set the record straight.
We wrote:
“We have seen online tests conducted on lightfastness ratings and pigment content of Primatek paints, and we understand that modifications may need to be carried out on mineral paints in order to guarantee consistency of colour from batch to batch, tube to tube. However we also are concerned that the integrity of the Daniel Smith brand could be undermined if customers feel at all misled.”
Daniel Smith addressed the two issues of lightfastness and pigment content separately.
Are Daniel Smith Watercolours Fully Lightfast?
Daniel Smith Chief Chemist Ronald W Harmon made this statement with regard to lightfastness ratings:
“ASTM is the American Standard of Testing Methods International. Member 31 years.
ASTM sets the standards by which paint is tested for lightfastness.
ASTM sets the tests and methods by which a product is tested. They leave the testing up to the manufacturer/industry.
Whether a paint will be a I, II, III or IV (ASTM D 4303 Lightfastness Specification) is determined by the pigment used in making it. This is especially true in watercolours. It is not possible, within the production of a watercolor, to make a fugitive color lightfast or a lightfast colour fugitive, or any combination of the Lightfastness I, II, III or IV (ASTM D 4303 Lightfastness Specification).
I start by purchasing pigment that is of the highest Lightfastness. I then test the material on our Xenon-fadeometer to assure the lightfastness that is listed by the manufacturer matches the lightfastness of our own test. I will not use any pigment that does not conform to our standards of Lightfastness. When I am assured that the lightfastness listed by the manufacturer and that of my own tests match, paint production begins.
There are only a handful of companies that own their own. Daniel Smith has one to assure we provide the best possible product.
If a material is not listed in the ASTM manual, then Daniel Smith lists it as NR – not rated. ASTM D 5067 for watercolors does not list all pigments used in industry. However, ASTM sets up the testing methods that I use in my laboratory. All our watercolors are permanent, having a Lightfast category of I or II, per ASTM D 4303, ASTM D 4286, and ASTM D 5067, except for Alizarin Crimson and Opera Pink Watercolors both having a Lightfast category of IV.
Not all pigment, while they may have the same color index name, are the same. To truly assure lightfastness a Xenon-fadeometer must be used. For example, Anthraquinoid Red is listed as a Lightfastness of III per the ASTM D 5067 Lightfastness Specification. However, the manufacturer of our Anthraquinoid Red has this as a Blue Wool test of 8 (Blue Wool 8 is considered Permanent or Lightfast and equates to ASTM D 5067 Lightfastness I). Please see manufacturer information here.
My test with our Xenon-fadeometer confirms Anthraquinoid Red from this pigment manufacturer is indeed Lightfastness I. I personally test every color that we sell with our Xenon-fadeometer.”
Do Primatek Watercolours Contain Synthetic Pigments?
The following response was made by John Cogley, owner of Daniel Smith:
“There has been a statement made that DANIEL SMITH PrimaTek watercolors are made from synthetic material. Let me answer this.
Daniel Smith PrimaTek Watercolors ARE made using natural minerals.
These minerals are sourced by Bruce Wood, our on staff Geologist. Each and every color in the PrimaTek line is made with the corresponding mineral listed on the label.
The label says Genuine. It IS genuine. It does not say 100% mineral only. This is NOT possible. The majority of any watercolor is a gum arabic solution, without which, you would not have a watercolor paint.
The way this is tested is by gas chromatography not looking through a microscope or polarized microscope.
The minerals we use in production are mineral massive – they are not mineral specimens. As such there are other elements in association with them – mica, quartz etc. This is the nature of a mineral massive. Minerals can change their constituency by their placement both vertically or horizontally in/on the earth and by what other elements they are associated with. In production we use the majority of the mineral massive and the elements in association with them.
Each PrimaTek mineral is different and is sourced from all over the world. There are some colors that, in our manufacturing process, are altered to assure the paint color is exactly as the tube before it. Not all mineral paint would be consistent without this step. Minerals are NOT consistent, it is their nature. This is a manufacturing process that is private and will not be shared. It DOES NOT take away that every single color is made with real mineral.
Daniel Smith PrimaTek ARE made using minerals. ”
Edit: Since the publication of this article we have received a number of responses expressing dissatisfaction at the statements made by Daniel Smith, via the comments below. We have invited Daniel Smith to respond to these comments, and asked them if they could update their colour charts to provide further information on the pigments used to make Primatek colours. We await their response.
Click here to view a pdf of Daniel Smith’s How We Make Paint
30 thoughts on “Daniel Smith Address Lightfastness and Pigment Concerns”
Thank you for this blog post, even if the
company still dodges the issue.
Anthraquinoid red will fade when put in
direct sunlight and while that’s definitely
NOT what anyone should do for a painting,
it still means the pigment isn’t lightfast as
much as they say. Same for Aureolin. And
the answer re: the Primatek range is still
just as condescending and missing the
point.
Well… I’m glad Jackson’s is concerned about their customers and the quality of the products they provide. But I’m equally worried and concerned about the aggressive answers you and others who asked about that matter received.
I myself test paints for lightfastness and there were several of the DS watercolours, that just did not well while having the highest ASTM lightfastness rating. And while I really enjoyed using their brand, I’m disappointed by the company, who handles this issue and the concern of their customers not well.
Thank you Lana. We appreciate that you are dissatisfied with the response from Daniel Smith. We have asked if they would respond directly to comments on this article, and in light of the comment we have received, whether they might consider adding further information about the lightfastness and pigmentation of their colour on their colour chart.
Many thanks
Lisa
As much as I think that the issue with
DS paints internet had was mass
hysteria of specific cathegory internet
artists who care more about showing off
their art supplies collection on social
media rathen than being actually good at
art, the answer to the the primatek
question is such a roundabout non
answer. For shame John Cogley. The
issue isn’t if the tube is 100% natural
stone, everyone knows you need a
binder. The issue is just how much of the
pigment inside that tube is genuine
stone and how much is mass
manufactured cheap ‘colour balancer’.
Because if according to spectometre
checks, the 90% of pigment is that
colour correcting pigment, it does not
feel genuine at all.
For shame, Mr. John Cogley, for shame.
The more he avoids the answer, the more
Primatek line genuineness seems like
false advertisment of cheap paints for
premium price.
Thank you Kate for your comment. We understand your view on this issue, which is why we have now asked Daniel Smith if they would consider updating their colour chart and respond to the comments we have received on this article.
Many thanks
Lisa
I’m very disappointed in Jackson’s.. this blog post would be a wonderful support of your customers if it in any way actually acknowledged the issues are real, and balanced the obvious attempt on the part of the Daniel Smith Company to push the entire problem under the rug. Independent UV tests have shown over 20 LF1 rated colors in their catalog to not even withstand six months of sun exposure. This is completely unacceptable. What is worse is the blatant misrepresentation of not only the Primatek line but also the iridescent colors as being composed of one pigment when in fact they have been proven to contain a majority of other undisclosed common and inexpensive pigments.. in some cases they were unable to find ANY of the mineral itself. The Primateks are especially blatant as the clearly state only the genuine mineral on the label, and are even named “Genuine *****”. We are all aware that binders and medium are required, this is a ridiculous excuse and Daniel Smith is well aware that is NOT the issue. These undisclosed pigments not only involve toxic materials in some cases.. in at least one they include fugitive fluorescent additives. This is fact, and Daniel Smith is not only misleading their customers, taking money from them for a promised product that is NOT what it is stated to be, but jeopardizing their art and in some cases their business in the process. I expect more out of Jackson’s than giving a mouthpiece to further lies with no attempt to even show the facts, let alone demand the truth.
Dear C. Waymire,
Thank you for your comment and I understand your dissatisfaction. We heard about the accusations made about the Daniel Smith colours and decided that it was a serious issue that needed to be aired to our customers.
Unfortunately we do not have scientific lightfast testing equipment or a spectrometer and as a result we are not in a position to give a definitive answer either way on the colours in question. We can however use our platform to highlight issues, to publish claims by the public and counter claims by the manufacturers.
As a result of the comments received in response to this post we have asked Daniel Smith if they would consider adding futher pigment information for their Primatek colours to their colour chart, as well as reassess lightfastness classifications indicated on the chart. We have also asked if a representative wishes to respond to the comments we have received on this article and await their response.
We appreciate that their statements have not fully answered all concerns and so as a result we wish to reassure you that this case is not closed, and that we invite Daniel Smith to offer further explanation.
Best wishes
Lisa
I completely agree with your statement.
All this time while I was working with
Daniel Smith watercolors, the results
always traumatized me to paint again. I’d
complete a piece and leave it there and
after about just an hour the colors would
fade and I’d blame myself that I’m no
good. I had even considered to leave the
medium since it wasn’t working for me.
But after trying other reputed brands, I
saw the difference in quality of pigments,
granulation, and lightfastness. The work
was exactly what I was trying to create.
It’s a sham what Daniel Smith is doing to
their customers, bad results in our work
can discourage us artists to paint ever
again. It also effects our self-esteem and
emotional well-being. We pay exorbitant
prices for a genuine product because it’s
our work and passion. In this capitalist
hell-hole world, please leave us artists out
of your trickery, we’re just trying to bring
beauty and meaning into this world.
Dear Sumegha,
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to hear of your experiences of working with these watercolours.
Best wishes
Lisa
Even the most fugitive of paints doesn’t
fade in an hour, this is the normal
drying shift common to all
watercolours.
And yet Anthraquinone Red PR177 isn’t
lightfast and so understandably fades
rapidly in moonglow? Shadow Violet is
another with fading issues, while P073
is lightfast it manages to lose its
strength in this mix.
Also they didn’t actually address the
primatek question other than to provide
the condescending letter they sent out
previously to the scientist who did the
tests on them.
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/wa
terr.html
Thanks Angela,
Valid observations. I see that the colours you mention are marked ‘Not Rated’ by Daniel Smith and so if excellent lightfastness is a necessity it would be a good idea to test any colours classified as ‘Not Rated’ prior to using, or use colours that are explicitly marked as possessing excellent lightfastness.
My understanding of the answer to the Primatek concern is that they do use mineral pigments, although the exact make up of the paints is not disclosed. In fairness, this is also true of all other paint ranges. Ultimately, the range offers many unique colours with a lot of appeal and character, and if they perform in a way that suits your way of working, there is no disputing their value. The best way to know exactly what is in your paint is to make your own, but of course the convenience of professional ready-made paint is preferable to many.
Best wishes
Lisa
I have examples of rated pigments that are not lightfast as PY40 in their range, which will turn from a beautiful yellow to a greyish ochre over a few weeks only.
Also the statement, that “other ranges do not disclose that information” is not true for all of them. Schmincke, Lukas, White Nights are only a few, who give detailed information about what is in their paints. Many companies are very open about it when contacted and asked, while DS is very aggressive in their marketing and deception of their customers. They falsely label not only their Primateks, but also many of their iridescent and sparkly paints to be lightfast, while many of them fade.
I’m also very disappointed by Jackson’s for deleting comments, which are not in favour of DS and being so protective about a company, that clearly is lying to their customers. It needs to be clear, that the problem is not about the quality of the paints, but a moral problem about lying to the customers and false labelling of their paints. This is something that is important for artists, who want to know what is in their paints and who have the knowledge to choose by pigment and not hue only.
Dear Lana,
Thank you for your comment. In my experience I have not come across any labelling that states the proportions of pigments used in paints – this is what I was referring to and I apologise for not being clearer. We appreciate that some readers/customers feel that this response from Daniel Smith is not satisfactory. Consequently we will be asking if they can amend their colour charts in order to provide further pigment and lightfastness information. I will also ask the company to read these blog posts and answer any further concerns aired here. On your other point of deleting comments, we have not deleted any comment relating to this post. We review every comment before publication and try to repond to every one. The blog team is small and the majority work part time and we try to answer comments as quickly – and honestly! – as we can. I hope you can understand that some comments may take longer to respond to and we appreciate your patience.
Many thanks
Lisa
I attended a workshop by one of the Daniel
Smith chemists. He basically confirmed
what is stated in this article, plus had a lot
of other fascinating information on how
watercolor paint is made and how they
decide what new colors to add to the line.
He brought mineral specimens of the
Primatek line.
That sounds really fascinating! They also put out a lot of very useful information on social media I believe.
Thank you for reaching out to DS and posting their reply.
While I get people don’t want to pay a premium for this
type of paint, there is also logic in the reply of additives to
maintain consistency – you wouldn’t want every batch to
be radically different, which can happen with natural
sources. And to a point DS is guarding proprietary
information from the competition. Maybe if I knew the
real percentages I’d be annoyed but I’m not always a big
fan of synthetics either. Artists could take their chances
and try handmade paints that claim they are mineral +
binder etc. and see how they stack up. But regardless,
with the exception of lapis lazuli and hematite, I have
been very happy with my Primatek paints.
Thank you Marie.
Thank you for addressing this. I have purchased my last Daniel Smith product. My eyebrows raised when they claimed to be using turquoise from the Sleeping Beauty mine, which has been closed for many years. Perhaps they are, but I doubt it. Maybe they’re sprinkling some tailing dust into other pigments? Their lack of transparency regarding lightfastness and the possibility that some paints contain cobalt without disclosure was the last straw. That’s just wrong. There are too many fine products available from other companies to continue to support Daniel Smith
Thank you Victoria. We have asked that Daniel Smith consider improving their colour charts to provide more transparent information but they have said they have no plans to do this.
Many thanks
Lisa
I can accept that a premium priced
“Genuine” mineral based paint will contain a
binder but if it contains other pigments to
boost its colour feel that they should be
listed in the same way foodstuffs have a
“may contain” list of potential allergens.
This would not list proportions or how the
pigments were ground or treated so should
be no threat to Daniel Smith. Until then I am
going to assume the worst and avoid
Primatek. I have had my suspicions since
comparing Schmincke’s Lapis Lazuli with
Primatek and find the attitudes of the two
companies very different. (Schminke were
open and very helpful. ) Surely if you are a
reputable company calling a paint “genuine”
you should be prepared to back this claim
up? Whatever the truth of the matter is I am
afraid Daniel Smith’s reaction to criticism
has lost them my custom.
Dear Limner,
Thank you for your comment. It’s clear a number of artists share your view. We hope that Daniel Smith find this feedback useful in considering how they present their colours in the future.
Many thanks
Lisa
When I read worldpigmentday’s Instagram
post claiming Amazonite Genuine was
“over 90% phthalocyanine green”, I realized
there was something that didn’t click with
her evaluation. She many know a lot
about minerals, but any beginning
watercolor artist who has painted with
phthalo pigments knows it’s impossible
for Amazonite Genuine (which has a
staining level of 1) could be made with
such a high staining phthalo pigment (with
a staining level of 4).
I have Amazonite Genuine, so I checked to
see if it was indeed easily lifted, and it
lifted COMPLETELY from my watercolor
paper.
I challenge everyone to do the same, paint
it out. Evaluate the PrimaTek line for
yourself. Every pigment that she claims
has been added has a MUCH higher
staining quality than the PrimaTek line
(because they ONLY have a 1 or 2 staining
level).
It just isn’t physically possible.
Thanks for your comments.
Best wishes
Lisa
Regarding lightfastness issues, Jane
Blundell did one of the most extensive
evaluations of lightfastness. She
subjected swatches to 19 months of
Australian harsh sun. If you do a google
search for “Jane Blundell 19 month
lightfast”, it will come up readily. Many of
the colors some are complaining about
not being lightfast, surpassed Blundell’s
test. Including Moonglow and
Anthraquinoid Red.
I guess I’m just amazed at the willingness
to bring out pitchforks and the angry
statements against a company that has
prided itself in providing such a quality
product for so long.
Cogley may not be the warmest
personality, but I think he’s conducted
himself quite positively considering the
company’s integrity has been attacked.
Not many of us would have been so
gracious (considering I reached out to
worldpigmentday asking her to explain the
discrepancy in the staining qualities of the
pigments she says have been added to the
PrimaTek line, Cogley is far more
gracious).
I personally believe this controversy is a
NONtroversy!
Thanks Becky! Interesting to read about your communications with both Daniel Smith and the Instagram account holder of worldpigmentday.
Many thanks
Lisa
Jane Blundell has been affiliated with Daniel
Smith for years. I would trust someone’s
lightfastness tests who did not have such a
strong brand loyalty. Moonglow has been
shown to fade by many other peoples
lightfast tests before this primatek
controversy.
This is a NONtroversy.
I don’t buy into the Daniel Smith PrimaTek
controversy one little bit.
As an example, IF Amazonite Genuine was
really “over 90% phthalocyanine green” it
wouldn’t be able to retain the low staining
level it possesses. (BTW, all the PrimaTek
paint is said by worldpigmentday to
include excessive quantities of much
higher staining pigments than the 1 or 2
staining quality they actually are).
Some claim lithopone must have been
added to Amazonite to neutralize the
staining level of the phthalo green.
HOWEVER, that would cause Amazonite to
lose it’s transparency.
Some suggest PG18, instead of PG7 was
used, but that’s not what worldpigmentday
says makes up over 90% of Amazonite.
As for the lightfastness ratings, Jane
Blundell did a 19 month lightfast test in
the harsh Australian sun and posted
photos of the results on her blog. Just
google “Jane Blundell 19 month
lightfastness”. It’s my go to for accurate
evaluations of lightfastness.
In conclusion, we need less controversy
and more time to paint. Watercolor
painting is USUALLY a peaceful process.
Initially, I thought some of those who
posted concerns about the make-up of DS
paints were really wanting to discuss the
issue and had open minds regarding the
PrimaTek line. I soon realized it was much
like the type of bullying we all detest,
where those who didn’t agree with posts
were either attacked, or their doubts were
erased from their sites.
Even worldpigmentday was very
unprofessional when I posed questions
about this issue on Instagram. Amazing
she can be so touchy when DS doesn’t
respond the way she wanted, but far less
professional in her response to questions.
Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for your comments, without access to the equipment to test the paints, we can only ask the questions. I hope you enjoy your painting time.
Best wishes
Lisa
I haven’t used Daniel smith paints at all
since this debacle in customer relations. The
petty way they’ve responded and not saying
which pigments are added to the minerals.
Artists deserve to know what they’re
painting with so they can sell their art and
have their customers trust that art won’t
fade in a few years or even decades. It’s a
shame as Daniel smith are mostly vegan
paints but I won’t buy more until they fix
their attitude.
Comments are closed.