Dear Mr. Zimmer:

For many years I was an art director, and I have a sizable portfolio of samples. I’m also an illustrator with a special interest in digital painting. All of my creative work is done with Photoshop, a program that is high in my estimation. However, I have one problem with it and with other programs of a similar kind. That is the problem of “mixing” or “blending” colors. I’ve always found these tools hard to use. Not because I lack talent, but because the design of the tools seems cumbersome.

As a consequence of this concern, I found a workaround to Adobe's digital color mixing/blending method. Please allow me to share this workaround with you, and tell me if it’s worthwhile or not. 

As you know, Adobe developers created tools that simulate natural materials, especially paints and brushes. However (and please don’t take offense) it seems to me that what artists need is not simulated paints and brushes. What they need is efficient tools. And with regard to color mixing, this goal of efficiency isn’t very well served by simulated paints and brushes.

What I propose instead is patterns of varying density that the artist can paint on his canvas. Like this:

From a distance (or at high res) the result is indistinguishable from colors that are mixed with the “Mixer Brush”. 

My method has several advantages over that brush. 

1. It’s vastly easier to model form with the my method.

2. It’s easy to edit the color of the pattern or the back ground with keyboard commands. 

3. The user has a wide range of textures that are not available in the usual blending methods. 

So what do you think of this? Tell me I’m a crank if that is warranted. Or perhaps my idea isn’t original. Any comments are welcome.

Best wishes,

Elliott Banfield