With a little help from my friends, I have penetrated the mysteries of the forum log-in. I could almost wish I hadn't: I was up until 1.30 this morning, trawling through all the threads (or as many as I could) in sheer fascination. Looking forward to investigating the oil painting forum, probably my favourite medium (I use oil, acrylic, watercolour, and very occasionally pastel) - but am saving it for when I have some time to contribute. I suspect more can be learned from these pages than from any number of other resources. Pleasant also to browse a forum in which all personal remarks and petty vindictiveness seem to be absent; I have a blog on an NHS website, and contribute to patient involvement discussions - you wouldn't think that this would be likely to turn nasty; but it does. Leaving all that firmly aside, I should like to test a theory. I do enjoy painting in watercolour (until it goes horribly wrong, obviously). I have one in the gallery here, but it's very untypical of my usual efforts, and to be honest it makes me feel slightly bilious... I like to mix greens usually, rather than have too much recourse to the only greens I ever use in watercolour, viridian or phthalo. A key component of the brighter, more vivid greens is Cadmium Yellow, ie the genuine article. I have never found a yellow to equal it in terms of opacity, depth and strength; it is a little expensive, though (my favourite brand is Winsor and Newton's artist quality). I know everyone will tell me you get what you pay for, and indeed that's been my experience too. However - it would be interesting to know if others have their own favourite yellow, & have found a good, lightfast alternative to CY. On another question entirely: I've used a variety of paints over the years, and have always sought out colours that are reliably lightfast - so however beautiful they are, I avoid Rose Madder Genuine, Alizarin Crimson, Aureolin and others that fail to meet a minimum standard. It's not that I think my work is so good it needs to be preserved for ever, but that painting is a big effort, and I can do without paint that will fade away and undo all of it. I once worked in a gallery cum artist's suppliers; we showed a number of works by a gentleman who loved gouache (this was well over 30 years ago, when gouache was notoriously fugitive). Within months, his pictures began to fade - even in a dark corner of the gallery. Why is it then that demonstrators and writers in arts magazines continue to counsel the use of some some colours which they must know are of highly dubious quality? Granted, there is now Permanent Alizarin, Permanent Carmine, Permanent Sap Green; why then don't artists who offer advice specify that these should be used? Is it that they just don't believe there's any problem with these colours? When Michael Willcox first published, there was a backlash from some painters who had always used Alizarin Crimson, and felt it was sufficiently lightfast for most purposes. I could understand why: Alizarin is extremely useful, and once you've come to depend on it, it's hard to find an alternative that will give you anything like the same results. The Permanent version is perfectly useful, but it's not the same pigment, and won't behave the same way. Quinacridone violet/Permanent Rose, which Willcox recommends, is a beautiful colour but .... it ain't Alizarin. I'm afraid I still think we should wean ourselves off of these non-lightfast colours, and investigate the alternatives, even if that means finding a wholly new way of working. And I would be happier, for one, if those painters who do write for us, or do demos, dvd's etc, wouldn't keep recommending colours, particularly in watercolour (which is most vulnerable to fading) which ought to be retired from the palette.