Can we omit "with" in the expression glow with (something)?

Collins Cobuild English Grammar [§3.156] lists different semantic classes of verbs that may be used in a depictive 'verb with complement' construction. A classic example of a 'link-like' (ie copular/linking, but also having semantic content, unlike 'be') depictive construction is

• She stood motionless for several seconds.

In the 'have a particular appearance' [my term] semantic subcategory, Collins lists

• blush, flame, gleam, glow, run, [burn] [my addition]

and gives examples

• They blew into the charcoal until it glowed red
• The trees flamed scarlet against the grass.
• [The roses blushed a deeper red.] [Jesse Romero]
• [Cook until the juices run clear.]

[Note that these are depictive, not resultative, usages. Contrast They blew into the charcoal until it turned red.]

So

• The sunlight, beating upon it, made it glow yellow.

is certainly licensed, but the complement may be legitimately adjusted:

• The sunlight, beating upon it, made it glow a golden yellow.
• The sunlight, beating upon it, made it glow a faint shade of yellow.

'With' may be used with these nominal complements (some might call them adjuncts), but not with the simple adjectives. However, the variants without the prepositions are probably more idiomatic in general.

These Google ngrams give evidence for relative frequencies of use: