Page contents not supported in other languages.


I deleted the image I had created and posted many years ago. Now that the definition has changed/evolved, the image no longer adds enough value. Also it is incorrect: the text refers to the "tartan ribbon"-the image is of a girl. Not good. Also, a person could not sit still long enough to have 3 photos taken and be in register. Thus, poof, it should be gone. If someone can get the rights to post a copy of the real tartan ribbon image (which IS out there) that would be better.--Dkrolls 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additive vs. subtractive primaries

The article doesn't answer the one question that I had...why are the additive primary colors RGB whereas the subtractive primary colors are RYB. --grr 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“Primary” colors are completely arbitrary. Red, green, and blue are used because they have several desired properties: they allow a gamut which roughly approximates the shape of the gamut of human vision, and mixing them in the proper proportions (in, e.g., a computer or television display) yields neutral colors. With ink, cyan, magenta, and yellow are used because they are reasonably well spaced around a perceptually-uniform hue circle, and they define a fairly large gamut. But many printing processes (or painters’ palettes) use more than 3 “primaries” for increased gamut, for instance Pantone’s Hexachrome. --jacobolus (t) 01:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It says the the way humans perceive a mix of blue and green is yellow, but is unrelated to the yellow wavelength that is understandable but then it says that the photographer guy used color filters so somehow the yellow penetrated both the one which only allows green to go through and the one which only allows blue to go through this has nothing to do with human perception but light physics can someone explain?

A filter that we percieve as 'green' would be one that absorbs most of the reds and blues, but passess most of the greens. So it would also pass most of the yellow tones. Similar with the blue filter: it would also pass yellows. This is all further confused if the object you perceive as 'yellow' is actually reflecting that green plus blue, and could be absorbing yellows. You wouldn't know unless you used a chromatograph. 149.135.98.159 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First: I think the article's changed to remove that statement, but it's not blue+green that humans see as yellow. It's red+green that we see as yellow. Color is a combo of radiation, how it bounces off or is absorbed by objects, how our eyes detect that radiation, and how our brain interprets the info our eyes give us.
It's helpful to think about light from a physics perspective first. We can think about light as different wavelengths or different energies, with red having a long wavelength and lower energy compared to blue, which has a shorter wavelength and higher energy. Yellow, for example, typically composes those wavelengths of 570-590 nanometers, more or less. "Red" means longer, lower-energy wavelengths, and "blue" means shorter, higher-energy wavelengths. These aren't hard categories; light's a spectrum, so we can draw the line between "yellow" and "green" at 570 or 565 or 575 if we want to. There's nothing fundamentally "yellow" about 570-590 nm wavelengths from a physics perspective. It's just a range of wavelengths that most humans' sensory organs can detect, and we agree that our brains think this range of wavelengths looks different enough from other wavelengths to get its own special name: yellow, not green or orange or yellow-orange or yellow-green.
We detect color through our eyes. We have specialized cones that are sensitive to different energies of light. When light of the red wavelength range reflects off of something, our red range-sensitive cones are activated and communicate that info with our brain. If something's blue, then it's mostly reflecting blue light to our eyes, and the relevant cones pick that up and tell our brain. Most things in life reflect a number of wavelengths, so the color we see is about the proportion of wavelengths reflecting into our eyes and how they activate our cones.
Most people don't have cones specifically attuned to the yellow wavelength, but we can still see yellow. How? Both the red- and green-range cones are sensitive to some of the yellow range, and so when our brain detects that the green-range and red-range cones are both activated, it interprets that light as "yellow." However, when both red and green wavelengths are present, but not yellow-specific wavelengths, our cones can't tell the difference between that and physics yellow.
(Here's an example with arbitrary numbers: it's like our brains aren't able to see 2 (yellow) any differently from -1 + 3 (red and green) because we don't have special 2-detecting cones, only -1 and 3 detecting cones. So it interprets any -1 & 3 as "2" due to that quirk of our biology. Physics only counts 2 as yellow, but our eyes will accept any combo that equals 2 since we don't have 2-detecting cones.)
In summary: Physics-yellow is about the light itself, while biology-yellow is about how our body reacts to physics-light. It includes physics-yellow but also includes other combos of energy that our brains can't tell apart from physics-yellow.
Now what about the filters? We can think of light filters as only allowing a certain range of energies to pass through and blocking the rest. A blue filter will stop pretty much every wavelength that's not in the 450-495nm range (give or take), so the yellow doesn't really get through, nor does the red. The red filter mostly blocks green and blue (and probably most yellow). What about green? A filter that reads "green" to our eyes will primarily stop red wavelengths, but will let green through, and may let yellow and blue through as well since our brains can't tell the difference. It doesn't matter if yellow gets through or not, though, because our brains will see red+green as yellow just as much as yellow-only. As long as we have red and green, our brains' special shortcut allows us to project something that looks "yellow". EaroftheBat (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just wrong. Even the sentences itself lack logic. Saying:"It should be noted that additive color is a result of the way the eye detects color, and is not a property of light. There is a vast difference between yellow light, with a wavelength of approximately 580nm, and a mixture of red and green light. However, both stimulate our eyes in a similar manner, so we do not detect the difference." is saying the same as "it is a result of how we see but we can't see the difference". Better should be: "we can't see the difference if a color is a result of a subtractive or an additive process". In fact alot in the article is wrong.

No, this sentence that you find lacking in logic is in fact perfectly reasonable, and a decent description of how additive color works. --jacobolus (t) 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very difficult to me: 1. you admit that we can't see the difference yet it is the result of how we see. In my logical thinking: if we can't see the difference is saying it is unrelated 2.You seem to agree with my definition of additive / subtractive below (point3). Yet insist that it's something different too. Maybe I'm wrong. Could you explain in full that "additive color is the result of how we see"? I mean, if we would see differently (maybe animals, bees aso) then additive would be something else? IMO additive is independent of how we perceive the light (=color)--BartYgor 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original author here. I added that section because I have heard many people make statements that indicate a misunderstanding about additive colour. Additive colour is a trick. It fools the eye and brain into thinking they are seeing yellow, when they are not. What they are seeing is a mixture of red and green lights. Yellow light would weekly trigger both the red and green sensors in the eye roughly equally, because each sensor detects a broad, overlapping band of wavelengths. The red and green lights also do that, so we register "yellow".
There is no right or wrong yellow. If people see yellow, it's yellow, nothing else. And in your definition only the colors of one pure wavelength are the true colors. Any other color is the result of combining other wavelengths (those true colors). So in you definition any color we see (be it the result of an additive -mixing light- or subtractive -filters- process would be named an additive color. That would not be correct--BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, animals' eyes have different colour sensors, and detect light differently. So, for many animals, things like colour television sets would simply look weird - the colours would be all wrong. For an animal, you would have to use a different set of 'primary colours' - maybe 4 or more, ranging into the infrared or ultraviolet. Indeed, humans have widely differing colour eyesight, and some persons dislike colour on television because their eyes do not match the Red, Green and Blue wavelengths used.
This is IMO about how animals see light diferently than we do. It's about color but has nothing to do with additive color. --BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the links to the other articles important here. Those articles show how the eye detects colour. I would consider a lengthy discussion on how the eye works to be out of place in this article. Robbak 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, because IMO additive color production has no more to do with how we see than any other color article.

1. First if we can't see the difference there is no such thing as additive or subtractive color.

My meaning is that the eye cannot detect the difference between monochromatic yellow light and a mixture of red and green lights. This sort of yellow light is produced by yellow LEDs and lasers. Robbak 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so if you can't tell by the color if it's additive of subtractive (you can't even tell from the wavelength spectrum) then there is no such thing. If all sticks are equally long there are no short or long sticks (I mean ther's no reason to define such). You can talk about additive color mixing or additive color production as to say producing a color by adding lightsources.--BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They describe different types of media: one with colored light sources (or transparencies, etc.), and another with light reflecting on a paper. There is quite certainly a difference, which is quite substantial. But you're right that in either process at the end the eye perceives a spectral distribution, and has no way of independently discerning whether that light was reflected or not. --jacobolus (t) 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
because of all the confusion I would make this clear in the article.--BartYgor 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. You can get green from an additive process by simply mixing yellow and cyan.

Can you? If you get a yellow light and a cyan light and shine them on a wall, what you would get would be more like white, with possibly a green cast. We are not talking about mixing paints here, or pigments on paper. That is subtractive colour. Robbak 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed not be a fully saturated green. But more than a green cast. (See the CIExy chromaticity diagram). Mixing cyan and yellow subtractively would also not get you fully saturated green (yet more saturated than additive that's true). I mean ther's no real difference here while the article implies there is. It adds to the confusion IMO.--BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, this is true. --jacobolus (t) 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not change it in the article?--BartYgor 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Additive has little to do with how we see color except the fact that we see color iso wavelengths and therefore lack some information. Even the basic definition of additive is not mentioned: additive means that overal luminance risen with mixing (you add light, energy, luminance); subtractive means you subtract (light, energy,...).

Additive means that you are adding colours of light. Subtractive means that you are absorbing them. I would consider the increasing luminance to be a side effect of adding that extra light. Additive colour works because of the way we see. Additive colour only works because the human eye has 3 detectors which we can stimulate with three different colours of light. Robbak 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Additive color would also work if we had 2 or 4 receptors. You probably need 2 or 4 primaries, but that doesn't change the concept of additive color. Therefore the increase in luminance is the prime property of additive color mixing not the fact that it has 3 primaries (as I explain below - that is the result).--BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by “little to do with” it. --jacobolus (t) 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it is stated: "color except the fact that we see color iso wavelengths and therefore lack some information". THe fact that we can't see additive color is the only relation it has with our eyes.--BartYgor 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Primary colors in no way are abitrary in a physics way. For us humans we can call any color primary. But when we mix light or paint; it's no longer just in our mind because physics will influence the result. So if we define additive primary colors (it would be better to speak about the color of the additive primary lights) as the colors of the lights which can't be the result of mixing two other colors of light then it is easy to see that light of pure wavelength 700nm (red) can't be the mix of a lower and a higher wavelength as a higher wavelength is in the infrared region so we can't see it. The same holds for pure wavelength 380 (blue). Green is not that easy: therefore you would need to look at the CIE chromaticity diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space). It has the property that the you can predict the chromaticity (meaning the hue and saturation; but not the brightness - it may be somewhat strange but in color theory we name color as the combination of hue, saturation and brightness while in everyday speaking with color one talks about the chromaticity and adds dark or light to indicate the brightness) of the result of mixing two wavelenghts as the (weighted) average on the figure. For example if you would mix yellow (570nm) with an equal amount (same luminance) of cyan (490nm) you will find the chromaticity of the mix as the centre of the line connecting those two points on the diagram: in this case some unsaturated green. Now if you look at the figure you can see that also a green of about 520nm can't be mixed by two other wavelength because the figure makes a sharp turn there. (You can also see why mixing green of 550 and red of 600nm would give you yellow or in other words the mix 550+660 would appear to you as having the same hue as light of 570nm). If you would define additive primary colors as colors where you can make the most other colors of in an additive process the same primaries would be the result. As connecting the lines on the chromaticity diagram would give you the largest possible triangle or gamut. But there are no additive primaries that can give you all colors.

I think you have the point that I was trying to make. Additive colour has nothing to do with the physics of light. It has everything to do with the human eye. If you mix red and green lights they do not magically change into yellow light. It is still a mix of red and green, as passing it through a prism would show you.
As I said there's no such thing as true and false yellow. --BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to misunderstand subtractive colour as well. We see 'Cyan' because a pigment absorbs the red, leaving the Green and Blue. We see 'Yellow' because pigments are absorbing the blue, leaving that mixture of Red and green. Mix a 'Cyan' pigment with a 'Yellow' pigment, and that mixture will absorb both the blue and the red: You will be left with green.
Did I say something else?--BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going to your descripotion, if you mixed yellow and cyan, you would be triggering all three of the sensors in the eye: Yellow would flag the red and green, and cyan would trigger the Green and Blue. Yes, you would see it as greenish, but the overall impression (given that I have not performed the experiment) should be of white. Robbak 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I speak of green I mean the hue. Even if it is very unsaturated (grey) it is still green. In your definition when would something scientifically stop being green? --BartYgor 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Primary” colors are indeed quite arbitrary, “physics” having little to do with it. You can't actually get any spectral color by mixing any two other spectral colors, but if you pick any three colors as the corners of a triangular gamut that surrounds your white point, then you can make some color of every hue. So for example, you can't make the most colorful possible cyan by mixing green and blue. But you can make some cyan color. Red, green, and blue (additive) primaries just happen to form a rather large gamut, compared to other possible choices of primaries. --jacobolus (t) 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you're wrong their: the color matching functions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space explain just that. IN the CIE experiment they tried to mimic the spectral color by RGB. For the region of 420nm to 550nm they had to use a trick ('negativ' red light). That means you're partly right that from 380nm to 550nm all spectral colors could be the primaries according to my first definition (you can't get them by mixing other colors). I picked green of 520nm because it's is the most difficult get approximate. the color of light of about 490nm can be more easily approximated (yet you're right you can't get it 100 %right). I would therefore call primaries: the colors of the lights which can't be the result of mixing two other colors of light and with which you can make the most other colors of in an additive process (combining bothe definitions).--BartYgor 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrible definition. The primary colors chosen in an additive process depend on many trade offs, including cost, viewing conditions, available technology, etc., and are nearly never pure spectral wavelengths. --jacobolus (t) 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course those wavelengths are ideal. In PC-monitors you would compare the trade-off better gamut - higher cost, and maybe other technical issues. But that would depend on the aim (if the aim was a to do an CIE experiment you would try to get the clossest match or a match without trade-off as they did in the experiment), but still it explains why monitors work with RGB and why the primaries in additive processes will be somewhere in the red, green, blue region. It explains that the choice is not arbitrary (even if there were no technical issues or other trade-offs). It explains that if you were only to chose three colors (lights) which would you choose (or try to approximate). My definition of primaries holds there are numerous references out there (gamut + can't be mixed from others). But even just gamut as definition gets you the same answers. What you are saying is you can't name the optimum of a process the optimum because it can't be reached (or it's too expensive) --BartYgor 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this part over: I think we define primaries basically in the same way: largest gamut. The spectral colors RGB are the best fit to that description. If you don't want to add to the definition that "primaries can't be mixed from other colors": I can live with that, because it would no longer hold in subtractive primaries. So the mix definition is outdated, yet very much used, so something should be said about it in the article. And it should be said that the choice is not arbitrary: you can use other basic colors yet with an obvious trade-off. It think the article should answer the question why RGB are so common. And if you insist on the choice being arbitrary than you can't explain while there is one or at least make things confusing. --BartYgor 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we define them differently. The “ideal” primaries that you seem so interested in don't exist as far as I'm concerned. There are perfectly valid reasons for picking other than RGB “primaries” even if cost and technology weren't a concern. Primaries only can't be mixed from other colors within the same gamut… many of them could be mixed from out-of-gamut, even spectral lights. But if you define your primaries to just be three spectral colors of some “ideal” wavelength, that's an equally bullshit definition. No spectral color is magically better than another, and none can be mixed from some combination of two others. And “largest gamut” is also not particularly well defined: are we talking about in a roughly perceptually-uniform space like CIECAM? Or just on an xy chromaticity diagram? The article should *definitely* explain why RGB are commonly used. But it shouldn't ascribe to them some mystical significance. --jacobolus (t) 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition is then: "primaries are just the colors that you start of with to mix";. If that is your definition than any color will of course be a primary as you can freely pick the colors you will start mixing with. Talk about BS though. And why is stated in RYB article "It predates modern scientific color theory", if primaries are so 100% arbitrary: it's completely within modern scientific color theory. "none can be mixed from some combination of two others" is BS too: look at the CIE experiment -> color matching functions: or is that expriment BS too? And sentences like "And “largest gamut” is also not particularly well defined: are we talking about in a roughly perceptually-uniform space like CIECAM" just proove you don't understand what you're talking about. Gamut is the set of colors that can be reproduced, so a largest gamut will be the largest in any colorspace that encompasses all visible colors, perceptually-uniform or not. Using the xy chromaticity diagram could in theory lead you to wrong conclusions (as it is only a section of the CIE xyY space), yet it gives a good first idea and gives in almost every practicle case the right conclusion. Ther is absolutely no reason te define the colorspace when your saying "largest gamut". "No spectral color is magically better than another", in my definition of primary (largest gamut) there is. In yours there isn't.--BartYgor 13:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, you misunderstand. a) the RYB model *does* predate modern color theory, and the idea that the colors red, yellow, and blue are uniquely special *is* inconsistent with current understanding of how color works. I'm not sure what your point is there. b) “Largest” depends on color space, because in different spaces, the relative volumes of different gamuts will change. So just picking “largest” based on an xy chromaticity chart is somewhat misleading. Overall, BartYgor, you have generated tens of thousands of words of discussion on several articles, and very little benefit for myself or wikipedia has come of it. I'm going to for the most part stop discussing these subjects with you. I mean no disrespect, but it's not worth the time. I do wish you the best of luck in continuing to learn about color science and applications, and please do keep working to improve Wikipedia's color-related articles. --jacobolus (t) 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of 'volume'(see that is what most authors seem to do I've met here. THey sway around with terms and don't even bother to define them in the first place so a genuine discussion can take place - looking true wiki talk pages I saw numerous complaints of people that worked hard to get things right and than come back after some time (years) and see somebody else made a mess of things. You may wish me good luck but I have learned one thing: don't trust wiki - trust your own mind) in colorspace can't be anything else than number of colors. This number can not change in whichever colorspace you project the gamut (as long the colorspace is larger than the gamut). The shape might change, but not the volume, not the number of colors as this is the definition of gamut.If i'm wrong: give me an example. Can't be that hard.--BartYgor 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing wiki's seem to do is never admit they were wrong (be a man about things!) and you just divert the discussion on other subject. For example I started this point by saying: "Primary colors in no way are abitrary in a physics way." This holds. I say: additive has no more to do with the way we see than color itself. I'm right again. Even the two people who asked some pertinent questions in the beginning feel that something is illogic about everything. But yeah just go on ignoring that....--BartYgor 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Inter-Society Color Council (ISCC) is the principal professional society in the field of color, encompassing the arts, sciences, and industry. They agree that cyan, magenta and yellow are the primary colors of pigment, which in

combination can form all hues. The most recent draft of the revised California science framework also states this." And so you keep insisting primary colors are arbitrary and blabbing about references. You hold tight on your definition. Best of luck with it. --BartYgor 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong every now and then; hey I'm glad: I learn. But you dan't even seem to think for yourself. From my definition of primary I deduct complete logic conclusions. So don't talk about BS. Fight me on my definition! And about the definition of primaries: just type that in google and see how rare or even nonexisting you definition is. I don't say it's invalid (you can name anything the way you want) but not on wiki.--BartYgor 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THis is more for the primary colors Talk pages IMO -BartYgor 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Why CMY are the primary subtractive colors read my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CMYK_color_model#Why_we_use_CMYK_in_printing --BartYgor 15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant to this article. --jacobolus (t) 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the question of Grr.--BartYgor 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what? --jacobolus (t) 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert non-formatted text here

the question that started the discussion.--BartYgor 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

This article is surely above stub class. IMHO, this article contains as much information as it needs: personally, I would consider it complete. Hence, I have rated it B. Feel free to comment, or change it back even, if you disagree. Robbak 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, compare this article to B class articles in this wikiproject, and you will see that this one is far less developed. The article first needs some references, and a few more filled-out sub-sections. At that point we can perhaps consider it "start" class. It's nowhere close to B class, however. --jacobolus (t) 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

The topic itself seems to be color composition, or color models. Combining additive and subtractive color composition would allow for an overview and comparison, increasing understanding of the subject matter. (Which is an issue of confusion, as witnessed by the section Additive vs. subtractive primaries, on this page.)

Seems reasonable. Take a stab at writing the article at one location (or in user space if you prefer), and then we can redirect the other, and move the title. jacobolus (t) 20:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White!?

The addition of red, green and blue light does not yeild white. It may be true to say that the three produce "white light" but "white light" is not white it is in fact transparent. The only time that red, green and blue light produces a white colour is when they are shone on a white background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk • contribs)

A more common example is the emitted light from a CRT, or the transmitted light from an LCD display; the small red, green, and blue areas merge visually to appear white. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If white is "Every color mixed" then howcome "there's a difference between red and green light mixed and actual yellow light" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
White is not just “every color mixed”. White, like all colors, is a psychological phenomenon. Specifically, white is a light neutral color (which depends on current adaptation). Whether something appears “white” or “gray” depends on context, basically on perceptual interpretations of the lighting and spatial relationships of objects. As for the difference between an admixture of red and green, versus other yellow light sources: there are many possible light spectra which will create an impression of yellow. One way to do it is with a light source emitting a narrow set of yellow wavelengths. Another way is to use a light source with two narrow sets of green and red wavelengths. These are demonstrably different spectra, but produce the same color sensation. See metamerism (color) and color constancy. –jacobolus (t) 20:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, white light is light that, if you run it through a prism, produces all the colors.. So surely yellow light through a prism would give you red and green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, neither of those two things is correct. It is possible to make light of white appearance with relatively flat spectra, and it is possible to make light of yellow appearance with a spectrum that peaks at red/green wavelengths. But there are (infinitely) many possible spectra which produce any particular color sensation – these possible spectra take quite diverse shapes. To understand how this works, I recommend you read this page, which explains it quite well. –jacobolus (t) 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs a citation. After all, white is the reflection and absence of all colours, whereas black is an encompassing and absorption of all colours. And the mixture of the three primary colours makes BROWN not white. People will be ridiculously confused about the wording in this article. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It’s ambiguous what you mean by “mixture of the three primary colors”; we’re talking about light mixture here, not paint mixture. –jacobolus (t) 06:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subtractive CMYK is RYB(K)

Additive Cyan Magenta & Yellow get confused with the subtractive CMYK process & vice versa. The Cyan/Magenta/Yellow of the Subtractive CMYK model are identical to the traditional Red Yellow Blue used in traditional pigment mixing. The CMYK pigments are designed for use on a white substrate. I know, it's going to be a hard sell, but the Cyan & Magenta pigments ARE NOT by any means the perceived turquoise & fuchsia tones that they are commonly represented as. This is a HUGE error. In the literal sense the word cyan is associated with the color of lapis lazuli while magenta is named after Magenta, Italy, alluding to the blood shed in a battle there (1859). I admit, when lightly applied to a white substrate, the cyan & magenta pigments do appear to be analogous with the cyan & magenta portions of the additive model. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this is primarily due to the white substrate they are placed upon. If one takes the cyan & magenta pigments themselves & layers them so as to subtract the influence of the substrate entirely, one will undoubtedly recognize the reasoning behind their names. Magenta truly is a blood red pigment, while Cyan certainly embodies the color of lapis lazuli...Lostubes (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


When you come back, bring some reliable sources that explain what you're thinking; otherwise it's just a rant. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes... I know, it is all just rants at this point. I'm not insisting that anything be altered without any reliable sources. I just can't help but be a bit flustered by the use color in the representation of the dyes used in the CMYK process. The only evidence you need to understand where I'm coming from can be purchased from your local art supplier. However, I do think my "rant" could serve to point other editors in the right direction as to what needs to be more concise on this & other related pages.Lostubes (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Other Words

This is the subtractive CMYK model, it is the same as the RYB model. There is a lot of confusion generated by the idea that the additive RGB primaries are analogs to the subtractive OGP secondaries, but I assure you, subtractive CMY primaries are nowhere near additive CMY secondaries & the proper explanation of both models lies in understanding that they are opposite in their utilization of light & shadow & in no way should this contrast be used to denote that Red Yellow Green Cyan Blue Magenta additive color pattern is the contrasting opposite of the Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple subtractive color pattern. The primary difference is not that simple Lostubes (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three-color printing process colors may use a cyan a bit closer to blue, and a magneta closer to red, than the secondary colors of the additive RGB space, but they are still usually called cyan and magnenta. In the early 20th century, cyan was called "cyan blue". See The Colorist or some of these other books to help unconfuse yourself. Keep in mind that any set of colors can be used as primaries, and that the CMY system is a set of conventions, pretty well fitted to typical color printing needs, giving a pretty good color gamut, but not uniquely perfect. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The “additive secondaries” “magenta” and “cyan” are actually extremely far away from any meaning of those color names before 50 years ago. The names were appropriated because they were convenient, and because they allowed a simple analogy to be made between process printing and RGB “additive primaries”. (For that matter, the RGB “red” is really more like orangish red, and RGB “green” is more like green–yellow. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Color terms “red”, “green”, and “blue” historically covered large ranges of hues, including RGB meaning of these. Except for “blue”, I doubt that there was some standard in mid-20th century with meanings seriously different from moderm RGB ones. “Magenta” already was invariably distinguished from red (unlike the situation in 19th century), and, I think (although my English is not native), “green” did not denote turquoise (color). “Blue” is more problematical, because it was historically centered on azure (color) or even more cyan-like colors: remember Newton’s green–blue–indigo–violet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

additive color from non-luminous sources

additive yellow produced from color pencils under ultraviolet light.

While experimenting with mixing colors under a black light, I seem to have run into something interesting. The uploaded image demonstrates that additive color isn't specific to colored lights. Under an ultraviolet light source, I used the same shade of green mixed with shades of red, red-orange & orange. As you can see, in each case I was able to produce yellow. I will redo this a bit more carefully in order to provide a clearer depiction of the phenomena (as well as bump up the production quality of the image itself). Needles to say... I'm thoroughly confused... Lostubes (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose the nature or UV light kind of makes the pigments light sources, but still... this kind of shakes up the nomenclature...Lostubes (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oh, these are crayola extreme color pencils, on black artagain paper, under an ultraviolet LED flashlight. for the most part, under normal light everything just looks like shades of black. the colors used are 'fiery rose' as red, 'sizzling sunset' as red-orange, 'heat wave' as orange & 'lemon glacier' as green. Just in case you wanted to reproduce this experiment. I know, crayola names are pretty lame. Lostubes (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

additive & subtractive models both using subtractive primaries

everything is all wrong =( These are just regular neon subtractive primaries on black paper under ultraviolet light... my head is going to explode.

hey, wait a minute... that's actually a pretty good way to describe it...

File:Additive & subtractive models use the same primaries.jpg
RGB is RYB in different contexts?!! WHAT DOES THIS MEEEEEEN?

Lostubes (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of confusion

The present “Examples” section promulgates the confusion between RGB and “physiological” color spaces. Indeed, even CIE 1931 is not completely physiological AFAIK as its X coordinate was defined from colorimetry, not a measurement of the actual (low-level) “L” cone response. “Red” (even purest of reds) is far from being a pure “L” and effects the “M” response as well, whereas “Green” affects all the three (although with “M” > “L” ≫ “S”). There is no spectral light that turns on one of those “L/M/S” and does not effect a significant response of any of the remaining two. I think, dumb tables do not help, but a color map like one pictured at the right would be useful to explain the necessity to choose namely red, green, and blue/indigo, not some other colors.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Additive_color