![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
There are some fundamental problems with this article. Primary colors do not allow us to form the full range of human perceivable colors. Take a look at gamut and also Google it and you should be able to find that the gamut of a trichromatic TV or computer screen is far from the entire range of possible colors. The discussion of primary colors as a means of forming a color gamut doesn't belong in an article on complimentary color in the first place. Primary colors are only relevant to complementary colors from a historical standpoint where, for example, certain primaries/secondaries were picked for painting, etc. But from a color science standpoint, any color has a complementary such that when the two are added they will form gray (or the color of the illuminant in a subtractive system). It's irrelevant which colors are primaries.
If you want to understand primaries, the true authority is the CIE. Again, you will have to go outside of Wikipedia to get a thorough understanding of this topic. The short answer is that the only way to get the full gamut of human perceivable colors with three primaries is to make your primaries imaginary colors (or allow subtraction of colors in an otherwise additive system).
If this makes your brain hurt, you're not alone. I don't really feel completely authoritative on all this either. I will try to complete a complementary wavelength article to go with the dominant wavelength article when I have time (not for a while I'm afraid). This should cover complementary color except for the historical stuff, which we can keep here.
I'm really sorry to just complain and not help fix things, but I just don't have the time right now and thought I'd better at least point out the problems as I saw them. -- Chinasaur 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I tried to make the orthography of the article consistent. There were mostly "colour"s but some "color"s. But the article is named "color" so I changed it that way. If a great majority of people working on this article are British and have trouble remembering the American spelling, we might want to consider a move to Complementary colour, but otherwise I think this is the easiest solution. -- Chinasaur 18:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Colour is the spelling recognized around the world, color is the spelling in just one nation. I support formally changing the spelling of this word everywhere it appears. 66.46.152.30 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your changes. Wikipedia practice is to keep whatever spelling was used first in the article; in this case, "color". See the Color talk page for the most recent of numerous lengthy debates on this topic. -- Laura S | talk to me 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Put also spelt Colour on the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.51.100 ( talk) 12:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! This article says that yellow is the complement of purple, but at yellow it says that yellow is the complement of blue. 66.245.26.248 18:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Now, can anyone answer the question "Why are the 2 sets of colors different"?? Please read this very slowly and carefully:
In the summer of 2003, I stumbled across a site at http://www.gamecheetz.com/Rant.html that appears to explain very logically. It has a color section. When I stumbled across it, I thought it was logical in every way except one: it has not been widely adopted as standard. In February 2004, I edited various color edits to see how difficult the information could ever get widely adopted. Now, go to Talk:Color. The 7-section supgroup titled "What are the primary colors??" that is being discussed about the edits that I made sounded strange, but now I will reveal the truth: all I was trying to do is make the information mentioned in the above external link widely adopted, and it turned out that it can't. Three months later, I contacted the owner of the web site, convincing the owner that their information cannot be widely adopted, and the reason turned out to be that it was only the webmaster's opinion as of when the information was presented, and the opinion was changed. "The black-white scale and blue-yellow scales each have gray in the center, but the red-green scale has yellow. Thus, yellow is both a primary and a secondary color! No other color is both primary and secondary." (In contrast to the webmaster's previous belief as of when I stumbled across the page, which was all 3 scales contained gray.) Even later, I asked the webmaster how the red-green scale looks to someone who is red-green color blind and the answer was that the webmaster (contrary to what I thought when I stumbled across their site) is not an expert on colors.
Now, are any of you registered Wikipedians able to answer the question with your best knowledge: "Why are the 2 sets of primary colors in paint and light different??" 66.32.241.40 02:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As for that rant, the guy is seems to have mulled over the issue, but came to the wrong conclusions because he just doesn't know how the brain perceives different colors. The most comprehensive site on color I have found is http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/wcolor.html, and if you are interested I suggest you check it out. The reason all this information isn't discussed is because I think it's out of the realm of wikipeida (as you can see there there is a TON of info... too much to include in one encyclopedia article).
FYI the reason there are 2 sets of primary colors is because paint absorbs light, and colored lights emit it (that's why the primary colors of light are called "additive primary colors" and the primary colors of pigment are called "subtractive primary colors". Ctachme 05:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Changelog:
I'm still not pleased with the complementary subtractive section. I don't think purple and yellow or red and green pigments will combine to produce the illuminant color. But it's 2:25am and I get up in 6 hours for work so, another time. Ayeroxor 06:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you think about it, there should be a shade of grey that when inverted, will produce the same colour (ie; it is exactly halfway between black and white). Does anyone know what its hex is equal to, and if so, could you add it to the article as a piece of trivia? Tuck99 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The article currently claims:
In the RGB color model (and derived models such as HSV), primary colors and secondary colors are paired in this way: Red and green, yellow and purple, blue and orange.
With all the people obviously knowing the differences between the various color wheels and theories, how can something as commonly known as the RGB color model and it's complementary colors still be wrongly described? In the RGB color model, red is the opposite of cyan, green is opposite of purple and blue is opposite of yellow. The first image in this article even confirms this. Unless anyone can justify why the piece of text I just quoted is correct, I'll edit the above text. JoaCHIP ( talk) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I think this is obvious enough that I have finally edited the text. The opposite of red (255, 0, 0)is obviously (0, 255, 255), which is cyan, so you are obviously right. You can use any RGB color scale to prove this. Same with blue with yellow [(0, 0, 255) with (255, 255, 0)] and green with MAGENTA (not purple) [(0, 255, 0), (255, 0, 255)]. (255 can be substituted by any number, really, but you get the idea). I think this justifies editing that piece of text, and so I did. T.c.w7468 ( talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah and by the way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBG_color_wheel.svg . There's some proof. T.c.w7468 ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This was also labeled incorrectly in the afterimage section. The afterimage opposite of red is also cyan, so I've edited "green" to say "cyan" as it was clearly wrong, and any image if an inverted American flag will use cyan, and not green, as its red opposite. MXVN ( talk) 05:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that a few professional sports teams, such as the Mets, Knicks and Islanders (blue & orange), along with the Lakers (purple & gold), use complimentary colors as their primary colors. Is that relevant information? Mr. Brain ( talk) 04:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
transparent is something that lets light right through
translucent is something that makes light scatter
opaque is something that does no let light through
Some editors are removing large swaths of this article and replacing material with unsourced information and conjecture. Perhaps before making further dramatic changes, the issue should be discussed here. Taroaldo ( talk) 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I just removed a clarification needed tag from afterimages, as i think it was pretty clear how the afterimage is formed. I added a bit more clarification just to make it more clear. Larryisgood ( talk) 16:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Colored shadow redirects to this article, but the term is not explained, here. Shouldn`t that be changed?! -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 08:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a grave heresy, unless we essentially redefine "red" with a deviation towards magenta and "green" with a deviation towards cyan. Which sources speak about this and what exactly they say? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia refers to books of Bride M. Whelan. Does anybody read his books? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem with red–green complementarity in the RYB system. I'll add a book source. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I concluded that the source of confusion is conflicting definitions of “red”. I tried to explain something of it at b:Color Theory/Misconceptions – feel free to correct if needed. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I spent 4 days without Internet, and today surprisingly see all references to them disappeared from the article. It is not good. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Plese don't worry, the historical section isn't finished. Goethe will return shortly, along with Maxwell and Young. I just need to line up the correct references. SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically it is true, as rules for mixing differ, but actually (not terminologically) this difference is tiny. The citation intended to suggest (although it does not explicated) that van Gogh was right with his red–green “complementarity” but in his (pigment) system. No, he was not, and this pair was likely a misconception appeared somewhere in 19th-century.
There is almost no difference between RGB’s and pigments’ complementaries in actual colors (not names). The case with orange: actually, the same color, but referred to as “blue” (except in heraldry) historically and as “azure” since 20th century. These words were nearly synonymous and diverged with establishment of modern color terminology in mid-20th century. Just look at the “blue” of van Gogh’s paints.
The complementary of yellow, nowadays called the (color wheel) blue, was historically known as indigo: read the latter article to find a citation. It has no big difference with violet, which Goethe named as yellow’s complementary. BTW, Goethe’s “violet” is hardly different from (modern) “indigo”. Goethe did not make a noticeable error with these two pairs.
Finally, subtractive complementary to red is known to be cyan, never green. So, “RYB complementaries” are a misconception having little to do with any (either physiological or pigment mixing) color process. But the article retouches this consideration down. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It's true that Van Gogh said he was particularly crazy about using a crimson lake, which seems to have been alazarin crimson and thus close to magenta, and emerald green, closer to cyan, but for him those were red and green. SiefkinDR ( talk) 06:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This book Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green has a good discussion of the different variants of red and green, and other pairs, that can be used as complements. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please come up with a better image for the top of this article? The picture of the pilot flying blind is confusing and adds no information at all about complementary colors. Most people who come to this article simply want to know what colors are complementary. I believe we need a color wheel or chart that shows people the complementary colors. Thank you! SiefkinDR ( talk) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
What are complementary colours 102.221.220.128 ( talk) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
There are some fundamental problems with this article. Primary colors do not allow us to form the full range of human perceivable colors. Take a look at gamut and also Google it and you should be able to find that the gamut of a trichromatic TV or computer screen is far from the entire range of possible colors. The discussion of primary colors as a means of forming a color gamut doesn't belong in an article on complimentary color in the first place. Primary colors are only relevant to complementary colors from a historical standpoint where, for example, certain primaries/secondaries were picked for painting, etc. But from a color science standpoint, any color has a complementary such that when the two are added they will form gray (or the color of the illuminant in a subtractive system). It's irrelevant which colors are primaries.
If you want to understand primaries, the true authority is the CIE. Again, you will have to go outside of Wikipedia to get a thorough understanding of this topic. The short answer is that the only way to get the full gamut of human perceivable colors with three primaries is to make your primaries imaginary colors (or allow subtraction of colors in an otherwise additive system).
If this makes your brain hurt, you're not alone. I don't really feel completely authoritative on all this either. I will try to complete a complementary wavelength article to go with the dominant wavelength article when I have time (not for a while I'm afraid). This should cover complementary color except for the historical stuff, which we can keep here.
I'm really sorry to just complain and not help fix things, but I just don't have the time right now and thought I'd better at least point out the problems as I saw them. -- Chinasaur 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I tried to make the orthography of the article consistent. There were mostly "colour"s but some "color"s. But the article is named "color" so I changed it that way. If a great majority of people working on this article are British and have trouble remembering the American spelling, we might want to consider a move to Complementary colour, but otherwise I think this is the easiest solution. -- Chinasaur 18:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Colour is the spelling recognized around the world, color is the spelling in just one nation. I support formally changing the spelling of this word everywhere it appears. 66.46.152.30 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your changes. Wikipedia practice is to keep whatever spelling was used first in the article; in this case, "color". See the Color talk page for the most recent of numerous lengthy debates on this topic. -- Laura S | talk to me 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Put also spelt Colour on the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.51.100 ( talk) 12:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! This article says that yellow is the complement of purple, but at yellow it says that yellow is the complement of blue. 66.245.26.248 18:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Now, can anyone answer the question "Why are the 2 sets of colors different"?? Please read this very slowly and carefully:
In the summer of 2003, I stumbled across a site at http://www.gamecheetz.com/Rant.html that appears to explain very logically. It has a color section. When I stumbled across it, I thought it was logical in every way except one: it has not been widely adopted as standard. In February 2004, I edited various color edits to see how difficult the information could ever get widely adopted. Now, go to Talk:Color. The 7-section supgroup titled "What are the primary colors??" that is being discussed about the edits that I made sounded strange, but now I will reveal the truth: all I was trying to do is make the information mentioned in the above external link widely adopted, and it turned out that it can't. Three months later, I contacted the owner of the web site, convincing the owner that their information cannot be widely adopted, and the reason turned out to be that it was only the webmaster's opinion as of when the information was presented, and the opinion was changed. "The black-white scale and blue-yellow scales each have gray in the center, but the red-green scale has yellow. Thus, yellow is both a primary and a secondary color! No other color is both primary and secondary." (In contrast to the webmaster's previous belief as of when I stumbled across the page, which was all 3 scales contained gray.) Even later, I asked the webmaster how the red-green scale looks to someone who is red-green color blind and the answer was that the webmaster (contrary to what I thought when I stumbled across their site) is not an expert on colors.
Now, are any of you registered Wikipedians able to answer the question with your best knowledge: "Why are the 2 sets of primary colors in paint and light different??" 66.32.241.40 02:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As for that rant, the guy is seems to have mulled over the issue, but came to the wrong conclusions because he just doesn't know how the brain perceives different colors. The most comprehensive site on color I have found is http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/wcolor.html, and if you are interested I suggest you check it out. The reason all this information isn't discussed is because I think it's out of the realm of wikipeida (as you can see there there is a TON of info... too much to include in one encyclopedia article).
FYI the reason there are 2 sets of primary colors is because paint absorbs light, and colored lights emit it (that's why the primary colors of light are called "additive primary colors" and the primary colors of pigment are called "subtractive primary colors". Ctachme 05:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Changelog:
I'm still not pleased with the complementary subtractive section. I don't think purple and yellow or red and green pigments will combine to produce the illuminant color. But it's 2:25am and I get up in 6 hours for work so, another time. Ayeroxor 06:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you think about it, there should be a shade of grey that when inverted, will produce the same colour (ie; it is exactly halfway between black and white). Does anyone know what its hex is equal to, and if so, could you add it to the article as a piece of trivia? Tuck99 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The article currently claims:
In the RGB color model (and derived models such as HSV), primary colors and secondary colors are paired in this way: Red and green, yellow and purple, blue and orange.
With all the people obviously knowing the differences between the various color wheels and theories, how can something as commonly known as the RGB color model and it's complementary colors still be wrongly described? In the RGB color model, red is the opposite of cyan, green is opposite of purple and blue is opposite of yellow. The first image in this article even confirms this. Unless anyone can justify why the piece of text I just quoted is correct, I'll edit the above text. JoaCHIP ( talk) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I think this is obvious enough that I have finally edited the text. The opposite of red (255, 0, 0)is obviously (0, 255, 255), which is cyan, so you are obviously right. You can use any RGB color scale to prove this. Same with blue with yellow [(0, 0, 255) with (255, 255, 0)] and green with MAGENTA (not purple) [(0, 255, 0), (255, 0, 255)]. (255 can be substituted by any number, really, but you get the idea). I think this justifies editing that piece of text, and so I did. T.c.w7468 ( talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah and by the way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBG_color_wheel.svg . There's some proof. T.c.w7468 ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This was also labeled incorrectly in the afterimage section. The afterimage opposite of red is also cyan, so I've edited "green" to say "cyan" as it was clearly wrong, and any image if an inverted American flag will use cyan, and not green, as its red opposite. MXVN ( talk) 05:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that a few professional sports teams, such as the Mets, Knicks and Islanders (blue & orange), along with the Lakers (purple & gold), use complimentary colors as their primary colors. Is that relevant information? Mr. Brain ( talk) 04:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
transparent is something that lets light right through
translucent is something that makes light scatter
opaque is something that does no let light through
Some editors are removing large swaths of this article and replacing material with unsourced information and conjecture. Perhaps before making further dramatic changes, the issue should be discussed here. Taroaldo ( talk) 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I just removed a clarification needed tag from afterimages, as i think it was pretty clear how the afterimage is formed. I added a bit more clarification just to make it more clear. Larryisgood ( talk) 16:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Colored shadow redirects to this article, but the term is not explained, here. Shouldn`t that be changed?! -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 08:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a grave heresy, unless we essentially redefine "red" with a deviation towards magenta and "green" with a deviation towards cyan. Which sources speak about this and what exactly they say? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia refers to books of Bride M. Whelan. Does anybody read his books? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem with red–green complementarity in the RYB system. I'll add a book source. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I concluded that the source of confusion is conflicting definitions of “red”. I tried to explain something of it at b:Color Theory/Misconceptions – feel free to correct if needed. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I spent 4 days without Internet, and today surprisingly see all references to them disappeared from the article. It is not good. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Plese don't worry, the historical section isn't finished. Goethe will return shortly, along with Maxwell and Young. I just need to line up the correct references. SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically it is true, as rules for mixing differ, but actually (not terminologically) this difference is tiny. The citation intended to suggest (although it does not explicated) that van Gogh was right with his red–green “complementarity” but in his (pigment) system. No, he was not, and this pair was likely a misconception appeared somewhere in 19th-century.
There is almost no difference between RGB’s and pigments’ complementaries in actual colors (not names). The case with orange: actually, the same color, but referred to as “blue” (except in heraldry) historically and as “azure” since 20th century. These words were nearly synonymous and diverged with establishment of modern color terminology in mid-20th century. Just look at the “blue” of van Gogh’s paints.
The complementary of yellow, nowadays called the (color wheel) blue, was historically known as indigo: read the latter article to find a citation. It has no big difference with violet, which Goethe named as yellow’s complementary. BTW, Goethe’s “violet” is hardly different from (modern) “indigo”. Goethe did not make a noticeable error with these two pairs.
Finally, subtractive complementary to red is known to be cyan, never green. So, “RYB complementaries” are a misconception having little to do with any (either physiological or pigment mixing) color process. But the article retouches this consideration down. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It's true that Van Gogh said he was particularly crazy about using a crimson lake, which seems to have been alazarin crimson and thus close to magenta, and emerald green, closer to cyan, but for him those were red and green. SiefkinDR ( talk) 06:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This book Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green has a good discussion of the different variants of red and green, and other pairs, that can be used as complements. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please come up with a better image for the top of this article? The picture of the pilot flying blind is confusing and adds no information at all about complementary colors. Most people who come to this article simply want to know what colors are complementary. I believe we need a color wheel or chart that shows people the complementary colors. Thank you! SiefkinDR ( talk) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
What are complementary colours 102.221.220.128 ( talk) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)