![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"A primary color (or colour) is a color that cannot be created by mixing other colors in the gamut of a given color space. Primary colors may themselves be mixed to produce most of the colors in a given color space" -Wikipedia
"primary color n. A color belonging to any of three groups each of which is regarded as generating all colors, with the groups being: Additive, physiological, or light primaries red, green, and blue. Lights of red, green, and blue wavelengths may be mixed to produce all colors. Subtractive or colorant primaries magenta, yellow, and cyan. Substances that reflect light of one of these wavelengths and absorb other wavelengths may be mixed to produce all colors. Psychological primaries red, yellow, green, and blue, plus the achromatic pair black and white. All colors may be subjectively conceived as mixtures of these. See table at color." -Dictionary.com
1. Red Yellow and Blue make up all the colors in the RYB color space, so they are its primaries 2. in any event I fail to see how a color model itself could be deemed "incorrect" simply because it doesn't conform to three peak responsivities of the average human eye, especially since Wikipedia has not adopted a scientific POV
Well, how common in art do you think it will probably be as of...
Georgia guy 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is not accurate to say that the RYB model is incorrect. In fact many printers use "cyan" inks that are quite bluish, and "magenta" inks that are quite pink/reddish (see image below) -- i.e. essentially a compromise between CMY and RYB. There are also printers that use CMYK+Red+Blue for an increased gamut. DavidHopwood 04:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I can describe this image in words: The C and M (but not the Y) are about halfway between their RGB color and the color after them (yellow obviously not; it would look kind of lime green if it were.) Georgia guy 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've heard/read the substractive model being critiziced on the basis that additive model is "easier" and better relates to known physics and biologics. I don't think that there are any physical/biological claims included in the substractive model, so I fail to see how could such a model be "invalidated". Someone must know these issues better and could come up with a brief explanation? 62.220.237.74 11:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it's incorrect, why does it work? -anon
Any subtractive color model necessarily includes white, either explicitly or as the absence of colorant. A typical CMY[K] printer depends on the background color of the media being white, for example. Nor is there anything particularly wrong with additive models that require 4 or more colors. The costs of that need to be balanced against the increase in gamut, for any particular application. DavidHopwood 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Since RYB is a "historical" color space how about adding a history section to the article? Anyone have the data? 129.42.208.182 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You cannot create every color using the RYB color model. Red, Yellow, and Blue are the primary colors for the RYB color space, however that does not mean that the RYB space can be used to create every color.
A common mistake that people make (which is also made on Wikipedia) is thinking that pigments are subtracted. Pigments are NOT subtracted, they are multiplied. If pigments were subtracted then you would be able to produce negative light, which you cannot. Because light values are between 0 and 1 (0 being absolute dark and 1 being absolute light) when you multiply them they get darker. You can multiply different values of Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow, in order to generate all possible colors, however you cannot do the same with RYB. That is why RYB is not a correct color model/space/thingy. Vjasper 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate on this just a little bit, you might ask yourself why RGB and CMY are "better" than RYB. Here's the reason.
There are two kinds of displayed light, direct and indirect. Direct light is percieved as it's color value, ie a flashlight, or the sun. If you combine direct light their colors add. Indirect light is stuff like reflections. When you reflect light off of a surface the result is the pigment color (or the inverse of the pigment color, depending on how you're doing things). When you combine pigments they multiply.
You can represent all the colors that can be produced by light and seen by the human eye by combining different values of Red, Green, and Blue. You can represent all the colors that can be produced by combining pigments and seen by the human eye by combining different values of Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow. Red, Yellow, and Blue do not represent anything specific, that is to say they are an abstract color model. It has no real practical use (you could say it's practical for artwork, however the bottom line is that it would be much better to use CMY).
EDIT: forgot to tag, sorry. Here you go. Vjasper 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The article text shouldn't really be comparing RYB with RGB, since they're completely different models, RYB being subtractive and RGB additive. It should instead contrast RYB with CMY, which is a fairer comparison.
As I understand things: a color is a color. A color cannot be be subtractive nor additive. Well you might if you would mean that a color is produced by additive or subtractive process. But again: you cannot tell from the color. Subtractive and additive colorspaces don't exist. What would the difintion be to call a colorspace subtractive /additieve? Additive means lightness goes up when mixing colors and with subtractive lightness goes down. Mixing green and red goves you lighter yellow in an additive process and darker yellow in an subtractive system yet the hue (yellow) does not change. Mixing paint doesn't add or subtract lightness, the same lightness is preserved. If printer prints with dots next to each other lightness is preserved. So both processes are not additive of subtractive. Subtractive printing process means you lay layers of paint on top of eachother. Light gets absorbed and lightness goes down. The RYB colorwheel is something completely different than a RYB color space. RYB colorwheel is about mixing colors and telss you nothing about lightness you could make it a colosrpace by adding L and S for saturation: RYBLS -space. Now it is obvious that RYB color space which in corporates lightness is something different.
So: "RYB is a historical set of subtractive primary colors." is nonsense;
"The RYB space receives criticism for not being able to produce all perceivable colors." is nonsence as a colowheel doens't change it's lightness so it's obvouis that it can't get all colors. It does is capable a representing all hues yet not all saturations.
And probably "In particular, several bright shades of Green, Cyan, and Magenta are not producible from any combination of Red, Yellow, and Blue (and are absent from the RYB color wheel)." would be changed to saturated in stead of brightness (which is somewhat like lightness).
"In the RGB color space the colors are added, thus you start with levels of dark colors which are added to produce lighter colors." Is nonsence too. Again probably a RGB colorwheel is meant so don't link to RGB colorspace. The colorwheel nor the space are additive or subtractive. Again what would the properties be of a colorspace that is additive or subtractive?
Well I'll stop.. it's to bad.
BartYgor
13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. First if the article wants to describe a colormodel that uses only the three 'primary' colors RYB and it want's to describe it for mixing paints. Then all the colors you can make from these three using paint would be represented by the surface of a triangle (2D) in CIExy colorspace (3D) as you can see the number of colors would be very limited. If the RYB primaries would be of the same lightness all mixtures would have the same lightness. So you would not need white or black for convenience: you would really need them to alter lightness / saturation; to make more colors. But then you are talking about RYBWK space, which is something different than the article. Of course things are only a matter of definition I would not call RYB a colorspace because that would make you think to much of RGB spaces ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_spaces) which is not a space that represents all the colors you can make with RGB paint, but all the colors you can make with RGB light and where you can adjust the lightness of RGB independently (of course this would widen your gamut extremely as you can change lightness). So an RGB space is related to monitors. With paint you can't adjust the lightness of the primaries (or you would be adding black - a fourth color). So if you would imagine a RYB-space (as defined above:paint + 3 primaries) to be somewhat like the mentioned RGB 3Dspace for monitors you're verry wrong. You're RYB space is really only a 2D figure (very limited colors). That's why I insist that the word spaces is used for 3D color models. Colorwheels are in fact 1D (a circle of colors). But sometimes colorwheels have the interior filled op (representing all the possible colors one can mix from RYB) so that would be 2D. And please explain me when would you call a certain space additive / subtractive? What would it's properties be? Again to me ther is no such thing.-- BartYgor 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
At last an intelligent discussion, thank you! Good remarks! But, we first have to agree on what the article is about. Because yes you can adhance the gamut if you would apply tranlucent paint on a white surface (and translucent is very important here; and I did not read in the article that it want's to specifically describe this) but then again your talking about RYBW space in my opinion. Also the blackish color you would form in mixing paint (i'm specifically not talking about putting translucent paints on top of each - becaus in that case if you apply enough yellow in enough layers it well get black too) would be in the centre of the 2D figure (some gray with the same lightness as RYB if these three were of the same lightness, else it would be some mean lightness of the primary lightnesses) adding then more of the one primary would shift you just again a little bit away from that center towards the primary you just added, but you would stay in the 2D surface. And if you were even a bit right you surely can't make white with the primaries! -- BartYgor 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Adjusting the densitities seems logical. So you would be able to create lighter colors. That would give you a piramid (not a double piramid). And of course you can understand the words "RYB-model" anyway you want. But this is wiki and it is about what is generally understood when talking about "RYB-model". THis is what I would like to have cleared up in the first sentence of the article. Something like "the RYB-model describes all the colors one can make using RYB-pigment and a solvent on a white surface by mixing them or applying them as translucent layers on top of eachother". This is something completely different than "the RYB-model describes all the colors one can make by mixing RYB-paint". So this is paramount: what is generally understood when talking about "RYB-model"? In my opinion when talking about RYB-model they are talking about http://www.digitalanarchy.com/theory/theory_ryb-rgb.html which in fact are 2D colorwheels they are not talking about lightness (in fact there even is a colorwheel picture in the this wiki article). So they are not talkeing about additive/subtractive . So my conclusion is: you are not talking about 3D spaces! You're talkeing about colorwheels and the specifics about this RYB colorwheel (colorwheels are (like colorspace) colormodels) is that hues are more compressed between Y and B than for instance a RGB colorwheel (again i'm talking about RGB colorwheels not the RGB colorspace used for monitors -something completely different). So in my opinion the heading of the article should read RYB colorwheel. RYB-model is not incorrent but like with RGB colormodel you could mean the RGB colorwheel or the RGB colorspace used for monitors. So to avoid confusion: speak in more specifi terms (colowheel, color space) instead of colormodels -- BartYgor 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please answer my question about "additive/subtractive color models"? -- BartYgor 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. And I will be the first to acknowledge if true. But I did try mixing RGB and it gave me some brown (not dark! - maybe you are mistaking that a less saturated color appearce somewhat darker yet is still is of the same lightness). And how would i tell my printer to print equal amounts of CMY? I'm sorry but i'll believe you when you explain things to me. I'm just talking about basic fysics here. On this page http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color5.html#theorysub it is explained how yellow and magenta is mixed (scroll down a bit you will see the wavelength figure). From the figure it is clear that lightness of the mix is the mean of the lightnesses of the base paints. I'll explain more basic. Imagine a red and green sheet both lettre size. I cut them up in small pieces mix the pieces put close together so no of the table colour gets through. What you are basically saying is just by mixing up the pieces lightness (the power of the light so to say, will change). I say lightness stays the same: the same amount of light is reflected if pieces are mixed or not. THis reasoning seems logical to me. Were do I go wrong? Or maybe you'll say this website is also wrong. The whole world is wrong...?-- BartYgor 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This article could use some well cited info on the similarities and differences between RYB and CMY, as it is the "limitations and eccentricities" section is just comparing apples and oranges since RGB is additive and cannot be used in the same applications as RYB Velps 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(on file)@bellsouth.net I have found your site by accident mostly. I was looking up color theory, to understand it. I have been an art student for years. I am 56 years old and teach art only recently. I returned to college to learn computer art and added art education to the mix, because I love art I thought I would like to pass that on to high schoolers along with an understanding how to paint, draw and create commercial art and photography. In my last semester of my return year to college, I heard the phrase color theory. I had been taught color absolutes in the sixties, and I attended art schools in the New York City area. I learned the color wheel with red, blue yellow primaries, etc. I had been taught to use black to shade, learning many years later that green made a more lively darkening effect for red than black and so every other color used its compliment. I never could reason why the light, pigment and commercial ink color wheels were not the same. I confused me and I never thought to investigate why they did not work in unison in my mind. I just accepted these contradictions, because I thought it was scientific fact, not theory. Looking up why it is called color "theory", brought me to your site. Thanks for the study, curiosity, and work that brought so much information. I appreciate your corrections for my misunderstandings and faulty perspectives. It will help me greatly with my teaching. Dianne
This email dated 3-16-8 prompted the start of a Wikipedia article as a way to help those who want more information about color and the Real Color Wheel. As of 3-16-8 this site, ( http://www.realcolorwheel.com/) is getting 2,935,392 hits per month. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/WikipediaFiles.htg/3-15-8UsageStats.jpg I really don't know where this article should be placed, I thought "Color Theory" but that is crowded with what I call the "old" color theory. Here is my original theory page for the Real Color Wheel. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/colorwheel.htm I'm very new to Wikipedia so this will read as an email. I'm sorry about that, I hope to improve.
New Article: Real Color wheel was first designed in 1995 by Don Jusko, a location artist matching nature's colors to pigments. image = http://www.realcolorwheel.com/final.htg/OriginalRCWpainting1-500.jpg The conventional colorwheel based on the red, yellow and blue and it's subsequent secondary colors was incorrect because it couldn't be used to darken any color using only it's opposite color. They just made a brown hue when mixed equally and never black. The pigment black was used to make shades. image = http://www.realcolorwheel.com/mypigments.htg/makebrowns400.jpg Today we have permanent transparent colors that were never available before 1940, These new colors are primary in that they can mix the red and blue hues that were once considered pure and primary. Newton and all color theorists in the past never saw or recorded the real primary pigments transparent yellow, transparent cyan and transparent magenta, as cyan and magenta can't be seen in the rainbow or prisms.
The RGB computer model colorwheel and CMYK printer colorwheel are alike in that they both use black, less light in the RGB and black ink in the CMYK. The Real Color Wheel is different and colors get dark differently, matching the color element's crystal as the way to get darker mixed colors instead of using black pigment. The yellow to brown crystals show yellow, orange and red darken to brown before black. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#13,%20CHRYSOBERLE http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#19_RUTILE The cyan to blue crystals show cyan, cobalt blue and blue darken to blue before black. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#28,%20CALCITE http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#50,%20BERYL Magenta and green go straight to black.
With the Real Color Wheel all pigment color oppositions mix to a neutral black and all light oppositions mix to a neutral white.
I would like feedback as to how to make this article better, if I'm on the right page. Don ( talk) 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply Jacobolus. Your right, it is putting forth new information, which could be construed as promotion which is advertising. I don't know how else I could present original information. I re-read my copy and can't see anything as wrong. I am currently working on getting University collaboration for Wikipedia. 66.233.93.165 ( talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a disagreement Jacobolus, my color wheel information is original and can't be found anywhere else, that is an indisputable fact. It's not fair to denounce my work as unoriginal or inaccurate with out proof.
"The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
I would like some help to go forward. Currently there are 392 sites linking to http://www.realcolorwheel.com/ 2,935,392 hits per month has to count, something being done right. So what should I do?
2-24-08, In the past thirty days (on file) Northern Arizona University, BYU, Glenn Carleton College, Pittsford Sutherland High School, Imperial College London, University of New South Wales, Kennesaw State University, York College of The City University of New York and Lausanne Collegiate School have requested the Real Color Wheel course or Real Color Wheel. Don ( talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the actual standards for the RYB color model? Maybe in HSV or something? Why are these written here in hex, and what is the source for those particular colors? Surely, there are minerals that are the standard. 38.118.23.100 ( talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Was the RYB color model used by De Stijl? -- 88.77.227.210 ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll use the old version for clarity: "The RYB primary colors became the foundation of 18th century theories of color vision, as the fundamental sensory qualities that are blended in the perception of all physical colors and equally in the physical mixture of pigments or dyes."
This is not a sentence, as far as I can tell. The part after the comma, beginning with "as" is missing a verb. What is it trying to say? SharkD ( talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It may worth mentioning that painters' "blue" (which this colour model apparently use) is not the same thing as our monitors' blue. Now this colour can be described as roughly midpoint of standard blue and " azure"; see 19th-century example from George Field. I can guess that in the age of Isaac Newton, or possibly as late as in 19th century, the word "blue" denoted the colour area which extended farther towards green that the modern understanding of "blue"; hence Newton omitted "cyan" but added "indigo" to his spectral colours. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Jaspergeli: – It's not necessary to "paint" RYB as a broken and obsolete system as you have been doing in your recent edits, such as swapping in a color-mixing chart in which blue and yellow do not mix to green. Stick to presenting what RYB is, not denigrating it for what it's not. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the color between blue and yellow not green?
RYB aren't equidistant colors, I'm stating facts not lies. The color model I made is strictly calculated and blended. Even if you mix RYB yourself, you will end up having a brown mixture, not black, because theoretically, those colors aren't the appropriate colors to make one. This undid revision triggers a color theory war because you have a bias for RYB, even if you have a bias, you still can't deny that they can't make black because they are not equidistant. If you logically think why blue and yellow creates green (specifically dark green), is that the blue already contains cyan. The blue that is used in RYB color model is actually more azure (R - 0, G - 63, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 191, Y - 0) than blue, not the real blue (R - 0, G - 0, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 255, Y - 0).
No part of my edit said or implied that RYB is a broken and obsolete system. Other revisionists even state RYB is a historical set of primary colors and you removed their revisions. Then why did you name this argument as "Revisionist negativity"? There is nothing wrong with my color model, The primary colors are still red, yellow, and blue while the secondary colors are still green, violet, and orange. However, as I said I'm not the only one (if I am the one) who denigrates. Why won't you also comment on the other revisionists who called RYB a historical set of primaries? I did not denigrate or underestimate RYB but you did overestimate the capabilities of RYB by stating what it cannot really do.
Check out this comparison between the two. This is the earlier one before I made the color model: [ [1]]
The real color you will end up mixing blue and yellow is very dark yellow (R - 63, G - 63, B - 0 or C - 191, M - 191, Y - 255). In subtractive color principle, which uses the CMY color model, yellow and blue will make very dark yellow. Here's the demonstration:
With equal amounts you will have these: Blue: 1× cyan and 1× magenta Yellow: 2× yellow
1× cyan + 1× magenta + 1× yellow = 3× black Add 1× black to the remaining 1× yellow then you will get 2× dark yellow Add the remaining 2× black to 2× dark yellow then you will get 4× very dark yellow
These sites help me mix color models RGB and CMY: [ [2]] [ [3]]
So before you criticize my revisions, make sure you really checked out first what article are you on and know its principles. Jaspergeli ( talk) 15:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
See commons cat RYB for traditional RYB color wheels. It's not clear to me what primaries you started with exactly, or what mixture model you used, but's it's certainly not the RYB model. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
George Field has a pretty good 19th century explanation of the model. The evolution of thinking in the 18th century is discussed with lots of examples, such of which are RYB, at this source. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't see why Dicklyon has reinserted the diagram for Boutet's 12-color wheel. There is no special designation to red, yellow and blue in this diagram. They don't seem to be equally radially spaced as a "modern RYB color circle" (perhaps the only defining feature of an RYB color wheel vs. any color wheel), it isn't clear what secondary colors are here. This 1708 color wheel obviously resembles Newton's 1706 color wheel. What do either of these wheels have to do with RYB? Maneesh ( talk) 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"A primary color (or colour) is a color that cannot be created by mixing other colors in the gamut of a given color space. Primary colors may themselves be mixed to produce most of the colors in a given color space" -Wikipedia
"primary color n. A color belonging to any of three groups each of which is regarded as generating all colors, with the groups being: Additive, physiological, or light primaries red, green, and blue. Lights of red, green, and blue wavelengths may be mixed to produce all colors. Subtractive or colorant primaries magenta, yellow, and cyan. Substances that reflect light of one of these wavelengths and absorb other wavelengths may be mixed to produce all colors. Psychological primaries red, yellow, green, and blue, plus the achromatic pair black and white. All colors may be subjectively conceived as mixtures of these. See table at color." -Dictionary.com
1. Red Yellow and Blue make up all the colors in the RYB color space, so they are its primaries 2. in any event I fail to see how a color model itself could be deemed "incorrect" simply because it doesn't conform to three peak responsivities of the average human eye, especially since Wikipedia has not adopted a scientific POV
Well, how common in art do you think it will probably be as of...
Georgia guy 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is not accurate to say that the RYB model is incorrect. In fact many printers use "cyan" inks that are quite bluish, and "magenta" inks that are quite pink/reddish (see image below) -- i.e. essentially a compromise between CMY and RYB. There are also printers that use CMYK+Red+Blue for an increased gamut. DavidHopwood 04:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I can describe this image in words: The C and M (but not the Y) are about halfway between their RGB color and the color after them (yellow obviously not; it would look kind of lime green if it were.) Georgia guy 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've heard/read the substractive model being critiziced on the basis that additive model is "easier" and better relates to known physics and biologics. I don't think that there are any physical/biological claims included in the substractive model, so I fail to see how could such a model be "invalidated". Someone must know these issues better and could come up with a brief explanation? 62.220.237.74 11:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it's incorrect, why does it work? -anon
Any subtractive color model necessarily includes white, either explicitly or as the absence of colorant. A typical CMY[K] printer depends on the background color of the media being white, for example. Nor is there anything particularly wrong with additive models that require 4 or more colors. The costs of that need to be balanced against the increase in gamut, for any particular application. DavidHopwood 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Since RYB is a "historical" color space how about adding a history section to the article? Anyone have the data? 129.42.208.182 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You cannot create every color using the RYB color model. Red, Yellow, and Blue are the primary colors for the RYB color space, however that does not mean that the RYB space can be used to create every color.
A common mistake that people make (which is also made on Wikipedia) is thinking that pigments are subtracted. Pigments are NOT subtracted, they are multiplied. If pigments were subtracted then you would be able to produce negative light, which you cannot. Because light values are between 0 and 1 (0 being absolute dark and 1 being absolute light) when you multiply them they get darker. You can multiply different values of Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow, in order to generate all possible colors, however you cannot do the same with RYB. That is why RYB is not a correct color model/space/thingy. Vjasper 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate on this just a little bit, you might ask yourself why RGB and CMY are "better" than RYB. Here's the reason.
There are two kinds of displayed light, direct and indirect. Direct light is percieved as it's color value, ie a flashlight, or the sun. If you combine direct light their colors add. Indirect light is stuff like reflections. When you reflect light off of a surface the result is the pigment color (or the inverse of the pigment color, depending on how you're doing things). When you combine pigments they multiply.
You can represent all the colors that can be produced by light and seen by the human eye by combining different values of Red, Green, and Blue. You can represent all the colors that can be produced by combining pigments and seen by the human eye by combining different values of Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow. Red, Yellow, and Blue do not represent anything specific, that is to say they are an abstract color model. It has no real practical use (you could say it's practical for artwork, however the bottom line is that it would be much better to use CMY).
EDIT: forgot to tag, sorry. Here you go. Vjasper 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The article text shouldn't really be comparing RYB with RGB, since they're completely different models, RYB being subtractive and RGB additive. It should instead contrast RYB with CMY, which is a fairer comparison.
As I understand things: a color is a color. A color cannot be be subtractive nor additive. Well you might if you would mean that a color is produced by additive or subtractive process. But again: you cannot tell from the color. Subtractive and additive colorspaces don't exist. What would the difintion be to call a colorspace subtractive /additieve? Additive means lightness goes up when mixing colors and with subtractive lightness goes down. Mixing green and red goves you lighter yellow in an additive process and darker yellow in an subtractive system yet the hue (yellow) does not change. Mixing paint doesn't add or subtract lightness, the same lightness is preserved. If printer prints with dots next to each other lightness is preserved. So both processes are not additive of subtractive. Subtractive printing process means you lay layers of paint on top of eachother. Light gets absorbed and lightness goes down. The RYB colorwheel is something completely different than a RYB color space. RYB colorwheel is about mixing colors and telss you nothing about lightness you could make it a colosrpace by adding L and S for saturation: RYBLS -space. Now it is obvious that RYB color space which in corporates lightness is something different.
So: "RYB is a historical set of subtractive primary colors." is nonsense;
"The RYB space receives criticism for not being able to produce all perceivable colors." is nonsence as a colowheel doens't change it's lightness so it's obvouis that it can't get all colors. It does is capable a representing all hues yet not all saturations.
And probably "In particular, several bright shades of Green, Cyan, and Magenta are not producible from any combination of Red, Yellow, and Blue (and are absent from the RYB color wheel)." would be changed to saturated in stead of brightness (which is somewhat like lightness).
"In the RGB color space the colors are added, thus you start with levels of dark colors which are added to produce lighter colors." Is nonsence too. Again probably a RGB colorwheel is meant so don't link to RGB colorspace. The colorwheel nor the space are additive or subtractive. Again what would the properties be of a colorspace that is additive or subtractive?
Well I'll stop.. it's to bad.
BartYgor
13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. First if the article wants to describe a colormodel that uses only the three 'primary' colors RYB and it want's to describe it for mixing paints. Then all the colors you can make from these three using paint would be represented by the surface of a triangle (2D) in CIExy colorspace (3D) as you can see the number of colors would be very limited. If the RYB primaries would be of the same lightness all mixtures would have the same lightness. So you would not need white or black for convenience: you would really need them to alter lightness / saturation; to make more colors. But then you are talking about RYBWK space, which is something different than the article. Of course things are only a matter of definition I would not call RYB a colorspace because that would make you think to much of RGB spaces ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_spaces) which is not a space that represents all the colors you can make with RGB paint, but all the colors you can make with RGB light and where you can adjust the lightness of RGB independently (of course this would widen your gamut extremely as you can change lightness). So an RGB space is related to monitors. With paint you can't adjust the lightness of the primaries (or you would be adding black - a fourth color). So if you would imagine a RYB-space (as defined above:paint + 3 primaries) to be somewhat like the mentioned RGB 3Dspace for monitors you're verry wrong. You're RYB space is really only a 2D figure (very limited colors). That's why I insist that the word spaces is used for 3D color models. Colorwheels are in fact 1D (a circle of colors). But sometimes colorwheels have the interior filled op (representing all the possible colors one can mix from RYB) so that would be 2D. And please explain me when would you call a certain space additive / subtractive? What would it's properties be? Again to me ther is no such thing.-- BartYgor 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
At last an intelligent discussion, thank you! Good remarks! But, we first have to agree on what the article is about. Because yes you can adhance the gamut if you would apply tranlucent paint on a white surface (and translucent is very important here; and I did not read in the article that it want's to specifically describe this) but then again your talking about RYBW space in my opinion. Also the blackish color you would form in mixing paint (i'm specifically not talking about putting translucent paints on top of each - becaus in that case if you apply enough yellow in enough layers it well get black too) would be in the centre of the 2D figure (some gray with the same lightness as RYB if these three were of the same lightness, else it would be some mean lightness of the primary lightnesses) adding then more of the one primary would shift you just again a little bit away from that center towards the primary you just added, but you would stay in the 2D surface. And if you were even a bit right you surely can't make white with the primaries! -- BartYgor 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Adjusting the densitities seems logical. So you would be able to create lighter colors. That would give you a piramid (not a double piramid). And of course you can understand the words "RYB-model" anyway you want. But this is wiki and it is about what is generally understood when talking about "RYB-model". THis is what I would like to have cleared up in the first sentence of the article. Something like "the RYB-model describes all the colors one can make using RYB-pigment and a solvent on a white surface by mixing them or applying them as translucent layers on top of eachother". This is something completely different than "the RYB-model describes all the colors one can make by mixing RYB-paint". So this is paramount: what is generally understood when talking about "RYB-model"? In my opinion when talking about RYB-model they are talking about http://www.digitalanarchy.com/theory/theory_ryb-rgb.html which in fact are 2D colorwheels they are not talking about lightness (in fact there even is a colorwheel picture in the this wiki article). So they are not talkeing about additive/subtractive . So my conclusion is: you are not talking about 3D spaces! You're talkeing about colorwheels and the specifics about this RYB colorwheel (colorwheels are (like colorspace) colormodels) is that hues are more compressed between Y and B than for instance a RGB colorwheel (again i'm talking about RGB colorwheels not the RGB colorspace used for monitors -something completely different). So in my opinion the heading of the article should read RYB colorwheel. RYB-model is not incorrent but like with RGB colormodel you could mean the RGB colorwheel or the RGB colorspace used for monitors. So to avoid confusion: speak in more specifi terms (colowheel, color space) instead of colormodels -- BartYgor 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please answer my question about "additive/subtractive color models"? -- BartYgor 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. And I will be the first to acknowledge if true. But I did try mixing RGB and it gave me some brown (not dark! - maybe you are mistaking that a less saturated color appearce somewhat darker yet is still is of the same lightness). And how would i tell my printer to print equal amounts of CMY? I'm sorry but i'll believe you when you explain things to me. I'm just talking about basic fysics here. On this page http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color5.html#theorysub it is explained how yellow and magenta is mixed (scroll down a bit you will see the wavelength figure). From the figure it is clear that lightness of the mix is the mean of the lightnesses of the base paints. I'll explain more basic. Imagine a red and green sheet both lettre size. I cut them up in small pieces mix the pieces put close together so no of the table colour gets through. What you are basically saying is just by mixing up the pieces lightness (the power of the light so to say, will change). I say lightness stays the same: the same amount of light is reflected if pieces are mixed or not. THis reasoning seems logical to me. Were do I go wrong? Or maybe you'll say this website is also wrong. The whole world is wrong...?-- BartYgor 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This article could use some well cited info on the similarities and differences between RYB and CMY, as it is the "limitations and eccentricities" section is just comparing apples and oranges since RGB is additive and cannot be used in the same applications as RYB Velps 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(on file)@bellsouth.net I have found your site by accident mostly. I was looking up color theory, to understand it. I have been an art student for years. I am 56 years old and teach art only recently. I returned to college to learn computer art and added art education to the mix, because I love art I thought I would like to pass that on to high schoolers along with an understanding how to paint, draw and create commercial art and photography. In my last semester of my return year to college, I heard the phrase color theory. I had been taught color absolutes in the sixties, and I attended art schools in the New York City area. I learned the color wheel with red, blue yellow primaries, etc. I had been taught to use black to shade, learning many years later that green made a more lively darkening effect for red than black and so every other color used its compliment. I never could reason why the light, pigment and commercial ink color wheels were not the same. I confused me and I never thought to investigate why they did not work in unison in my mind. I just accepted these contradictions, because I thought it was scientific fact, not theory. Looking up why it is called color "theory", brought me to your site. Thanks for the study, curiosity, and work that brought so much information. I appreciate your corrections for my misunderstandings and faulty perspectives. It will help me greatly with my teaching. Dianne
This email dated 3-16-8 prompted the start of a Wikipedia article as a way to help those who want more information about color and the Real Color Wheel. As of 3-16-8 this site, ( http://www.realcolorwheel.com/) is getting 2,935,392 hits per month. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/WikipediaFiles.htg/3-15-8UsageStats.jpg I really don't know where this article should be placed, I thought "Color Theory" but that is crowded with what I call the "old" color theory. Here is my original theory page for the Real Color Wheel. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/colorwheel.htm I'm very new to Wikipedia so this will read as an email. I'm sorry about that, I hope to improve.
New Article: Real Color wheel was first designed in 1995 by Don Jusko, a location artist matching nature's colors to pigments. image = http://www.realcolorwheel.com/final.htg/OriginalRCWpainting1-500.jpg The conventional colorwheel based on the red, yellow and blue and it's subsequent secondary colors was incorrect because it couldn't be used to darken any color using only it's opposite color. They just made a brown hue when mixed equally and never black. The pigment black was used to make shades. image = http://www.realcolorwheel.com/mypigments.htg/makebrowns400.jpg Today we have permanent transparent colors that were never available before 1940, These new colors are primary in that they can mix the red and blue hues that were once considered pure and primary. Newton and all color theorists in the past never saw or recorded the real primary pigments transparent yellow, transparent cyan and transparent magenta, as cyan and magenta can't be seen in the rainbow or prisms.
The RGB computer model colorwheel and CMYK printer colorwheel are alike in that they both use black, less light in the RGB and black ink in the CMYK. The Real Color Wheel is different and colors get dark differently, matching the color element's crystal as the way to get darker mixed colors instead of using black pigment. The yellow to brown crystals show yellow, orange and red darken to brown before black. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#13,%20CHRYSOBERLE http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#19_RUTILE The cyan to blue crystals show cyan, cobalt blue and blue darken to blue before black. http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#28,%20CALCITE http://www.realcolorwheel.com/crystal.htm#50,%20BERYL Magenta and green go straight to black.
With the Real Color Wheel all pigment color oppositions mix to a neutral black and all light oppositions mix to a neutral white.
I would like feedback as to how to make this article better, if I'm on the right page. Don ( talk) 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply Jacobolus. Your right, it is putting forth new information, which could be construed as promotion which is advertising. I don't know how else I could present original information. I re-read my copy and can't see anything as wrong. I am currently working on getting University collaboration for Wikipedia. 66.233.93.165 ( talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a disagreement Jacobolus, my color wheel information is original and can't be found anywhere else, that is an indisputable fact. It's not fair to denounce my work as unoriginal or inaccurate with out proof.
"The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
I would like some help to go forward. Currently there are 392 sites linking to http://www.realcolorwheel.com/ 2,935,392 hits per month has to count, something being done right. So what should I do?
2-24-08, In the past thirty days (on file) Northern Arizona University, BYU, Glenn Carleton College, Pittsford Sutherland High School, Imperial College London, University of New South Wales, Kennesaw State University, York College of The City University of New York and Lausanne Collegiate School have requested the Real Color Wheel course or Real Color Wheel. Don ( talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the actual standards for the RYB color model? Maybe in HSV or something? Why are these written here in hex, and what is the source for those particular colors? Surely, there are minerals that are the standard. 38.118.23.100 ( talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Was the RYB color model used by De Stijl? -- 88.77.227.210 ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll use the old version for clarity: "The RYB primary colors became the foundation of 18th century theories of color vision, as the fundamental sensory qualities that are blended in the perception of all physical colors and equally in the physical mixture of pigments or dyes."
This is not a sentence, as far as I can tell. The part after the comma, beginning with "as" is missing a verb. What is it trying to say? SharkD ( talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It may worth mentioning that painters' "blue" (which this colour model apparently use) is not the same thing as our monitors' blue. Now this colour can be described as roughly midpoint of standard blue and " azure"; see 19th-century example from George Field. I can guess that in the age of Isaac Newton, or possibly as late as in 19th century, the word "blue" denoted the colour area which extended farther towards green that the modern understanding of "blue"; hence Newton omitted "cyan" but added "indigo" to his spectral colours. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Jaspergeli: – It's not necessary to "paint" RYB as a broken and obsolete system as you have been doing in your recent edits, such as swapping in a color-mixing chart in which blue and yellow do not mix to green. Stick to presenting what RYB is, not denigrating it for what it's not. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the color between blue and yellow not green?
RYB aren't equidistant colors, I'm stating facts not lies. The color model I made is strictly calculated and blended. Even if you mix RYB yourself, you will end up having a brown mixture, not black, because theoretically, those colors aren't the appropriate colors to make one. This undid revision triggers a color theory war because you have a bias for RYB, even if you have a bias, you still can't deny that they can't make black because they are not equidistant. If you logically think why blue and yellow creates green (specifically dark green), is that the blue already contains cyan. The blue that is used in RYB color model is actually more azure (R - 0, G - 63, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 191, Y - 0) than blue, not the real blue (R - 0, G - 0, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 255, Y - 0).
No part of my edit said or implied that RYB is a broken and obsolete system. Other revisionists even state RYB is a historical set of primary colors and you removed their revisions. Then why did you name this argument as "Revisionist negativity"? There is nothing wrong with my color model, The primary colors are still red, yellow, and blue while the secondary colors are still green, violet, and orange. However, as I said I'm not the only one (if I am the one) who denigrates. Why won't you also comment on the other revisionists who called RYB a historical set of primaries? I did not denigrate or underestimate RYB but you did overestimate the capabilities of RYB by stating what it cannot really do.
Check out this comparison between the two. This is the earlier one before I made the color model: [ [1]]
The real color you will end up mixing blue and yellow is very dark yellow (R - 63, G - 63, B - 0 or C - 191, M - 191, Y - 255). In subtractive color principle, which uses the CMY color model, yellow and blue will make very dark yellow. Here's the demonstration:
With equal amounts you will have these: Blue: 1× cyan and 1× magenta Yellow: 2× yellow
1× cyan + 1× magenta + 1× yellow = 3× black Add 1× black to the remaining 1× yellow then you will get 2× dark yellow Add the remaining 2× black to 2× dark yellow then you will get 4× very dark yellow
These sites help me mix color models RGB and CMY: [ [2]] [ [3]]
So before you criticize my revisions, make sure you really checked out first what article are you on and know its principles. Jaspergeli ( talk) 15:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
See commons cat RYB for traditional RYB color wheels. It's not clear to me what primaries you started with exactly, or what mixture model you used, but's it's certainly not the RYB model. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
George Field has a pretty good 19th century explanation of the model. The evolution of thinking in the 18th century is discussed with lots of examples, such of which are RYB, at this source. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't see why Dicklyon has reinserted the diagram for Boutet's 12-color wheel. There is no special designation to red, yellow and blue in this diagram. They don't seem to be equally radially spaced as a "modern RYB color circle" (perhaps the only defining feature of an RYB color wheel vs. any color wheel), it isn't clear what secondary colors are here. This 1708 color wheel obviously resembles Newton's 1706 color wheel. What do either of these wheels have to do with RYB? Maneesh ( talk) 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)