RYB at varying levels provides all possible colors in pigments - paints - when the colors are reflected light. Magenta-Green-Cyan is not pigment primary colors, but with emitted light as from computer monitors.
RYB at varying levels provides all possible colors in pigments - paints - when the colors are reflected light. Magenta-Green-Cyan is not pigment primary colors, but with emitted light as from computer monitors.
Sorry, Andrew, but this makes absolutely no sense. Computers emit RGB (red, green, blue) as primary colours, not magenta nor cyan. The primary colours of pigments are cyan, magenta, and yellow, not red nor blue. Those are the secondary colours. Red is 100% magenta plus 100% yellow, and blue is 100% cyan plus 50% magenta.
RYB at varying levels provides all possible colors in pigments - paints - when the colors are reflected light. Magenta-Green-Cyan is not pigment primary colors, but with emitted light as from computer monitors.
Sorry, Andrew, but this makes absolutely no sense. Computers emit RGB (red, green, blue) as primary colours, not magenta nor cyan. The primary colours of pigments are cyan, magenta, and yellow, not red nor blue. Those are the secondary colours. Red is 100% magenta plus 100% yellow, and blue is 100% cyan plus 50% magenta.
I’m not following this RYB/RGB conversation very well, but isn’t there something about getting all possible colors from RGB, by taking away whatever it is that makes colors vary? As opposed to RYB being all that is available to real life artists (not using a computer or technical equpiment) to use as primary colors? i.e., Real-life artists can only add to colors, in order to get all possible other colors, e.g., an artist cannot take color out once he’s mixed it.
Yes, light acts in the exact opposite from pigments (well, not “exact” opposite but the details are too complicated to go into). If you mix all pigment colours, you’ll get black. If you mix all light colours, you’ll get white. No paint on paper, it’ll stay white. Turn off the lights and it’ll be black.
And it gets even better when you realize that the colours you see are actually being rejected by the object you are looking at, meaning that the object is everything but that colour. IOW, a red rose is not red, and Obama is lighter than Romney.
Yes, light acts in the exact opposite from pigments (well, not “exact” opposite but the details are too complicated to go into). If you mix all pigment colours, you’ll get black. If you mix all light colours, you’ll get white. No paint on paper, it’ll stay white. Turn off the lights and it’ll be black.
And it gets even better when you realize that the colours you see are actually being rejected by the object you are looking at, meaning that the object is everything but that colour. IOW, a red rose is not red, and Obama is lighter than Romney.
Well, Romney does use that self-tanning stuff when he addresses Latino audiences, but I don’t follow what you mean when you say “the object is everything but that colour”. (BTW, I thought we were speaking in American. Why add a “u” to the word “color”?)
I am a (cultural) Canadian, that’s why the “u” in colour. And what I mean by a rose not being red, is that the reason why you see it as red is because the rose doesn’t absorb red and it bounces off to your eyes. With light, again, it’s the opposite. The sky is blue because the colour blue has a harder time passing through the atmosphere—it gets trapped there.
Be patient with me. (I know that you can, since your culture so un-parsimoniously inserts so many unnecessary “u’s”.) Isn’t it light that is being reflected from the rose?
Of course. The rose absorbes all the light except for what we see as red. That’s why lighter objects remain colder than dark ones, because they will bounce off most of the light. The dark objects absorb most of it.
For Rev King: You may not have noticed my note at the bottom of your earlier poem post. I didn’t change the blue because I thought you might like to have a choice as to what color you’d like to substitute.
Of course. The rose absorbes all the light except for what we see as red. That’s why lighter objects remain colder than dark ones, because they will bounce off most of the light. The dark objects absorb most of it.
Ok, the red is still some reflected light. What I am confused about is that you go on to say “with light it is the opposite”.
Ok, I think I’m almost there. So is this correct?: Mixing all of the colors of filtered light, would result in white, (or maybe, better to say, unfiltered light is white, and filtering separates it into colors). Whereas mixing all the different color sources of reflected light results in black.
The first part is right. I am not sure about the second part, though. When you mix all the colors of light you’ll get white. A white sheet of paper “is” white becuase none of the colors got absorbed by the paper and all of the light bounced off to your eyes. When you are looking at a black sheet of paper, you are literarily seeing nothing, as the paper ate all the light.
