2 of 4
2
Philosophy of HOLISTIC HEALTH—health of body, mind and spirit (soma, psyche & pneuma)
Posted: 30 November 2012 01:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22
RevLGKing - 28 November 2012 03:27 PM

Isn’t yellow, as a pigment, a primary colour?

Yes, it is.

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.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
TromboneAndrew - 30 November 2012 01:26 PM
RevLGKing - 28 November 2012 03:27 PM

Isn’t yellow, as a pigment, a primary colour?

Yes, it is.

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.

question

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 30 November 2012 01:37 PM
TromboneAndrew - 30 November 2012 01:26 PM
RevLGKing - 28 November 2012 03:27 PM

Isn’t yellow, as a pigment, a primary colour?

Yes, it is.

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.

question

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.

[ Edited: 30 November 2012 02:07 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 30 November 2012 02:17 PM

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”?)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

Oh, wait, I think I get it. I think that you are saying that the light that is reflected by an object is what is not absorbed by the object?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

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?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

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.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 30 November 2012 04:45 PM

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”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

Perhaps you mean reflected light vs. unreflected light?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Yes, you are right. Of course. What I meant was that the blue light in the sky is not really bouncing off anything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

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.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 10:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

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.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2