🧵 Inconsistencies in color theory
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 17:27:22 UTC No. 16579530
>People universally agree that the opposite of magenta is green
>People tend to disagree on whether the opposite of green is red or magenta
>People universally agree that the opposite of cyan is red
>People tend to disagree on whether the opposite of red is blue, cyan or green
>People tend to disagree on whether the opposite of blue is yellow, orange or red
>People still believe that white is the absence of any color
You can't tell me that something is not wrong with our current understanding of color theory, fix this shit.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 18:10:57 UTC No. 16579568
>>16579530
Some people are retarded.
Simple as.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:36:53 UTC No. 16580303
>>16579530
Because
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:49:55 UTC No. 16580308
Depends on whether you're dealing with red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple
Anyway, if we do fix shit, I hope we start with gray, pink, and brown and just build shit out from there.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 15:11:06 UTC No. 16580379
>>16580308
>red-yellow-green-cyan-blue-magenta
this is the only correct one
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 15:25:14 UTC No. 16580390
Seems really weird that color from a linear spectrum can work in a wheel at all. I assume it has something to do with wave interference but I haven't bothered to actually dive into that possibility because I'm lazier than curious.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:02:43 UTC No. 16580490
>>16580390
>Seems really weird that color from a linear spectrum can work in a wheel at all.
This is the biggest clue as to what is really happening.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:19:22 UTC No. 16580502
>>16579530
All that really suggests is that drawing arbitrary lines on a continuum never yields a perfect model. The same is true of physics.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:20:55 UTC No. 16580505
>>16580390
>color from a linear spectrum
There isn't any "linear spectrum".
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:52:15 UTC No. 16580523
>>16579530
Read this: https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/co
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 19:42:34 UTC No. 16580555
>>16579530
>additive color theory
>subtractive color theory
Did you know both are correct? Were you playing with lights, or paints?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:05:58 UTC No. 16580628
>>16580555
Checked Trips of Five: Today You Live
>Did you know both are correct?
Yes, that appears to be the bait.
>Were you playing with lights, or paints?
Trolls play with facts and emotions.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:14:24 UTC No. 16580634
>>16580555
how can they both be "correct" if one model contradict the other? think for a second instead of guzzling everything that's being spoonfed to you retard
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:16:57 UTC No. 16580642
>>16580634
Aww, he never took differently colored lights to make white light.
Never looked at stage lighting
Never played with crayons
Only ate
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:19:25 UTC No. 16580650
>>16580555
>>additive color theory
>>subtractive color theory
Neither of those has anything to do with OP's issue with the color wheel.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:35:15 UTC No. 16580664
>>16580650
>neither
>anything
You appear to have spelled "everything" incorrectly. Would you like to try again?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:41:41 UTC No. 16580667
>>16580664
Obvious case of profound mental retardation. Should have known from your first post. Moving on.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 02:09:25 UTC No. 16580879
>>16580379
Magenta isn't real.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:46:22 UTC No. 16581061
Okay, I'll hit you with some hard-hitting truths about color, some of which may be hard to swallow. This is ALL objectively true information, and I've done a lot of research about color science. But unfortunately our education is SHIT when it comes to teaching color, so you probably have misconceptions about color you need to get rid of.
>ROYGBIV has never been a "real thing". Isaac Newton just REALLY liked the number seven. He was in fact extremely autistic about the number 7 specifically, so he insisted on forcing this to be the number of colors in a rainbow. It's an arbitrary color selection (also his "blue" is what we would now call cyan). So ROYGBIV is 100% bullshit.
>Similarly, the RYB color model is also complete bullshit based on outdated science, and it has ALWAYS been total bullshit, and we have KNOWN it is bullshit since roughly 1860. Our school systems have not bothered to update the science and to stop teaching us the very outdated RYB model.....I know this one is hard to accept because PROFESSIONAL art school still teach RYB, but i swear to god it's just because of tradition, there is NO context in which RYB is valid scientifically. A few different scientists correctly figured out humans have trichromat vision, but they had to sorta guess what the triad was, and they probably selected yellow just cuz it's more bright and vibrant than green so it seemed more likely as the primary. ERASE RYB from your brain, cuz it's fucking nonsense. The objectively correct color model is RGB and RYB was just inaccurate guesswork.
1/4
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:47:30 UTC No. 16581065
2/4
>CYM is objectively the best color system for paints, that's why we use it for printers. By "best color" however, I just mean it's the 3 colors which produce the most different colors when combined. But NO triad can give you ALL colors, because humans do not see color as a perfect triangle. If you're an artist, you shouldn't stick to one color triad at all. You SHOULD just come up with a palette to use that your painting will need, on the fly. CYM is the most ideal model to use for paints, but only in a vacuum. That's a kind of truth that changes with context.
>People will often say magenta is not a "real" color, but this is un-so. This is a semi-truth. You see the problem is, magenta is just as real as every other color...... Which is to say, not at all. Colors are NOT real, they are a built-in hallucination manufactured by our brain and visual systems in order to help us tell objects apart and not get eaten by a tiger.
>And when people SAY magenta "isn't real", what they mean is that magenta has no single wavelength of light it corresponds to in the physical world.... Which, has no barring on whether a color is real or not, because no color is real. If you subjectively experience it in your skull, then that IS a valid color. That's ALL color is, it's ultimately a subjective thing.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:51:21 UTC No. 16581069
3/4
>Wavelengths of light ARE "real". And the absorption of light is "real". But those are actual PHYSICAL data we can detect and measure. Colors are NOT that data, colors are our fucked-up scrambling and reinterpretation of the imperfect raw data our eyes detect. The measurements of light data you might be tempted to call "color" =/= the actual color we subjectively experience. Data about light particles is NOT what color is, it's just what eventually BECOMES colors when we experience them, and how we experience colors subjectively ultimately IS what color is.
>If you're still unsure, think of it this way: When you look at a yellow lemon for example, it MAY be reflecting pure yellow light. However, it may also be reflecting NO yellow light whatsoever. The lemon could merely appear yellow, because it reflects equal amounts of red light + green light. And yet, both lemons appear exactly the same. As a matter of fact, it's actually way MORE likely that you aren't looking at pure yellow when you see a lemon, because MOST objects you see in day-to-day life do not reflect a single wavelength of light, they are typically a blended average of several colors averaged together.
>So let me ask you this: would you reasonably say that the second, red + green lemon, which reflects NO YELLOW LIGHT at all but still LOOKS identically yellow, is not yellow? ...Because if you take that stance, then MOST objects you see aren't "real colors". But if you accept the fact that yellow LIGHT and the COLOR yellow are 2 different things, then magenta IS a real color, because it's just red light + blue light, it's no different from the lemon. Or from most everyday objects. Magenta LIGHT does not exist, but magenta the COLOR is just as real as the others....which again, is not at all, because color is a subjective artificial hallucination.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:53:24 UTC No. 16581073
4/4
>same with black, white and grey btw. People try to say they're not real colors, or they are the absence of color. Not so. If we subjectively see it as a color, then it IS a color. These colors are just a different TYPE of color, they are colors without chroma.
In summary, ROYGBIV is CRINGE, RYB is CRINGE. RGB and CYM are scientific and BASED. (Although imo CYM isn't actually any fundamentally different. CYM is actually just the RGB model again, it's simply using the opposite colors because paints work inversely to how raw light works. It's still fundamentally the same RGB system) H O W E V E R , let me hit you with one last curve ball. There is one more, scientifically valid color model: RYGB.
As we discussed, color only really exists as a concept in the brain. Well it turns out while our EYES see in terms of RGB, that's not the final data that reaches our brains. Our visual systems have filters in-between point A and point B. The first filter compares and contrasts how Blue VS Yellow an image looks. And the second filter judges how Red VS Green an image looks. THIS is the data that actually reaches our brains. This is why humans appear to view red and green as "opposite" colors, when scientifically speaking they are not. The RYGB model is called the "psychological primary" model, and it's perfectly valid system to use......so long as you're not mistakenly using it to inform your paint mixtures or measurements of light out in the physical world. Scientifically RGB and CYM are the only true color systems. But RYGB is also valid because it's how we subjectively color (and "color" only exists subjectively in the first place)
Have a colorful nice day. :)
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:13:23 UTC No. 16581090
>>16581073
tl;dr: human eyes are poor arbiters of light wavelengths but are reasonably good at serving their purpose
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:20:10 UTC No. 16581141
>>16581069
oh I so wanted to fight you, on principle, but I can't. you're right with this post. tho not sure about the yellow from the lemon, you're right on principle.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:39:21 UTC No. 16581385
>I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I - I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws; and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I'm a machine, and I can know much more. I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body. And why?! Because my five creators thought that "God" wanted it that way.
Cybernetic eyes when?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:45:17 UTC No. 16581399
>>16581385
that stayed with me.
how tf do you even encode IR for brain decoding? how would it represent it?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:37:34 UTC No. 16581477
>>16581399
Simplest way would be to just rebalance your range of color vision such that the red, green, and blue peaks are more spread apart. It'd change how literally all wavelengths look, but you could see a greater range of wavelengths.
tl;dr just map spectrum A onto spectrum B. You don't get new colors, but you do get predator vision.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:39:54 UTC No. 16581481
>>16581477
that is one of the only two logical ways a brain could deal with new visual spectrum. the other would be to invent extra colors.
still, what you said has to do with some abstract shit that is not yet understood. the signals are replicable but how the brain represents the color isn't understood atm, like at all, afaik.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:02:26 UTC No. 16581850
>>16579530
>People who know what they're talking about tend to disagree with retards
Whoa! Stop the presses!
>>16579568
FPBP
/thread
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:14:45 UTC No. 16581916
>>16581061
>>16581065
>>16581069
>>16581073
>>16581090
Thanks, here's a (you)
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 05:41:02 UTC No. 16582194
>>16581997
kek
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:44:09 UTC No. 16582735
Green and Magenta are the complementaries that are closest in terms of brightness, the others like Yellow vs Blue and Cyan vs Red are too imbalanced
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 18:17:05 UTC No. 16582785
>>16581481
Seem to remember seeing an article about new colors people see if they stare at a particular color for a couple of minutes and then look at a different selected color. The new color is neither of those colors nor one that we commonly observe. Think maybe it didn't work for me just like those 3d image posters that were popular in the 90s didn't work for me.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:23:06 UTC No. 16582846
>>16582785
>stare at a particular color for a couple of minutes and then look at a different selected color
never heard of this one
>those 3d image posters that were popular in the 90s didn't work for me.
managed to get those working one time, it was really cool
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:42:14 UTC No. 16582859
>>16579530
Solved. It's really not that deep.