Talk:Additive color

message: I deleted the image I had created and posted many years ago. Now that the definition has changed/evolved, the image no longer adds enough value. Also it is incorrect: the text refers to the "tartan ribbon"-the image is of a girl. Not good. Also, a person could not sit still long enough to have 3 photos taken and be in register. Thus, poof, it should be gone. If someone can get the rights to post a copy of the real tartan ribbon image (which IS out there) that would be better.--Dkrolls 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is surely above stub class. IMHO, this article contains as much information as it needs: personally, I would consider it complete. Hence, I have rated it B. Feel free to comment, or change it back even, if you disagree. Robbak 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, compare this article to B class articles in this wikiproject, and you will see that this one is far less developed.  The article first needs some references, and a few more filled-out sub-sections.  At that point we can perhaps consider it "start" class.  It's nowhere close to B class, however.  --jacobolus (t) 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: The topic itself seems to be color composition, or color models. Combining additive and subtractive color composition would allow for an overview and comparison, increasing understanding of the subject matter. (Which is an issue of confusion, as witnessed by the section Additive vs. subtractive primaries, on this page.)
: Seems reasonable. Take a stab at writing the article at one location (or in user space if you prefer), and then we can redirect the other, and move the title. jacobolus (t) 20:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: The addition of red, green and blue light does not yeild white. It may be true to say that the three produce "white light" but "white light" is not white it is in fact transparent.  The only time that red, green and blue light produces a white colour is when they are shone on a white background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk • contribs) 
:A more common example is the emitted light from a CRT, or the transmitted light from an LCD display; the small red, green, and blue areas merge visually to appear white.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If white is "Every color mixed" then howcome "there's a difference between red and green light mixed and actual yellow light" ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  White is not just “every color mixed”. White, like all colors, is a psychological phenomenon. Specifically, white is a light neutral color (which depends on current adaptation). Whether something appears “white” or “gray” depends on context, basically on perceptual interpretations of the lighting and spatial relationships of objects. As for the difference between an admixture of red and green, versus other yellow light sources: there are many possible light spectra which will create an impression of yellow. One way to do it is with a light source emitting a narrow set of yellow wavelengths. Another way is to use a light source with two narrow sets of green and red wavelengths. These are demonstrably different spectra, but produce the same color sensation. See metamerism (color) and color constancy. –jacobolus (t) 20:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, white light is light that, if you run it through a prism, produces all the colors.. So surely yellow light through a prism would give you red and green.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, neither of those two things is correct. It is possible to make light of white appearance with relatively flat spectra, and it is possible to make light of yellow appearance with a spectrum that peaks at red/green wavelengths. But there are (infinitely) many possible spectra which produce any particular color sensation – these possible spectra take quite diverse shapes. To understand how this works, I recommend you read this page, which explains it quite well. –jacobolus (t) 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this needs a citation. After all, white is the reflection and absence of all colours, whereas black is an encompassing and absorption of all colours. And the mixture of the three primary colours makes BROWN not white. People will be ridiculously confused about the wording in this article. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It’s ambiguous what you mean by “mixture of the three primary colors”; we’re talking about light mixture here, not paint mixture. –jacobolus (t) 06:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: White!?

message: Additive Cyan Magenta & Yellow get confused with the subtractive CMYK process & vice versa.   The Cyan/Magenta/Yellow of the Subtractive CMYK model are identical to the traditional Red Yellow Blue used in traditional pigment mixing.  The CMYK pigments are designed for use on a white substrate.  I know, it's going to be a hard sell, but the Cyan & Magenta pigments ARE NOT by any means the perceived turquoise & fuchsia tones that they are commonly represented as.  This is a HUGE error.  In the literal sense the word cyan is associated with the color of lapis lazuli while magenta is named after Magenta, Italy, alluding to the blood shed in a battle there (1859).  I admit, when lightly applied to a white substrate, the cyan & magenta pigments do appear to be analogous with the cyan & magenta portions of the additive model.  However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this is primarily due to the white substrate they are placed upon.  If one takes the cyan & magenta pigments themselves & layers them so as to subtract the influence of the substrate entirely, one will undoubtedly recognize the reasoning behind their names.   Magenta truly is a blood red pigment, while Cyan certainly embodies the color of lapis lazuli...Lostubes (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When you come back, bring some reliable sources that explain what you're thinking; otherwise it's just a rant.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes... I know, it is all just rants at this point.  I'm not insisting that anything be altered without any reliable sources.  I just can't help but be a bit flustered by the use color in the representation of the dyes used in the CMYK process.  The only evidence you need to understand where I'm coming from can be purchased from your local art supplier.  However, I do think my "rant" could serve to point other editors in the right direction as to what needs to be more concise on this & other related pages.Lostubes (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, three-color printing process colors may use a cyan a bit closer to blue, and a magneta closer to red, than the secondary colors of the additive RGB space, but they are still usually called cyan and magnenta.  In the early 20th century, cyan was called "cyan blue".  See The Colorist or some of these other books to help unconfuse yourself.  Keep in mind that any set of colors can be used as primaries, and that the CMY system is a set of conventions, pretty well fitted to typical color printing needs, giving a pretty good color gamut, but not uniquely perfect.   Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The “additive secondaries” “magenta” and “cyan” are actually extremely far away from any meaning of those color names before 50 years ago. The names were appropriated because they were convenient, and because they allowed a simple analogy to be made between process printing and RGB “additive primaries”. (For that matter, the RGB “red” is really more like orangish red, and RGB “green” is more like green–yellow. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Color terms “red”, “green”, and “blue” historically covered large ranges of hues, including RGB meaning of these. Except for “blue”, I doubt that there was some standard in mid-20th century with meanings seriously different from moderm RGB ones. “Magenta” already was invariably distinguished from red (unlike the situation in 19th century), and, I think (although my English is not native), “green” did not denote turquoise (color). “Blue” is more problematical, because it was historically centered on azure (color) or even more cyan-like colors: remember Newton’s green–blue–indigo–violet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtractive CMYK is RYB(K) 

message: This is the subtractive K model, it is the same as the  model.  There is a lot of confusion generated by the idea that the additive  primaries are analogs to the subtractive   secondaries, but I assure you, subtractive  primaries are nowhere near additive  secondaries & the proper explanation of both models lies in understanding that they are opposite in their utilization of light & shadow & in no way should this contrast be used to denote that       additive color pattern is the contrasting opposite of the       subtractive color pattern.   The primary difference is not that simple Lostubes (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, three-color printing process colors may use a cyan a bit closer to blue, and a magneta closer to red, than the secondary colors of the additive RGB space, but they are still usually called cyan and magnenta.  In the early 20th century, cyan was called "cyan blue".  See The Colorist or some of these other books to help unconfuse yourself.  Keep in mind that any set of colors can be used as primaries, and that the CMY system is a set of conventions, pretty well fitted to typical color printing needs, giving a pretty good color gamut, but not uniquely perfect.   Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The “additive secondaries” “magenta” and “cyan” are actually extremely far away from any meaning of those color names before 50 years ago. The names were appropriated because they were convenient, and because they allowed a simple analogy to be made between process printing and RGB “additive primaries”. (For that matter, the RGB “red” is really more like orangish red, and RGB “green” is more like green–yellow. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Color terms “red”, “green”, and “blue” historically covered large ranges of hues, including RGB meaning of these. Except for “blue”, I doubt that there was some standard in mid-20th century with meanings seriously different from moderm RGB ones. “Magenta” already was invariably distinguished from red (unlike the situation in 19th century), and, I think (although my English is not native), “green” did not denote turquoise (color). “Blue” is more problematical, because it was historically centered on azure (color) or even more cyan-like colors: remember Newton’s green–blue–indigo–violet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Other Words 

message: While experimenting with mixing colors under a black light, I seem to have run into something interesting.  The uploaded image demonstrates that additive color isn't specific to colored lights.  Under an ultraviolet light source, I used the same shade of green mixed with shades of red, red-orange & orange.  As you can see, in each case I was able to produce yellow.  I will redo this a bit more carefully in order to provide a clearer depiction of the phenomena (as well as bump up the production quality of the image itself).  Needles to say...  I'm thoroughly  confused... Lostubes (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: i suppose the nature or UV light kind of makes the pigments light sources, but still...  this kind of shakes up the nomenclature...Lostubes (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

text: oh, these are crayola extreme color pencils, on black artagain paper, under an ultraviolet LED flashlight. for the most part, under normal light everything just looks like shades of black.  the colors used are 'fiery rose' as red, 'sizzling sunset' as red-orange, 'heat wave' as orange & 'lemon glacier' as green.  Just in case you wanted to reproduce this experiment.  I know, crayola names are pretty lame.  Lostubes (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  additive color from non-luminous sources 

message: everything is all wrong =(  These are just regular neon subtractive primaries on black paper under ultraviolet light...  my head is going to explode.
hey, wait a minute...  that's actually a pretty good way to describe it... 
Lostubes (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  additive & subtractive models both using subtractive primaries