Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 2

message: Why the CMYK function given above? This is simple, but gives totally unrealisic colors (see CMYK).  I agree with the assertion that CMYK does not belong in the message box because it is not well defined. For that matter, nor is "RGB". See absolute color space. I hope this isn't taken as a personal attack, but I do think the color boxes might have been conceived and perpetuated by people who didn't actually understand color science.
I have seen the proposal that CMYK be dropped from other people than me, but nothing seems to happen (in terms of reply or discussion). How can we actually get this debated. What use is this information supposed to have?  Notinasnaid 10:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Walk into any bar frequented by pressmen and graphic designers and shout "CMYK conversion!" Then get a beer and go stand in a safe corner, watch the fireworks. On second thought, order the beer first and stand near the door, ready for hasty departure. — Xiong熊talk* 23:12, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
As one of the above maligned groups I would argue that the CMYK values are useless in their current form.  For example of you print 100,100,0,0 as defined in Blue prints out a very dark navy.  This is not to say that CMYK is useless, just that the current conversion equation is way out.  This is because 0,255,255 is cyan, NOT process cyan.  Process cyan is quite a different colour, and is the colour of the real printing ink.  While print colours will always vary, they don't vary nearly as drastically as the colour conversions in wiki.  My proposed solution is to change the colour conversion macros for cmyk, and fix the pages affected.  The macro should be based on assumed profiles of sRGB (as endorsed by amongst others W3C) and SWOP (SWOP being more arbitrary, but still the most common), then rounded to the nearest 5%.  CMYK needs to (I vote) be fixed, or deleted, if we're to cover process cyan et al.  --Bb3cxv 10:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of CMYK 

message: This is what I mean. — Xiong熊talk* 23:20, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
:I haven,t really read through the entirety of the above summary, but I think this structure would do great as a basis for the color article. The montage idea sounds fascinating too. Circeus 23:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Every object in that image might be called red by a fair fraction of people. It's not just the image I'm trying to promote; it is the holistic approach to color. I don't think it helps much to crank up the red gun on a reader's monitor, cut off the other two, and say: "This is red -- the red." Going further, to mathematically define it, is very narrow. I admit, it made sense to me at first -- I, too, am a technical person. But Van Gogh would set fire to any book that made such a statement. — Xiong熊talk* 08:26, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
:I agree: "red" is not a single color. I had been trying to get interest in discussing the proposal to remove CMYK from the color boxes, because it is misleading at best, and only reinforces the wrong idea that a fixed conversion from RGB to CMYK does exist. I have felt this is putting something for the sake of it, rather than understanding the principles. (I have failed completely to engage any discussion. Shall I take silence as indicating I should do it?)
:But your discussion makes me feel that does not go far enough. What these color boxes do is try to say that red or cyan is just one color. But indeed, this doesn't reflect the popular view, or reflect any scientific principle. Just an entry in some arbtrary list, for a particular purpose. Someone just picked a color. So I propose the boxes all be removed from all articles.  Comments?  Perhaps there needs to be, if there already isn't, an article reflecting the popular use of color names in web design, where this stuff (less CMYK of course) belongs. Silence = agreement? Notinasnaid 10:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red (color)