/sci/ - Science & Math

Go mix some red and green paint together and see what you get :^)

RGB is for additive colorspaces whereas painting is a subtractive colorspace. Methods in one do not carry over to the other.

>>9341303
All this time I was mixing red and green and what I was getting was this dark color. Now that I've switched to RGB, I finally get yellow!

>>9341303
>Being this autistic
You should probably just end it all, there is no hope for you in this world.

>>9341308
this

>>9341308
Mixing pigment is subtractive so you use CMY
Mixing light is additive so you use RGB

>>9341303
ROYGBP↲

>>9341312
>>9341328
There is no such god damn thing as additive and subtractive. Physically I mean. We made that shit up.

There's just RGB. That's what our eyes detect. The reason we use 'subtractive' color models is because they're more intuitive to understand, because with physical objects, you actually see the color that bounces off them, i.e. what they DON'T absorb. Which means that the ideal colors that should be mixed with physical substances are the opposite of what they are with light. But it's not actually any different, it's just the inverted version of RGB.

Subtractive models are a convenient system to make the complicated intricacies of the way light interacts with matter more simple. But there is nothing magical about physical mass, that somehow changes the nature of how the human eye or light works, so that RYB would somehow be the ideal system.

>>9341323
Paints and dyes are literally manufactured to work that way. Physical substances are imperfect, unlike light. Paint manufacturers abuse this, and they can choose to base their red and green dyes on substances that specifically will produce black when mixed together.

But what you don't understand, is that just because they can make the RYB system WORK, does not mean that it's the optimal system, nor that it should keep being used, nor that it is indicative of reality in any way. Yes, you can mix red and green and get black, but with different dyes that weren't built to mimic the RYB model, you wouldn't get that. You could do trial and error until you found a purple and orange that produces yellow when mixed.
When you use RYB, you end up with a smaller gamut for paints, because it's based around a triad of colors that does not have any basis in reality. If it did, then we would all use RYB for printers, and not CMYK.

tl;dr
RYB works, but it is not in fact the best system to use for a 'subtractive' model. We still use it only out of tradition. It misinforms billions of people.

>>9341381
i think you've had too many vaccinations bro

On a more science related topics, shouldn't we be teaching children the cenopythagorean categories as well when learning of color?

>>9341303
That's because no paint is perfectly absorbing. It's impossible to make a paint that absorbs 100% of all non-red light. But even if you did, it would still be muddy brown. Think about it. If you mix 10 units of pure red, 10 units of pure blue, and 10 units of pure yellow, you don't have a 30 units of pure black. At the atomic level, you still have just as much red, yellow, and blue pigment. Mixing paints does not invent a new pigment, it just blends them.

>>9341381
>We made that shit up.
Well if you want to get all philosophical about it, there's no such thing as color. There are just wavelengths of light, photons with a certain amount of energy. But it's not very useful to play that semantic game.

It is very useful to talk about "additive" and "subtractive" color blending, though.

"All models are wrong but some are useful." You can't go very far in science or math until you accept this.

>>9341476
Yes but what OP proposes is closer to reality. Which is what we should strive for in our thoughts and theorisation. Intellectually we are stagnated by the self-referential abstractions being popular, and somehow closer to reality than directly labeling reality. The proposition is one of attaining further clarity of thought.

>>9341331
>P
ye fuck indigo and violet.
fuck orange too its just yellowish red
RYGB
there you go son

>>9341381
>But it's not actually any different, it's just the inverted version of RGB.
kinda like how addition is the inverse of subtraction?

>>9341303
>It's not how the physical mixing of light or dyes works. It's not how anything works.
>>9341381
>But what you don't understand, is that just because they can make the RYB system WORK, does not mean that it's the optimal system

Why is CMY called a subtractive color space anyway? Looking at how color mixing in it works it seems more like it's multiplicative, I.E. to get red (1,0,0), you take M (1,0,1) times Y(1,1,0) to get (1*1,0*1,0*1)=(1,0,0)
Is it just so brainlets will intuitively think "Ah, yes, opposite"?