Talk:RYB color model

As a color theorist with a PhD in color theory and application, I can attest to the importance of using an RYB color model that in no way reflects the colors of CMY. The RYB color model evolved in tandem with the hierarchical color categories and color constructs of traditional color theory. I have a peer-reviewed paper on this subject in press due for publication in the leading academic journal on color - Color Theory and Application. I'll add a link to this publication in due course - Zena O'Connor, PhD. User: Zenao1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenao1 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cheers Zenao1. Can you explain why, for instance, of all history of RYB as primary colors summarized in sources like Handprint, huvaluechroma, Gage, Shamey and Kuehni etc. I can't seem to find a thing called the "RYB Color Model"? RYB as primary colors certainly have a history perhaps most recently as a part of 'traditional color theory' that seems to be attributed to primarily to Itten in a number of places. I don't think Itten calls it an "RYB Color Model" and none of the historical references or summaries of those references call it that either. Maneesh (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi All & Maneesh, I'm happy to provide substantiation for the RYB colour model. I've just submitted a chapter (specifically on RYB color) for the 'Encyclopedia of Color Science and Technology' (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781441980700) which will be published in due course. This chapter features a new RYB model that I developed specifically for the chapter using colours that link back to the theories from which RYB colour emerged. Not much has been written about the RYB colour model; hence, there's few sources of information and references about this particular model. In addition, while there's much written about RBG and CMYK, unfortunately, when the RYB model is mentioned, there is a distinct lack of clarity about this model and the branch of colour theory from which it evolved - traditional colour theory. Some may consider this "revisionist theory"; however, putting personal, subjective opinions aside, traditional colour theory as well as the RYB colour model had relevance within a particular context during the 20th century. If you'd like to find out more, check out my recently published, peer-reviewed paper in the journal Color Research and Application 'Traditional colour theory: A review' (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/col.22609). Also, I'm not sure why references are used that aren't from reputable peer-reviewed sources...? Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge, sources such as Handprint and David Briggs' huevaluechroma website do not feature peer-reviewed information and are essentially personal websites featuring personal opinions. Cheers, Zena Zenao1 Maneesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenao1 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a single instance of 'RYB color model' in your paper, can you confirm? The material in the paper (I haven't read it super carefully) seems to be the same narrative of history we find in MacEovy, Briggs, Shamey and Kuehni, Bollon, Gage etc. that is summarized in Primary_color#History (RYB as primary colors). Some of those sources are more detailed though, e.g., they explain why we can see black and white in d'Aguilón's diagram. You can see objections to handprint and huvaluechroma in primary color, but the fact is they are exceptionally comprehensive, very well sourced and cited in scholarly work (WP:UBO). I wouldn't, for instance, use MacEvoy's notions of 'hue purity' or 'material trichromacy' in a wp article (though they are quite sensible); but they both do an incredible job at organizing primary color science sources with respect to painting and they should be used/attributed for that.Maneesh (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is an awfully puzzling sentence from your paper as well "...prior to the development of synthetic pigments, natural pigment colours were often unstable and chemical variations inhibited effective colour intermixture and colour fastness."...I can't see how that could possibly be true? Artists were effectively mixing color in long lasting paintings long long before the development of synthetic pigments. Lead white, yellow ochre, vermillion, carbon based black etc. are not at all 'unstable'. Many synthetic pigments are not at all colourfast. Maneesh (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of assertions in this article that need sources. There isn't any information in this article that isn't broadly captured by the underlying sources in primary colors cited in the history section. I still don't see any good evidence that the "RYB Color Model" is a concrete thing that makes predictions (like a model must) or that it is understood to mean the (exclusive) use of red, yellow and blue pigments as primary colors. Red, yellow and blue have certainly been called primary colors (sometimes with and without black and white) in the context of pigments and most prominently by color theorists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Explanations need to be a bit careful to make sure to explain the difference between primary colors and "primitive" colors from those 18th/19th century sources and not spill over into broader misconceptions about color during those centuries. I think the few extra names that are mentioned here can be integrated in about a paragraph in the primary color page. I think most of this page is captured between Briggs' huevaluechroma, MacEvoy's handprint and Mollon's paper. This page is really saying that some people considered red, yellow and blue primary colors (something like that they mix all, or a very useful large subset of, colors) and that's really a historical notion. I think it would then make sense to appropriately redirect there.Maneesh (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The RYB color model is not the kind of mathematical/predictive model you're looking for, until you interpret the red as a sort of magenta and the blue as near cyan; but it's still a color model, even though it doesn't fit well with modern color science. A merge makes no sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

? I really don't think anyone has pinned down the "red" in RYB to be sort of a magenta, who said that? It's not clear at all that any of the cited people in this article agree on what the "red" was in their claims about red, yellow and blue being primary or primitive colors. Nothing in the writing in this article suggests it. This article seems merely start with (unsourced) idea that "RYB Color Model" means "red, yellow and blue as primary colors". There is plenty of support for the latter in historical narratives and definitions from Itten; this is very reasonably discussed in the "primary color" article. Don't see anything in here that isn't, or couldn't be, there. Maneesh (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to pin it down. It's just that a sort of magenta (aka "process red" in printing [1] [2] [3]) fits your ideas of a color model better. There's no reason to kill this article or relegate it purely historical; many people still use RYB as their model of how colors combine. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really have trouble understanding what your point is. Your links support the idea that magenta in printing is also called 'process red'. Sure. Is Itten's R in RYB actually magenta then? You are clearly saying in your first message that when the R in the RYB color model is a 'sort of magenta', then the RYB color model has the basic properties of a mathematical/predictive color model. Maneesh (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

In fact I've added most of names in this article to primary color (which were already in sources anyway). I don't think there really is a material difference in the information in the history section in primary color and this page. They both describe the historical idea of red, yellow and blue as primary colors and describe essentially the same set of people.Maneesh (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

These citation needed reasons were removed from the article and so they are being put here. I see no guidance for the citation needed tag that suggests the text in the reason field was 'crapping' up the article (the reasons I've provided seem very much in the style of examples). In any case:

• I see no occurrence of 'RYB' in the cite to Gage, how is it that it is being used to support the claim that "RYB (an abbreviation of red–yellow–blue) denotes the use of red, yellow, and blue pigments as primary colors in art and applied design."

• The RYB color model is claimed to have underpinned the color curriculum at a very long list of schools, no citation.

• There is a sentence about 'mixing' what are supposed to be exemplar colors (?). How do you mix exemplar colors? What convention says they do they mix to brown and not black?

• RYB as primary colors is claimed to have 'emerged at a time when access to a large range of pigments was limited by availability'. What time was this? Pliny says that yellow, read, black and white were the primary colors Apelles used (EDIT: and that this was somehow so much more righteous than the obscene number of pigments they had in Pliny's time). The 'first known instance of the RYB triad can be found in the work of Franciscus Aguilonius', Apelles surely had fewer colors than Aguilonius.

• When was augmenting RYB with black and white done in 'art and design education'. I mean, does 'design' mean any time anyone painted anything in history? We were certainly using black, white, red and yellow in paleolithic times.

• EDIT: And now this sentence: 'The RYB color model represents a conceptual color creation model that is not predictive color but indicative of simple hierarchical color classifications.' I can't tell what this even means.

• And now there is a picture of a hand colored partitioned triangle, the 'red' is more magenta and definitely has some blue in it, that doesn't match up with Itten's ideas of 'primary color' that are in the lede and not to be found in the body. The caption is absolutely opaque with "RYB color model". Maneesh (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't have that particular Cage book, but others of his that I see online discuss red, yellow, and blue primary colors, without the RYB acronym. I took out the brown (not black) bit, since a mix of three primaries can make any sort of off-neutral color. A few select cn tags would be OK, but it craps up the article to put a whole raft of them while you're trying to destroy the article by merging it out of existence. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Really doesn't address the points. Gage's book does discuss red yellow and blue in context of the complex history of the idea of primary colors in 'The Fortune of Apelles'. Is there any reliable source that supports the first sentence that 'RYB (an abbreviation of red–yellow–blue) denotes the use of red, yellow, and blue pigments as primary colors in art and applied design.'. Gage doesn't seem to in the cite that is there. That may be your opinion on cn tags, but it's natural that an article with a lot of unsupported assertions would need a lot of cn tags. 'Trying to destroy' is being a little melodramatic here, I've clearly put up a section in talk to suggest it which is what one generally does on wp.Maneesh (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you can rewrite it better based on one of these many sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think I've said really clearly above that the history section in primary color really does seem to subsume this article, which implies that I wouldn't rewrite it. The first sensible sources in your link is Itten, who is addressed in that history section. Aguilonius, Le Blon, Harris, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe are all described in detail in the best sources that the primary color article relies on, they fit very easily by inserting them in the history. The challenge is separating what a lot of is being said by some of these people against things like the ideas of Newton in general vs. what they were saying specifically about primary colors. But you have the same challenge in this article (which this article doesn't do an adequate job of addressing) since the RYB color model is defined in terms of RYB being primary colors. Once you sort out what exactly is being said in history about RYB and primary colors, you have sensible content for the history of primary colors and no need for this page.Maneesh (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm moving some recent responses to long-dead discussions here, while archiving the original conversations. Most of the original participants are not active anymore, and recent replies are out of context and likely to be lost if left mixed into the original topics. –jacobolus (t) 03:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In response to the 2005(?) discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § incorrect by what standard?:

RYB is first invented than CMY, but it is invented in the times when the people are ignorant. RYB is a custom-made model made by the primitive artists a long time ago, which we get used to and adapted by passing into many generations since this time while CMY, made by the expert scientists, use principles that make them more appropriate. That's why most people say RYB is the model that have the primary colors instead of CMY, which is more appropriate since it has a wider gamut and creates a perfect equilateral and equiangular triangle in our color vision range. Now, these kinds of topics/discussions/debates/disputes awakened many ignorant people from the fake things (or should I say worse things) provided by our ancient ancestors that's why people who vote for CMY continues to rise. It just means that we are innovating for the better. Though we can't make the believers of CMY a 100%, we still continue to spread the right word. Jaspergeli (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

This perspective is too critical and misses important context. The most common red pigments were pink when thin, blue pigments were cyanish when thin, and fewer pigments were known. It's only natural that artists of olden times would have chosen RYB and it's still a useful model now. Rdococ1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In response to the 2007 discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § Thinking logical:

“But then you are talking about RYBWK space, which is something different than the article.” …

I like that idea being as Paint’s 3 primary colors don’t really make White or blacK paint. So Black and White are pretty much 2 other Primary colors, along with Red, Yellow and Blue in RYB’s Color Model! 🙂

Then, the New Color System can be named the “WRYBK” color model and can use Base 16 (aka 0 - F) as codes for every color in its system, but from 0 - 15 instead of 0 - 255! 😊

Therefore, while the RGB Model uses Hex Codes looking like this … 00-00-00 (aka #000000) … I’m saying that the New WRYBK model should use Hex Codes looking like this … 0-0-0-0-0 (aka #00000)!

From there, I could have fun doing all the math with every color mixing in paint, and see if they add up to the correct answer of Hex Code # in WRYBK’s color wheel! 😉 Craig Lungren (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In response to the 2008 discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § Color Standards

That may be true, but Hex Codes (HC) don’t need to be RGB only. The Hex Codes are Numbers of Base 16 really, and therefore HC are both RGB and RYB, not just one color model or the other. 🙂

Side Note: Do not just reply back to me, without actually thinking about Hex Codes first! Craig Lungren (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In response to the 2013 discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § This "blue" is not #0000FF

For simple hexadecimal codes, blue and red should be the same volume between the RGB and RYB color systems. For example Blue is Hex Code #0000FF in both systems and Red is Hex Code #FF0000 in both systems. But Green itself is Hex Code #00FF00 in RGB system, while it is #00FFFF in the RYB system! That is just the way it works for me when using the Hexadecimal Numbers! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

RGB for computer displays has nothing to do with artists' paint colors, and hexadecimal codes should not be used for the latter. In computer RGB, the primaries are orangish-red, yellowish-green, and purplish blue. They are just called "R", "G", and "B" for convenience, but they are not close to the unique hues "red", "green", or "blue".

Artists' RYB is closer to the CMY colors used by printers, usually a red or purplish red, something reasonably close to unique yellow, and a greenish blue. –jacobolus (t) 00:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lol, I would understand RGB system is used for computers and other stuff, while the RYB system is mostly used (and works) for paint, which makes sense that computer displays have nothing to do with the Paint’s primary colours. But the computer’s primary red should be just the same as Paint’s unique primary Red for convenience. The same thing should be for Blue and other colors. Hexadecimal codes are useful for RYB and better be used in both systems, following the same logic with their primary colors. There shouldn’t be any such rule that states “The Hexadecimal Base Number System can only be used for a single color model system. In this case ‘The RGB color model’”. I would personally find that dumb or ridiculous, especially if I want to compare colors between the RGB and RYB color models in Base 16.

Anyways, I will return to this topic soon! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I continue, you said “RGB for computer displays has nothing to do with artists' paint color”, but I will also remind you that Hexadecimal Codes has nothing to do with computers’ display color either. Hexadecimal Codes are only related to one thing: Numerals! And all Base Number Systems have everything to do with Numbers. Hexadecimal’s single digits (in particular) are having to do with “Base 16” only but can be used as codes for many things (such as Multiple Color Models, not just one)!

To every person(including you) that likes it or not, Hexadecimal …

“#FF0000” is Red in both RGB and RYB color models!

“#FFFF00” is Yellow in RGB and Orange in RYB!

“#00FF00” is Green in RGB and Yellow in RYB!

“#00FFFF” is Cyan in RGB and Green in RYB!

“#0000FF” is Blue in both RGB and RYB color models!

“#FF00FF” is Magenta in RGB and Purple in RYB!

“#808080” is Gray in both RGB and RYB color models!

And while …

“#000000” is Black in RGB, so can “it” be White in RYB!

“#FFFFFF” is White in RGB, so can “it” be Black in RYB!

And all of that Hex Code information is just how it is for Logic, working in comparison between the 2 color systems! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, what you are saying here "should" happen is simply incorrect and false. Perhaps more importantly for Wikipedia purposes, it is not based on "reliable sources" and thus entirely inappropriate to include in Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 06:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice try Dude. But it’s not about Wikipedia. What I am saying here “should be real”, is SIMPLY CORRECT and TRUE! Not False. This is not based on sources of any kind, but it is not entirely inappropriate to include in Wikipedia. Thus, Yes Wikipedia sure can stick to its own purposes, but it is Totally Appropriate for Wikipedia, and the Hex Codes should be found for the RYB color model in Google, no matter what. There’s no reason for Hex Codes to be used for RGB color model only, and thus I do make sense, whether you think so or not. 🙂

The Statement “This “blue” is not #0000FF” is simply incorrect and false. Really, I simply think about Logic compared to you, which wins over your inappropriate message sent to me at the latest. Craig Lungren (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia sure can stick to its own purposes – Great. Note that talk pages here are only intended for discussions of concrete improvements to the article / a place to work through disputes about article content. New research, speculation, and miscellaneous other discussion belong at some other venue. –jacobolus (t) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply