This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
"A primary color (or colour) is a color that cannot be created by mixing other colors in the gamut of a given color space. Primary colors may themselves be mixed to produce most of the colors in a given color space" -Wikipedia
"primary color
n.
A color belonging to any of three groups each of which is regarded as generating all colors, with the groups being:
Additive, physiological, or light primaries red, green, and blue. Lights of red, green, and blue wavelengths may be mixed to produce all colors.
Subtractive or colorant primaries magenta, yellow, and cyan. Substances that reflect light of one of these wavelengths and absorb other wavelengths may be mixed to produce all colors.
Psychological primaries red, yellow, green, and blue, plus the achromatic pair black and white. All colors may be subjectively conceived as mixtures of these. See table at color."
-Dictionary.com
1. Red Yellow and Blue make up all the colors in the RYB color space, so they are its primaries
2. in any event I fail to see how a color model itself could be deemed "incorrect" simply because it doesn't conform to three peak responsivities of the average human eye, especially since Wikipedia has not adopted a scientific POV
RYB is flawed because it was created by artists when color was not understood correctly. People continue to use it today because 1; it has become so well established that it is correct and 2; it's flaws are generally masked by the pigments of colors that it cannot generate, as well as the use of white. Vjasper 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
As of 2004, scientists know that this set is incorrect, but it continues to be in common use in art. says the article. Was there some discovery made in 2004 which showed this set to be incorrect? What is the significance of 2004? - Jimp a.k.a. Jim 23May05
None, very odd phrasing. I've fixed it up. --W(t) 05:55, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Well, how common in art do you think it will probably be as of...
I've got this sneeking suspicion that it'll persist for sometime yet perhaps even indefinitely. For I'm not convinced that it is really incorrect. By the way, I've seen the same phrasing elsewhere on another colour page. I'll fix that up too if I find it. - Jimp 24May05
Can someone provide the source that this model isn't correct? Even the CMYK page notes that "dark blue reproduces poorly in CMYK, coming out rather murky (as it has to be approximated by darkening cyan with black and a little magenta)." Which, IMHO, doesn't provide credibility that the CYM model is better than the RYB model (however the example might be related to print which uses inks that might not mix as well, which would make CYM a theoretic model).
Basically I would request a vote to replace "model is incorrect" to "model is replaced by the CYM model". To state that it is incorrect would mean that all painters would have to mix in CYM instead of RYB. Felsir 07:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your fault here is assuming that all painters mix RYB to create all of their colors. Painters mix pretty much any color they have together to generate a new one, and they start with many colors already. Vjasper 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not accurate to say that the RYB model is incorrect. In fact many printers use "cyan" inks that are quite bluish, and "magenta" inks that are quite pink/reddish (see image below) -- i.e. essentially a compromise between CMY and RYB. There are also printers that use CMYK+Red+Blue for an increased gamut. DavidHopwood 04:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I can describe this image in words: The C and M (but not the Y) are about halfway between their RGB color and the color after them (yellow obviously not; it would look kind of lime green if it were.) Georgia guy 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is true! When you buy a tube of "primary red" paint, you got a rose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.19.145 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard/read the substractive model being critiziced on the basis that additive model is "easier" and better relates to known physics and biologics. I don't think that there are any physical/biological claims included in the substractive model, so I fail to see how could such a model be "invalidated". Someone must know these issues better and could come up with a brief explanation? 62.220.237.74 11:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because you can still mix in white to get cyan and magenta from blue and red, respectively. The "incorrect" part is the assumption that red and blue are primary colors. In the more accurate CMY model, they are secondary colors. I suppose if you include white as part of the RYB model (perhaps call it RYBW) it might be a viable alternative to CMYK, but CMY is simpler as it only has three base colors and they are all primary; RYBW requires four colors. Also the status of white as a primary color in this system would be unclear. If I buy a paint that is a light red, would it be a primary color, or would it be red mixed with white? This RYB/RYBW model is certainly not useless or impractical for painting or coloring with traditional media, but it's not well-defined enough for, say, computer work, where CMYK would be much better for things designed to be printed, RGB (or HSV or HSL) would be better for things designed to be displayed on the monitor, etc. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not quite sure what I wrote above is accurate, with white being needed for magenta and such, but I think the general gist is correct. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any subtractive color model necessarily includes white, either explicitly or as the absence of colorant. A typical CMY[K] printer depends on the background color of the media being white, for example. Nor is there anything particularly wrong with additive models that require 4 or more colors. The costs of that need to be balanced against the increase in gamut, for any particular application. DavidHopwood 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, you're correct. I don't know what I was thinking. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RYB doesn't mean if it's incorrect, it won't work. It's like saying you can't mix two bags of black sand, still, actually, you can mix them! You just end up with the same color, black. Just like the first reply said, the "incorrect" part is the assumption that red and blue are primary colors and that makes the whole concept of RYB wrong, especially if it doesn't have the counterpart in light, unlike CMY, does, the RGB. Assuming it has a counterpart in light, it is CBY, because the negative or the opposite of the colors in RYB are cyan, blue, and yellow. CMY bases off black pigment, the opposite of RGB, which bases off white light. RYB bases off nothing because it was invented when people are still trying to find out the primary colors and they thought it was the best.
Since RYB is a "historical" color space how about adding a history section to the article? Anyone have the data? 129.42.208.182 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really historical, just established. Vjasper 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's so established that you can barely convince most people but I still have hopes in the future that CMY will be the one to be taught in schools. Jaspergeli (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think of "Red" and "Blue" as just conventional names for paints and pigments that are actually closer to "Magenta" and "Cyan", you can see why RYB works and is popular. Printers use "process red" and "process blue" ink for RYB printing, very different from the "spot" colors they'd use for red and blue accents when not doing full-color printing. There's no need to run down RYB, or say it's wrong or based on ignorance. That's getting the history and interpretation wrong. And good luck teaching youngsters that they need to start talking about cyan and magenta, colors they probably never heard of in their homes. Here is a book that describes full-color printing process colors before the names cyan and magenta were in use. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The colors red and blue are either never heard of in their homes in the first place. If you teach first youngsters that never have an idea of what primary colors are, then they will be learned and recognize those colors (CMY) as cyan, magenta, and yellow. You still perceive cyan and magenta as blue and red because you are raised with those colors and you can't deny familiarity. Besides, it's in our cone cells to tell that these colors are apparently the primary colors in subtractive color mixture since they provide the highest saturation with equal distances between hues and bases off from black pigment and RYB doesn't have those exact those features. Jaspergeli (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the CMY color model (subtractive) is the opposite or negative of and is derived from the RGB color model (additive). Now, RYB (red, yellow, and blue) color model is subtractive and where is its additive counterpart? Is there a CBY (cyan, blue, and yellow) color model? Smith131072 (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot create every color using the RYB color model. Red, Yellow, and Blue are the primary colors for the RYB color space, however that does not mean that the RYB space can be used to create every color.
A common mistake that people make (which is also made on Wikipedia) is thinking that pigments are subtracted. Pigments are NOT subtracted, they are multiplied. If pigments were subtracted then you would be able to produce negative light, which you cannot. Because light values are between 0 and 1 (0 being absolute dark and 1 being absolute light) when you multiply them they get darker. You can multiply different values of Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow, in order to generate all possible colors, however you cannot do the same with RYB. That is why RYB is not a correct color model/space/thingy. Vjasper 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on this just a little bit, you might ask yourself why RGB and CMY are "better" than RYB. Here's the reason.
There are two kinds of displayed light, direct and indirect. Direct light is percieved as it's color value, ie a flashlight, or the sun. If you combine direct light their colors add. Indirect light is stuff like reflections. When you reflect light off of a surface the result is the pigment color (or the inverse of the pigment color, depending on how you're doing things). When you combine pigments they multiply.
You can represent all the colors that can be produced by light and seen by the human eye by combining different values of Red, Green, and Blue. You can represent all the colors that can be produced by combining pigments and seen by the human eye by combining different values of Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow. Red, Yellow, and Blue do not represent anything specific, that is to say they are an abstract color model. It has no real practical use (you could say it's practical for artwork, however the bottom line is that it would be much better to use CMY).
EDIT: forgot to tag, sorry. Here you go. Vjasper 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a POV. And i don't share it.
"Because light values are between 0 and 1" This is already a model which admit a theorical "maximum light" which is unreal. This maximum came from the screen model not from reality. In theory, absolute white is lethal! Try to ligh a fire with RGB and a loupe… You can have pure red color of various illuminances in reality, not on a screen. RYB reprensents something specific. CMYK can NOT represent all the colors. Because this is pigment, light and chimistry, a specific colored ink can't be strictly replaced by a quadri-color. A combination of pigments will never reply to light as another one. To my knowledge, fluorescence can't be represented by any actual color model, can be obtained with specific ink, can hardly be simulated by screens. Because the red and blue of the RYB model are not the red and blue in a CMYK model, you can't compare like if they were. By a primary red tube of pain and you got rose (reddish magenta). CMYK and RYB are not complete. How do you process white on non white canvas? You need white ink. C+M+J=K only in theory, so, CMY doesn't exist. Same for the RYB model, the name do not include all the needed colors to use the model, white and black are missing. RGB and CMYK are not better, only different and associated with specific usages. Screen and white paper are not the only media.
Every model is abstract and proceed to approximations. Like RGB not displaying violet but purple instead. RYB is intuitive and may follow luminances. in Red yellow green cyan blue magenta, yellow got the highest luminance, blue the lowest. Red is not in the middle with theorical luminance but on perceptive POV, it can be in the middle. Red is the color that the brain see the most. Not following sciences, RYB is still a perfectly working model, useful and intuitive. And is rarely used "as is". RYB usage is mainly oral, not precise, doesn't fit industrial usages, used in unstrict recipes. This color are often used as other paints modificators.
PS: Now, what I want to do, is to face children and models. I asking myself which model children find out to be the most logical. I don't think that they will find out that R+G=Y so may RGB will be in a bad position as a non-intuitive model. B+Y=G is more credible I think. I got to ask kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.19.145 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article text shouldn't really be comparing RYB with RGB, since they're completely different models, RYB being subtractive and RGB additive. It should instead contrast RYB with CMY, which is a fairer comparison.
As I understand things: a color is a color. A color cannot be be subtractive nor additive. Well you might if you would mean that a color is produced by additive or subtractive process. But again: you cannot tell from the color.
Subtractive and additive colorspaces don't exist. What would the difintion be to call a colorspace subtractive /additieve?
Additive means lightness goes up when mixing colors and with subtractive lightness goes down. Mixing green and red goves you lighter yellow in an additive process and darker yellow in an subtractive system yet the hue (yellow) does not change.
Mixing paint doesn't add or subtract lightness, the same lightness is preserved. If printer prints with dots next to each other lightness is preserved. So both processes are not additive of subtractive. Subtractive printing process means you lay layers of paint on top of eachother. Light gets absorbed and lightness goes down.
The RYB colorwheel is something completely different than a RYB color space. RYB colorwheel is about mixing colors and telss you nothing about lightness you could make it a colosrpace by adding L and S for saturation: RYBLS -space. Now it is obvious that RYB color space which in corporates lightness is something different.
So: "RYB is a historical set of subtractive primary colors." is nonsense;
"The RYB space receives criticism for not being able to produce all perceivable colors." is nonsence as a colowheel doens't change it's lightness so it's obvouis that it can't get all colors. It does is capable a representing all hues yet not all saturations.
And probably "In particular, several bright shades of Green, Cyan, and Magenta are not producible from any combination of Red, Yellow, and Blue (and are absent from the RYB color wheel)." would be changed to saturated in stead of brightness (which is somewhat like lightness).
"In the RGB color space the colors are added, thus you start with levels of dark colors which are added to produce lighter colors." Is nonsence too. Again probably a RGB colorwheel is meant so don't link to RGB colorspace. The colorwheel nor the space are additive or subtractive. Again what would the properties be of a colorspace that is additive or subtractive?
Well I'll stop.. it's to bad.BartYgor 13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already made several changes to the summary of this article which was put at primary color, to make it more accurate (for instance changing "bright shades" to "colorful" (which is IMO better than "saturated" as a description). In any case, some of what you call nonsense is perfectly reasonable. The RYB color model is not just a color wheel... it includes all colors which can be mixed from varying amounts of red, yellow, and blue paints on white paper/canvas (and possibly including black and white paints as well, for convenience). It's not a particularly *good* (read: useful, accurate) model of color, but that is beside the point. Anyway, a "RYB" color wheel is explicitly part of a subtractive color model, and intermediate colors on the wheel (between RYB) are made by mixing primary colors, so I don't think there's any problem in calling the model subtractive. Anyway, this article does indeed have a great deal of nonsense, and should be cleaned up. --jacobolus(t) 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. First if the article wants to describe a colormodel that uses only the three 'primary' colors RYB and it want's to describe it for mixing paints. Then all the colors you can make from these three using paint would be represented by the surface of a triangle (2D) in CIExy colorspace (3D) as you can see the number of colors would be very limited. If the RYB primaries would be of the same lightness all mixtures would have the same lightness. So you would not need white or black for convenience: you would really need them to alter lightness / saturation; to make more colors. But then you are talking about RYBWK space, which is something different than the article. Of course things are only a matter of definition I would not call RYB a colorspace because that would make you think to much of RGB spaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_spaces) which is not a space that represents all the colors you can make with RGB paint, but all the colors you can make with RGB light and where you can adjust the lightness of RGB independently (of course this would widen your gamut extremely as you can change lightness). So an RGB space is related to monitors. With paint you can't adjust the lightness of the primaries (or you would be adding black - a fourth color). So if you would imagine a RYB-space (as defined above:paint + 3 primaries) to be somewhat like the mentioned RGB 3Dspace for monitors you're verry wrong. You're RYB space is really only a 2D figure (very limited colors). That's why I insist that the word spaces is used for 3D color models. Colorwheels are in fact 1D (a circle of colors). But sometimes colorwheels have the interior filled op (representing all the possible colors one can mix from RYB) so that would be 2D.
And please explain me when would you call a certain space additive / subtractive? What would it's properties be? Again to me ther is no such thing.--BartYgor 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Then all the colors you can make from these three using paint would be represented by the surface of a triangle (2D)” – No, this is wrong. The paper starts out white. So by adding paints, you selectively darken sections of the paper. If you have three primaries, which when combined together form a blackish color, then you can form all the colors in a sort of double three-sided pyramid (i.e. point at the white top, point at the blackish bottom, and a triangle in the middle area), which is a three-dimensional gamut. Adding white or black paints just makes a) true black possible, and b) makes mixing the colors much easier/more convenient. --jacobolus(t) 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“With paint you can't adjust the lightness of the primaries” – you certainly can adjust the density of paints (for instance by adding white/black paint to them, or thinning them out by adding whatever base the paints use). --jacobolus(t) 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At last an intelligent discussion, thank you! Good remarks! But, we first have to agree on what the article is about. Because yes you can adhance the gamut if you would apply tranlucent paint on a white surface (and translucent is very important here; and I did not read in the article that it want's to specifically describe this) but then again your talking about RYBW space in my opinion. Also the blackish color you would form in mixing paint (i'm specifically not talking about putting translucent paints on top of each - becaus in that case if you apply enough yellow in enough layers it well get black too) would be in the centre of the 2D figure (some gray with the same lightness as RYB if these three were of the same lightness, else it would be some mean lightness of the primary lightnesses) adding then more of the one primary would shift you just again a little bit away from that center towards the primary you just added, but you would stay in the 2D surface. And if you were even a bit right you surely can't make white with the primaries! --BartYgor 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusting the densitities seems logical. So you would be able to create lighter colors. That would give you a piramid (not a double piramid). And of course you can understand the words "RYB-model" anyway you want. But this is wiki and it is about what is generally understood when talking about "RYB-model". THis is what I would like to have cleared up in the first sentence of the article. Something like "the RYB-model describes all the colors one can make using RYB-pigment and a solvent on a white surface by mixing them or applying them as translucent layers on top of eachother". This is something completely different than "the RYB-model describes all the colors one can make by mixing RYB-paint". So this is paramount: what is generally understood when talking about "RYB-model"? In my opinion when talking about RYB-model they are talking about http://www.digitalanarchy.com/theory/theory_ryb-rgb.html which in fact are 2D colorwheels they are not talking about lightness (in fact there even is a colorwheel picture in the this wiki article). So they are not talkeing about additive/subtractive . So my conclusion is: you are not talking about 3D spaces! You're talkeing about colorwheels and the specifics about this RYB colorwheel (colorwheels are (like colorspace) colormodels) is that hues are more compressed between Y and B than for instance a RGB colorwheel (again i'm talking about RGB colorwheels not the RGB colorspace used for monitors -something completely different). So in my opinion the heading of the article should read RYB colorwheel. RYB-model is not incorrent but like with RGB colormodel you could mean the RGB colorwheel or the RGB colorspace used for monitors. So to avoid confusion: speak in more specifi terms (colowheel, color space) instead of colormodels --BartYgor 08:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my question about "additive/subtractive color models"? --BartYgor 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you very well understand the gamut of colors which can be created with three paints on white paper. I suggest you try to learn to paint for a week, and come back if you still don't understand. As it is, I feel we're talking in circles. (also note, whoever wrote the digitalanarchy.com link you posted doesn't know what he's talking about) --jacobolus(t) 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. And I will be the first to acknowledge if true. But I did try mixing RGB and it gave me some brown (not dark! - maybe you are mistaking that a less saturated color appearce somewhat darker yet is still is of the same lightness). And how would i tell my printer to print equal amounts of CMY? I'm sorry but i'll believe you when you explain things to me. I'm just talking about basic fysics here. On this page http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color5.html#theorysub it is explained how yellow and magenta is mixed (scroll down a bit you will see the wavelength figure). From the figure it is clear that lightness of the mix is the mean of the lightnesses of the base paints. I'll explain more basic. Imagine a red and green sheet both lettre size. I cut them up in small pieces mix the pieces put close together so no of the table colour gets through. What you are basically saying is just by mixing up the pieces lightness (the power of the light so to say, will change). I say lightness stays the same: the same amount of light is reflected if pieces are mixed or not. THis reasoning seems logical to me. Were do I go wrong?
Or maybe you'll say this website is also wrong. The whole world is wrong...?--BartYgor 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article could use some well cited info on the similarities and differences between RYB and CMY, as it is the "limitations and eccentricities" section is just comparing apples and oranges since RGB is additive and cannot be used in the same applications as RYB Velps 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(on file)@bellsouth.net
I have found your site by accident mostly. I was looking up color theory, to understand it. I have been an art student for years. I am 56 years old and teach art only recently. I returned to college to learn computer art and added art education to the mix, because I love art I thought I would like to pass that on to high schoolers along with an understanding how to paint, draw and create commercial art and photography. In my last semester of my return year to college, I heard the phrase color theory. I had been taught color absolutes in the sixties, and I attended art schools in the New York City area. I learned the color wheel with red, blue yellow primaries, etc. I had been taught to use black to shade, learning many years later that green made a more lively darkening effect for red than black and so every other color used its compliment. I never could reason why the light, pigment and commercial ink color wheels were not the same. I confused me and I never thought to investigate why they did not work in unison in my mind. I just accepted these contradictions, because I thought it was scientific fact, not theory. Looking up why it is called color "theory", brought me to your site. Thanks for the study, curiosity, and work that brought so much information. I appreciate your corrections for my misunderstandings and faulty perspectives. It will help me greatly with my teaching.
Dianne
This email dated 3-16-8 prompted the start of a Wikipedia article as a way to help those who want more information about color and the Real Color Wheel.
As of 3-16-8 this site, (http://www.realcolorwheel.com/) is getting 2,935,392 hits per month.
http://www.realcolorwheel.com/WikipediaFiles.htg/3-15-8UsageStats.jpg
I really don't know where this article should be placed, I thought "Color Theory" but that is crowded with what I call the "old" color theory.
Here is my original theory page for the Real Color Wheel.
http://www.realcolorwheel.com/colorwheel.htm
I'm very new to Wikipedia so this will read as an email. I'm sorry about that, I hope to improve.
New Article:
Real Color wheel was first designed in 1995 by Don Jusko, a location artist matching nature's colors to pigments.
image = http://www.realcolorwheel.com/final.htg/OriginalRCWpainting1-500.jpg
The conventional colorwheel based on the red, yellow and blue and it's subsequent secondary colors was incorrect because it couldn't be used to darken any color using only it's opposite color. They just made a brown hue when mixed equally and never black. The pigment black was used to make shades.
image = http://www.realcolorwheel.com/mypigments.htg/makebrowns400.jpg
Today we have permanent transparent colors that were never available before 1940, These new colors are primary in that they can mix the red and blue hues that were once considered pure and primary. Newton and all color theorists in the past never saw or recorded the real primary pigments transparent yellow, transparent cyan and transparent magenta, as cyan and magenta can't be seen in the rainbow or prisms.
With the Real Color Wheel all pigment color oppositions mix to a neutral black and all light oppositions mix to a neutral white.
I would like feedback as to how to make this article better, if I'm on the right page.
Don (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information you have written here about the “Real Color Wheel” reads like advertising copy, and is also simply wrong, so I for one won’t be creating an article out of it, and if you do try to turn it into an article it will likely be deleted, unless its content is made accurate and cites reliable sources. I am glad you find Wikipedia useful however. Please feel free to stick around and improve the articles you find here whenever you can. (much of the information about color-related topics currently on Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies as well) --jacobolus(t) 10:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply Jacobolus.
Your right, it is putting forth new information, which could be construed as promotion which is advertising. I don't know how else I could present original information. I re-read my copy and can't see anything as wrong.
I am currently working on getting University collaboration for Wikipedia. 66.233.93.165 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's not particularly new information. It is however inaccurate information. If you are looking to better understand the way human color vision works, and how paint mixing fits into that picture, the best online resource I can recommend is http://handprint.com/HP/WCL/wcolor.html. Alternately, there are a number of good books about the subject. But in general, the answer to your question of how to present original research on Wikipedia is simple: don't. See WP:OR for details. --jacobolus(t) 09:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for a disagreement Jacobolus, my color wheel information is original and can't be found anywhere else, that is an indisputable fact. It's not fair to denounce my work as unoriginal or inaccurate with out proof.
"The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
I would like some help to go forward. Currently there are 392 sites linking to http://www.realcolorwheel.com/
2,935,392 hits per month has to count, something being done right. So what should I do?
2-24-08, In the past thirty days (on file) Northern Arizona University, BYU, Glenn Carleton College, Pittsford Sutherland High School, Imperial College London, University of New South Wales, Kennesaw State University, York College of The City University of New York and Lausanne Collegiate School have requested the Real Color Wheel course or Real Color Wheel. Don (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, mentioned in a major newspaper, or similar, and then come back and make an article about it. --jacobolus(t) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know the actual standards for the RYB color model? Maybe in HSV or something? Why are these written here in hex, and what is the source for those particular colors? Surely, there are minerals that are the standard. 38.118.23.100 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hex codes are RGB, not RYB. Not sure there were ever any meaningful RYB "standards", unless somewhat informally certain painting pigments... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use the old version for clarity: "The RYB primary colors became the foundation of 18th century theories of color vision, as the fundamental sensory qualities that are blended in the perception of all physical colors and equally in the physical mixture of pigments or dyes."
This is not a sentence, as far as I can tell. The part after the comma, beginning with "as" is missing a verb. What is it trying to say? SharkD (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sentence, just a rather long one. Read it as "The RYB primary colors became the foundation of 18th century theories of color vision, as good stuff," where good stuff doesn't need a verb. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may worth mentioning that painters' "blue" (which this colour model apparently use) is not the same thing as our monitors' blue. Now this colour can be described as roughly midpoint of standard blue and "azure"; see 19th-century example from George Field. I can guess that in the age of Isaac Newton, or possibly as late as in 19th century, the word "blue" denoted the colour area which extended farther towards green that the modern understanding of "blue"; hence Newton omitted "cyan" but added "indigo" to his spectral colours. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Field's "red" is more pink than red. It's only his tertiary colour "red orange" which matches the modern definition of "red". Should these discrepancies be explained in the article? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that just because he used water colors, and watered the primaries down so that the tertiaries wouldn't be too dark? That is, it's not really pink, but the white background showing through the red? — kwami (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Field's "red orange", the mix of his "red" by 3:1 with his yellow (BTW his only primary which correspond to modern meaning) apparently is very close to the modern red. Unlikely that Field proposed a model where one of tertiary colors has the same hue as a primary, so Field's "red", even with more saturation than we see, has to be something like crimson. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 Zenao1Maneesh— 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]
This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
@Jaspergeli: – It's not necessary to "paint" RYB as a broken and obsolete system as you have been doing in your recent edits, such as swapping in a color-mixing chart in which blue and yellow do not mix to green. Stick to presenting what RYB is, not denigrating it for what it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you double check?
Is the color between blue and yellow not green?
RYB aren't equidistant colors, I'm stating facts not lies. The color model I made is strictly calculated and blended. Even if you mix RYB yourself, you will end up having a brown mixture, not black, because theoretically, those colors aren't the appropriate colors to make one. This undid revision triggers a color theory war because you have a bias for RYB, even if you have a bias, you still can't deny that they can't make black because they are not equidistant. If you logically think why blue and yellow creates green (specifically dark green), is that the blue already contains cyan. The blue that is used in RYB color model is actually more azure (R - 0, G - 63, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 191, Y - 0) than blue, not the real blue (R - 0, G - 0, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 255, Y - 0).
No part of my edit said or implied that RYB is a broken and obsolete system. Other revisionists even state RYB is a historical set of primary colors and you removed their revisions. Then why did you name this argument as "Revisionist negativity"? There is nothing wrong with my color model, The primary colors are still red, yellow, and blue while the secondary colors are still green, violet, and orange. However, as I said I'm not the only one (if I am the one) who denigrates. Why won't you also comment on the other revisionists who called RYB a historical set of primaries? I did not denigrate or underestimate RYB but you did overestimate the capabilities of RYB by stating what it cannot really do.
Check out this comparison between the two. This is the earlier one before I made the color model: [[1]]
The real color you will end up mixing blue and yellow is very dark yellow (R - 63, G - 63, B - 0 or C - 191, M - 191, Y - 255). In subtractive color principle, which uses the CMY color model, yellow and blue will make very dark yellow. Here's the demonstration:
With equal amounts you will have these:
Blue: 1× cyan and 1× magenta
Yellow: 2× yellow
1× cyan + 1× magenta + 1× yellow = 3× black
Add 1× black to the remaining 1× yellow then you will get 2× dark yellow
Add the remaining 2× black to 2× dark yellow then you will get 4× very dark yellow
These sites help me mix color models RGB and CMY:
[[2]]
[[3]]
So before you criticize my revisions, make sure you really checked out first what article are you on and know its principles. Jaspergeli (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand what Dicklyon means when he says "blue and yellow do not mix to green", the new chart appears to have the appropriate overlap as green. As for Jaspergeli's response above: Red, yellow, blue are hues, the claims about mixtures are ambiguous because there are many lights and pigments with those hues. Mixing doesn't have much meaning if you are using hue names as color categories. I am not sure how you can make the claims you are making without referring to specific color models, lights, pigments etc.Maneesh (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two principles, namely, light and pigment. Light hues mix lighter while pigment hues mix darker. Paints, crayons, and inks have hues that mix darker mixture, therefore, they are pigments, thus, they all follow the subtractive color principle, particularly the CMY color model. Basically, all work the same, more hues mix, the darker the mixture is. The brown mixture that RYB create is the fact that something is wrong with the primaries. The hues are not equally distributed among the primaries which makes them less versatile. The result of the black mixture of the CMY is the indication that the hues are equally distant from each other. All medium basically work the same, as they all have colors, duh? As long as you use the exact colors as one shows. Smith131072 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that in the picture above, the typical green that you get by mixing blue and yellow in an RYB system is a much lighter and greener green than this ugly dark color. As for the "equidistant" things, it's about the color wheel appropriate to the system, not distances in some other space. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is a "typical" green? What is an "RYB system"? Your use of "ugly" seems quite subjective. Is a palette of oil paints with (say) venetian red, a dark/pale yellow ochre and iron cobalt chromite black spinel, an RYB system? If so, it's easy to mix a dark green with that sort of palette (their are many other sets of oil paints that would probably do the same). My point is that "mixing" and "parts" only mean something in terms of a specific mathematical color space, lights or pigments. What about an RYB system specifies this? RYB color wheels seem to be circular arrangements of color categories, represented with fairly chromatic colors but they don't seem to be saying thing about results of mixing and amounts (which are, obviously, dependent on specific pigments, their tinting strengths even color matching context etc).Maneesh (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to formulate a mathematical/colorimetric model of the RYB color model, you better do it in a way that comes close to how this system is typically used, taught, and portrayed. Better yet, find such a model in a source. I'm not at all partial to RYB, being a color scientist (among other things) myself. I just don't want to see this system force-fitted to an inappropriate colorimetric straightjacket. Let's portray what it is, neutrally, and not ding it for what it's not (which is a modern colorimetric additive or subtractive model). Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that formulating RYB as a precise model is something I wanted to do? I can't understand why you are telling me what I had "better do". I can't interpret what you are saying in the earlier message without RYB being more precisely defined. I've never seen such a precise formulation of RYB, not have I seen it used in any painting/art class that I have taken. I *have* used a limited palette with red, yellow and blue pigments *along with white*. No one credible I know or have listened to has called that "RYB" (that wouldn't make sense), or made predictions about color mixing using an "RYB model". As best as I can tell, RYB just means using red yellow and blue pigments. There does not seem anything particularly precise about it, I think the article should reflect that. Handprint does a great job synthesizing historical claims about "material trichromacy", but there is no single thing called "RYB", if there is I don't know what it is used for or does. Indeed handprint tell us 'no historical source prior to the 18th century that starts with three "primary" or "primitive" colors '. So just what is RYB other than the mere use of red, yellow and blue pigments to mix other pigments along with a loose set of (EDIT: historical and modern) misconceptions that seem to be taught in school/sell color wheels that have no apparent use or validity in terms of colorimetry?Maneesh (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring more to what Jaspergeli seems to be trying to do with his image. He claims to have picked primaries and made a color model with the help of some online calculators. Not sure what he did really. I think your understanding of RYB as a pigment-mixing art and craft is about right. Maybe the title "color model" makes it seem too much like modern colorimetric models, which it is not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use online calculators, I used formulas. What I just noticed is that the original picture shows that RYB overlap in the middle as black which is not possible. If you're an expert or at least have knowledge about RYB, you'll know that they can't create black in equal amounts. If may I ask you if you mix RYB colors in equal amounts, will they create black? This is the only thing that I wanted to point here. The original photo is misleading because RYB can't theoretically create black. If you want. Even if you lighten the blue and add more cyan in it to make the green not dark and "ugly" as you said, you will never create black. Even basic Crayola crayons will tell you dark green is created by mixing blue and yellow. Jaspergeli (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the three circle diagram is particularly meaningful in this context since RYB itself doesn't really have a whole lot of meaning. I think there is an implicit association to bright and saturated colors of those hues; but then 'mixing' doesn't mean anything if we are only talking about colors we are thinking of. If one wants to talk about specific pigments, we could make anything from a very dark to a very bright green (even if we just assume very saturated, pure, pigments). The diagram would make more sense if it was some sort of reference standard where things like "parts" are defined, but there are no standardized RYB models the way we have CMYK ones (e.g., FORGA). I think it makes more sense to only show RYB colors from notable sources (I am not sure if there are any past the historical ones). The idealized colorwheels currently shown don't make much sense to me. Yes, I can see some colors in a spectrographic order arranged in a circle.....so what? Are they saying anything in terms of pigment or light? Or just reminders of the sorts of diagrams we may have seen in grade school but don't carry much meaning?Maneesh (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A circle or wheel would be better than the overlapping circles here. You can look at lots of sources for what they mean, which is not usually a specific mixing model. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaspergeli: I will remove the overlapping circle diagram as it doesn't refer to a mathematical color space, pigments or lights. I think the 'RYB color star' needs to go as well. Just seems to be a wheel with triangles. Nothing seems particularly standard about some of the color names (e.g., vermillion). Cool?Maneesh (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See commons cat RYB for traditional RYB color wheels. It's not clear to me what primaries you started with exactly, or what mixture model you used, but's it's certainly not the RYB model. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See? Your link already shows many images of RYB color model (except the misleading image) that don't happen to create black in the middle. If my image is not good enough for you, then I will use the image in your link, for the sake of the light and "beautiful" green. Jaspergeli (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
George Field has a pretty good 19th century explanation of the model. The evolution of thinking in the 18th century is discussed with lots of examples, such of which are RYB, at this source. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why Dicklyon has reinserted the diagram for Boutet's 12-color wheel. There is no special designation to red, yellow and blue in this diagram. They don't seem to be equally radially spaced as a "modern RYB color circle" (perhaps the only defining feature of an RYB color wheel vs. any color wheel), it isn't clear what secondary colors are here. This 1708 color wheel obviously resembles Newton's 1706 color wheel. What do either of these wheels have to do with RYB?Maneesh (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a color wheel in which R, Y, and B (Rouge, Jaune, and Blau) are equidistant, as in the RYB system. Why do you say they're not? Orange, Purple, and Green are labeled as the colors midway between. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "rouge de feu" sure looks more red to me than "rouge". Which one is "red"?Maneesh (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see any resolution to this. "Rouge de feu" is clearly a much redder red in the image of Boutet's color wheel, there is only "rouge de feu" in the 7 color version Boutet's color wheels. It's not obvious to me that RYB are equally spaced and the interpretation is not at all straightforward.Maneesh (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2019 (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 [4][5][6]) 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]
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]
.png){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
