Talk:Color circle

Re:Merger

I don't think that a merger is a good idea. Color theory relates to the applications of color mixing in art - the Color circle relates only to the psychophysics of color - i.e., it relates to psychological laws rather than to aesthetic theory. As such, it would be like merging an article on acoustics with one on music. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About merger

The article certainly needs to be expanded to make it more informative and the image should be 'better'. I am in favor of the proposal that this article be merged with color theory and a special mention be given of the psychological part of it.

If it's to be merged anywhere, it should be with color vision, not color theory. It has a everything to do with color vision, and nothing whatsoever to do with color theory. I hate to resort to the clichéd "I know what I'm doing" line, but as a former researcher in visual perception who now works as an artist and arts reviewer, I do know what i'm talking about here... Grutness...wha? 14:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

questions and answers

what's a "luminance complement"? when mixed how in the correct proportions?

Answer: A luminance complement is one used with additive - that is, emanative, colour, as opposed to the mormally accepted subtractive meaning of the term, as used with paint. As to which correct proportions, that all depends on the two lights being mixed. Generally, however, when a light of sufficient brightness is added to its luminance complement, a neutral grey or white will be produced. This is not true when two lights which are not luminance complements are mixed, irrespective of the brightness of the two lights

I'm not sure that subtractive color is inherent to the concept of a color wheel.

That's not the point - that it is primarily used with subtractive colour (and every colour wheel I've ever heard described deals with pigment, and is thus inherently subtractive) does not rule out the possibility of it being used with additive colour. The colour circle is NEVER EVER used with subtractive colour

this rather depends on the specifics of the color wheel being used, doesn't it? A munsell hue wheel is going to look different than an RYB one.

Answer: Well, that's exactly my point. There is a specific colour circle, but there is not a specific colour wheel. A Munsell hue wheel, a Winsor and Newton oil colour wheel, a Faber aquarelle wheel, an individual artist's wheel - all will be different. A colour circle is the colour circle of normal human vision and has no variant forms.

--questions by jacobolus. answers by Grutness —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobolus (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an explanation for how the colors were spaced around the color circle? Even assuming you leave additive complements (with some particular target white point) directly across from each-other on the circle, that still doesn't decide how much of the wheel to devote to each part of the spectrum. Is this just scrunching u*v* chromaticities into a circular shape, or what? --jacobolus (t) 08:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and I'll admit I've no idea. It isn't mentioned in any of the texts I've got here either. I'll have a look in the university library next week and try to get an answer. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ideas. I've been in color science for a while, and what you're referring to as a luminance complement was always just called a complement, or an additive complement. I don't find "luminance complement" in a single book in Google Book Search; see this book for additive complement. Where does luminance complement come from? Gregory? Dicklyon 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm. Good question. I can't find it with that name in any of the texts I mentioned (though it is written as that in my old psych notes, I see). Additive complement is probably a better name, in that case. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]