Posted by Random at 12:19pm Dec 31 '05Let me start off by saying this: Light causes colors to be seen, or rather interpreted, by the brain. Yet colors can be seen differently in different settings or environment. So, if there was no light, wouldn't that mean there would be no colors?
Light itself has no color, but rather is the electromagnetic radiation that stimulates the eye. This "stimulation" is determined by wavelength and intensity. If you're unfamiliar with this wave information, here's their definitions in simplistic terms:
Photometric standards for the perceptible wavelengths in daylight are usually 390 to 750 or 380 to 830 nanometers (billionths of a meter). Under regular viewing circumstances in solar or artificial light, the eye reacts almost entirely to wavelengths between 400 to 700 nm. Yet, it is possible to see wavelengths near 900 nm iff the light is intense enough or seen in complete darkness. Although the confines of vision are indefinite, it is apparent our eyes experience only a diminutive fraction of the sun's aggregate radiant force.
Each particular wavelength of the spectrum, viewed by itself at adequate intensity in a dusky locale, generates the discernment of a decipherable hue, but the evident color of the same light wavelengths can alter depending on the milieu in which the light is viewed. For example, long wavelength or "red" light can, in the specific setting, appear red, scarlet, crimson, pink, maroon, brown, gray, or black.
This color relativity transpires for the reason that color is a multifarious consciousness, not a tangible aspect of the corporeal world. In all schemata on color vision, spectrum colors are only representational of the diverse wavelengths of radiance.
As demonstrated by Newton, different hues of the spectrum are caused by a fundamental attribute of light called refrangibility. He found that each spectral hue contained an exclusive and fixed angle of refraction when light is passed through a lens or prism, and that pure spectral "orange" or "violet" light are just as primitive or basic as "red" or "green" light because none of these spectral hues can be analyzed into any other color. However, they could be blended in any amalgamation to make other colors, including all the lackluster colors of nature and colors (such as red violet) not found in the spectrum, and Newton formulated a color circle to predict these assortments. He even demonstrated that three or occasionally merely two spectral hues could merge to create a "white" light, and that the color of paints or surfaces must develop from the selective absorption and manifestation of dissimilar spectral hues.
As we all know, we say that colors are formed by three primary colors: red, blue, and yellow. The correct definition of "primary" colors is this: each "primary" must strongly stimulate two types of receptor cones but not stimulate the third. (This is in terms of subtractive color mixing â cyan, magenta, and yellow).
In terms of primary colors, just because color mixing can be expressed by three "primary" colors says nil concerning how color vision actually works. Only illusory "primary" colors can mix all possible colors -- illogical notions applied in mathematical models of color vision that do not characterize real color sensations or even real nerve impulses or brain processes. In other words, all perfect "primary" colors are wholly imaginary.
Any three or four or five or six real "primary" colors cannot merge all the colors in any condition midway between extremes, and this is continually true no matter which "primary" colors we select and no matter which medium -- inks, paints, dyes, filters, phosphors, artificial lights or monospectral lights -- we use to mix the colors. In other words, all mixable "primary" colors are lacking. These boundaries surface from the way the human eye is designed. The sensitivity curves of the L, M and S cones overlap: every monospectral (single wavelength) hue stimulates two or even three cones simultaneously (with the omission of extreme "violet" or extreme "red" monospectral lights seen in darkness at high intensity).
Anyway, since colors were actually made up by man's thoughts and conclusion, there are two types of colors. The fundamental issue is this: the artistic control of "color" can be pursued through experience or theory.
By experience I mean the following:
By theory I mean the following:
So perhaps my question has altered over the course of this post. Do colors exist? Since they are seen and humans can only perceive a small portion of the spectrum, what exactly is a color? Is it something of mathematics? Or is more of an experience type of ideal? Eventually, accumulated experience makes further experience easier to acquire and understand, and makes theory less of an issue. Intimate knowledge of paints, supports, and technique is the key to effective color control. It is always more difficult to look at the actual behavior of the paints you use than to memorize the simplified rules of "color theory." But experience, not memorization, is where learning actually takes place.
These are questions that I've stimulated based on what I've presented. But can anyone counter the original statement at the beginning? If there is no light, there would be no colors, correct? Black is the absence of light and since black isn't considered a color, and everything would be black if there was no light, wouldn't that mean, there would be no colors?
Light itself has no color, but rather is the electromagnetic radiation that stimulates the eye. This "stimulation" is determined by wavelength and intensity. If you're unfamiliar with this wave information, here's their definitions in simplistic terms:
The distance between the peaks in one cycle of an electromagnetic wave is its wavelength. The number of wave peaks within a standard distance (one centimeter) is the wavenumber, the reciprocal of wavelength. Waves increase in frequency (decrease in wavelength) as the radiation increases in energy.
Photometric standards for the perceptible wavelengths in daylight are usually 390 to 750 or 380 to 830 nanometers (billionths of a meter). Under regular viewing circumstances in solar or artificial light, the eye reacts almost entirely to wavelengths between 400 to 700 nm. Yet, it is possible to see wavelengths near 900 nm iff the light is intense enough or seen in complete darkness. Although the confines of vision are indefinite, it is apparent our eyes experience only a diminutive fraction of the sun's aggregate radiant force.
Each particular wavelength of the spectrum, viewed by itself at adequate intensity in a dusky locale, generates the discernment of a decipherable hue, but the evident color of the same light wavelengths can alter depending on the milieu in which the light is viewed. For example, long wavelength or "red" light can, in the specific setting, appear red, scarlet, crimson, pink, maroon, brown, gray, or black.
This color relativity transpires for the reason that color is a multifarious consciousness, not a tangible aspect of the corporeal world. In all schemata on color vision, spectrum colors are only representational of the diverse wavelengths of radiance.
As demonstrated by Newton, different hues of the spectrum are caused by a fundamental attribute of light called refrangibility. He found that each spectral hue contained an exclusive and fixed angle of refraction when light is passed through a lens or prism, and that pure spectral "orange" or "violet" light are just as primitive or basic as "red" or "green" light because none of these spectral hues can be analyzed into any other color. However, they could be blended in any amalgamation to make other colors, including all the lackluster colors of nature and colors (such as red violet) not found in the spectrum, and Newton formulated a color circle to predict these assortments. He even demonstrated that three or occasionally merely two spectral hues could merge to create a "white" light, and that the color of paints or surfaces must develop from the selective absorption and manifestation of dissimilar spectral hues.
As we all know, we say that colors are formed by three primary colors: red, blue, and yellow. The correct definition of "primary" colors is this: each "primary" must strongly stimulate two types of receptor cones but not stimulate the third. (This is in terms of subtractive color mixing â cyan, magenta, and yellow).
In terms of primary colors, just because color mixing can be expressed by three "primary" colors says nil concerning how color vision actually works. Only illusory "primary" colors can mix all possible colors -- illogical notions applied in mathematical models of color vision that do not characterize real color sensations or even real nerve impulses or brain processes. In other words, all perfect "primary" colors are wholly imaginary.
Any three or four or five or six real "primary" colors cannot merge all the colors in any condition midway between extremes, and this is continually true no matter which "primary" colors we select and no matter which medium -- inks, paints, dyes, filters, phosphors, artificial lights or monospectral lights -- we use to mix the colors. In other words, all mixable "primary" colors are lacking. These boundaries surface from the way the human eye is designed. The sensitivity curves of the L, M and S cones overlap: every monospectral (single wavelength) hue stimulates two or even three cones simultaneously (with the omission of extreme "violet" or extreme "red" monospectral lights seen in darkness at high intensity).
Anyway, since colors were actually made up by man's thoughts and conclusion, there are two types of colors. The fundamental issue is this: the artistic control of "color" can be pursued through experience or theory.
By experience I mean the following:
- paints
- supports
- mediums
- pigments
- solvents
- mixture methods
- application methods
- surface qualities
By theory I mean the following:
- abstract colors
- "primary" colors
- color geometry
- color contrasts
- color harmonies
- color "meanings"
- color wheels
- "predicting" mixtures
So perhaps my question has altered over the course of this post. Do colors exist? Since they are seen and humans can only perceive a small portion of the spectrum, what exactly is a color? Is it something of mathematics? Or is more of an experience type of ideal? Eventually, accumulated experience makes further experience easier to acquire and understand, and makes theory less of an issue. Intimate knowledge of paints, supports, and technique is the key to effective color control. It is always more difficult to look at the actual behavior of the paints you use than to memorize the simplified rules of "color theory." But experience, not memorization, is where learning actually takes place.
These are questions that I've stimulated based on what I've presented. But can anyone counter the original statement at the beginning? If there is no light, there would be no colors, correct? Black is the absence of light and since black isn't considered a color, and everything would be black if there was no light, wouldn't that mean, there would be no colors?