This content has been marked as final. Show 10 replies
Thanks for the post. The kuler color wheel is the same as the new Live Color feature in Illustrator CS3, so that determines what wheel we use. Sami
But can't we have 2 wheels?
This is very important for me. I don't think that all designers like RGB wheel.
Consider the arguments against a primitive wheel like RYB.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RYB_color_model
Consider a more versatile model that offers more possibilities!
-The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...
kuler does use an RYB wheel. This has been pointed out in another thread somewhere. Try this: use the 'triad' scheme and rotate the base color to 'computer red', i.e., 0 degrees. The other two colors will come back Y (57 degrees) and B (203 degrees). The complement kuler offers for 0 degree Red is 137 degree Green, not 180 degree Cyan.
Although I'm a big fan of perceptual color circles, I would be a little cautious about labeling the RYB wheel, used for hundreds of years in the history of art, "primitive". Scientific credentials aren't enough to make that call. Your design credentials had better be pretty good, too. It's clear that by far most design schools continue to teach RYB -- and maybe, just maybe, not out of total ignorance.
whether they wheel was changed or I didn't see it.
but for real do they use RYB wheel????
Nicely put barva!
"Scientific credentials aren't enough to make that call"?
Interesting. An appeal to authority biased against those with scientific credentials. It's a false dicothomy to be sure but if I were faced with chosing who to believe about the perception of color, the scientific community or the design community, I think would trust the former to actually do the tests, rather than to rely on the unchallenged wisdom of a few old farts from the 19th century.
In any case, the premise is faulty, from what I understand, there are a significant number within the design community itself that realizes this error and promotes the RGB wheel instead. The RGB wheel is not perfect -- no simple two-dimensional wheel is going to be completely accurate -- but it's much better than RYB at representing the perceptual relationships of color.
Mr Newberry -- I agree the artist/scientist dichotomy is a false one. You're the one who set it up, not me. Scientists and artists each research color with their own set of goals -- which is perfectly natural, unless you want to maintain that there's no qualitative difference between what artists do and what physicists do. Artists are primarily concerned about aesthetics, scientists are primarily concerned about visual mechanisms.
But there is more and more work being done on the brain component of how we process color, and if you'd rather come at this from a purely 'scientific' direction, I'd recommend you dig a little deeper into this area. Get conversant with the basic models. RGB is one but there are many others and, frankly, RGB has come into the limelight chiefly because of its association with the personal computer. Almost anyone would agree that the most thorough work done in terms of conceptualizing human color perception per se is that of Munsell. But in terms of neurological underpinnings, there is a developing core of research results in areas ranging from linguistics to studies of what happens to visual information between the eye and the occipital cortex which indicates the primary model we work from as humans is RYGB. The best-known "system" constructed on this basis is NCS color.
RYB color is not RYGB, and thus must be considered a "specialist" model, i.e., it's not the one the man or woman on the street is going to be intuitively working with (elementary school finger painting aside!). What it is specialized for, is precisely what it's used for in the kuler wheel and therein lies its logic. RYB is a very good at visualizing aesthetic choices. It divides the world of color almost evenly between cool and warm, and gives almost every color a complement which lies on the other side of this dichotomy.
The importance of this seems to have been intuited by artists long before there was such a thing as scientific color theory. Hence the extraordinary tenacity of RYB: it's useful in ways that RGB will never be, and even in ways that RYGB and Munsell are not. It's a matter of different goals. RYGB and Munsell are very good for color naming. RGB is very good at making your computer work with color. RYB excels at helping artists and designers select color.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you did indeed set up up the false dichotomy and it appears that you're still attempting to maintain one. Changing the goal posts by redefining the difference as being one of "aesthetics" versus "visual mechanisms" looks like more of the same. The science of visual perception is a bit more complex than you appear to realize.
The claim that the RYB wheel "divides the world almost evenly between cool and warm" is a judgement call that is impossible to quantify until you define your terms less ambiguously than these terms typically are used in the design community. Depending on which authority you ascribe to, "cool" colors can include anything from yellow-greens to purple while "warm" colors can include anything from red-violets to yellow. The demarcation between these two ranges is not clear. And I'm guessing we can have a lengthy debate about the best way to quantify whether there are "more" colors on one side of the divide or the other. I could just as easily claim that the RGB wheel does a better job of dividing these colors "evenly" than RYB.
The claim that the RYB wheel "gives almost every color a complement which lies on the other side of this dichotomy" needs a little more elaboration. Which definition of complement are you using? Why do you feel that RGB fails to do this?
I also note that we are starting to digress into color "models" as opposed to color "wheels". The RYGB model is not a wheel. In fact, historically Hering's RYGB model was proposed precisely as a counter to the geometrical color wheel models in vogue at the time. The RGB model was based on objective physical observations (although some variants were less so). In contrast, the RYGB model was based on subjective color perceptions and the notions of color antagonism. The modern variants of the RYGB model are a bit more complex and a bit less subjective but they're still not easily represented as simple two-dimensional wheels. So this digression doesn't appear relevant to this discussion.
I suggest you do a little more research. NCS color is noted for it's inaccuracy for anything but consistent color labeling, sacrificing perceptual accuracy in the name of geometrical simplicity. The modern CIE-LAB model (and the more recent CIE-CAM models) is actually a better representation of the opponent color space hypothesized by Hering. But again, none of this has any relevance to two-dimensional color wheels.
Also, I'm sure you realize this but the RGB wheel predates computers by over a century, so the statement that RGB has "come into the limelight chiefly because of its association with the personal computer" is a bit misleading.
barva: Your claims are vague and unsubstantiated. What does "good at visualizing aesthetic choices" mean? Note that RYB does no better or worse a job at locating complements "on the other side" of the "cool-warm dichotomy" than any other model in common use, and is begging the question if the split between "cool" and "warm" is defined in terms of an RYB wheel. On the other hand, perceptual models would be able to provide complements which were *actually* perceptually complementary, instead of arbitrary, an undeniable benefit. Which ways are you referring to when you say "it's useful in ways that RGB will never be, and even in ways that RYGB and Munsell are not." As far as I can tell, a color picker based on Munsell (or something like CIECAM) would be superior to an RYB wheel in every way.
Currently, if you attempt to create, for instance, an "analogous" color scheme, using Kuler, not only are the hues unevenly spaced perceptually, but lightness and colorfulness also vary dramatically, despite an interface which suggests otherwise by placement of its little circles. Moreover, if you then pick a different hue for the central spoke, all of the relationships between colors in the scheme are completely transformed.
Admittedly, basing a color picker on a more perceptual model would require the use of an odd shape as an outline, instead of a circle, and might alienate designers with little knowledge of color theory or science. But in my opinion the result would be much more useful for picking "aesthetically-pleasing color schemes".