4 ms·

This is going to be a little more technical than I'd like, but it should be concrete enough to implement on a computer. So, start with the color sphere: a unit

by diiq 16y ago

This is going to be a little more technical than I'd like, but it should be concrete enough to implement on a computer. So, start with the color sphere: a unit sphere, and each point in the volume represents a color. Around the equater is arranged the hues, roygbiv. Moving north or south changes value, by adding white or black, respectively. Moving inwards toward the north-south axis reduces saturation; the exact center of the sphere is a perfectly neutral 50% gray. Traditionally a set of colors is supposed to be 'harmonious' together if, when one constructs a polyhedron inside the color sphere, with each vertex being one of the chosen colors, the polytope formed has it's center of balance at the center of the sphere. That is a 'designer' set of colors --- emotionally flat but visually pleasing. Emotional content is added by moving the centroid off center, charging the whole color set with a color 'cast'. This definition, of course, fails when monochromatic schemes are chosen, but monochromatic schemes are almost always highly emotional unless a suitable accent color is chosen (usually a complementary, so as to move the COB to the center of the sphere). For more information, read Itten, Keely, Albers, &c.

hoopadoop 16y ago
How can we know if this method of choosing colours results in colours 'aesthetically better' than, say, generating rgb values by flipping a coin?
- diiq 16y ago
  Re: gray. Yes. I didn't say it was a medium gray, I said it was a neutral gray (neither warm nor cool). But you're absolutely right, this model is merely an approximation of perceptual color. You could instead build a complicated manifold representing perceptual color space, and define a criterion for a cloud of points in that manifold that resulted in pleasing colors, but it would be a lot more work than using the sphere, and you'd not gain that much, I don't think. Re: how do we know? Well, mostly this system is based on the work of a number of thinkers, starting with Goethe and running through Munsell, Itten, Kandinsky, and a bunch of others, who spent a great deal of time putting colored squares next to each other. They discovered physiological effects of color, like simultaneous contrast. They attempted to learn about psychological effects of color. They admitted that, while some color combinations are attractive only to individuals, there were other sets that seem to have universal appeal. One of the things that those universal combinations had in common was that they centered themselves on the color wheel. We know, more or less, by science. It is a largely empirical question (put some colors together, see if people like it). You can repeat the experiments yourself, if you like --- you asked 'how can we know'? Either take their word, or try it yourself. And finally, in reply to the my use of the word 'emotional' --- if I were to say that colors whose center of balance is far from the center axis of the sphere are more surprising, and less comfortable, is that acceptable? I don't mean to say that red and green don't evoke different emotions than yellow and purple --- but they are both comfortable, obvious, familiar combinations; while, say, magenta and brown is less comfortable and takes more work to accept.
  - hoopadoop 16y ago
    Less by science, then. It seems like a particular combination of colours, say a particular red and green, may be a comfortable, obvious, familiar combination right now, in a specific culture - but 100 years ago may have been shocking and outrageous. And, who knows, in 100 hundred years may again be 'less comfortable'. Goethe, Munsell, Itten, Albers, Kandinsky may have spent a great deal of time putting coloured squares next to each other, but none of them ever conducted anything like an objective scientific study on the 'aesthetic quality' of a palette. Goethe's theory was based heavily on the work of Aristotle. Munsell's views on aesthetics seemed laughably conservative at the time, let alone now. Neither Albers or Kandinsky, ever put foward a 'theory' for evaluating harmonious colours. Albers said that each colour 'goes' equally well with any other colour. Itten & Kandinsky were obsessed by the occult 'meanings' of colours. Certainly they were genius colourists.. but scientists?
    - diiq 16y ago
      Absolutely true. They were all mystics and goofballs. But I'm not justifying the mysticism. I never mentioned 'blond types' and 'black types', I didn't touch on the 'passion' of red, or the 'purity' of white. I'm talking about the bits that seem to have held up after 100 years. The bits these men found from observation, rather than mysticism. This is, more or less, the method taught to design and art students today. You can see it in paintings from around the world, and going back hundreds of years. Simultaneous contrast exists and is physiological, not cultural. The vibration of complements is build into our visual system, too. Saying that these people had some bad ideas doesn't make all their ideas wrong. We all have head about Newton's alchemy --- but we praise him for calculus and optics nevertheless. Kepler had his Harmonices Mundi, but we still can call him a scientist; because sometimes he was. And if someone comes along and makes color theory even more scientific, that would be great! I would be overjoyed, because so much of what's been written about it is absolute bunk. However, at the moment, this is the best answer to the question I can give; and I think it works pretty well when compared to randomness.
klodolph 16y ago
50% gray isn't a medium gray, it is actually a fairly light gray. On an average PC monitor it is rgb(186,186,186) (assuming sRGB). Photographers often use 18% or 12.5% gray (0.18 or 0.125 albedo) as a medium gray depending on the tonal range they're working with -- these values are the geometric average of white and black in photographs with five and six stops of range, respectively. Then there's the issue of print versus the web. In print, you can call a color neutral because it reflects light which is the same color as the illuminant. I'm skeptical about "neutral gray" on a website, viewed in a variety of different environments with a variety of different backlights. Fill your screen with pure white, look at it on a sunny day and then again late at night. You'll find it's shifted from a yellowish white to a bluish white. I'm also skeptical about a mathematical formula for "emotionally flat colors". It seems I could choose a bright red, yellow, and blue and get them to center on neutral gray, and use that for my american hot dog stand. Then I could take a few shades of black and white, centered on neutral gray again, and use them to paint the corporate office. Neither seems emotionally flat to me.

by diiq 16y ago

hoopadoop 16y ago

How can we know if this method of choosing colours results in colours 'aesthetically better' than, say, generating rgb values by flipping a coin?

diiq 16y ago
Re: gray. Yes. I didn't say it was a medium gray, I said it was a neutral gray (neither warm nor cool). But you're absolutely right, this model is merely an approximation of perceptual color. You could instead build a complicated manifold representing perceptual color space, and define a criterion for a cloud of points in that manifold that resulted in pleasing colors, but it would be a lot more work than using the sphere, and you'd not gain that much, I don't think. Re: how do we know? Well, mostly this system is based on the work of a number of thinkers, starting with Goethe and running through Munsell, Itten, Kandinsky, and a bunch of others, who spent a great deal of time putting colored squares next to each other. They discovered physiological effects of color, like simultaneous contrast. They attempted to learn about psychological effects of color. They admitted that, while some color combinations are attractive only to individuals, there were other sets that seem to have universal appeal. One of the things that those universal combinations had in common was that they centered themselves on the color wheel. We know, more or less, by science. It is a largely empirical question (put some colors together, see if people like it). You can repeat the experiments yourself, if you like --- you asked 'how can we know'? Either take their word, or try it yourself. And finally, in reply to the my use of the word 'emotional' --- if I were to say that colors whose center of balance is far from the center axis of the sphere are more surprising, and less comfortable, is that acceptable? I don't mean to say that red and green don't evoke different emotions than yellow and purple --- but they are both comfortable, obvious, familiar combinations; while, say, magenta and brown is less comfortable and takes more work to accept.
- hoopadoop 16y ago
  Less by science, then. It seems like a particular combination of colours, say a particular red and green, may be a comfortable, obvious, familiar combination right now, in a specific culture - but 100 years ago may have been shocking and outrageous. And, who knows, in 100 hundred years may again be 'less comfortable'. Goethe, Munsell, Itten, Albers, Kandinsky may have spent a great deal of time putting coloured squares next to each other, but none of them ever conducted anything like an objective scientific study on the 'aesthetic quality' of a palette. Goethe's theory was based heavily on the work of Aristotle. Munsell's views on aesthetics seemed laughably conservative at the time, let alone now. Neither Albers or Kandinsky, ever put foward a 'theory' for evaluating harmonious colours. Albers said that each colour 'goes' equally well with any other colour. Itten & Kandinsky were obsessed by the occult 'meanings' of colours. Certainly they were genius colourists.. but scientists?
  - diiq 16y ago
    Absolutely true. They were all mystics and goofballs. But I'm not justifying the mysticism. I never mentioned 'blond types' and 'black types', I didn't touch on the 'passion' of red, or the 'purity' of white. I'm talking about the bits that seem to have held up after 100 years. The bits these men found from observation, rather than mysticism. This is, more or less, the method taught to design and art students today. You can see it in paintings from around the world, and going back hundreds of years. Simultaneous contrast exists and is physiological, not cultural. The vibration of complements is build into our visual system, too. Saying that these people had some bad ideas doesn't make all their ideas wrong. We all have head about Newton's alchemy --- but we praise him for calculus and optics nevertheless. Kepler had his Harmonices Mundi, but we still can call him a scientist; because sometimes he was. And if someone comes along and makes color theory even more scientific, that would be great! I would be overjoyed, because so much of what's been written about it is absolute bunk. However, at the moment, this is the best answer to the question I can give; and I think it works pretty well when compared to randomness.

klodolph 16y ago

50% gray isn't a medium gray, it is actually a fairly light gray. On an average PC monitor it is rgb(186,186,186) (assuming sRGB). Photographers often use 18% or 12.5% gray (0.18 or 0.125 albedo) as a medium gray depending on the tonal range they're working with -- these values are the geometric average of white and black in photographs with five and six stops of range, respectively. Then there's the issue of print versus the web. In print, you can call a color neutral because it reflects light which is the same color as the illuminant. I'm skeptical about "neutral gray" on a website, viewed in a variety of different environments with a variety of different backlights. Fill your screen with pure white, look at it on a sunny day and then again late at night. You'll find it's shifted from a yellowish white to a bluish white. I'm also skeptical about a mathematical formula for "emotionally flat colors". It seems I could choose a bright red, yellow, and blue and get them to center on neutral gray, and use that for my american hot dog stand. Then I could take a few shades of black and white, centered on neutral gray again, and use them to paint the corporate office. Neither seems emotionally flat to me.