3 ms·

It seems like you're making the argument that no color palettes are any more natural than any other color palettes, since all colors exist in nature, but I don'

It seems like you're making the argument that no color palettes are any more natural than any other color palettes, since all colors exist in nature, but I don't think that's the point of the article. You may be right that #000 is not actually pure black, because of the light reflecting off the laptop screen and other such reasons, but when looking at an image, our brain tends to compensate for these things. It interprets colors based on the surrounding colors in the image. Introducing pure black into a color palette without being thoughtful can throw off the balance and create a color combination that feels "unnatural", since it would be rare to see colors with that sort of contrast side-by-side in nature.

crazygringo 6y ago
> Introducing pure black into a color palette without being thoughtful can throw off the balance But my point is precisely that this is incorrect, that there is nothing special about #000. In reality, let's say your other #888 color is giving off 54 units of luminence according to some measure. And maybe your #111 gives off 8 units of luminence and your #000 appears to have 6 units of luminence because of ambient reflection and diffusion. There is nothing special about those 6 units of luminence. You're still far away from 0 units of luminence. > it would be rare to see colors with that sort of contrast side-by-side in nature. This is also not correct. Our eyes interpret a gigantic range of contrast. What any screen can produce is a tiny fraction of that. We see far, far, far more contrast side-by-side in nature than we can on any computer screen.
- dorkwood 6y ago
  We're discussing different things, I think. As someone with painting experience, I'm focusing on palettes and value ranges, and what colors and values when put next to each other feel the most pleasing and 'natural'. You seem to be focusing on the objective experience of color, how 'pure black' on a screen is not truly pure black, and how nature contains all the colors we experience on an LCD screen, and more. I don't disagree with your points, these are just two separate discussions.

crazygringo 6y ago

> Introducing pure black into a color palette without being thoughtful can throw off the balance But my point is precisely that this is incorrect, that there is nothing special about #000. In reality, let's say your other #888 color is giving off 54 units of luminence according to some measure. And maybe your #111 gives off 8 units of luminence and your #000 appears to have 6 units of luminence because of ambient reflection and diffusion. There is nothing special about those 6 units of luminence. You're still far away from 0 units of luminence. > it would be rare to see colors with that sort of contrast side-by-side in nature. This is also not correct. Our eyes interpret a gigantic range of contrast. What any screen can produce is a tiny fraction of that. We see far, far, far more contrast side-by-side in nature than we can on any computer screen.

dorkwood 6y ago
We're discussing different things, I think. As someone with painting experience, I'm focusing on palettes and value ranges, and what colors and values when put next to each other feel the most pleasing and 'natural'. You seem to be focusing on the objective experience of color, how 'pure black' on a screen is not truly pure black, and how nature contains all the colors we experience on an LCD screen, and more. I don't disagree with your points, these are just two separate discussions.