Before I query the audience, let me start by explaining what I want to accomplish. I am a web developer, and one of my current projects involves creating a system to help the end-user determine complimentary, split-complimentary, triad, and analogous colors for a given color.
This is quite simple when using the RGB Color Space, because each primary color (as well as secondary) has equal representation (hue range) on the wheel. However, I would like to offer the ability to do the same using the RYB Color Space. However, because it is based off of light wavelength, some colors are more “stretched” and others “compressed” on the palette. Because of this, I can’t think of a concept to make this quantifiable.
Before I query the audience, let me start by explaining what I want to accomplish. I am a web developer, and one of my current projects involves creating a system to help the end-user determine complimentary, split-complimentary, triad, and analogous colors for a given color.
This is quite simple when using the RGB Color Space, because each primary color (as well as secondary) has equal representation (hue range) on the wheel. However, I would like to offer the ability to do the same using the RYB Color Space. However, because it is based off of light wavelength, some colors are more “stretched” and others “compressed” on the palette. Because of this, I can’t think of a concept to make this quantifiable.
I think the CMY color space is defenitly not equivalent to the RYB one.
Mixing in CMY or CMYK is really strange. For example mixing magenta and yellow gives red. Most people are used to mix in RYB, as they learned it in elementary school.
They are certainly not equivilant, and yes, magenta and yellow yeild red, but with an RYB model, what makes magenta…or cyan? Niether RYB or CMY are perfect, but CMY seems to be a more logical alternative.
I can understand the appeal of the RYB model though…imagine a box of Crayolas with only 3 crayons, plus black.
