DEBUNKING Cyan-Magenta-Yellow color theory in ART! (Re: Echo's "Lesson in color theory")
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- It's been a controversial topic which colors are the real primary colors. I'm here to DEBUNK many claims giving points that I haven't seen anyone really talk about so far. I'm explaining in this video what ADDITIVE and SUBTRACTIVE colors are, what it means and how it's done. Also, what CYAN and MAGENTA are, as well as why these colors CAN'T be primary. I will also debunk the claims about a COLOR WHEEL being useless, while explaining what it is and what important information it gives us.
Green is a primary color of light, computer screens only uses 3 colors, being Red, Green, & Blue. Your eyes only have 3 cones that detect different wave lengths of light being Red, Green, & Blue, The Yellow you see on screens is made up of Green & Red, This is what additive primary color mixing is. Subtractive mixing is the opposite of Additive, meaning you take away light, which is why you need the three brightest colors when you mix physical objects, that is what subtractive color mixing is and is is why you can't make a pure yellow out of green and red even though you can using light. Also none of these theories are made up by her, printers only use the subtractive primary colors, and computer screens only use the Additive primary colors, also she said a "form" of subtractive colors when she was talking about RYB I don't understand what the confusion was (also on the video you said that mixing pigment is additive which is untrue because mixing pigment is subtracting light not adding which is why you can't make the lighter colors and the reason why the subtractive primary colors are all lighter colors)
@natalia gomez haha not sure, I don't think she even saw it, but who knows
@@yimmyrawr She's not Going To Comment anytime soon. She's Still Believe That RBY Is Primary even So many People Already Talk That Cyan, Magenta and Yellow is Primary (Including Me) but She Wouldn't Listen.
@@saturn3264 Haha! Yes! She's Not Gonna Comment Again. She's Surrender and not gonna make Content bc So Many Argue! She's already Steal Video from Echo and Give Wrong Information! Addictive is Light!! and u cant make cyan! U can make a color that very close to cyan but not as Bright and vibrant as Cyan. Same Thing With Magenta and Yellow,
Subtractive --> Paint
Primary --> Cyan Magenta Yellow and Black
Addictive --> Lighter
Primary --> Red Green Blue
@@mnimeion yeah and if Red, Yellow, and Blue are THE primaries of paint then the Primaries of Light are Green, Purple, and Orange by that Logic since Paint and Light in terms of Color Mixing are polar opposites
@@mnimeion agreed, the two tertiary colors she tried to say are magenta and cyan just aren't as vibrant and pure as the true colors
You come off as extremely aggressive....not really a great way to prove a point. Also you didn't debunk her at all, I think you didn't listen to her at all every time you "correct" her you just didn't listen to what she was saying. At the beginning she literally didn't call green a primary colour anywhere in the video. You'd know that if you bothered listening, she was talking about wave lengths which is true, green is a wave length. And you said "We use paint not light" what's wrong with you? You think the way we interpret colours is irrelevant? It's also not polite to just assume she read on e science article and then bluffed a video, she's an artist and wavelengths are common knowledge. You also insulted her personality and face numerous times. That's extremely rude, I think you need to go and do some research because this video is incoherent.
😙😙 lol I’m late
“We use paint not light” she wasn’t just talking to artists, computer scientists use light, and also the video maker seems to be assuming everyone is an artist.
Ok, three minutes in, I see you have pretty huge knowledge gaps when talking about color and colormixing.
Color is a wavelength of light. So, _tecnically_ you _do_ paint "with light". You take white light (from the sun or whatever lightsource you have) and your paint filters specific wavelengths of light (i.e. Colors) from white light (i.e. all colors)
Additive colormixing is what light does, you start with no color (black) add red, blue and green light and you get white light (or white color).
Subtractive colormixing is what paint (or any other form of pigment) does. You take white light (all colors) and subtract from there. You take cyan to filter shades of red, magenta to filter green and yellow to filter blue. Subtracting yellow, magenta and cyan from white equals (you guessed it) black.
Therefore, the primary colors of additive colormixing (mixing light) are red, blue and green.
The primary colors of subtractive colormixing (mixing paint) are cyan, magenta and yellow.
The secondary colors of additive colormixing (mixing light) are cyan, magenta and yellow.
The secondary color of subtractive colormixing (mixing paint) are red, green and blue.
The part with the Receptors for different wavelengths of light in our eyes is correct, but those receptors are not Red, Blue and _Yellow_ but Red, Blue and _Green_.
Healthy human eyes have three sets of cones in our eyes, each one of them respond to a different wavelength of light. Those are 430 nm wavelength (blue), 550nm (green) and 600 nm (red). If all three sets of cones are stimulated equally, we percieve that as white light.
Have you ever painted? Pigments do NOT mix the same way light does, and you do NOT paint with light. There are many ways to prove that, the easiest one being you can NOT make yellow by mixing green and red pigments, while that's how light does it. You're missing the point completely.
@@artvskitsch918 "have you ever painted?" I'm a printing technician, so I don't "just paint", but work with that stuff professionally.
"Pigments do not mix the same way light does" exactly, pigments filter light. Pigments filter certain colors from white light and reflect (or more accurately remit) all the other colors.
"you do not paint with light" again, no light, no colors (obviously).
"you can not create yellow by mixing green and red pigments" thats why yellow is a primary color in subtractive colormixing, e.g. paint, ink, markers and so on.
"with light, you can do that" yes, because light is additive colormixing.
@@Lamborghinjo Yes, have you ever painted? What does printing have to do with painting? Printer does all the work, not an artist, and it uses a layering mechanism, not mixing. Works like markers, not like paint. FYI, I'm an actual printmaker, I work in both traditional and digital media, all possible printing techniques, so I guess I should know as well...
As for the rest, I really don't get your point. Yes, pigments do not mix the same way light does, this is why you can't paint with light. You never actually use light and mix it together to create a painting. You mix CHEMICALS/pigments to make a new chemical mixture that is going to reflect a different color into your eye. It's not lights' business, it's just chemicals interacting with each other. Each pigment has its own characteristics that will make it behave differently in different media, when exposed to light, air, etc. or just react differently with each other. We're talking about pigments here and the way that they mix, NOT light.
@@artvskitsch918 hmm... I see your point. Yes, Printers use a "layering mechanism" and "work like markers" (I think the word you are looking for is "translucent").
Also, I have to confess that i almost exclusively work with (printer-)ink not paint. Since paint is not translucent, and there are no perfect pigments for certain colors, mixing a specific color can be quite difficult. On the other hand, we talk about color theory and subtractive color mixing. Therefore I think you misunderstood my point about light. Yes, you don't mix light, it's allready there, coming from whatever lightsource you have (outside it would be the sun for example). When your canvas is white in the beginning, it reflects all the wavelengths of light that come from that source back in your eyes so your canvas appears white. What your paint does is filtering certain wavelengths out and reflecting others back in your eyes, depending on whatever color you chose. Our eyes have receptors for exactly three wavelengths of light, red, blue and green, therefore if you want to be most efficient, you need exactly the right colored ink to filter one of those three wavelengths out. You also want to use the least amount of ink possible, not only because of efficiency, but also because more ink equals a darker image.
Thats why we use cyan, magenta and yellow. A perfect cyan filters red, magenta filters green and yellow filters blue (of course, nature is not always perfect, so even in printing we use more than those three colors).
Thats what subtractive color mixing is all about.
@@Lamborghinjo Sure, but that's not what my video was about at all. It was about mixing pigments, not "color theory and subtractive color mixing". I spoke about two ways you can mix pigments, one being by adding one pigment (paint) into another. The other one uses complementary color system to neutralize or subtract a color from another color. This may have confused you to think that I talked about color theory and subtractive color mixing. It certainly has confused a lot of people and I am aware of the fact that I should have made it more clear that I'm not talking about the color theory related to light, but exclusively to color mixing. The only reason I mentioned the two ways of color mixing is to explain why you can get "blue" (cobalt or ultramarine) by mixing cyan and magenta - complementaries neutralizing existing tints in those colors, which means the green in cyan kills the red in magenta, which leaves us with less yellow in cyan and less red in magenta, which means a lot of blue with a red tint (ultramarine). And all of that was to then prove that the ability to get blue from cyan and magenta does not make these colors primary, as you could do this with any other variation of blue/red pigments.
I did not expect when making this video that a lot of people who are not in the art industry would comment here. I thought this was a conversation that was hot only within the art community. In case you're not familiar with it, the reason I even made this video to begin with, was because for a couple of years now it has become a trend for people to try to apply the light color theory to mixing pigments. There is a huge conversation going around the internet about which are the primary colors in art - RYB or CMY. I just debunked the CMY argument, as well as the whole fight in general as it's ridiculous to begin with, because even the definition of primary colors in light has a lot of gray area if applied directly to fine art.
Saying Cyan is a shade of blue is like saying Purple is a shade of Red. Cyan is between Blue and Green (2 primary colors on the RGB scale). You never even proved your point, you just insulted her point and showed the exact same images that make no sense to me at all over and over again. Tell me, if the real primary colors are Red Yellow and Blue, explain printers. Printers use Cyan Yellow Magenta and Black, and they make every color that exists.
1. I have proved my point, please do not claim that if you haven't even watched the video. If you want me to point you to the exact part of the video I talked about cyan being a shade of blue, it's right here: 11:06
If you want me to sum it up for you, here it is: Cyan is not a pigment found in nature and used in any sort of paint, not even in printers. It is not a primary color because you get it by mixing it with other colors. If you just google it a little, and when I say a little I mean literally even wikipedia has it (mentioned and showed in the video), you get cyan by adding a lot of white to paris blue pigment, the pigment that cyan even derived it's name from (also mentioned and showed in the video). It is not a natural color of it's own, and it's really important for primary colors in any type of traditional media to be pure pigments, because only pure pigments are fully authentic and can never be fully imitated with all of it's characteristics and values. This, of course, doesn't mean you're not allowed to use tubes of mixed color in your pallet, it's a matter of preference and I made sure to stress that a lot.
2. I also explained very well (you said it yourself, it just doesn't make sense to you, but that's not my problem because many other people did in fact understand it perfectly) the difference in secondary, tertiary and other types of colors. Cyan, as a hue instead of a natural pigment, is a mixture of at least two thirds of blue and one third of green (which means even more blue and a tiny amount of yellow), which makes it a blue color with a yellow tint.
Purple, on the other hand, is a half-half color, which can't be put on the spectrum under the particular colors used to make it, because it has the same amount of color in it. Same goes for green and orange, it is a half-half color, which means it is a new color, called secondary. It's very simple actually, but I don't blame you for getting bored during the video, it is not a very entertaining one, but I promise it's educational.
3. When it comes to printers, I also made sure to stress that somewhere near the end of the video, that printers and markers work differently. I have not, however, explained why. The reason is - I don't really care much, because she never really talked about printers at all in her video, she only talked about paint.
I can assume that printers work in a similar way to markers, and markers work in layering, not mixing. When you're layering color on top of another color while they have a certain amount of transparency to it (talking about markers), you may actually be playing with light more than with pigments. I was only ever talking about pigments, however, and so was Echo, and I made sure to stress that in the video as well, so I really don't get it why you're even asking at all. Printers are machines and you most definitely do not paint the way a printer does.
4. Last but not least, I actually have a huuuuge chunk of the video that explaines why you can make all the other colors in the spectrum using cyan, magenta and yellow, but you never watched it. I'll link you to it: 26:41
The quick version is this: They work as "subtractive colors", not substractive in light, however, but substractive in paint. What that means is you can substract a color from another color, and since both magenta and cyan have a tint of another color in them already (cyan has yellow and magenta has blue), you can use their complementary colors to neutralize the tint and bring the color back to the way it was before you added the tints to it.
I suggest you watch the video, it's much more informational on all this.
Art vs Kitsch
Y’know, I’d like to see you actually mix Red Blue and Yellow vs Magenta Cyan and Yellow on video. It would actually prove your point, actions are stronger than words. I know Echo didn’t do that, but I’ve seen other videos of people doing that just like you did (yes I watched the video I know you saw some). Make some Cyan with 2/3rds blue and 1/3 yellow for me on camera.
You using the same pictures over and over again isn’t helping your case. If your argument was more legit, you would have way more examples than an image of why cyan is between yellow and blue, some pigment fades, and a color wheel.
I must admit, the printer was a bad example. And yes, research will tell you that Red Yellow and Blue are the primary colors, but that’s because they’re all just passing off what was taught to them and what other websites tell them. Simple research isn’t enough these days. Lies can spread so far the truth is lost in history. But that doesn’t make it untrue.
I’d like to end this argument at this. I hate arguments and I have homework to do. I’m sure you have many more people to respond to, as I have read the comments, and this video made people mad. Good day.
@@limediamond4595 There are many many examples out there, and I have put quite a few in my video. I see no point in searching trough bilions of videos on youtube to find more examples for you. If one person can make it, that means it can be made and it's where the argument should end.
If the argument of primary colors in traditional media makes you or anyone else mad, it's really not my problem. The reason I respond to mad comments is because I can, because I have nothing to lose, because it really takes a couple of minutes a week, and because you might learn something from my answer.
People on the internet have only been proving that you can get all colors while mixing yellow cyan and magenta (which I addressed in my video, and explained why it's possible and why I think that doesn't make these two primary). But people keep forgetting that ever since ultramarine has been found in the renaissance, people have been mixing blue, red and yellow and have been getting all of the colors you could think of. They didn't have great white and yellow pigments (as they were toxic at the time), which is why their paintings are on the darker side, so you may not see a nice cyan on a renaissance painting. But they made all the possible colors pretty nicely, as well as the wonderful bright color pallet painters from the impressionism, roccoco etc. have done. Considering cyan/magenta/yellow is a very new concept that came with the newest studies about the eye color recipients (not research on pigments), you have all of the paintings from before 21st century that prove RGB works perfectly well.
I do plan, however, to make a new, short and straight to the point video on the topic, with demonstrations on everything, but it wll take a little longer. If you want, I can notify you trough a comment when the new video is up. In the meantime, feel free to tell me what else you would like to see in that video.
You literally proved her point
Cyan is between blue and green, green is between blue and yellow so that makes cyan a tertiary color with more blue and less yellow
You are also making the same mistake as echo by switching between rgb and cmy, which she also points out
It's more like saying magenta is a shade of red.
Your criticism of Echo's reference to additive color is based on your understanding of additive vs subtractive color, but even if there are some circles that use those words as you explain them, that is not what Echo was referring to nor how these words are commonly used.
As commonly used, the "additive color" refers to colors obtained by mixing of light of different colors, and "subtractive color" is mixing colors with light-absorbing mediums (ie, paints/pigments). While light is separate from pigment, the way colors of light mix is actually directly relevant to mixing pigments: The light that reaches your eyes after bouncing off of an object consists of only the wavelengths (colors) that the object didn't absorb. That means that subtractive color is the inverse of additive color. Since the human eye picks up colors in the red, green, and blue ranges, that's why our televisions have red, green, blue pixels. And since the secondary colors of mixing red, green, and blue light are cyan, magenta, and yellow, those secondary colors of mixing light become our primary colors in the physical medium, which is why color printers have cyan, yellow, and magenta ink that can be mixed to make red, green, and blue.
The old masters had spectacular abilities to work with the limited pigments that were available to them, but they didn't understand the physics of light. Modern paint mixing tradition inherits the traditions that identified convenient mixing, but there's more understanding to be had. Now that we understand how the eye perceives color in the light bounced off of objects, we can find easier ways to mix color. "Authentic" color would be the specific colors our eyes are tuned to see or those used to create them, not what materials we use to make paints of a certain color.
Just as we have to be critical of the information spouted by random UA-camrs, so also do we have to be critical of information presented to us by authorities carrying forward hundreds of years of tradition. That doesn't demean our teachers and masters any more than saying that a world-class gymnast isn't a physicist, because we don't always have to understand underlying principles in order to produce amazing things. When those principles bring us new information, that doesn't invalidate all of the practical lessons we've learned. It just gives us more information we can use to refine our methods and practices.
And we must be most critical of ourselves. Any time we are driven by the emotion of believing ourselves to be right, it's important to take every step to check ourselves. Your work to correct someone else has led to a video where you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the argument you're trying to debunk in a particularly hurtful, self-righteous tone. Even if you don't think so now, for those reasons at some point this will be a video you regret posting. When you come to that conclusion, you'll be able to take the video down. But the people who saw this and were convinced by your argument will continue to carry forward misunderstanding.
I wish you good luck in your journey in life and understanding.
Echo WAS obviously talking about light, but she was trying to tell people that they can apply that knowledge directly to pigments, and that they are even wrong if they're not doing so... Which is absolutelly false.
Pigments do not mix the same way light does, period. She was trying to prove that cyan makes a better green than ultramarine (bravo columbus...) without aknowledging that cyan already has a tint of yellow in it, and a lot of white as well, which means the yellow will have a bigger effect on the blue, which means it will make a "yellower" or brighter green. Ultramarine has a strong red tint to it and is a very heavy pigment. The red tint will neutralize a lot of the yellow that you're mixing it with, and it will be much more difficult to get that bright green. It's not a great discovery she or anyone else for that matter made, it's something that's been known for centuries. She does not have the basic knowledge in pigments and color mixing, and uses her knowledge about wavelengths of light to prove a point about pigments, and vice versa.
Since pigments are never the perfect hue, nor are any of them the same consistency or with same characteristics, mixing color is much more than just slamming two colors onto each other. You have to know some basic chemistry behind it.
Since there are no perfect pigments, there are two ways you can understand the primary colors when it comes to pigments: hue (the basic one everyone argues) and pure pigment colors (the one I'm trying to explain to everyone). What this means is that every single pure pigment can be a primary color, because they are what you get to choose from when it comes to painting, rather than hue. Also because you can never acheive the same color (i.e. ultramarine) with a different pigment (i.e. mixing cyan - white+paris blue - and red to get a similar color) because it can never have the same chemical consistency, behaviour, and even hue.
Cyan is not a pigment itself, therefore it can not be a primary both in pigments and in hue, because it's always made out of other colors. When you buy a tube of cyan 99% of the times it is a mixture of at least two other pigments, which can never make it a primary. It even got it's name from a chemical component of paris blue (the pigment it's most commonly derived from).
Printers do not mix pigments, theyuse a very specific form of mixing by layering.
Printers also can't make all colors, they are still very faulty and are only yet to be developed further.
Computer screens also can't make out all the colors in nature yet, they are constantly improving in that regards.
Pigments are limited too and new ones are being dscovered more and more, although they are still not in use.
Color theory in painting is VERY dofferent from what echo was trying to portray it as in her video. So many ignoract arguments and so many uninfomed claims that kids are just blindly eating up.
A palette you're using has only to do eith your personal preference based on which pigments work best for your needs.
Most of us already use magenta in our starter packs as it's made out of a wonderful red pigment that's very easy to mix, while the blue tint in it is a great neutralizor, which is very helpful when it comes to mixing color. No body argued against that!
If cyan is a common theme in your artwork and makes it easier for you to get some colors you often need, of course you're gonna want to have a tube of it in your personal palette! It's common sense. But cyan will never be a primary color in pigment mixing.
It's not enough to say "cyan gives a better green" and to have it a proof that cyan is a primary color somehow. I'd much rather prefer to say "cyan gives a better green for this and this reason", so that people can know if they need it or not. Maybe paris blue and a good white pigment are enoough for your needs of a brght red. Basically, don't need to buy a color you can mix into same color and even consistency anyway.
So you're wrong: my criticism of Echo is not based at all on my understanding of additive and subtractive color, but on my knowledge about pigments, as well as my long experience with painting.
@Jo Gerard you should watch the original video, it was very informative. I think most of this persons complaint is that they keep switching between calling all shades/hues of blue “blue” and knowing that echo is specifically referring to the crayola blue of the old color wheel.
@Glum Sullen I mean the creator is smug because she’s right in her chosen field of pigment knowledge. But I think the other video person didn’t care about the limits of the real world only wanted to tell her audience something about light reflections and what a primary color is in theory.
@Glum Sullen oh I agree I just guess I kind of get why she was being such a Dick about it, the other video creator wasn’t as bad but she had an arrogant air about her as well and so this video overreacted to that
my art teacher crom community mixed untraditional pigments to maake roygbiv, what did he do, it wasnt ryg rgb or cmyk and i wasnt a good student and aint finna bus across town to ask him
I don’t think you understood echo’s video at all. Green is a primary color in the Additive color model, which is how screens make all their colors, but it isn’t a primary color with markers, paints, inks or anything else physical. She does a really good job explaining herself especially when she mentions that red and yellow do make green, but not a true and vivid green.
That is one of the weakest points in her video. If you watched this video, you would have known why. Cyan already consists of some yellow and a bunch of white. Of course when mixed with more yellow it’s going to give a yellower green than, as she used in her video, ultramarine. Ultramarine is a very reddish blue pigment plus one of the strongest pigments out there. The red tint in ultramarine kills some of the yellow, which makes for a less yellow red, and also, ultramarine is much stronger than cadmium yellow, which means she should have used less of it... There’s so much more than meets the eye when it comes to color mixing. It’s not as simple as you believe it to be.
@@kowalewicz2554 Cyan paints contain yellow pigments, but that's not an authentic cyan. In theory, you can have an authentic cyan pigment that contains no cyan whatsoever, and it couldn't be reproduced. Blue could then be made by mixing magenta with this theoretical authentic cyan.
@@kowalewicz2554 In terms of absorption spectra, what you're saying boils down to ultramarine absorbing some green light and reflecting some red light. The absorbed green light leads to a less vibrant green while the reflected red light likely combines with the remaining blue and green reflected light to desaturate the color further. Try a base pigment closer to cyan, like phthalocyanine blue, and it'll mix with yellow to form a much more vibrant green. This actually goes against Art vs Kitsch's argument, and strongly supports CMY.
@@DANGJOS it’s theoretically possible that cow’s can fly, but they don’t. The theoretical cyan is of no use if we can’t actually use it. To get a much more vivid green than you get from theoretical cyan position paints you actually have to move to pigments that are much closer than that. And they do exist. In theory and in light we have the spectrum hue’s and “cyan” is BG and Phthalo Blue GS is actually not one of them-even though it and a ton of white is commonly used to represent “cyan” along with the vast majority of pretenders. “Pure” spectral hue’s do not exist in material paint mixing at all. We do have 2 pigments that are almost directly on the ideal theoretical cyan position-which is a slightly more bluish biased BG when in fact “cyan” is BG and still does not have a pigment of it’s own.
I would say that the BV Ultramarine (which is not red biased but Violet biased-people tend to forget that) would tend to cancel the yellow as she states. Either way…it lowers the chroma and perhaps it lowers the chroma because in reality all the opposing colors are present. THAT is why every mix results in a lower chromatic mix. If the so called third “primary” of the triad was not present in the mix then there would be no chromatic loss-according to theory of course-bringing the mix into the tertiary zones. The modern scientific opponent theory of the 4 unique hue’s of course validates her statement that the yellowness is being subtracted by the BV Ultramarine.
@@richiejourney1840 I don't think that is at all a fair comparison. Flying cows are not only absurd, but also borderline impossible without such an extreme modification to their anatomy, that they could no longer be considered cows. Theoretical cyan, on the other hand, is very useful for knowing what you can theoretically get through mixing. And yes, a pure spectral hue would not be possible in materials because of the nature of subtractive color. The main point I was making is that it is not correct that yellow is necessary for making cyan. There's no reason that a material couldn't exist that has the proper absorption spectrum for it. In fact, it's even possible that it does hypothetically exist, but chemists just haven't discovered it yet.
You actually pointed out some pigments that come closer to true cyan from their absorption spectra, like phthalo blue. Another example would be copper salts like copper sulfate. And there are videos on UA-cam of people comparing the mixing of phthalo blue with yellow against darker blue paints, like ultramarine, and the phthalo blue made a more vibrant green. This is in favor of Echo's argument. Echo is ultimately correct about CMY being better primaries for getting saturated colors than RYB, but unfortunately she used a flawed demonstration to try and prove her point.
In absorption spectra, yellow is simply a material that absorbs the high energy end of the visible spectrum (violet and blue), and reflects everything else. Ultramarine likely cancels yellow because it absorbs not only red (as any blue pigment would), but also some green, which is essential for the yellow hue in pigments. The main point I'm making is that art vs kitsch (hope I spelled that correctly) isn't correct in her broader argument). CMY makes the most saturated hues, and both theory and demonstration support that. You don't need an exact cyan to show that either
And btw, no offense but you give too much wrong information
Also, there are SO MANY artist that paint with light, so many
Hahahahahahaha, who though! I think this is some sort of language barrier or something, because we can't be talking about the same things.
Art vs Kitsch Digital painting, is what you can call “painting with light”, and the way you explained how mixing magenta and cyan makes blue, it will make just as much sense if you were talking about cmy!
@@leorlevy742 ? I'm still failing to understand your other argument, but digital painting is not really painting with light. The screen uses light to "transfer" the information about color into our eye, but you're not painting with light, you're just using a program that is coded in a way that layering one color on top of another color will give you a third color. You can normally choose the two color profiles which are RGB and CMYK in programes such as Photoshop, but you could create a program that mixes blue and red into pink if you wanted to. Or any other color any other way.
You're not painting with light, you're using programes that imitate real life color mixing and that's really all there is.
Art vs Kitsch That is pretty complicated, but that is kinda what I’m trying to say
Art vs Kitsch you’re the most ignorant person I’ve ever heard
Do you even know what additive color mixing is? Additive mixing doesn’t apply to paint.
true
You cannot make Magenta and Cyan, the same way you cannot make Yellow, but you can create Blue, Red and Green.
Red is the mixture of Yellow and Magenta.
Blue is the mixture of Cyan and Magenta.
Green is the mixture of Yellow and Cyan.
That is why Blue, Red and Green are NOT primary colours.
Again, you cannot create either Yellow or Cyan or Magenta.
Cyan, is NOT a green/blue shade.
Cyan is not turquise, teal or Kingfisher.
Magenta is NOT pink.
Magenta can not be created by a mixture of red, because red is made out of Magenta snd Yellow.
Do a test, take three coloured pencils, a Yellow, a Cyan and a Magenta, and create Red, Blue and Greean.
I do it all the time with Derwent coloured pencils. :-)
What she is saying is right, Red and Blue are not primary coloures, because you can create them. So when she said that they lied to us when they told us that Blue, Red, AND YELLOW are THE Primary Colours, because they placed the yellow within the group, but you cannot create yellow, it doesn't belong with Red and Blue, because you can create both: Red and Blue, just like green, because all three are secondery colours to the CMY triad! :-)
I hope you understood this.
Colored pencils are a layering method, not a mixing method. You can make every color you mentioned there, other than yellow. It's just that cyan is always a made up color, because a cyan pigment does not exist, it's always a greenish blue pigment mixed with a white pigment. You haven't even watched the video.
Art vs Kitsch, I'll watch it.
Art vs Kitsch I have liked your video, and subscribed, with the bell.
And watched the whoke video.
However.. I still see where the confusion is..
But don't worry about it.
@@ArabKatib Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll be sure to let you know when I make a better video on this topic, it's been taking me a while, but hopefully it comes out soon. The current one is clearly not good enough because no one is actually watching it and people still get confused a lot.
Art vs Kitsch، dear don't worry about it, and don't worry about making another video - by all means, go ahead and make any video you like! About the topic or anything else. The video was very clear, and I understood all your points and your major arguements (as well as.. err.. "confusions".. sorry sorry).
However (I don't like to go into the "however territory").
But let's visit your major arguement (without commenting on, or answering them for now). Your major arguements is that Ulteramarine, (wither the hot one or cold one), which is the ultimate representative of the blue color, and which is made from the pure pigment, Lapis Lazuli, cannot be produced/ reproduced/ recreated by mixing other colors, which makes it a primary. And this is what they tought you and taught us, at school, and what prople from ancient times believed, with the colour theory and colour wheel, you cannot just create blue, because it is a primary.
And this is believed by many, far too many, artist across the globe.
The same go for red.
And our argument, visiting it again, is that you can make an ulteramarine blue, or any shade of blue, (+ pure blue, sky blue), through the mixing of Cyan and Magenta, which you, as well many people, reject.
And that you claim, that Cyan, is a mixture of some sort of blue and green and/ or yellow.
I'll come back to explain something later.
But, on a side note, I would like to inform you that I do use many colour mediums, not just coloured pencils.
And that I do understand layering colours, mixing colours, colour combination through light (screens - RGB).. etc.
And I do understand the confusion in many artists.
Don't worry.
(By the way, I have been colouring for 40+ years. Lol).
Peace. : )
And good luck.
P.S: I don't usually write long comments. Especially on UA-cam.
Jesus there’s no need to be so mean about it. I guarantee if you were having this discussion with her face to face you wouldn’t be talking the way you are in here. She’s right and wrong in different places of her video but it doesn’t really matter she’s still a person with feelings and emotions.
I don't remember ever saying a bad word about her, other than calling out the bullshit. She, on the other hand, insulted thousands of people. I am not proud of the aggressive approach I took in this video and I'm changing that in the upcoming video I'm making on the topic, but I did not insult anyone nor attack anyone personally, I just argued against her points and called out moments in which she was mean.
Art vs Kitsch You said omg what is wrong with you and you said look at that evil grin
@@yimmyrawryou mean evil smile? She did have it as she was publicly degrading people who don't know something that's not important at all, or for not understanding her points that are fundamentally wrong in the first place. I see where you're coming from 100% and I wouldn't focus on another creator in the future no matter how dumb their claims may be, but I do not feel sorry for the way I feel about her. I did not like the way she talks at all.
Art vs Kitsch I’m sorry. I sure your feeling really attacked from all these comments and I know that can really hurt. I don’t take this video as a reflection of who you are as a person, and while I disagree with you went about this video, I would never want you to feel bad or hurt because of that. Your a human who makes mistakes and we all deserve room to grow, however I hope that you can grow to feel this way toward her as well. She may have been wrong and you may not have liked her video, but she is human like me and you. Since than she has grown and changed. I’m sorry you have to deal with all of the hate in the comments ❤️
@@i-3572 I haven't noticed her change or growth and that certainly isn't the point. I never attacked her personally, just like 90% of the comments are not attacking me personally, but are attacking my opinions, which I don't mind. I'm not feeling hurt at all. Some comments are really annoying (the ones that come from people who never watched the video) but I still try to respond to everyone equally.
Of course Echo is a human, I never called her names, never insulted her intelligence, appearance, anything of that sort. I called out her aggressive opinion that she publicly put out while spreading misinformation to impressionable kids who are still not likely to learn to think for themselves. That's all there is.
Thank you for the concern, I know what the internet is like and this is why I'm annonymous here - I don't need people attacking me personally for a "controversial" opinion I have. So I'm fine and so is Echo.
You are repeating the same mistake.
I'll be making another one, much shorter and cleaner soon, so it would be very helpful if you could elaborate on what you mean by "repeating the same mistake"? I plan to be speaking to both people who believe and people who don't believe in the CMY color system, instead of going so aggressively against another creator. Thank you for the feedback!
@@artvskitsch918 *sigh*
I don't think cadmium red should be considered the perfect red because when you mix it with ultramarine blue, it doesn't give you purple, it makes a muddy brown color. At least for mixing purple acrylic paint, using quinacridone magenta paint makes more sense that using cadmium red.
Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
I see your point and this is why most starter packs will have quinacridone red/magenta rather than cadmium or any other red pigment. The quality of paint will vary so much depending on the pigment itself, the brand, the price and the media. Quinacridone is one of those pigments that seems to work just fine in both cheap and expensive paint, therefore I would always recommend it.
I chose cadmium red to be "the perfect red" because it has the biggest variety in color and can be found in colors starting from orange all the way to deep magentas! This, however, creates the problem that you mentioned, it is not very consistent and finding the best quality red is not very easy. Ultramarine is also a slightly reddish blue, and when you mix an orangy cadmium red with a reddish ultramarine, you'll most likely end up with a messy color.
The point of the video sort of was: look for the quality in pigment rather than the color, because you can get that color anyway using the pigments that suit you best. If brands make cyan probably using white, blue and yellow, why wouldn't you do that yourself? You can't get a pure pigment from cyan, while you can get cyan from a pure pigment etc.
Anyway, to sum up! Sure, I agree with you, gotta test what pigments work best in which media or brands!
So you're saying that a red w/ an orange bias (cad red) when mixed with a blue w/o much bias produces a desaturated color because the bias is the second's compliment while a red w/ a blue bias (quinacridone) when mixed with the same blue makes a purple color. Why is this a shocker? Quinacridone magenta isn't perfect either because it has a blue bias. If you were to mix it w/ an orange, you wouldn't get a redddish orange because of that exact same bias. You might get a very warm brown depending on how much of each you mixed, but you wouldn't get a "pure" reddish orange. CYMK is a better model because while some people may not paint that way, that is indeed how printers print all colors IRL. It isn't just digitally mixing something in photo editing software. NB4 "Inks are transparent, paint needs to be opaque". Okay, what about offset printing on dark t-shirts that uses THAT EXACT SAME MODEL?
@@zakhoskins6404 wtf you mean it's a better model, there is no better model because INKS aren't PAINTS, two completely different sets of binders that react differently to each other. And it's funny how none of your CYM smucks don't want to answer when i tell you guys, that you can absolutely make magenta and cyan with the RYB system.
i could not agree more!
half of these people dont know color theory and % you can mix alot more than the average person thinks is possible, in this case echo is inexperienced
@@okayand1508 hahahahahahahaha it doesn't matter if paint and and Ink don't have the same binders the pigments work the same way!! Test it yourself
Hi AvK, nice work creating an argument to the primary colour debate. Consider being less negative towards specific creators though. I think you bring up some great points, but the content is marred by your attacks against a specific creator. Many artists are reconsidering how they view colour theory including myself, and I think if you keep an open mind you may find that it is complicated and room for multiple philosophies. Keep making videos!
Thank you for your feedback, I definitely see your point!
The thing with this girl in particular is that she's so arrogant to the point that she calls all of her audience dumb, yet doesn't make a single good argument about her own theory. This is why I thought I could start with her, because I've seen a lot of people in the comments show the same behaviour
I was reconsidering for a while whether to make it that way or another way, and in the end I figured that either way no one was going to see it so it doesn't matter lol
The point is basically this: when you mix colors in light, you only mix the colors. but when you mix paint, you mix chemicals that react in different ways with each other to create a chemical that reflects a certain color.
different pigments have different characteristics, and if one blue pigment with another yellow pigment doesn't make the best cyan - it's the pigment's fault.
Pigments are such a personal thing, it depends on your own prefferences, as well as your budget!
Once again, thank you for the feedback!
You mentioned you have mixed your own pigments with medium. I'd love to see that process!
@@danielducroix5331 Yup! I made watercolor and dry pastel, I'm glad you're interested in that! Might actually do it!
@Daniel i very much agree. I don't see Echo as being particularly condescending towards any one person. Sure she's passionate and i guess misled? But this video feels a bit like a personal attack, and it doesn't quite sit right with me. Of course I watch Echo's videos normally, so maybe i'm used to her tone and dry sense of talking as well. But her video made me curious about color theory, so i looked up more videos, and i couldn't get all the way through this one
Artists have always had feuds with each other and critiqued each other- Mark Twain was famous for it- so I don't think there's a problem with her critiques.
You are wrong magenta cyan and yellow are the primary colors because yellow and magenta make red and cyan and yellow truly make green not blue and green.
? Blue and Red make magenta, blue and yellow make cyan. It goes the other way around. If you watched the video you would understand why this is the case, and why it does not prove CMY are primary colors.
@@kowalewicz2554 ermm I tried doing it and failed miserably
@@strawb_exe5748 Maybe you just don't know your pigments well enough. You know you're working with chemicals, right? Chemicals of different origins that are sometimes uncompatible with each other, sometimes significantly stronger than each other. If you use ultramarine to make cyan or magenta, you're gonna need much more work put into that than if you were to use cobalt blue for example. Because ultramarine annulates other pigments very easily. But that's because of the chemical characteristics of the pigment, it has nothing to do with color blue. It also depends a lot on the medium that you're using. Certain pigments work better in watercolor than they do in oil or acrylics, etc. A cheap pigment in watercolor can be an expensive pigment in oil, when price reflects quality of course.
There's so much more that goes into color mixing than just pouring one paint into another. Try again.
The problem here is you're taking what you learned in primary school and treating it like gospel. It was Isaac Newton who discovered how light, and hence colour, works. Ask anyone with a tertiary education in art, photography, physics, etc, and they will tell you exactly what Echo did.
You're using your primary school education to try and prove Newton wrong. That's not going to happen. You have to consider the possibly that maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're not smarter than one of the greatest minds who ever lived.
And if you do have a tertiary education in colour theory, you really weren't paying attention.
Bro, who hurt you?? It’s okay to disagree, but we’re talking about colors here. There’s no need to be so rude.
You're incorrect, even your bag of chips have the primary colors echo talks about, they are used by the printer to mix up the colors in various degrees, it saves money. Don't believe me? Look at the bottom of any bag of chips or cookies whatever, you'll see these weird color squares. That's for the printer to check the quality.
Printers can't make every color there is, and also, printers use various different coloring methods including layering, which has nothing to do with actual mixing. It's like using markers. I specifically said I'm not talking about layering as it proves nothing. Other than that, I never even argued you can't use magenta and cyan to make red and blue. I just said you can do it the other way around as well, just as it has been done for a thousand years so far. I also made a few crucial points about why cyan and magenta are not the best choice for primaries. If you care to know, just watch the video. I'm tired of explaining it to people who comment without watching.
CMYK can literally make more colors than RYB
Fun fact if you're a digital artist you actually paint with light
No, actually you don't. Your screen does show the picture in pixels and is dependent on light, but you paint with a program that is coded in a way that it mixes color in a certain way. If you were to make your own program, you could code it in a way that it mixes red and blue into white if you wanted to. You don't actually paint with light, it's possible only if you try and make a picture using lamps with lights of different colors.
Light doesnt exist
@@artvskitsch918 Even if you programed it differently, Id say youre still "painting with light" because youre manipulating the program to display different values of red green and blue through pixels, which shine light
But thats kinda getting into semantics
@@artvskitsch918 well just know that: even though Cyan Magenta and Yellow cannot make the most vivid blue possible, red yellow and blue cannot make a good cyan or magenta at all, only dark desaturated versions. Scientifically, cyan magenta and yellow are the best primary paint colors, as they make the most other colors.
@@artvskitsch918 No, you’re misunderstanding how additive color mixing works. RGB wasn’t chosen for digital colors because it was just 3 arbitrary colors that they decided to choose, it was chosen because color on your computer is displayed using light and that’s how light mixes. If you layer a green light and a red light on top of each other, it’ll come out as yellow. The fact that you think they’re just arbitrary colors chosen and could’ve just as easily been RYB proves you have absolutely no grasp on the concept of additive (light) color mixing.
Not to mention you even got subtractive and additive color mixing confused the whole time in this video and kept referring to paint mixing as “additive” color mixing, when that is in fact subtractive.
Sorry I cannot watch this video past the first couple of minutes. If you are going to be so critical about somebody then you need to be doubly sure you know what you are talking about. "You don't paint with light" eh!? So please tell me what your UA-cam video is doing then? Video, TV, Photoshop, Instagram and mainly the whole internet pretty much is built around painting with light. Pretty much my whole career has been about using Additive Primary Colours. Red + Green = Yellow
I like the points you make (not saying I agree with either you of, still doing my own research trying to understand) but it was hard to watch because of how snarky and aggressive you were being in it.
Thank you for your feedback, it's been taken into consideration!
@@artvskitsch918 also I would just like to say this but I wasn't trying to be rude in anyway because as I said I really like how indepth you went with everything and I think you have great video making skills
@@Izzyizvbizzy Thank you, the video overall is terrible quality, I wanted to make a new, better one in the future but I just got tired of making it among other stuff I have to do. This will have to stay up for a while I guess 😅
@@artvskitsch918 I totally understand getting tired of making a video lol. I've for sure delayed videos because I was just so tired of listening to that one audio clip over and over and making sure this picture is playing the right time. Also stuff getting in the way sucks. I can't wait for the updated one but for sure make it at your own pace
@@Izzyizvbizzy Exactly! And writing the script is a lot of trouble. I'll update you when I post one if you want!
I just watched 33 minute freakin long video of you harshing this girl’s mellow and talking about freaking non vegan beetle crushing paint pigment making (weird flex) for you to FINALLY explain between 24:43 and 29:30 (for 5 minutes!) why magenta and cyan don’t make an authentic ultramarine, and thus are not primary colors.
You explained this point quite well considering you didn’t actually show anything on camera. After continually mentioning how important this information is to ARTISTS. aka VISUAL LEARNERS and then you explain this without. VIsUAL. DEmOnSTrATIoN. Which sure, would be fine I guess, except that you mentioned twice in this video she should have done a demonstration of some of her points. AND you alluded that you would be doing your own demonstration at the end three times and instead ended by saying, “once I do a demonstration I’m gonna do it very VERY thoroughly.” 😑
I mean I’m not even asking for paint mixing maybe show how you can make colors like highlighter green and hot pink with your precious primary colors, bc I still don’t know how!
But then after that precious 5 minutes of information you go right back in to attacking her for her attitude!? Girl, y’all literally just repeatedly said throughout this video that she “doesn’t know anything,” that she was confused, that she was feeding her ego, and that she is “annoying on a whole other level,”
And then said that you hope she watches this....
How did you edit and watch your video a million times and still end up uploading a 33 minute video only addressing the point for maybe 7-8 minutes max, and the rest just bashing another human being. Meanwhile her video made me feel empowered and answered some of my questions about color, it was like a frigging NOVA science now.
Cyan magenta and yellow do not make as vivid of a blue as the blue paint, but in contrast, red yellow and blue cannot make a vivid cyan at all. Cyan magenta and yellow are still the best primary colors to make THE MOST other colors. Red yellow and blue makes more muddy desaturated colors.
You did not explain why, in her video, mixing magenta and cyan creates blue. If ultramarine blue is the actual primary blue, then why can you make it with magenta and cyan mixed together?
I explained it in my video and in my comments plenty of times. That was, in fact, the whole point of making my very video, as well as the conclusion in the end of the video. That tells me you didn't watch it at all.
@@artvskitsch918 lmao we would if it wasn't 34 minutes of insulting someone else
@@evamanral4016 exactly. 🤦♀️
She is right but her attitude could be improved. You’re wrong though.
@DJ Pauly D I explained why she was wrong in other comments of mine.
Not nice to bash other artists. You’re also doing a disservice to other artists by trying to discourage them from understanding a bit more about how white light affects pigments. In order to get opaque RYB pigments to have anywhere near the vibrance of CMY, you’ll need to add white or thin them out so as your white substrate shows through. Even then, many pigments still turn out greyish and muddy and require lots more tweaking. This is where your assessment fails other artists. I’ve mixed a variety of media pigments using both methods. CMY wins, hands down, EVERY time. That’s why printers use CMYK (K=black) and TVs (which emit their own white light) use RGB. If renaissance artists (whom you claim didn’t need this information and did just fine) had have known more about how light actually worked, who knows how much more realistic and vibrant their paintings might have been. Your video is genuinely a disservice to beginner artists who could benefit from having accurate information that would help them have the tools needed for unlimited color mixing potential. I sincerely wish you hadn’t posted it.
Excuse me, how exactly am I "discouraging" anyone from learning about color theory..? I was literally just educating people about the (should-be-obvious) fact that pigments do not mix the same way light does... I even mentioned that some of the information about light could be useful, like it has been for example in pointilism. The point of my video was to debunk misunderstandings that are spreading like a pandemic over the internet, saying that RYB are not primary colors, but that CMY are. That argument is completely false, despite the fact that CMYK can give you a lot of colors.
1. Cyan is a shade of blue that is (when speaking about pigments, as anything talking about light here is completely irrelevant) made out of white and yellow, added to another blue pigment. 99% of the times cyan is a mixture of at least two pigments, one of which it derived its name from - paris blue - which is also the most common pigment used to make cyan. If a primary color is one that is not made out of any other color, cyan has nothing at all to do in that cathegory. Magenta, on the other hand, is 90% of the time made out of a pure pigment, which could make it a primary color, except it has too strong of a blue tint to it. When it comes to hue, magenta consists of two pure colors which does not make it a primary. On the other hand, as a pigment magenta is a pure pigment, good quality, on the cheaper side, and if not the most common red pigments out there. In that sense it could be a primary color in a painting color system. Cyan can not be one in any shape or form.
2. I'm not even trying to be disrespectful, I'll just tell you honestly - if your argument is that cyan will give you a more vivid green color than, say, ultramarine or cobalt blue, you don't know much about color mixing. Some pigments are stronger than others, some react in a certain way when exposed to light or when dry, some react a certain way to being mixed with other pigments. If you know your pigments well, you will have no issue with mixing pigments. You may need less yellow to make a bright green when you mix it with cyan (because cyan already has a yellow tint to it) than ultramarine (because ultramarine has a strong red tint to it which deepens the green; also because ultramarine is way stronger of a pigment than any yellow or white one which had to be premixed into the cyan, therefore it's a pigment that will certainly prevail), but the fact is that ultramarine takes no premixing to exist. Ultramarine will give you better deeper colors than cyan will, which is why in printers we also have to add black in order to make all colors (which is also debatable because printers can not make all colors yet, and they also use a type of layering mechanism, not actual mixing of pigments which is essentially different from each other).
Each pigment can give you something better than another can, because not a single pigment is a perfect hue, the same consistency, weight, etc. Knowing that cyan is not a pure pigment to begin with, it's not an option at all.
3. WHEN IT COMES TO PIGMENTS ONLY: The fact is that CMY is just a variant of RYB. The fact is that CMY is not perfect, just like Ultramarine-Karmin-Lemon or any other pigment combination of those three colors isn't, because no pigment in nature is a perfect hue/consistency.
4. I explained two ways of mixing color in my video which tell you why different pigments can still get same colors if picked and mixed correctly. If you want to know why cyan and magenta can give back the color of the original blue pigment used to make cyan, watch my video or read comments in which I bothered to explain it again. I won't do it here.
4. Point of my video was:
-cyan is never a primary when it comes to painting by mixing pigments because it is not a pure pigment.
-artists pick their own palettes and three pigments can never give you "all of the colors" (even if you have all pigments they are still limited in consistency - the way they react to each other - which means pigments are still not developed enough to make "all" colors).
-CMY alone can't get you all colors that there are, but neither can any other combination of ble red and yellow pigments, until all the perfect pigments are made.
I literally never said it's wrong to know about light, nor that it's not useful to an artist. I only proved why the CMY argument can not apply to pigments and debunked the madness taking over the art community.
Also, do you really think the artists back in renassanse didn't know that a light yellowish blue gives a bright green faster than ultramarine..? Impressionism didn't know about RYB-CMY back in the day, yet they very successully practiced pointilism. Echo was not only telling kids they have to know about light in order to paint, which is false (as proven by centuries), but also spreading misinformation about how actual physical colors/pigments are mixed.
I say first learn how to mix pigments, and then add to your knowledge about the actual color in its original form.
Also, she was bashing other young artists the entirety of her video. I agree that I shouldn't have gine abiut it so aggressivley, but she did the same - just saying.
@@artvskitsch918 you are arrogant and acting like an arsehole and just asserting how right you are, its offputting, furthermore you just seem to be wrong and incapable of seeing it.
upload a video where you take RYB and colourmatch cyan or magenta exactly, because the video you are commenting over does this perfectly in reverse and demonstrates the weight of her argument.
How can you be so confident and so wrong all at once? im honestly jealous
progressives
You can make red and green from cyan, magenta and yellow, you can't get cyan and magenta from red, blue and yellow.
As someone who has literally studied color at the university level this whole video is giving me a brain tumor because almost everything you say is wrong since you are just misinterpreting what Echo said
Exactly
Did you study painting? Or just like the physics of light? The creator of this video seems specifically focused on existent pigments and their applications.
@@AJJ129 True, but even with that, she made some bad arguments.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this one. If RGB model is correct, then CYM must logically be the true primary colors because they are the opposites.
Whenever light falls on an object, some of it gets absorbed and some of it gets reflected back to us. The part that is reflected determines the color. So for example if we use Yellow paint it will absorb everything except for yellow parts which will bounce back.
I recommend opening the color wheels alongside this comment. It will make everything easier to understand. cdn4.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/58/98/rgb-and-smyk-color-mode-wheel-mixing-vector-14655898.jpg
Let's take a look at the RGB model. If we combine Red and Green light with no Blue light (#FFFF00) we will get Yellow. In other words if we made Yellow by only using light of primary colors which are not Blue.
Now let's look at the CMY model. Yellow is the absence of the other two colors on the wheel. If we combine them, we will get Blue. So if we take the entire spectrum of light and subtract Blue from it, we will get Yellow. (So if we use yellow paint, it will absorb Blue and bounce the rest, which is yellow.)
So in the first part we made a Yellow by combining everything but Blue and in the second part we made Yellow by subtracting the Blue. Therefore if RGB is correct, CMY must logically be correct too. If one of them wasn't correct, we would logically have to arrive at two different conclusions, but we didn't.
Or to make it really simple:
red light + green light = white light - blue parts
Therefore as long as this is correct, then it means that both models are correct (or theoretically both models are incorrect, but there can't be only one of them correct.)
And not to mention, if Red, Yellow, and Blue are the primaries of paint (I.E Subtractive primaries), then by that logic Green, Purple, and Orange are the primaries of Light (I.E. Additive primaries) since Additive primaries and secondaries are opposites to subtractive primaries and secondaries
According to this video you don't know the difference between Hue and Saturation. Do your own research before judging someone else's. Saturation isn't how much white or black paint is mixed in with the other to paints that you've mixed, it refers to how much white light hits a color, what you showed in the blue+yellow=green is hue. Not only that you're just plain rude.
Ok so here’s the thing I think both you and Echo miss, Echo mostly works digitally and with inks from what I’ve seen. She’s found that she’s getting the shade of colors she wants more quickly with yellow, cyan, and magenta when she does work with a physical medium. She’s really never talking about pigments found in nature which make up the red, blue, and yellow primaries. I think this isn’t so much an argument of right and wrong as it is blending preferences. If you want that super bright green immediately, try cyan and yellow. Neat! Both videos are valuable info for learning but unfortunately your video loses its ability to teach by being more about tearing down another artist.
I don't care what she mostly works with, if she's talking in the video only and only about traditional media, which means pigments found in nature. Whether she finds a suitable green for her pallet using cyan and yellow instead of some other blue and yellow, has nothing to do with cyan being a "primary color" or "not being blue" (all her own, arrogant words from her video).
Primary colors are just primary, it doesn't mean you should only use them, it's much better to have a good variety of both mixed colors and different natural pigments in your pallet. It's very unlikely, in fact, that you'll get the results you want if you only use three pigments, ESPECIALLY if you use two pure pigments (magenta - carmine lake, and any yellow pigment) and one already mixed pigment that has already a lot of white and yellow in it (talking about cyan).
The point of my video was that primary colors in traditional media (I'll repeat again - which Echo was deliberately spreading misinformation about in her video, never even mentioning digital art) are personal preference and based on the media you use, as well as your personal pallet you prefer to have in your artwork. I know a lot of people who use cobalt as their primary blue, while I use ultramarine. Lots of people use crimson red or even cinober as primary red, while I use carmine lake (or magenta). Her problem is that she doesn't even know what cyan or magenta are (just shades on the blue and red color spectrum, which means they ARE blue and red already), yet proceeds to call everyone a bunch of morons because they "don't know that" or even question it. Cyan is, in fact, just paris blue pigment with a lot of white in it, it even got it's name from one of the main components of the paris blue pigment.
She has a giant platform, yet so mindlessly spreads misinformation without even checking once what the hell she's talking about. Her video is all over the place, not at all educational, but on the contrary, it is very misguiding and arrogant, calling people idiots for not knowing that "blue, yellow and red are not primary colors" and that we were "lied to when we were kids"...
I do agree with your point that my video loses some of it's value because a smaller part of it was just picking on a creator I clearly dislike, that's absolutely true. But it kind of got your attention, didn't it? I will, however, not continue to do that in the future.
Thank you for the feedback, I really do appreciate it.
I watched Jazza’s video after this where he uses only ink and pencils. I think the theory that a real primary color shouldn’t be able to be achieved by mixing any other two colors together is interesting and difficult to prove since what a ‘true’ or ‘ultimate’ color is, is subjective. Popular teachings say that fire engine red is the base red and all other reds are shades. But pigment and paint say differently. Then when yellow and magenta mix you get that fire engine red people don’t know what to think. Same with green and blue. If you take 3 laymen who hasn’t spent much time with color to a paint store and say pick me out a red, they at most might ask you ‘light, dark, or regular?’ And you’ll likely get 3 different reds. My opinion is that you’re both wrong and there’s no rules in art.
And you didn’t spend a ‘little’ bit of time berating her. I literally skipped thru your video to get to the meat.
@@kirinchimera4707 There very much are rules in art. I will not explain myself to you further. All of the things you mentioned above about primary colors in pigments, I have very much addressed in the video. Maybe you shouldn't have "skipped thru" it, but should have watched it instead before commenting. I agreed with the claim that in paint what's primary is very personal and varies from person to person (although not because there are no rules, but because when it comes to the color pallet you use, the rules will differ from person to person. as for cyan, however, I did explain why it is not primary, and also why it's a shade of blue, as well as magenta is a shade of red, which just comes down to red, blue and yellow) in fact that was the whole point of my whole video. Strange you didn't catch that.
Echo's video is only 10 minutes long, and only half of her video I talked about, because the rest of it was about light which I said I wouldn't show or talk about because it's irrelevant for painting in traditional media and so I skipped it. I went over her key claims she made in these 5-6 minutes of content relevant for me, and then I continued to explain everything further in my 30 minutes long video.
That’s my point, I wasn’t able to watch much of the video because so much of it was just you yelling at Echo. It didn’t grab my attention but instead made me want to stop watching as soon as possible. Don’t get me wrong, I watched about 95% of your video cause I wanted to hear your point (it was just a long walk to get there) and I appreciate how much work you put in to your slides and explanation. I think you make some really great points and focus in on some important errors Echo makes in her video. I also think she’s not deliberately misleading anyone. That would imply she knows better and is purposefully lying to people, rather than having learned a lot about light and color but not as much about pigment and mistaking them as synonymous. I think her cyan argument is a little weak but you’re both saying the same thing about magenta being the better red source. I get though that when she’s using markers, pencils, or crayons you’re pretty much maxed out at mixing 4 colors before the paper rips or the color turns to mud and white’s not really a way to lighten color with marker. So she probably can’t get cyan any other way, nor can she get the lighter green she wants without using cyan as her primary.
@@kirinchimera4707 I will be making a new video soon, but it takes time because I want to make it short and streight to the point, with demonstrations and examples. If you'd like, I can notify you when the new video comes out. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you telling me what you'd like me to answer or address in the new video.
You do know that in additive colour (RGB) red and green make yellow
Mixing colours with red yellow and blue is difficult. Ever wonder why purple is hard to mix?
Also you don’t explain why red yellow and blue are primary
Paint isn’t the best example of subtractive but when using markers it is key to know this. From my own testing blue and yellow makes a muted dark grey. Your evidence is based on the false knowledge she talks about
Are you trying to tell me you have never in your life used blue and yellow to make green..? At this point people are just being ridiculous.
I have very much explained why red yellow and blue are primary, it's a long ass video that you saw about a minute of... I suggest you don't draw conclusions about my arguments if you refused to even hear them.
I have also explained why some pigments react differently when mixed with other pigments, which is why there are so many different pigments of same colors out there for you to choose from. You choose which palette you prefer for your paintings.
I have also explained why RGB does not work in paint, even though it does work in light.
I have also explained additive and subtractive colors quite into detail, and also made some good points about different media working differently.
The girl claimed so many contradicting things, among which was the fact that you cannot make every other color if you use red, yellow and blue - which is a lie.
Yeah because you people are lazy and didn't take the time to understand that the primaries also have temperatures. So you go into a phyiscal medium like paint and think you can get a vibrate purple with just any red or blue and when it doesn't work you blame the system instead of your level of knowledge. You want vibrate purple, use a cool red and cool blue. There it's that easy also magenta is a purple red and cyan is blue green. There for their not primaries as well.
Hey Art vs Kitsch. I wanted to say that the discussion between you and Sempron, both very academic in your own fields, were very informative on both ends. After reading I wanted to give some of my own points to help us as a whole understand using the word "primary".
I agree with Sempron that red, green and blue are the scientific additive primary colours; which are most suitable for digital screens and scientific fields. I agree with Sempron that cyan, magenta and yellow are the scientific subtractive primary colours; which are most suitable for printing, dyeing and other layering applications. I agree with you, Art vs Kitsch, that red, blue and yellow are the artistic primary colours; which is most suitable for painting, digital painting and other mixing applications. To elaborate, I think you and Sempron are actually all correct, but you both thought initially miscommunicated, later understood when you learn each other's nuances and ultimately understood the true versions of primary colour.
I think there should be another type of primary colour for painting and other mixing applications, maybe "natural". The reason of this is because: despite CMY being the true primary colours to obtains all possible colours (with the help of white and black), it is not ideal to use these pigments as builders of other colours when painting. Due to the fact that, how humans perceive, nature is not vivid and "pure" coloured. Rather, in nature you have more desaturated colours and more nuanced combinations; e.g. the trees, the sky, animals. So it is better to use RBY for realistic paintings. Perhaps you could use CMY paint for more human synthetic made views; e.g. a street in the night with neon lights, a party rave, interior modern rooms.
You both have made me more informed and nuanced about colours and their primaries very much. (I used to not think RBY as a primary colour anymore. Thank you for changing my mind.)
One last thing, I did dislike how you both sometimes give snarky negative toned remarks to each other. Also in your video your reaction was a tad rude, but I have an understanding where it comes from. I hope next time, the discussion would be more professional and open hearted. (Sorry for giving unasked advice. I just really wish we could all improve of becoming our better selves.)
Once again, thank you Art vs Kitsch.
Your conclusion in terms of "primaries" is the same as mine. There's a method called the split primary model, i looked into it years ago when this was uploaded but have forgotten the info now, i think it encompasses both RBY and CMY ^__^
I side with many of the comments and I think you missed the point. Theres a lot of research and up-to-current research that will also disagree with your entire video.
But there really isn't. Point me to the "research" related to mixing pigments. Everyone keeps citing the research about color mixing in light, which I never disagreed with. Pigments mix differently than light does and there are many ways to prove that, the easiest one being that you can NEVER make yellow by mixing green and red pigments.
@@artvskitsch918 yes because yellow is a primary colour in a subtractive medium, now try the same argument with magenta or cyan, we use RGB as primary colours when talking about mixing light, and CMY as primary colours when talking about subtractive mediums, like paint or ink, you are proving your own argument wrong
Spey CMY has never been enough in a painting medium. It needs black in order to create deeper shades... Have you even seen the video? The whole thing is about why CMY is not in any way shape or form superior to RYB, and theres tons of arguments there, you should check it out and then comment.
@@jeffcapes Dont worry she will disagree with a Textbook. Her color mixing is muddy. Look at her. Shes like HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN THE VIDEO. SO undermining She is wrong and we are right. Echo is a genius and she...well...I will be nice and say nothing else. I want her to do this experiment with markers. Then acrylics. I watched whole thing before but I wont again bc I dont want her to get money off my view. I know I'm an asshole. But it's ok. I dont like folks going in on actual updated Textbook info on art. That's like saying lots of world renowned artists are WRONG. BOOOOOOOO!
@@kowalewicz2554 The arguments use an unauthentic cyan to come to the conclusion that cyan can't be primary. That's not a logically sound argument. Of course a paint composed of other pigments can't be primary. But a theoretical cyan color pigment would be a better primary than ultramarine, in terms of making vivid authentic colors. An approximation to a theoretical cyan would be phthalo blue, which is why it creates a more vivid green than ultramarine does. That fits the theory well.
Preface: I know enough about color to know I don't know much about color. And I am guessing much of your views have shifted or become more informed, but there is no 2nd video or appendage to description.
6:40 "The true primary colors are red, yellow, blue. By adding one of these colors to another another you get a third color, this is why they are called additive primary colors."
This is an example of subtractive color. Any non light emitting medium is subtractive.
8:52 "There is no such thing as a less saturated color in color mixing as long as you don't use white and black."
I don't agree with her video, but to be fair she is mostly correct in this single regard. If by desaturated she is referring to a lower chromatic intensity, then she would be right. The closer two colors are on the color wheel the easier it is to achieve a high chroma color. She may be using 'vivid' due to a lack of vocabulary or to reach wider audience.
If there was no such thing as lower chroma in color mixing then their would be no reason to have more than 3 colors. Though to prove that is beyond me.
chroma definition I am using: www.huevaluechroma.com/082.php
~12:00-15:00
If you base what a true blue color is off pigment then it is flawed, as pigments in the Color Index can have different hues with the same Color Index Name[1]. And cyan colors can come from a single pigment - Phthalocyanine Blue BGS (PB15:3).
14:55
Color on screen is not magenta. Magenta is red-violet not just a red. Considering she is referring to magenta in the CMYK color set, it is a straw man to display a red magenta pigment.
18:12
I'm not sure which one you are referring to as "the first wheel", but both are/can be used for subtractive color reference. The munsell color wheel has both RGB and CMYK for additive or subtractive color. Though the site does specify printing full-color documents and not color mixing.
Here is where she probably got the munsell color wheel: munsell.com/color-blog/munsell-hue-circle-poster/
(I simply googled "munsell color wheel")
29:02 "Even in the color theory when it comes to light, cyan, magenta, and yellow are not all primary colors until you add black to them."
1) If by light you are calling CMY an additive color model that is incorrect. Which I think you do believe.
2) Black, for printing is added because you can only achieve a dark grey with CMY and because printers use a dot pattern. If you try and print fine details such as text it would be oddly shappen. You can try this on any printer. Though somehow this person achieved black with CMY ua-cam.com/video/nSjyuZiKHww/v-deo.html.
3) You can't achieve dark rich blacks with typical RBY. Not that most paintings need them, but this isn't enough to debunk it.
----------------------------------
I didn't see an explanation of additive color here or on her's. It may be useful in knowing if painting from a picture on a display as reference.
CMYK is a pretty great system for printing a wide range of colors from a printer. But a printer's objective is not primarily to mix the inks. My memory is hazy on this, but they use dot patters like found here: www.dp3project.org/resources/newsletter-archive/v7/idtip-offset-litho-or-digital-press. Seemed like a good point to look into to debunk her.
Overall color and painting is surprisingly quite complex. Given that things such as pigment particle size affects tinting strength, and pigment clustering makes using particle size inconsistent[2]. Then opacity of colors are determined by their refractive index. Or how appearance of colors are different based on medium[3]. And even more the variation in crystalline structures changing color. All of this is to say that the topic is complex. It seems quite evident that her CMY primary colors is poorly researched. Though the amount of effort it takes to disprove it is the very same reason she would believe it. Unfortunately, while informative in some manners this video has some inaccuracies and doesn't do a good job at debunking the original video.
References
--------------------------------
[1] www.justpaint.org/the-nomenclature-of-color/
[2] www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/pigmt3.html#particlesize
[3] www.justpaint.org/pigment-volume-concentration-and-its-role-in-color/
1. When talking about additive primary colors I never spoke about what it's like in light. Colors do not work the same when you mix paint, as they do when they form in your eyes and brain. I have explained this in many of my other comments and I'm already tired of this conversation. I do agree though that I should have made it more clear in the video.
@@artvskitsch918 Additive primary colors only exist in light.
2. I personally don't care about the saturation argument. Again, I did not speak ever in this video about how color forms in our eyes, nor what the characteristics of color are as such. Whatever you may think about the definiton of what more or less saturated color when it comes to physical color or paint is, my agrument in the video was that Echo tried to explain that one green is "better" than the other, because one of them was more vivid and the other one was "less saturated". This is wrong because we're talking about two greens out of which one has a lot of yellow in it (automatically makes any color brighter, not "more saturated"), while the other one has more blue in it (automatically making it a cooler tone). If we pretend the amount of paint in each of these colors was perfect, so say the green made from cyan has x2 blue and x3 yellow (more yellow than the blue), and the ultramarine green has x2 yellow and x3 blue, how can any of these be less saturated if the only difference between them is that these are made using different amounts of the colors they consist off.
Besides that, she never mentioned that you can get the more "vivid" or brighter green even if you use ultramarine, simply by adding more yellow. Cyan is at an advantage because it already has a lot of white and a bit of yellow in it.
The fact that she used ultramarine to prove a point about the "blue" is ridiculous on it's own, because ultramarine has a strong red tint in it, which puts it in a special type of "disadvantage" when it comes to making a bright green, as red literally neutralizes green...
My point was mostly about Echo's ignorance, otherwise I wouldn't put any arguments about mixing green pigments in a RYB vs CMYK video.
3. I did say that there is no perfect pigment in nature and that was the point of my whole video. You decide upon what your pallete is going to be based on what you paint. You can most certainly use magenta and cyan as primaries, but these are nothing more than two different shades of the main primary colors which are red and blue. Since there are no perfect pigments, we will always use different shades of those colors, and I even said in the video that most of us already use magenta as our primary color, since it's made out of the two most commonly used red pigments... Cyan is pretty much never made out of a pure pigment, and I have certainly never used one. Cyan is made by mixing a blue with yellow and with white. Sometimes blue and white are enough if a pigment has a greenish tint to it already.
4. I did not show a magenta on the screen, but an example of carmine lake. Never even implied it was magenta...
AAAAAAUUUGGHH!!!! YOU’VE GOT THE WRONG DEFINITION OF SUBTRACTIVE AND ADDITIVE COLOUR!!! I just think it’s important these definitions are clear. So additive and subtractive has to do with light. Additive colours are when you add light, like a computer screen. When computers depict yellow, they emit red and green light, which our eyes detect and our brain perceives as yellow. Subtractive colours are things that absorb light, like paints and inks. What yellow paint does is absorb blue light that reaches it, then reflects red and green light, which our eyes detect, and our brain perceives as yellow.
1:35 I think youre misunderstanding this completely.
Red green and blue are ADDITIVE primary colors. Meaning when light hits your eyes, these 3 colors are the primary ones. The computer screen works like this, red green and blue LEDs shine light directly into your eyes and you can get any color using red green and blue. She is NOT saying those are primary colors for paint, paint is SUBTRACTIVE, meaning it does not emit light by itself, it absorbs and reflects light. Cyan Magenta and Yellow paint each absorb only Red Green and Blue light respectively
Imagine shining white light on Cyan paint. It absorbs ONLY red light and reflects blue and green light together. Blue and green in the additive color wheel gives you Cyan.
This is actually why Cyan Magenta and Yellow paint are much better primary colors for paint than anything else... because we have 3 cones in our eyes that are most sensitive to Red Green and Blue light, and guess what...
Cyan absorbs ONLY red light
Magenta absorbs ONLY green light
Yellow absorbs ONLY blue light
You can actually get red and blue paint through mixing cyan magenta and yellow (printers do it all the time, but it obviously works with paint too, I use it all the time)
Cyan + Yellow = Green
This is because cyan absorbs red light, yellow absorbs blue light, thus together they absorb both red and blue, meaning green is the only color reflected
Magenta + Yellow = Red for the same reason
You CANNOT get Cyan and Magenta with red yellow and blue, because their pigments absorb more than just red green or blue light. (I think you showed a light-blue color claiming to be mixed with red yellow and blue, but that is NOT cyan, and it uses white instead of JUST red yellow and blue)
I really want to see you make cyan with yellow and blue paint, and make magenta with blue and red paint
@1:53-.-“Green is a secondary color, regardless of if we’re talking about additive or subtractive” I guess computer monitors don’t work then“!”
Pro tip:
Additive means adding light (mostly for a computer program)
Subtractive means subtracting light (for paints, inks, etc.)
3:40 to use your own words against you...
*You should of done more research my friend* she does mention mixing colors to make green, and she’s actually on the same page as science. Guess you’re one of those people who demands that Pluto is a planet XD
Ps thanks for forcing me to use both my ear buds to watch your nonsense. XD don’t do that. Us people who live in the now and not 30 years ago sometimes wear just one earbud. SMH
My favorite thing about the video she confused additive and substractive color mixing but she tried to debunk RGB.
I don't remember ever forcing you to do anything. Believe what you want to believe. I made the video for people who want to know what the hell is actually going on, and I did a good job of proving all of my points. Sorry I don't have an expensive microphone, but at the same time it's not my fault you're being spoiled.
Echo does mention a difference between light and paint, I very much acknowledged it in my video. The issue is that she then proceeds to speak as if light and paint behave the same, ending up just contradicting herself and proving she doesn't know what she's actually talking about.
You do not paint with light, you paint with pigments. Pigments react chemically with each other differently than light does - therefore if you mix any blue paint with any yellow paint, you'll get green paint. If you try mixing red, green and blue, or any given pair of these colors, you will never get yellow. Yellow is a primary color, that's why RGB works only and exclusively in light. Green can always be made using other primary colors, which is also a proof that RGB doesn't work in paint, but only in light.
@@katokianimation As for debunking CMYK, I made a looong part of the video devoted to additive and subtractive colors, which I highly suggest you take a look at. I made some good points in there.
@@artvskitsch918 sorry but you didn't. You said in the video that painting is additive. No it is substractive. The more different matter you add to your colored material it will be darker. So you are substract light from your color. In additive color mixing if you are mixing different lights your color will be lighter. So you add light that is why it is additive color mixing. You said it isn't important to artists. Actually it is for digital artists. You can mix light, in photoshop if you work as an illustrator or story board artist or if you are a cgi artist. I know everything about RGB thanks.
Your whole debunk on rgb was pointless. The girl talked about additive color mixing on the monitor screen when she said green is a primary. She never clamed that you can create yellow with green in paintig.
I belive that you are an expert traditional artist but this isn't your territory and it is irrelevant for the whole ryb vs myc topic, so I don't understand why did you spend so much time with it.
Yup she definitely is the type who cries about pluto being supposedly "demoted" because that's what dunces feel.
She never said to paint with additive colors!!! And try mixing red and blue, you can, I was able to
I don't understand what you're refferring to, sorry. Of course you can mix red and blue.
You know what, this comment doesn’t make sense to me either. Forget it.
Idk why you liked this comment. I said that for different reason than yours
@@leorlevy742 as I said, there's clearly a language barrier here and that is not my fault. You do whatever you like, if I can't understand your arguments, there's no point in arguing.
Art vs Kitsch you sounded sarcastic first, now I don’t if you’re sarcastic but whatever
I'd love to see you demonstrate how to mix cyan out of blue and yellow
Because I tried with my watercolours and all I got was a dark green when adding more blue to less yellow and a greenish yellow when adding less blue to more yellow
I'd love to be able to paint neon looking colours with red, blue and yellow but it just doesn't work like that
🍏 mix with 🫐 you get 🔵
Cyan is blue green
Green Is Better Chartruse
😡😡😡😡😡
Blue and Magenta and red and yellow and green and cyan
Cyan does not actually contain white! It is a fully saturated colour distinct from the normal blue.
Magenta is not pale red (pink), again it is a fully saturated colour.
It is a change in hue not a change in saturation that makes these colours lighter or darker.
Echos arguments are pretty sound.
This may sometimes be more difficult in practise than in theory though, due to the mixing of imperfect pigments.
Sorry, no. I'm a painter (watercolor & gouache) and Echo is right.
With *transparent* media, like markers and good watercolors, you can mix any other hue, *fully saturated*, with just yellow, cyan and magenta. I've done it.
Opaque media, like gouache and oil, need *at least* 6 hues, evenly spaced, for the whole color wheel at adequate saturation (red, yellow, green, cyan, "warm" blue, magenta). But it's preferable to have 12 hues, for almost full saturation (the above plus orange, lime aka "warm green", turqoise, azure aka "cool blue", purple and crimson aka "cool red"). With opaque media, *full saturation* cannot be achieved with mixes. Neither RYB nor CYM. For that, you need the *exact* single pigment paint. It's a limitation of the media, not a case of different primary colors.
You said "different shades of blue" and "warm yellow". I bet you were taught split primaries, which is a hack between true primaries (CYM) and the optimal 12. But you were taught the wrong 6 colors. You were taught "cool red" aka crimson instead of magenta, and "cool blue" aka azure instead of cyan. And you think turqoise is cyan, when turquoise is between cyan and green, the way orange is between yellow and red.
You will never mix a hot pink (saturated magenta) out of red and blue pigment, neither transparent nor opaque. Ever.
RYB was a decent aproximation of CYM *before we had cyan and magenta pigments*
Take care
Showing out of context screenshots of cyan paint didn't really prove your point, you could've at least left the title in to show they were people mixing cyan.
Also why would she need to demonstrate that you can't mix cyan from other colours? It's virtually impossible to prove a negative. If she'd tried you'd just say she did it wrong and doesn't know how to mix paints.
AAAAUUUUUGGGHHH!!! You keep confusing shades with hues! This isn’t that big of a deal because everyone confuses it, shades are more about the value, how light or dark a colour is, not the actual hue of a colour.
If you're a digital artist, then yes, you are literally painting with lights on a screen, silly head.
No, actually you don't. Your screen does show the picture in pixels and is dependent on light, but you paint with a program that is coded in a way that it mixes color in a certain way. If you were to make your own program, you could code it in a way that it mixes red and blue into white if you wanted to. You don't actually paint with light, it's possible only if you try and make a picture using lamps with lights of different colors.
@@artvskitsch918 its still being displayed purely as light, you are using a programme to adjust how much red green or blue light is being emitted by that pixel on the screen, the screen literally IS the lamps of different colours you are describing.
@@artvskitsch918 Yeah, I really don't get why using a code to paint with lights is different than painting with lights manually. You're still using lights instead of paint. It's beneficial to know how light effects color when doing digital art ~ but no one's forcing you to learn it. It's just like learning music theory. There are different ways of looking at color theory with different histories and different intentions behind the techniques and explanations. All of them are beneficial in the long run, but it's up to the student to decide which theories to apply to their art.
@Art vs Kitsch Hello. Interesting video, although a bit condescending. Just want to address several things said in this video, as I think a few things must be elaborated on.
1:43 I think she was referring to light here, since they are typically what's referred to when talking about additive color. I wasn't aware that she ever said the additive colors applied to paint. But whatever, I'm not here to defend Echo.
6:35 Generally, additive color is referring to *light,* not pigments. This is because pigments absorb light, while light adds to the the sensation in the eyes and brain.
6:53 Yes, and if you add a full yellow to a full cyan, you'll always get green as well.
7:27 No, they're only made by mixing blue and yellow because your base pigment is a true blue. If you had a pigment that was genuine cyan (absorbs the reddish end of the spectrum), then mixing it with a genuine magenta would give you a blue. You can see this from absorption spectra.
7:40 If you add a genuine blue to red, you can get a magenta-like color, but it wouldn't be as vibrant as an actual magenta pigment, because the red will absorb blue light, which is not what you want for magenta. Ideal magenta only absorbs the greenish region of the spectrum.
9:30 Again, this is only because your cyan is made from a blue pigment base. An actual cyan pigment would be *better* for making green than an actual blue. Again, the absorption spectra tells us this.
15:28 Okay fine, but if you're using it to mix other pigments, the blue tint should not be a problem because the blue tint suggests that it is not absorbing blue very strongly and therefore it should make it a better primary than a pure red pigment.
20:05 & 21:20 I must say I'm shocked that you actually agree with her statement there, because she's completely wrong. No study has shown that purple or magenta is fake. Magenta and purple, like *every* color, are a subjective perception. There is nothing very special about magenta, and it is no more or less real than any other color.
21:35 Unfortunately, she's mistaken here too. The visible spectrum itself has little to do with how we perceive color. The eyes and brain know nothing about the visible spectrum. They only know which of the three cones are being stimulated by light, and by how much. That then is sorted through a color opponency process and then processed in the brain
22:50 No, the brain doesn't know anything about a visible spectrum. It isn't choosing the color in between red and green on the spectrum. There's a blue-yellow opponent process, and a red-green opponent process in the eyes. When both red and green light are shone in your eyes, the red and green signals cancel, and the blue-yellow channel shifts to the yellow, thanks to the L & M activation. That is why it looks yellow.
27:00 Okay, but realize that the only reason this happens is because you're using *Ultramarine* as your base pigment. As your schematic shows, your cyan and magenta are made by mixing ultramarine with yellow and cadmium red. Why not just use an actual magenta pigment? So what you're doing here is attempting to debunk the idea of CMY being primary by using *imperfect* CMY colors. This is fallacious reasoning. I mean, if you're point is that anyone using CMY colors, that are already mixed from RBY base pigments, won't be able to properly reproduce the original RBY, then I agree. But this is obvious. Remember that color mixing is *subtractive.* The result you get depends on the absorption spectra of the pigments themselves. A true primary cyan only absorbs the red end of the spectrum, a primary magenta absorbs the green middle of the spectrum, and a primary yellow absorbs only the blue-violet end of the spectrum. It is this property that allows them to be primary in the first place. But if you mix yellow with ultramarine, you can get an imperfect cyan that actually absorbs some of the blue it's supposed to reflect. The reason it still works is that the blue pigment is diluting the yellow pigment, and spreading it across a larger surface area for the same amount of pigment. So the blue absorption from the yellow doesn't completely ruin the cyan. This is also the reason you can create green by mixing yellow into blue pigment. Almost no blue pigment will absorb all green light. Depending on the pigment, it may not absorb green light much at all. For this reason, depending on how much green light your pigment absorbs, mixing with yellow pigment will get you either a nice green, or a muddy ugly green. Also, mixing a lot of yellow into the blue can disperse the blue pigment so much that it can't absorb as much green, but it still absorbs the red end of the spectrum strongly, which means you get green. This is why CMY are said to be better primaries. Their absorption spectra allow them to yield a wider array of vibrant colors than RBY can. RBY is actually a terrible choice for primaries, if you follow the subtractive color model strictly. But because real pigments have far more complex absorption spectra than the subtractive model would admit, and because the act of mixing opaque pigments mean that they can dilute the absorbance of the other pigments, you can still make decent colors with them.
I would argue, based on the science I understand, that CMY would still be best, if they are pure primaries. Ultimately though, it's quite foolish to quibble over RBY versus CMY. Depending on what pigments you're using, and what your goals are, a range of different primaries are possible. But please don't say CMY cannot be primary, because that is just false.
Ultimately though, it was a very informative video, and I certainly learned quite a bit.
when ur a digital artist and technically paint with light ._.
No, actually you don't. Your screen does show the picture in pixels and is dependent on light, but you paint with a program that is coded in a way that it mixes color in a certain way. If you were to make your own program, you could code it in a way that it mixes red and blue into white if you wanted to. You don't actually paint with light, it's possible only if you try and make a picture using lamps with lights of different colors.
I have a working knowledge of light colours and paint mixing. The primary colours of light (as perceived by our eyes) and of paint are different because light is light while pigments reflect light at specific wavelengths.
Oh my God I’ve looked everywhere I can’t find it I’ve looked absolutely everywhere I can’t find where I asked for your opinion
Honey, hopefully you'll grow up enough soon to realize how dumb it was to leave this comment, especially under an educational video about color. I surely never made you watch it, and you surely didn't watch it anyway, so I don't see what's the point in you trying so desperately to be a bitch.
wow you stoop so low to call a kid a bitch
Gacha Latte Quote - "trying so desperately to be a bitch”. Did not say you’re a bitch. Even if I did, I don’t think it would be stooping as low as commenting what you did under an educational video.
AUUUUUGHH!!! You are always working with light as a visual artist. It is how you see. If you are not working with light as an artist, then your not working in the visual arts.
You’re wrong on green actually. It is a primary colour in light (ie additive colour). Green and red make yellow.
Green is a primary color of LIGHT! Not paint. That's why they use RGB
AAAAUUUUGGGHHH!!! She’s not calling her non artist friends stupid, she’s just saying they are non artist friends and do not necessarily know what specific terms and colours are. If Physics guy came up and tried to explain physics to me he’d have to simplify it, not because I’m stupid, but because I don’t know anything about physics. Knowledge is not intelligence.
So much of your argument is flawed because you don't appear to actually understand the difference between additive and subtractive color mixing. The color theory of light is relevant to the color theory of art of course because all color is reflected light. Additive color mixing actually always refers to mixing colors with light. Adding the primary colors of light red, blue and green together makes white light. By doing so you're adding these wavelengths together to reflect back more of the full spectrum of visible light. Mixing with paint or pigment, is always considered SUBTRACTIVE color mixing (because all color is light). It is a bit counter-intuitive, I know, because of course you are *adding* paint, pigment or dye together to make the new color, but no matter if you are using a RBY or CMY color model the theory is the same that mixing all of the primary colors together will give you black or something close to it. Since all color is light, by mixing colors of pigment together you are actually subtracting from the amount of colored light in the visible spectrum that is reflected back to your eyes. That is why mixing colors of pigment is considered subtractive color mixing. If you put a colored filter in front of a white light so that it shines another color that is also subtractive mixing because it filters and removes the other portion of the visible spectrum from the white light source allowing only certain wavelengths of colored light to pass through. I happen to agree with Echo's video-- In pigment Cyan is a primary blue and Magenta is a primary red and in a CMY color model they can be used to mix the colors that have traditionally been thought of as primary red or primary blue which makes those colors secondary by definition, or at least not primary. CMY can also be used to mix any other visible color which is of course why modern printers use that model.
Your knowledge of pigments is impressive, but it's not really relevant to the debate. It is not a matter of which shades of red or blue are more "authentic" pigments. Part of the reason that the theory has shifted to a CMY color model in modern times is simply because we can now make color in a laboratory. At the beginning of your video you showed a still of a video which apparently mixes some hue close to a Cyan, but the white in the mix makes it milky and to my eye I don't think it looks like a true primary Cyan. Echo provided a color mixing demonstration to prove her point about green (you were wrong about saturation there too, by the way) but you did not. You gave formulas for making cyan and magenta from RBY mixing but provided no demonstration or proof. I would be very very surprised if you could mix a true, vibrant Cyan or Magenta from the red blue and yellow color model and if you do I look forward to seeing the follow up video demonstration.
On Saturation: When you mix white or black into a hue you are affecting the value of that color, not the saturation. Remember color has three properties: hue, value and saturation. Adding white pigment makes a tint of a given Hue and adding black makes a shade. Saturation refers to the vibrancy or intensity of the hue. When you mix a color with it's opposite on the color wheel it desaturates (or neutralizes) the original hue. You got this part right, though it's impossible to follow or believe your math equation without any actual demonstration. What you did not realize in Echo's video is that neutralizing and desaturating a color refer to the same thing when mixing paint. This is different than tinting and shading which is the process of adding black and white. However, if you only add the color's compliment it will also affect the value of that color making it darker. By using white you can preserve the value of the desaturated hue. Echo got a less vibrant Green precisely because the blue she was using was, I won't say "secondary" but let's just say "not primary".. which made it a muddier looking green.
@6:36-.-Where did you get this definition? Additive doesn’t refer to adding paint, it refers to adding _light._ we see paints as certain colors because they absorb some frequencies of light, and reflect others. When you mix paints together they combine the frequencies they absorb, but not the frequency they reflect. Thus, The amount of frequencies being reflected is being _subtracted,_ hence, mixing paint is referred to as _subtractive_ color mixing.
If additive meant “adding paint”, then what would subtractive be? Removing paint?
AAAAUUUUUGGGHHH!!! I agree. It is very confusing to teach subtractive and additive colour theory. The traditional primaries also have a much more controlled range of colours and is easier to manage, as CMYK’s range of hues is exetremly broad and can be difficult to control.
I don't know if you right, i just can't physically listen to this video, when i can hear only from my left headphone. FIX YOUR AUDIO, that's 10 seconds job.
It's not a 10 seconds job if you're recording with your laptop's microphone. Something went wrong at one point, I have no idea why or how to fix it at this point. Thank you for the feedback.
@@artvskitsch918 Audacity is a free audio editor. ua-cam.com/video/4O45TIKOTYs/v-deo.html
@@Vistware I did use audacity. Either way, if you want I can notify you when my new video is up. Quality is a little better.
you can make yellow with red and green light, you can make green with yellow and cyan paint
The problem is to create the lighter blue you need white (not one of the primary colours)
RGB color theory is used for things such as computer screens (additive color theory). The background is black. CYMK is used printing, k being black as a key color, where the background is white (subtractive), and it's printed as pixels and offset from each other, which used to create shades. RBY are the primary colors for light (also subtractive). The application is what determines what the "primary colors" are.
This 🙌
AAUUUUGHH!!! Saturation is the vibrancy of the hue, and is very important element of colour mixing. If a colour is purely gray it has no saturation, if a colour is a vividly red it has high saturation. Also saturation can be referred to as intensity.
Also make sure you don’t confuse it with value.
Hey uhh, mate green is a primary colour, red and green don't make yellow in paper because in pigment it reflects light not actually producing light, in pigment you need fuchsia yellow cyan, because the way pigments work
I think you should rewatch your own video. You keep telling people that are trying to explain additive and subtractive colours that you never mentioned primary colours therefore why are they bringing up light, but you did. Around 1:45 you try and debunk her saying thinking that Green is a primary colour with a paint palette. Green is only a primary colour in light. That’s what she means when she says it’s an additive primary colour. It’s not a primary colour when it comes to mixing paint pigments because paint pigments are subtractive. Also you cannot mix Cyan with RYB Cyan is not just light blue, it is a particular hue which you can never make with RYB and you cannot make Magenta with with RYB either which is why we put Quinacridone Magenta on a palette. Yet you can make what is known as a “Primary” Red with Magenta and Yellow. I have tested this on multiple mediums like Coloured pencil, Oil Paint and Water Colours. It’s also the reason why you can’t make a true pink from desaturated red and that when you mix a Red and Blue you get a Muddy Purple. It’s because the red has Yellow and Magenta and the blue has Cyan and Magenta. Since you’ve got all three pigments it becomes muddy.
I will no longer reply to comments like this. I know she was taking the information she knew about primary colors in "light", my problem was that she was appying it to paint. In the beiginning she said that we were all lied to as kids when our teachers told us to use yellow, red and blue to make all other colors. That was her making a point about primary colors in art not being correct. When she mixes green color with paint, she's trying to make a point that cyan is a primary color in paint just like it is in light. She fails miserably because paint does not work the way light does, and she does not know anything about color mixing in traditional physical media. She continues to prove points that have been proven about the way color forms in our eyes and brains, trough paint, therefore teaching young children that you can't mix red, yellow and blue to make all other colors, which is an absolutely ridiculous claim. She's spreading misinformation and I made a response to that. That's all there is.
Cyan is made with blue, yellow and white, which by definition can never be a primary color. I explained this in depth in my video giving much more proof.
Hue does not equal "color". One color can have many hues, just like blue color does. I never said cyan and blue are the same. I said cyan was a shade of blue, which it is by definition. Also, hue means nothing in painting because you do not paint with hue, but with pigments. Very simple concept.
You also don't seem to know much about color mixing, since you claim you can't make magenta using blue, yellow and red. Pigments are not hues, and pigments are never equal to RGB/CMYK in light, because pigments are not a perfect color. I explained this in depth as well, and the point of my video was that you choose your own palette based on your preferences as an artist. Certain pigments are stronger than others, of course you're never going to make magenta with ultramarine, etc... You have to learn more about color mixing, because it's more than just smashing two random pigments together.
The rest of your comment doesn't make sense at all, because you either just repeated the things I already said myself (such as green is a primary color only in light, I never argued against that and I made sure to make my stance on that very clear), or you just said words that don't mean anything put together (who never mentioned primary colors, bringing up light, etc. I have no idea what you meant with that).
You are not paying attention to my arguments, yet you like to argue against them. You're just arguing against your own assumptions of what my opinions are, and like I said, I will no longer reply to comments like that.
Watch this person's video, she makes quicker points about this topic:
ua-cam.com/video/R8LMRXR9ORc/v-deo.html
Art vs Kitsch You clearly said that green is not a Primary Colour whether or not your talking about additive or subtractive colours. Do you understand the difference between additive and subtractive colours? You now agree that green is a primary colour for light yet it’s not an additive primary colour? That’s exactly what additive primary colours are, the primary colours of light. Pigments are only ever subtractive. And no Cyan is not just light blue. True cyan pigment (Manganese Blue) is practically extinct now but the closest pigment you can get to it is PB15:3. Manganese blue hue that some painters substitute for cyan is nothing close and therefore won’t act like it when mixed with other colours. If you only had Cadmium Red, Ultramarine Blue and Cadmium Yellow (paints usually considered the most primary) you would not be able to mix anything near a true cyan. All in all, you argument seems to stem from you misunderstanding of what additive and subtractive colours are and how they relate to each other and the woman in the video you showed also got that wrong. RGB being the additive primary colours (light) and the secondary subtractive colours (pigment) and CMY being the subtractive primary colours (pigments) and the additive secondary colours (light) is proven Science.
There’s a linguistic element. Most folk I’m used to who don’t do colour theory (imc me) blue and cyan basically are the same.
Not because they are the same, but because they’re close enough we don’t care to differentiate then.
To me if not trying to be hyper correct magenta is purple. I am a colour heathen.
Two minutes in and you’ve already misunderstood that she was talking about additive color mixing when she said green was a primary color. She’s talking about light, not pigment.
I don't quite understand your debate in the comments about "layering" vs "mixing". If you use a medium that is fundamentally flawed that doesn't mean that the basic rules are wrong, it means that the medium you're using is. If you were to use a screen with only red and green pixels that doesn't mean that RGB aren't the primaries for additive colors, they still are, your shitty display just can't display it. Same with subtractive colors and mixing. If the type of colors that you ise aren't up to snuff, it's the fault of the colors, not the one of the theory.
Noone is denying that using RYB can't give you better results at times and that there is nor practical use for it. There definitely is, but when it comes to accuracy and gamut, it simply uses out to CMY, making it objectively the superior primaries in those instances.
There is this beautiful video of someone using pigment based colors to mix with CMY very effectively. The result isn't quite perfect, but it's very close. Close enough that there is no denying that the theory applies. The mix of the three is also almost a perfect black, something that RYB can not do.
ua-cam.com/video/zXBWd5gZ3eM/v-deo.html
Wow this is entertaining; seeing people respond to some of your first statements. Lots of people couldn’t get past you cyan statement.
I had to stop at 1:59 once you said green isn’t a primary colour. You need to look into additive and subtractive colour and how light behaves.
It is sad to say you are scientifically sheltered.
Newsflash: The world is not flat. At the end of the day, color is our brain's interpretation of the long, medium, and short wavelengths of light that enter our eyes. The source, be it from colored flashlights or light reflected off of paint, doesn't matter. With that being said, what color inks do printers use? Red, yellow, and blue? No. They use cyan, magenta, yellow and black. Why? It's the cheapest and most efficient way to deposit pigments on a white surface that reflect the widest array of wavelengths of light. What are the colors of the pixels displayed by your computer monitor or television? Red, green, and blue. Why? Because that is what we see. There is no point in showing us what we cannot see.
Research shows that Color Science and Traditional Theorists got along well in the early 1900’s and both were equally taught. That is until the Traditionalists took over every aspect of Art in the school system. But let us not contend that RYB “primitive” (and other such simple systems) system is not useful because it is and it makes up the majority of palettes that is sufficient to get most natural colors in our world…or do you all contend that Zorns simple palette was not sufficient to make great art? Personally I do not like to limit myself other than real world paint limitations or when I choose to limit myself. As I sit here writing my own Color Theory Course I recognize, accept and use the theoretical principles ALONG SIDE with real world actual subtractive paint mixing principles-even when the latter seems to say the former is BS. They are two different systems with theoretical principle foundations, but they are not the same in practice. No color wheel nor 3 primitive system can even tell the whole story let alone it is not completely understood even by the Sciences.
Of course I agree that we should teach the Secondary Subtractive Primitives of CYM since the RGB model is the prevailing system of theory and used very widely by the Optical world, sRGB users, and Printing industry, but the whole foundational truth must also be taught. Nomenclature like specific colors (fire engine red, cyan, magenta, canary yellow, lemon pie) should be avoided because MINDS still look at CYM and call them BYROGV(P). Physics (the foundation of RGB) names are Hue names and combinations thereof. Magenta is not a Hue name nor is cyan. There are MANY colors that qualify for the role of middle RV and BG. I guess we can give C and M honorary hue titles, but it must be understood that they are actually BG’s and RV’s. I prefer to teach an “All Primary” Color Model, wherein the subtractive color mixing system is the GP (general principle) that the closer 2 primitives are and biased towards one another-provided that they are not actual direct complementary-and are strong chromatically-the more the likelihood you will get the best chromatic color between them that is available vs the further apart they are and biased in opposite directions. THAT is the general truth of subtractive material paints. That is also true in light. The degree of chromatic loss is relative to these factors-even when brightness and value and other factors are held constant. When a mix occurs there is almost always a chromatic loss either between 1 primitive or both. There is only one exception I have ever seen in a chroma plot chart in the green area (where our minds seem to be most attuned to) but that involved 2 of the highest chroma pigments available-one of which I believe should receive a higher chroma rating than it has because it is actually above standard plotting ranges. If that is true, then, the GP is 100% correct instead of 99.9%.
Also purple not being really visible, is just a neat fun fact about the eyes and brain. Plus it brings out the point that we could all be seeing different colors when we look at the same thing. Just interesting and fun to learn about
And that's what I said in my video. Other than that, it is irrelevant information for painting or using physical paint in any single way, which her whole video is about. It's not about digital, watch it again, she's ONLY talking about paint, even demonstrating with paint, never in digital. I also addressed that in my video.
You said it was confusing and misleading.
Magenta isn’t a shade of red. (Subtractive)
Cyan isn’t a shade of blue. (Subtractive)
“Addictive color” is RGB (digital screen)
“Subtractive color” is CMY (real world).
You say that “addictive color” is “adding paint” no.. Additive color is mixing light on an RGB screen. Like right now..these words you are reading are a mixture of RED BLUE AND GREEN LIGHT making WHITE Light appearing as “WHITE TEXTS”.
There’s way too many errors in your video. Google is your best friend. Use it 🖤🖤🖤
I would love to have a discussion with you about Primary Colours, as everything you've said is wrong, the only thing you know is how paints are made
She operating on different definitions of primary colors based on extant pigments not theoretical light values.
@@AJJ129 firstly it's not theoretical. If you're using a phone or computer or TV to watch this (which you are) those screens use the additive primary colours to show you colour. Secondly even if she was talking about subtractive colour (paints) she's still wrong. About most of everything she says is wrong. Only about how to create paint is (I assume) correct because I don't know how to physically create paint from pigment.
@@CyanJimbo yeah I’m saying in the world of art and painting using pigment and paint primary, additive, subtractive All have different meaning than the scientific use of these words. And by theoretical light values I mean some light values, colors, we cannot reproduce with any known pigments they are possible in theory to create but combining known pigments will not achieve those colors we can only get those colors with lights.
@@AJJ129 No, they're not any different, shes just wrong on her definitions, its that simple. Im sure if she used the correct primary colours any colour can be created so you're just uneducated on this topic
@@CyanJimbo those colors don’t exist there is not existing set of materials that can be used to make all the visible colors
@9:18-.-Where did you get that from? She didn’t say one was superior to the other, she just sad one was more vibrant.
Oh, God. Two of your many mistakes are thinking that cyan and magenta can be made by mixing red, yellow and blue pigments, and that magenta and cyan are shades of red and blue, respectively. Saying that is like saying that yellow is a shade of red, and I'm not exagerating: red and yellow have a 60º angle in between on the modern color wheel; blue and cyan, and red and magenta have a 60º angle in between too. No, magenta is not that dark reddish color you put in your video, magenta is a vivid purple color (HEX code: #FF00FF) (I dare you to make that color mixing other pigments; spoiler alert, you can't). Take a look at the Venn's diagrams made centruries ago about color mixing; you'll see that the "red" and "blue" they use is close to magenta and cyan, but someone a long time ago took "red and blue" literally. I'm sorry, but you have demonstrated your ignorance of color theory. It's not even a debate, the RYB color system is obsolete and unscientific.
AAAAAUUUGGHHH!!! Plenty of people get confused by colour theory. Just because you may grasp some of it, does not mean people go WaAAAAAHht dah F
AUUUGGHH!!! Clarification to my saturation statement, as you mistook changing hue for increasing saturation/ vivid. Adding more yellow to a green changes the hue, not the saturation. If the traditional primary yellow increases the saturation and changes the hue useing traditional mixing, this is a problem.
“Traditional Theory” was mistakenly derived from Newton based on the usable standard pigments they had in those days and it plummeted down hill from that point. He did not propose 3 single primitives but rather it seemed that all of them were. He proved that there was a “gravitational point of balance” between all the hue’s that would make up white and when a color appeared instead, it was an gravitational point of imbalance still involving all hue’s. Modern Science has proven him correct on this except he got the “gravity” comparison thing wrong and even he admitted that he usually grossly spoke of the truths he found and did not want people to misunderstand him. It has been proven time and time again in light mixing that you can change primitives and intensity and end up with the same “colors”. Listen closely friends…don’t be the “church” vs Galileo…wake up
"If you want a bright green just add more yellow." so...you dont paint. at all. cool. thanks for the video about paint colors. XD
omg you are so wrong. Echo is spot on!
My left ear really liked your commentary
3:00 green is a primary additive color
You have the god given right to believe in any 3 primary colour you want. We love colours! So I say we go after people who answer “black / white” when asked what their favourite colour is.
AAAAUUUGH!! That colour wheel didn’t have cyan or magenta
Green is a primary colour in additive colours (when using light)
Yellow, cyan and magenta are primary colours in substantive colours (when using pigments)
Magenta is even mix of blue and red light and cyan is even mix of blue and green light.
Green IS a primary colour when you are talking about light (which use additive colours) and the different between shades and colours is actually not that clear.
this girl really getting so heated over colours
AUUUUGGHHH!!! Actually understanding that cyan and blue are different hues is actually fully accepted by the modern art world. Also don’t confuse hues with general colours. Yes many people consider cyan to be blue, BUT when an artist says cyan, they mean cyan, not any of the general blues
Man, imagine being so ignorant about a topic and then being willing to attack someone so harshly over it. Did you even watch her video? There are TWO sets of primary colors, depending on whether it is additive or subtractive. She never claims that red, green, and blue are the primary colors of pigment, only the primary colors of light. She talks about BOTH sets of primary colors. You say that Renaissance artists wouldn't have not known what green was and that they knew their colors, but you also don't seem to realize that just a few hundred years ago, the word blue didn't even exist. All languages, correct me if there are exceptions, start out with white, black, and red. Then they evolve yellow, then green, then they move on to colors like blue and purple. They depicted rainbows as having 3 colors back then: red, yellow, and green. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people back then did not have proper understanding of colors. Still, they managed to make decent art, much like people who still think red, yellow, and blue are the primary colors of pigment. You have literally no idea what an additive primary color is. Additive color is when you add wavelengths to make a color, which is done using computer screens. Subtractive color is when you subtract wavelengths to make a color, which is done with pigments.
You should read about the Dunning-Kreuger Effect. This video is a prime example of it.
No. I’ve only watched three minutes. Red green and blue are the primaries of LIGHT, not paint. You are so wrong so far; mix yellow and blue lights, you’ll get white, not green. You’re wrong. I hope you’ll state some correct things later. -_-
You sure haven't studied anything about color theory.
Oh just give me a break.
And you do, whom i presume never even touched a paint brush after the age of 10. So stfu.
@@okayand1508 I'm an arts teacher but sure
@@dawnsilvertb you sure don't behave like one
Additive color mixing is NOT PAINT. Additive color mixing is LIGHT. Any PAINT or pigment you use is SUBTRACTIVE. This person does not know what she is talking about.
yep
@19:43-.-If she’s contrasting “objects and paints” with “light”, then wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that she’s saying blue is a primary color in light specifically, and not “in general”? It kind of sounds like you’re mixing up what she says other people are saying is the case with what she saying is the case. Because I don’t see how else you can think what she saying here contradicts anything she said earlier.
@2:33-.-But she isn’t applying RGB to paint, she just didn’t specify that RGB refers to light because the term “additive” definitionally refer to light, so she likely assumed there was no need to. This was just a side note after all, and she doesn’t talk about RGB for the rest of the video, so it’s reasonable to assume that “additive” may not refer to paint in this contacts.
19:11 Paint mixing is *subtractive* not additive.
She wasn't saying or implying you could paint shit light
she wasn't saying or implying that you could paint using red green and blue as primary colours
All she said in that 2 second snippet was "these are the additive primary colours" which is a 100% correct statement
You're literally wrong in this video, you keep claiming that she's said things that she just didn't say
You're the one confused about additive and subtractive, she correctly stated that red yellow and blue are taught as a form of subtractive colour
And you cut her the off to say that "before you said they were additive and that green yellow and red where the primary additive colours"
But that YOU being confused and mixing up terms
Additive refers to light, subtractive refers go pigment
You're wrong
It is so disappointing to read the comments in Echo Gillett's video. Because there are lots of people deriding their art class teachers and public schools in general because they think they were lied to or their teacher was dumb. Just because someone has 500k+ subscribers and a ring light, does not mean they know more than your public school art teacher… even if they were a little weird.
you say that like this video is any better
Everyone give her a break she is very knowledgeable on a topic many people seem not to care about. Physical painting. That probably makes her a bit defensive. The creator here and the other video creator are thinking in completely different terms and the other video creator echo is uneducated on the medium of paint which she is using to explain subtractive color. Kitsch is thinking in pigments and echo in terms of light values. Both are also speaking amusingly (annoyingly) arrogantly. Simple terms like primary, additive, subtractive, are not agreed upon between the two creators. Also all of colors are a social construct and none of them are really “real” we humans draw boundaries and give names to perceivable phenomena, we don’t even agree with each other where these boundaries should lie across languages or even individuals. One person May say red when another says orange but who is to say what it actually is? Like whether purple is “real” in terms of cones and Brain receptors and electromagnetic frequencies does not matter to us percievers. Sure a light sensors don’t recognize purple but it also doesn’t recognize green or any color it only recognizes frequencies. All the naming and boundary drawing and classification is up to us humans.
Color space is measurable, human perception need no longer apply. The linguistical boundaries of color description, while interesting, are not relevant.
@@alfred0231 but human perception is all we have. Think about this not all human eyes are the exact same shape and size so the Frequencies of light that “read” as red or green or whatever aren’t even the same wavelengths necessarily person to person there is a variable range of color perception and talking about how it all turns out to a nonhuman sensor ignores this subjective experience of light
Relevant to what? Anyway art isn’t about scientific demarcation of light frequencies it’s about perception and experience
Pls ignore the weird echo stans and keep trucking, them judging your accent and shit is a real ugly look for whoever theyre defending
Regardless i still love this vid 👌🙌
Hope these people who dont know criticism from bullying didnt tear down your mental health too much
Green is a primary additive color, this video is annoying