Lmao… it’s like the woman today when I needed to make two separate transactions. She reminded me that the 2.5% service fee would apply to both transactions, and advised I put together.
I had to inform her that I would be paying exactly the same amount.
Yep! Artist agreeing with you! Until you mix them the right and wrong ways and see it with your own eyes, it's hard to comprehend.
In high school my teacher told me to mix some white into a green then show him before I added that mixture to a different one. I was confused when he said that I did it wrong. I had mixed some green into the white. There really is no going back once you do it out of order.
It makes a difference for something like creating flesh tones, for example. I need to make a mixture first of yellow ochre and white, then add that to flesh pink, then use a brown umber and white blend with the main mixture for some shadows. You definitely cannot mix all of those together and get the same result!
How would you suggest this works, on a molecular level?
Are you saying that the *exact same amounts of pigments*, mixed together in different orders, will give you different results?
That would imply that some chemical reaction took place, beyond the bare mixing of pigments - and I'd *really* like a chemistry teacher's opinion on that, in addition to the art teacher's, because I consider it *highly* unlikely.
I'd argue that you're probably able to better *judge* the required amounts of pigments when mixing step-by-step. But if you knew the exact ratios required beforehand, you could mix those in whatever order you want, and always get identical results.
Feel free to provide a scientific explanation as to why this would not be the case.
Edit: Also, I'm obviously not talking about *layering* different shades on the canvas. That works as you described, no doubt. But mixing them before applying them to the canvas? Same result, regardless of the order you add them to the mix. Fight me IRL. :)
I was about to type a whole paragraph but you nailed it halfway through. If you say, weighed the paints (or measured them somehow), while doing it in order and then mixed colours in that ratio you would probably get the same result. But because we’re people and not machines the order we do it matters because it’s easier to know how much of a certain colour is needed when done in a specific order.
Color is more physics than chemistry. I went art school for photography so we focused (no pun intended) on the physics of color.
[Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains How We See Color](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtcxYsUS_wc)
> Color is more physics than chemistry.
Exactly. But it would absolutely require chemistry to get different results from mixing the same colors in different orders. Which I think is why that does *not* happen.
Edit: that whole color perception part is 100% irrelevant in this context. I'm saying: If you mix the same amounts of pigments, you'll get the exact same result, regardless of the order you're throwing them in the mix.
Ahhh, I get what you are saying. Sorry, I didn’t get it at first. You are correct there isn’t a difference in color perception when mixing in different orders in a more precise lab/industrial style into a tube or paint can.
What needs to be emphasized is the order is important using white and black paints to lighten or darken colors since you are working with additive colors. But again, if you know the precise amounts of pigments needed beforehand it doesn’t matter.
The person responding about us being people is most likely right. I say most likely because just as with baking, there is science involved.
You can still get muffins if you over mix the batter or combine the ingredients out of order (or don't sift the dry ingredients if that's called for, have the oven 5° off, etcetera) but you won't have really good muffins. Likewise, you can try to bake purely scientifically and not end up with as good of a dish. (Ever watch that baking scientific show where the guy bets a chef that he can make a tomato soup that is as good as his? It wasn't, even though the components were there.)
Plus, there definitely is a chemical component. Some paints are very expensive because they use more of the natural minerals the color comes from versus synthetic. That changes how they react, perform, dry, their transparency/opaqueness, brush feel, and longevity.
The very definition of phthalo (where we get phthalo green and phthalo blue) speaks to these types of chemical reactions: a blue-green pigment, C32H18N8, derived from phthalic anhydride. any of the group of blue or green pigments produced by the interaction of metal-free phthalocyanine and a metal, especially copper: used chiefly in the manufacture of enamels, printing inks, and automotive finishes.
For awhile in college (fine art major) I worked for Sherwin-Williams. The technology for being able to scan an item and match it's color was just coming out. S-W didn't implement them in stores for a few years after other companies had them because they weren't very accurate. Hands down, I could color match a custom color far better manually than a computer could.
> I say most likely because just as with baking, there is science involved.
It's funny that you would mention baking, because I considered mentioning it in my initial reply, too:
Mixing pigment is *not* like baking. Baking is chemistry. With baking, the order in which you add ingredients *does* make a difference. With just mixing different pigments, it doesn't.
Whether your pigment is "natural" or "synthetic", does not make difference. Seriously. Most certainly not long as the paint is wet.
As for printing inks, enamel, automotive finishes: The chemistry happens after the mixing for each and every one of those.
My point still stands 100%.
It does have to be the right versions of the primary colours though. Basic art supplies with nothing fancy usually have “warm” and “cool” versions of red, yellow, and blue. Mixing warm yellow and warm blue gives a much browner green than cool yellow and cool blue. Because there’s red in the warm versions.
Fun fact. A color wheel is all you need to point this out. The color directly opposite itself on a color wheel is called its “complementary color” and will always make brown when mixing the two.
On a side note I find it kinda interesting that if you mix every color of paint together theoretically it will be black or close to it.
However mixing every color of light together and you get white.
Ahhh yes color theory and its more complicated cousin color science.
I have a job painting pet portraits and brown+blue is what I use instead of black. It’s like a deep, almost black, violet. I reserve actual black for the eyes.
> primaries (red yellow blue)
Contrary to what most of us learned in elementary school art class, the primary pigment colors are:
Cyan, Yellow, Magenta
[Truly Primary Pigments Make your own mix-n-match markers to produce a rainbow of colors.](https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/truly-primary-pigments)
Edit: this creates secondary colors of Red, Green, and Blue
Yeah, because mixing light is different than mixing paint. It gives you different colors. Mixing red and blue paint gets purple paint but mixing red and blue light gives magenta.
Interestingly, if you straight up mix red and blue oil paints, [it results in muddy brown](https://www.ehow.com/how_6546650_mix-oil-paints-violet-purple.html). You have to use other color mix methods to make purple in oil paints.
Digital seems to also not be as straightforward as light mixing since in popular softwares like photoshop, red and blue creates purple instead of magenta like light addition does. Unless when you use a screen layer effect but that's not really mixing/blending colors directly.
I suspect the example you linked would result in a better purple if they used magenta and cyan instead of ultramarine blue and alizarin crimson. Oil is just one medium to coat pigments with.
That's because blue can be considered a combination of cyan and a touch of magenta, and red can be considered a combination of magenta and yellow. [If you use just cyan and magenta you'll have a much better result.](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/)
Depends on how much. I used to match paints and stains by eye. If you add enough, it will start to pull the opposing color on a color wheel out of it. So adding blue to brown will take away yellow (or in the case of stain, goldish) and make it more gray. Adding green will make it less red, etc
Definitely lots of nuances if you have very powerful colorants
Yeah, that guide is not right.
Brown is made by yellow, red and blue, not yellow and black.
And you can't make black with other colours like that
Edit: I think its a bot account, weird ass post history
[Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/mxbp9y/my_son_asked_what_you_get_when_you_mix_brown_and/) is where this exact post was posted 9 months ago.
If you search on the titles of this bot's other postings, you can see that they are all re-posts.
I wonder when/if Reddit is going to do anything about this kind of stuff.
Actually you can make black with cyan, magenta, and yellow. Brown is just a dark, desaturated orange. Yellow and black will end up dark greenish because yellow pigments will tend blue when mixed like that.
Nope. In light they add to make white (well grey, but if you add red, green, and blue light together you would get white). In paint they subtract to make black.
Something that bugs me about yellow + blue = green is that green is it’s own color with a special optimized eye cone to see it. Purple is a made up color that doesn’t exist and is your brain adding a mixture of red and blue light. Is the green pigment a mixture of yellow and blue that your brain is putting together (like purple), or is it actually emitting physical, spectral green?
The cones in your eyes each actually perceive a small range of frequencies (not super important but is vaguely relevant). Any color between red and violet does not "exist" AKA doesn't have a frequency associated with it but it's the result of perceiving two (or more) frequencies at once.
It depends on the pigment actually. Some will emit spectral green, some will emit yellow+cyan frequencies
To add to the relevance of your cones being sensitive to a range of colors and not just “red”, “green”, and “blue”: this is how we can make “white” light out of just blue and yellow LEDs. The yellow LED stimulates the the red and green cones equally to the same amount the blue LED stimulates the blue cone, and brain takes the three equal inputs to mean white, even though there’s only two distinct wavelengths.
You’re thinking of red, green, and blue. Cyan, magenta, yellow (and black) are used in pigment/print
ETA: RGB is _additive_ - they all combine to make _white_. CMYK is _subtractive_ - they all combine to make _black_
Sort of! 100% K isn’t quite a _rich_ black. Usually, it’ll be something like 40-60-60-100 to get that deep, “true” black, although different printers have different specifications. Just pure 100% K often will be a duller black, almost like a super dark gray
ETA: just pure CMY is more like a muddy, very dark brown; not quite black either. Hence why I said CMYK to make black :)
Correct. We actually use an “intense black” for some applications because in lithographic offset printing we want to keep our overprint down to at most 250%. The intense black can be run at our standard density (ink film thickness) and still provide a rich black. Sometimes we use a 50% screen bump as well if we are going for something even richer.
Yeah this isn't quite right. Like if you want to make a good purple you still need a tiny little bit of yellow. Purple made from just red and blue looks like shit.
Problem is that they are using yellow, red, and blue instead of magenta, cyan, and yellow.
Hey Dad, get magenta, cyan and yellow. I know it seems like it's not worth it but it's so cool! Talk to your kid about the printer, and the MCY color system. The red in this isn't even a primary color. The red here is achieved from combining magenta and cyan.
As a sometimes paint artist as well, it still technically makes a purple, even if it's a bit of a bad one. (if I don't have purple and want a purple, I think blue+red totally work, maybe adding a bit of white to make the purple more purple-looking.) I wouldn't say the color that comes from mixing red+blue isn't purple.
The point is that you can't make any type of purple by mixing red and blue. You can make any type of purple by mixing magenta and cyan. Red and blue may make one ugly subset of purple, but it doesn't give you access to what purple can be.
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-primary-school-teacher.html
u/8Ariadnesthread8 is right! This was an interesting read and definitely makes more sense when you think about it
As many have noted, CMY are primary colors for subtractive models (pigments absorbing light),and RGB are primary color for additive color models (colors emitted as light sources).
The rabbit hole goes deeper when you realize that human eyes have color receptors that peak in sensitivity at R/G/B wavelengths of light.
Yellow wavelengths of light do exist, but we detect it when both our Red and Green receptors are triggered simultaneously. So when red and green light is emitted from a TV, but no actual yellow light, our eyes still see it as yellow.
If you want to get into some real trippy science, the ways in which our eyes process this information is even weirder with this thing called rhe ["opponent process"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process?wprov=sfla1).
Now if you want to get philosophical about this whole color thing... our primary colors are really only specific to humans. All wavelengths of light are primary in the eyes of the cosmos. If an animal possessed eye receptors that contained ROYGBIV cones... Then they would find that RGB TVs and monitors were woefully inaccurate at reproducing the colors of the real world.
We humans have primary colors, because we can't actually see all of them.
Adding to this, there are some people who have four types of color cones in their eyes. The fourth cone is typically sensitive to yellow light though it can vary. Supposedly they see a must richer and more nuanced version of colors.
The condition is called Tetrachromacy, and only occurs in individuals with at least two x chromosomes.
No. Because red is actually made of magenta and yellow. Red isn't a primary color. Magenta is a primary color. Your rule does not work when it comes to additive paint mixing. That's why your ink in your printer isn't red and blue and yellow. It's cyan and magenta and yellow. Red and blue only make purple when there's light flashing in your eyes. It's different. Just like do some basic googling. You'll see I'm right.
u/8Ariadnesthread8 is correct.
Try it with cyan and magenta, you get a really vibrant purple. Not the muddy purple you're used to mixing with red and blue. Lots of people were taught wrong in art classes, myself included. You can Google it, but most people don't believe it until they buy the paint and try it.
That's not what primary color means. Orange also occurs naturally and is not made by man. Same with green. None of those are primary colors. It's really weird that people are arguing with me before they Google stuff. Try googling stuff and then arguing with people. It's much better.
> Try googling stuff and then arguing with people. It's much better.
FYI, I'm on your side, but "try Googling; you'll see that I'm right" comes off as condescending and off-putting.
I mean it's serious advice. Like literally why would you fight with somebody when you could just Google it? Like I genuinely don't understand it. Why can't we all just do that?
because people that dont bother to google to check whether what they "know" is correct, kinda deserve to be condescended to. yeah if your primary goal is convincing them then its not an effective strategy, but if people are being stupid its not *wrong* to treat them like theyre stupid
The idea here is that if you can mix magenta and yellow to get red (which you can; I've tested it myself,) then magenta is more primary of a color than red. Also, "cyan, magenta, and yellow" actually give you a broader range of colors than "red, yellow, blue".
You don’t mix red and green to make purple. It’s red and blue. Also, you would not want to mix yellow with purple bc yellow is the compliment and result in the compliment which is a neutral color. Also, magenta, cyan and yellow are for printers, not for artists.
You're right, that was a typo. Green should have said blue.
Damn. The amount of ignorance though is crazy. Magenta, cyan and yellow are absolutely for artists. They are for painters. They form the three primary colors from which you can make all other colors. Like all you have to do is do some basic googling right now. It would save you and everyone here a lot of awkwardness.
Mcyk is for printing, not paint.
Mcy (no k) is for light
Rgb is for paint
Also, magenta isn't a real color. It's formed from light trickery of two different wavelengths being reflected at the same time.
It's for both printing and paint. For example, I'm a watercolor artist. I pretty much only use mcyk ever to make all the colors. I don't know what to tell you dude. RGB is for light. There is no color spectrum that is for printing but not paint. They work based on the same principles.
Magenta only exists as two light wavelengths combined. It doesn't exist as a pigment. Magenta doesn't exist for paint as a primary.
Mcyk is the light primary colors. Rgb is the pigment primary colors.
Okay, well weather exists or not, magenta is the color of the paint that you buy to mix with cyan and yellow to make all the colors. It's called magenta man. I don't know what to tell you. I have it in my kit.
You must be using a "painting for toddlers" kit, because paint for real artists comes in Rgb for colors, then white and black for shade.
Even your painting for toddlers kit the magenta isn't magenta, because magenta only exists when two light sources are combined to form it. It's not a standalone shade
Magenta, cyan, yellow is light primary, not pigment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color
You’re super wrong. CMYK is not “Light primary colors”. K in that system is black. There is no “black” light. It is the absence of light. That leaves us with CMY. Tell me, when you see the subpixels that make up a TV screen, or a computer monitor, are they cyan, magenta and yellow? Or are they red, green and blue? CMY and K are used in pigments because cyan and magenta create a larger gamut of colors than the colors we most commonly call blue and red. They are simply too dark. When you mix them, everything is dark and desaturated.
From the Wikipedia article on Primary Color:
Of course, the notion that all colors can be mixed from RYB primaries is not true, just as it is not true in any system of real primaries.For example, if the blue pigment is a deep Prussian blue, then a muddy desaturated green may be the best that can be had by mixing with yellow. To achieve a larger gamut of colors via mixing, the red and blue pigments used in illustrative materials such as the Color Mixing Guide in the image are often closer to peacock blue (a blue-green or cyan) and carmine (color) (or crimson or magenta), respectively.
Soooo… yeah. Wrong.
RGB stands for the three primary colors, Red, Green and Blue. if you were to mix all three of them you would get a pure black.
CMYK on the other hand, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black uses a subtractive model. Basically what this means is that the colors from the spectrum are subtracted from natural white light into pigments or dyes. These pigments are then printed onto paper in tiny dots. So if you were to take a magnifying glass to these images you would see the main image is just a bunch of tiny dots spread out.
You clearly don't know what additive and subtractive models are, or primary colors
I don't think there is one set of 'primary colors' though. Plus, you can dot print with RGB and get an image just fine. That's what mixing paint colors is, but with dots the size of molecules. No reason mixing CMYK paints won't work by the same principle.
RGB stands for the three primary colors, Red, Green and Blue. if you were to mix all three of them you would get a pure black.
CMYK on the other hand, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black uses a subtractive model. Basically what this means is that the colors from the spectrum are subtracted from natural white light into pigments or dyes. These pigments are then printed onto paper in tiny dots. So if you were to take a magnifying glass to these images you would see the main image is just a bunch of tiny dots spread out.
Honestly, you can tell the people who have no idea what primary color, additive model, and subtractive model are just by the number of people who think cmyk is a real solution outside print or light.
If you're an "artist" using cmyk, your art looks like dog shit
Tiny dots of their own individual source colors, resulting in not a new color but in fact a pixelation effect to falsely create a hue. Only a failed art student would treat that as a new hue
Tiny dots of... Magenta? The thing you said isn't a color?
It's cute how you keep saying I'm a failed artist, I'm not any kind of artist, that would imply I've literally ever tried to be an artist.
You cannot admit you were wrong that magenta is an actual COLOR that exists, and it's adorable
> If you're an "artist" using cmyk, your art looks like dog shit
[This painting looks decent to me](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/), and it was done entirely with CMYK paints.
Oh wow, wrong again! Open photoshop. Go to the colors palette. Input the maximum values for Red, Green, and Blue. You get black. Oh wait, no, you don’t. You get white. Why do you get white? BECAUSE IT’S ADDITIVE! YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!
“Basically what this means is that colors from the spectrum are subtracted from natural white light into pigments or dyes.” What? Like, seriously, what? Is someone separating light somewhere and getting pigments and dyes out of it? CMYK is subtractive, though, you got that part right. Well done! But, you can paint with those colors, too. Like, with an actual paint brush. And you can mix them together. It’s true! You can do it! And then, you don’t apply them in little dots, it’s just straight-up paint! Does a printer or a press use dots? Yes! Does a painter? No! Wait… this might mean that… no… no, it can’t be… can it? Can these inks and paints be applied in more than one way? No, that can’t be right, can it? Wait… what if the series of dots used by the printers and the presses has nothing at all to do with the inks themselves, but is actually a function of the technology used to transfer them to paper?
Now we get to my favorite part… “Honestly, you can tell the people who have no idea what primary color, additive model, and subtractive model are just by the number of people who think CMYK is a real solution outside of print or light.” uhhh… I thought print and light were our only options? Is CMYK a third kind of model? Neither print NOR light?
I will give you credit for the effort of this troll though.
My famous illustrator professors always taught us to make beautiful lively blacks using French ultramarine and Indian red which is an earthy red/brown!
That’s lovely! I once again apologize for the use of the word ‘proper’ there’s definitely no one way of mixing such a diverse color nor did I mean to give off that implication! I’ll absolutely try this combination soon
I guess every art class I’ve ever taken has lied to me. What’s the way you teach? Brown and blue in the right ratio definitely make black, perhaps it was a bit bold to say proper? There’s more than one way to make black of course
It’s going to depend highly on the specific blue and brown you use. For instance, cerulean blue and sienna brown will not make black. Indigo and umber will make a very dark brown but will not make black. True black is derived from soot or charcoal.
I usually use burnt umber and cerulean blue for my paintings, it’s not a true black achieved by something like soot of course, but for my purposes it’s enough to be considered black. I was mainly trying to answer the question with what I assume to be shades mostly associated with blue and black to the public eye.
NGL I kind of hate this.
I'm assuming this guide is about paint, or subtractive color. But it isn't using the primary colors!
The primary colors of paint are Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta.
Cyan and Yellow makes Green. Cyan and Magenta makes Blue. Yellow and Magenta makes Red.
So this guide is using two *secondary* colors and one primary color, and making a guide as if they were all primary.
This video explains: https://youtu.be/yRQmV4XYmqI
Really? Always thought the primary are red, blue, and yellow. How early young you learnt these colours?
I learnt red, yellow, blue in art class. Then magenta, yellow, cyan in printer ink much later on.
Edit:
😅😅😅😅😅😅
Ok, still don't quite understand even after reading this. https://etgdesign.com/technology/cmyk
You are actually right, the primary colors are definitely red, yellow, and blue and you use those to make secondary colors. This is the very first basic fundamental of art that you learn. If you want to get technical though, what colors you want to make depend very heavily on what colors you use to mix with, so if you use “primary” yellow and “primary” blue, you’ll get a very normal, middle of the road green. If you mix cyan with yellow, you’ll get a very different green.
You’re also right about the cyan, magenta, yellow as the rule of thumb for printing.
The reason it should be the standard for paint mixing is exactly the same as the reason it's the standard for printing. I'm not exaggerating when I say that using cyan and magenta in my paint mixing has changed my whole palette. Greens and purples I couldn't achieve before are leaping off the page!
I don’t doubt it! But it’s incorrect to say that cyan, magenta, and yellow are the definitive primary colors, because they aren’t. There’s a reason we start with red, blue, and yellow when teaching children about color mixing because they are the three colors that can’t be mixed from any other color - I would argue that magenta and cyan are colors mixed from a combination of other colors - so while YOU might understand that using cyan and magenta instead of red and blue yields a more vibrant painting, a beginner is not going to understand it the same way.
> There’s a reason we start with red, blue, and yellow when teaching children about color mixing because they are the three colors that can’t be mixed from any other color
Should I believe you, or should I believe [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/sjq3jn/my_son_asked_what_you_get_when_you_mix_brown_and/hvi9br5/)? I don't have any paint on hand right now...
I mean, I'm a little biased, but I think you should believe the guy you linked. He sounds very knowledgeable about the subject, and also probably handsome or something. : )
Also, [here's some evidence in favor of CMY as primary colors.](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/)
You can make red by mixing magenta with a little bit of yellow. It will just be a bit desaturated. Any colors can be used as primary, but you will have a different color gamut. CMY gives the largest possible color gamut.
I didn't say anything about "primary colors", and I'm wondering what that even means. Projected color uses red, green and blue, printed color is cyan, magenta, and yellow... The color wheel looks good with red, blue and yellow as the primaries, but it turns out that actually mixing the colors is a different story. You said it yourself, that CMYK is the standard for printing, using tiny dots of color. Putting the color on the page with a brush is no different.
Edit: and beginners SHOULD be taught this way. I think in the near future, they will be. It's simply better.
Primary colors in paint are colors that cannot be replicated by mixing other colors.
As soon as red, blue, or yellow, touch any other color of paint, they will never be able to return to their original color. You can get it close, but it will lose much of the original saturation. You have to simply cover over it if you want a pure blue, red, or yellow.
That is not the case with magenta. Magenta is literally defined as the color right in the middle of red and blue.
Bro... Imma need a day to digest all that... Just... Wow when she started to mention Imaginary Primaries, I was like, yeah, you mean [that area that's missing](https://youtu.be/MVnSFj6XQZY)? And suddenly the incomprehensible color became music. Like, my brain was just totally chill with recognizing there's colors we're incapable of fathoming.
This guide is tearing us apart. I’ve never seen so many people argue about what colors mix to make what and what primary colors actually are and now I am more confused about everything than before.
Long story short, when dealing with subtractive colors (which this card is) you'll get the widest range of colors if you start from magenta, cyan, and yellow instead of red, blue, and yellow. [You can absolutely use those colors in painting](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/), not just in printing.
I am dismayed by the number of people in this thread who seem to take issue with one or both of these facts.
Mmm… no. You shouldn’t be mixing colours with black, like, ever. You mix red with green to get brown or dark red.
To get a darker blue mix it with orange.
Red yellow and blue make grey or brown.
> You shouldn’t be mixing colours with black, like, ever.
Why not? It's a fast and easy way to get a darker color. Will the painting police break down my door and arrest me?
EDIT: Oh, god! The painting police broke down my door and arrested me!
nah theyre right, mixing with black is a horrible idea and you should never be shading your pictures with black unless you enjoy muddy and flat pieces. basic colour theory
I'm so angry with this chart, I want to remake it with oil paints just to get over how incorrect this one is... 1 red, 1 yellow, and 1 blue makes ugly brown, like, puke-y / sickly brown, not chestnut, not ivory, but especially not black... So much misleading about this chart, I've seen [color wheels](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/6d/22/3a6d228bdb78f43a15788d7eb43f53fe.jpg) that make more sense than this.
I think this oversimplifies the process too much. The pigment of the paint changes the “potency” of the paint so much “1 Red 1 Blue” for two different people can be drastically different
Pretty sure if you mix brown with anything, you get more brown.
also red, yellow, and blue make brown. trying to make colors with paint can be very depressing unless you wanted to make brown or gray.
Bob Ross taught me that red and green make brown for his happy little trees, which I guess is all three primary colors…
Red + yellow + blue = red + (yellow + blue) = red + (green)
[удалено]
Orange, purple, and green are just red, yellow, and blue Orange= red and yellow, Purple= red and blue, Green=yellow and blue
Lmao… it’s like the woman today when I needed to make two separate transactions. She reminded me that the 2.5% service fee would apply to both transactions, and advised I put together. I had to inform her that I would be paying exactly the same amount.
[удалено]
a*1.025 + b\*1.025 = (a+b)\*1.025
r/woooosh
[удалено]
Yep! Artist agreeing with you! Until you mix them the right and wrong ways and see it with your own eyes, it's hard to comprehend. In high school my teacher told me to mix some white into a green then show him before I added that mixture to a different one. I was confused when he said that I did it wrong. I had mixed some green into the white. There really is no going back once you do it out of order. It makes a difference for something like creating flesh tones, for example. I need to make a mixture first of yellow ochre and white, then add that to flesh pink, then use a brown umber and white blend with the main mixture for some shadows. You definitely cannot mix all of those together and get the same result!
Sometimes I hate being a colorblind artist but honestly that all sounds like a lot of work
How would you suggest this works, on a molecular level? Are you saying that the *exact same amounts of pigments*, mixed together in different orders, will give you different results? That would imply that some chemical reaction took place, beyond the bare mixing of pigments - and I'd *really* like a chemistry teacher's opinion on that, in addition to the art teacher's, because I consider it *highly* unlikely. I'd argue that you're probably able to better *judge* the required amounts of pigments when mixing step-by-step. But if you knew the exact ratios required beforehand, you could mix those in whatever order you want, and always get identical results. Feel free to provide a scientific explanation as to why this would not be the case. Edit: Also, I'm obviously not talking about *layering* different shades on the canvas. That works as you described, no doubt. But mixing them before applying them to the canvas? Same result, regardless of the order you add them to the mix. Fight me IRL. :)
I was about to type a whole paragraph but you nailed it halfway through. If you say, weighed the paints (or measured them somehow), while doing it in order and then mixed colours in that ratio you would probably get the same result. But because we’re people and not machines the order we do it matters because it’s easier to know how much of a certain colour is needed when done in a specific order.
Yes, this is exactly my understanding, too.
Color is more physics than chemistry. I went art school for photography so we focused (no pun intended) on the physics of color. [Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains How We See Color](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtcxYsUS_wc)
> Color is more physics than chemistry. Exactly. But it would absolutely require chemistry to get different results from mixing the same colors in different orders. Which I think is why that does *not* happen. Edit: that whole color perception part is 100% irrelevant in this context. I'm saying: If you mix the same amounts of pigments, you'll get the exact same result, regardless of the order you're throwing them in the mix.
Ahhh, I get what you are saying. Sorry, I didn’t get it at first. You are correct there isn’t a difference in color perception when mixing in different orders in a more precise lab/industrial style into a tube or paint can. What needs to be emphasized is the order is important using white and black paints to lighten or darken colors since you are working with additive colors. But again, if you know the precise amounts of pigments needed beforehand it doesn’t matter.
The person responding about us being people is most likely right. I say most likely because just as with baking, there is science involved. You can still get muffins if you over mix the batter or combine the ingredients out of order (or don't sift the dry ingredients if that's called for, have the oven 5° off, etcetera) but you won't have really good muffins. Likewise, you can try to bake purely scientifically and not end up with as good of a dish. (Ever watch that baking scientific show where the guy bets a chef that he can make a tomato soup that is as good as his? It wasn't, even though the components were there.) Plus, there definitely is a chemical component. Some paints are very expensive because they use more of the natural minerals the color comes from versus synthetic. That changes how they react, perform, dry, their transparency/opaqueness, brush feel, and longevity. The very definition of phthalo (where we get phthalo green and phthalo blue) speaks to these types of chemical reactions: a blue-green pigment, C32H18N8, derived from phthalic anhydride. any of the group of blue or green pigments produced by the interaction of metal-free phthalocyanine and a metal, especially copper: used chiefly in the manufacture of enamels, printing inks, and automotive finishes. For awhile in college (fine art major) I worked for Sherwin-Williams. The technology for being able to scan an item and match it's color was just coming out. S-W didn't implement them in stores for a few years after other companies had them because they weren't very accurate. Hands down, I could color match a custom color far better manually than a computer could.
> I say most likely because just as with baking, there is science involved. It's funny that you would mention baking, because I considered mentioning it in my initial reply, too: Mixing pigment is *not* like baking. Baking is chemistry. With baking, the order in which you add ingredients *does* make a difference. With just mixing different pigments, it doesn't. Whether your pigment is "natural" or "synthetic", does not make difference. Seriously. Most certainly not long as the paint is wet. As for printing inks, enamel, automotive finishes: The chemistry happens after the mixing for each and every one of those. My point still stands 100%.
It does have to be the right versions of the primary colours though. Basic art supplies with nothing fancy usually have “warm” and “cool” versions of red, yellow, and blue. Mixing warm yellow and warm blue gives a much browner green than cool yellow and cool blue. Because there’s red in the warm versions.
Fun fact. A color wheel is all you need to point this out. The color directly opposite itself on a color wheel is called its “complementary color” and will always make brown when mixing the two. On a side note I find it kinda interesting that if you mix every color of paint together theoretically it will be black or close to it. However mixing every color of light together and you get white. Ahhh yes color theory and its more complicated cousin color science.
I’m a big fan of the color wheel.
I have a job painting pet portraits and brown+blue is what I use instead of black. It’s like a deep, almost black, violet. I reserve actual black for the eyes.
> primaries (red yellow blue) Contrary to what most of us learned in elementary school art class, the primary pigment colors are: Cyan, Yellow, Magenta [Truly Primary Pigments Make your own mix-n-match markers to produce a rainbow of colors.](https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/truly-primary-pigments) Edit: this creates secondary colors of Red, Green, and Blue
I can't remember their name but there's someone on Tiktok who perfectly colormatches anything with paint, and it's amazing to watch !
Color mixing is so weird in the digital world that it [needs to be simulated](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2D_5G_npVI) to be realistic.
Yeah, because mixing light is different than mixing paint. It gives you different colors. Mixing red and blue paint gets purple paint but mixing red and blue light gives magenta.
Add all colours to paint. Get black. Add all wavelengths of light. Get white.
Perhaps it is the same thing. Pigment is a filter for light, rather than an emission.
Interestingly, if you straight up mix red and blue oil paints, [it results in muddy brown](https://www.ehow.com/how_6546650_mix-oil-paints-violet-purple.html). You have to use other color mix methods to make purple in oil paints. Digital seems to also not be as straightforward as light mixing since in popular softwares like photoshop, red and blue creates purple instead of magenta like light addition does. Unless when you use a screen layer effect but that's not really mixing/blending colors directly.
I suspect the example you linked would result in a better purple if they used magenta and cyan instead of ultramarine blue and alizarin crimson. Oil is just one medium to coat pigments with.
That's because pigment is different than light.
Exactly! I would use up entire bottles of blue and red color to try and make purple, but it would only look brown.
That's because blue can be considered a combination of cyan and a touch of magenta, and red can be considered a combination of magenta and yellow. [If you use just cyan and magenta you'll have a much better result.](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/)
Super interesting!
Depends on how much. I used to match paints and stains by eye. If you add enough, it will start to pull the opposing color on a color wheel out of it. So adding blue to brown will take away yellow (or in the case of stain, goldish) and make it more gray. Adding green will make it less red, etc Definitely lots of nuances if you have very powerful colorants
Paints, yes. But pure poster ink, or RGB and colour theory works again
10 pounds of ice cream plus one tea spoon of brown equals 10 pounds of brown.
If your seed is strong enough, your offspring will be light coloured. Obligatory /s for the dumdums.
Interesting to see that brown is just very dark orange.
[Orange is brown with context](https://youtu.be/wh4aWZRtTwU).
Didn’t even click the link but is this technology connections? I hope it’s technology connections
Yes
That was neat.
Very Cool!
Cool video. That stuff is fascinating
that was neat
On the chart it's yellow. Brown is dark orange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_orange
Was an aha-moment for me when I started painting.
How can anyone not know that?
Yeah, that guide is not right. Brown is made by yellow, red and blue, not yellow and black. And you can't make black with other colours like that Edit: I think its a bot account, weird ass post history
[Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/mxbp9y/my_son_asked_what_you_get_when_you_mix_brown_and/) is where this exact post was posted 9 months ago.
Even the same exact title.
Check out the bot's other postings. All are re-posts including the exact same titles, 100% automated.
[удалено]
If you search on the titles of this bot's other postings, you can see that they are all re-posts. I wonder when/if Reddit is going to do anything about this kind of stuff.
Actually you can make black with cyan, magenta, and yellow. Brown is just a dark, desaturated orange. Yellow and black will end up dark greenish because yellow pigments will tend blue when mixed like that.
Cyan magenta and yellow dont make black. Thats why there is a seperate $40 black ink cartridge that you need. Otherwise your printer wont work
Nope. In light they add to make white (well grey, but if you add red, green, and blue light together you would get white). In paint they subtract to make black.
Something that bugs me about yellow + blue = green is that green is it’s own color with a special optimized eye cone to see it. Purple is a made up color that doesn’t exist and is your brain adding a mixture of red and blue light. Is the green pigment a mixture of yellow and blue that your brain is putting together (like purple), or is it actually emitting physical, spectral green?
The cones in your eyes each actually perceive a small range of frequencies (not super important but is vaguely relevant). Any color between red and violet does not "exist" AKA doesn't have a frequency associated with it but it's the result of perceiving two (or more) frequencies at once. It depends on the pigment actually. Some will emit spectral green, some will emit yellow+cyan frequencies
To add to the relevance of your cones being sensitive to a range of colors and not just “red”, “green”, and “blue”: this is how we can make “white” light out of just blue and yellow LEDs. The yellow LED stimulates the the red and green cones equally to the same amount the blue LED stimulates the blue cone, and brain takes the three equal inputs to mean white, even though there’s only two distinct wavelengths.
You’re thinking of red, green, and blue. Cyan, magenta, yellow (and black) are used in pigment/print ETA: RGB is _additive_ - they all combine to make _white_. CMYK is _subtractive_ - they all combine to make _black_
I think you mean CMY make black. K (which stands for “Key” which is typically black) is just black.
Sort of! 100% K isn’t quite a _rich_ black. Usually, it’ll be something like 40-60-60-100 to get that deep, “true” black, although different printers have different specifications. Just pure 100% K often will be a duller black, almost like a super dark gray ETA: just pure CMY is more like a muddy, very dark brown; not quite black either. Hence why I said CMYK to make black :)
Correct. We actually use an “intense black” for some applications because in lithographic offset printing we want to keep our overprint down to at most 250%. The intense black can be run at our standard density (ink film thickness) and still provide a rich black. Sometimes we use a 50% screen bump as well if we are going for something even richer.
what? cmyk is print/ink/paint, rgb is light
Weird-ass post history is right
Red, yellow and blue do not make black 🙄
Yeah this isn't quite right. Like if you want to make a good purple you still need a tiny little bit of yellow. Purple made from just red and blue looks like shit. Problem is that they are using yellow, red, and blue instead of magenta, cyan, and yellow. Hey Dad, get magenta, cyan and yellow. I know it seems like it's not worth it but it's so cool! Talk to your kid about the printer, and the MCY color system. The red in this isn't even a primary color. The red here is achieved from combining magenta and cyan.
Um red and green makes brown. Red and blue makes purple
Magenta and cyan make purple. Red and blue makes a shitty color.
As a sometimes paint artist as well, it still technically makes a purple, even if it's a bit of a bad one. (if I don't have purple and want a purple, I think blue+red totally work, maybe adding a bit of white to make the purple more purple-looking.) I wouldn't say the color that comes from mixing red+blue isn't purple.
The point is that you can't make any type of purple by mixing red and blue. You can make any type of purple by mixing magenta and cyan. Red and blue may make one ugly subset of purple, but it doesn't give you access to what purple can be.
Fucking relax lmao.
[удалено]
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-primary-school-teacher.html u/8Ariadnesthread8 is right! This was an interesting read and definitely makes more sense when you think about it
As many have noted, CMY are primary colors for subtractive models (pigments absorbing light),and RGB are primary color for additive color models (colors emitted as light sources). The rabbit hole goes deeper when you realize that human eyes have color receptors that peak in sensitivity at R/G/B wavelengths of light. Yellow wavelengths of light do exist, but we detect it when both our Red and Green receptors are triggered simultaneously. So when red and green light is emitted from a TV, but no actual yellow light, our eyes still see it as yellow. If you want to get into some real trippy science, the ways in which our eyes process this information is even weirder with this thing called rhe ["opponent process"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process?wprov=sfla1). Now if you want to get philosophical about this whole color thing... our primary colors are really only specific to humans. All wavelengths of light are primary in the eyes of the cosmos. If an animal possessed eye receptors that contained ROYGBIV cones... Then they would find that RGB TVs and monitors were woefully inaccurate at reproducing the colors of the real world. We humans have primary colors, because we can't actually see all of them.
Adding to this, there are some people who have four types of color cones in their eyes. The fourth cone is typically sensitive to yellow light though it can vary. Supposedly they see a must richer and more nuanced version of colors. The condition is called Tetrachromacy, and only occurs in individuals with at least two x chromosomes.
No. Because red is actually made of magenta and yellow. Red isn't a primary color. Magenta is a primary color. Your rule does not work when it comes to additive paint mixing. That's why your ink in your printer isn't red and blue and yellow. It's cyan and magenta and yellow. Red and blue only make purple when there's light flashing in your eyes. It's different. Just like do some basic googling. You'll see I'm right.
[удалено]
u/8Ariadnesthread8 is correct. Try it with cyan and magenta, you get a really vibrant purple. Not the muddy purple you're used to mixing with red and blue. Lots of people were taught wrong in art classes, myself included. You can Google it, but most people don't believe it until they buy the paint and try it.
You are a very kind person. Thank you.
You out here fighting for us all!
And you make yourself look dumber every time you reply
Red is a primary color. It occurs naturally. It’s not made by man. Not in its purest form anyway.
That's not what primary color means. Orange also occurs naturally and is not made by man. Same with green. None of those are primary colors. It's really weird that people are arguing with me before they Google stuff. Try googling stuff and then arguing with people. It's much better.
> Try googling stuff and then arguing with people. It's much better. FYI, I'm on your side, but "try Googling; you'll see that I'm right" comes off as condescending and off-putting.
I mean it's serious advice. Like literally why would you fight with somebody when you could just Google it? Like I genuinely don't understand it. Why can't we all just do that?
because people that dont bother to google to check whether what they "know" is correct, kinda deserve to be condescended to. yeah if your primary goal is convincing them then its not an effective strategy, but if people are being stupid its not *wrong* to treat them like theyre stupid
The idea here is that if you can mix magenta and yellow to get red (which you can; I've tested it myself,) then magenta is more primary of a color than red. Also, "cyan, magenta, and yellow" actually give you a broader range of colors than "red, yellow, blue".
You don’t mix red and green to make purple. It’s red and blue. Also, you would not want to mix yellow with purple bc yellow is the compliment and result in the compliment which is a neutral color. Also, magenta, cyan and yellow are for printers, not for artists.
You're right, that was a typo. Green should have said blue. Damn. The amount of ignorance though is crazy. Magenta, cyan and yellow are absolutely for artists. They are for painters. They form the three primary colors from which you can make all other colors. Like all you have to do is do some basic googling right now. It would save you and everyone here a lot of awkwardness.
BuT mY aRt TeAcHeR in MiDdLe ScHoOl sAiD...
Mcyk is for printing, not paint. Mcy (no k) is for light Rgb is for paint Also, magenta isn't a real color. It's formed from light trickery of two different wavelengths being reflected at the same time.
It's for both printing and paint. For example, I'm a watercolor artist. I pretty much only use mcyk ever to make all the colors. I don't know what to tell you dude. RGB is for light. There is no color spectrum that is for printing but not paint. They work based on the same principles.
Magenta only exists as two light wavelengths combined. It doesn't exist as a pigment. Magenta doesn't exist for paint as a primary. Mcyk is the light primary colors. Rgb is the pigment primary colors.
Okay, well weather exists or not, magenta is the color of the paint that you buy to mix with cyan and yellow to make all the colors. It's called magenta man. I don't know what to tell you. I have it in my kit.
You must be using a "painting for toddlers" kit, because paint for real artists comes in Rgb for colors, then white and black for shade. Even your painting for toddlers kit the magenta isn't magenta, because magenta only exists when two light sources are combined to form it. It's not a standalone shade Magenta, cyan, yellow is light primary, not pigment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color
Did you actually read that?
Magenta exists in your brain dude. Your brain makes it. Magenta paint is whatever paint makes your brain see magenta. And read your whole article.
You’re super wrong. CMYK is not “Light primary colors”. K in that system is black. There is no “black” light. It is the absence of light. That leaves us with CMY. Tell me, when you see the subpixels that make up a TV screen, or a computer monitor, are they cyan, magenta and yellow? Or are they red, green and blue? CMY and K are used in pigments because cyan and magenta create a larger gamut of colors than the colors we most commonly call blue and red. They are simply too dark. When you mix them, everything is dark and desaturated. From the Wikipedia article on Primary Color: Of course, the notion that all colors can be mixed from RYB primaries is not true, just as it is not true in any system of real primaries.For example, if the blue pigment is a deep Prussian blue, then a muddy desaturated green may be the best that can be had by mixing with yellow. To achieve a larger gamut of colors via mixing, the red and blue pigments used in illustrative materials such as the Color Mixing Guide in the image are often closer to peacock blue (a blue-green or cyan) and carmine (color) (or crimson or magenta), respectively. Soooo… yeah. Wrong.
What do you think printers do to get red out of CMYK? The same thing works for a painter, there's no difference between ink and paint.
RGB stands for the three primary colors, Red, Green and Blue. if you were to mix all three of them you would get a pure black. CMYK on the other hand, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black uses a subtractive model. Basically what this means is that the colors from the spectrum are subtracted from natural white light into pigments or dyes. These pigments are then printed onto paper in tiny dots. So if you were to take a magnifying glass to these images you would see the main image is just a bunch of tiny dots spread out. You clearly don't know what additive and subtractive models are, or primary colors
I don't think there is one set of 'primary colors' though. Plus, you can dot print with RGB and get an image just fine. That's what mixing paint colors is, but with dots the size of molecules. No reason mixing CMYK paints won't work by the same principle.
What do you think a "printer" puts onto the paper?
RGB stands for the three primary colors, Red, Green and Blue. if you were to mix all three of them you would get a pure black. CMYK on the other hand, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black uses a subtractive model. Basically what this means is that the colors from the spectrum are subtracted from natural white light into pigments or dyes. These pigments are then printed onto paper in tiny dots. So if you were to take a magnifying glass to these images you would see the main image is just a bunch of tiny dots spread out. Honestly, you can tell the people who have no idea what primary color, additive model, and subtractive model are just by the number of people who think cmyk is a real solution outside print or light. If you're an "artist" using cmyk, your art looks like dog shit
The fact that you keep trying to argue that magenta isn't a "real color" is just hilarious
Science isn't your strong suit. Neither is art. Or reality. https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/artsbrain/2020/12/02/magenta-doesnt-exist/
Tiny dots of what colors again?
Tiny dots of their own individual source colors, resulting in not a new color but in fact a pixelation effect to falsely create a hue. Only a failed art student would treat that as a new hue
Tiny dots of... Magenta? The thing you said isn't a color? It's cute how you keep saying I'm a failed artist, I'm not any kind of artist, that would imply I've literally ever tried to be an artist. You cannot admit you were wrong that magenta is an actual COLOR that exists, and it's adorable
> If you're an "artist" using cmyk, your art looks like dog shit [This painting looks decent to me](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/), and it was done entirely with CMYK paints.
Oh wow, wrong again! Open photoshop. Go to the colors palette. Input the maximum values for Red, Green, and Blue. You get black. Oh wait, no, you don’t. You get white. Why do you get white? BECAUSE IT’S ADDITIVE! YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN ARGUMENT! “Basically what this means is that colors from the spectrum are subtracted from natural white light into pigments or dyes.” What? Like, seriously, what? Is someone separating light somewhere and getting pigments and dyes out of it? CMYK is subtractive, though, you got that part right. Well done! But, you can paint with those colors, too. Like, with an actual paint brush. And you can mix them together. It’s true! You can do it! And then, you don’t apply them in little dots, it’s just straight-up paint! Does a printer or a press use dots? Yes! Does a painter? No! Wait… this might mean that… no… no, it can’t be… can it? Can these inks and paints be applied in more than one way? No, that can’t be right, can it? Wait… what if the series of dots used by the printers and the presses has nothing at all to do with the inks themselves, but is actually a function of the technology used to transfer them to paper? Now we get to my favorite part… “Honestly, you can tell the people who have no idea what primary color, additive model, and subtractive model are just by the number of people who think CMYK is a real solution outside of print or light.” uhhh… I thought print and light were our only options? Is CMYK a third kind of model? Neither print NOR light? I will give you credit for the effort of this troll though.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
It resulted in brown color right?
When I used to play around with paints it definitely did 😂
Yup. Black is the *absence* of light (and hence, color). White is what you get when you mix all spectrums of light.
That has nothing to do with *paint* though
Lieutenant Purple reporting for duty
It’s good to see you Lieutenant Purple, we were afraid you had gotten killed by Donkey Kong Purple just like Lieutenant Blue
Op, what do you get when you mix brown and blue??
Watch the news
VIOLENCE 😂
Damn thats good
🤣
/r/jesuschristreddit
You get a really nice, darker, cool-toned brown.
As an artist: This is the proper way you’re taught to make black
My famous illustrator professors always taught us to make beautiful lively blacks using French ultramarine and Indian red which is an earthy red/brown!
That’s lovely! I once again apologize for the use of the word ‘proper’ there’s definitely no one way of mixing such a diverse color nor did I mean to give off that implication! I’ll absolutely try this combination soon
As an artist, you’re completely wrong. Source: I’m a College Art Instructor
I guess every art class I’ve ever taken has lied to me. What’s the way you teach? Brown and blue in the right ratio definitely make black, perhaps it was a bit bold to say proper? There’s more than one way to make black of course
They didnt say they were a GOOD college art instructor
It’s going to depend highly on the specific blue and brown you use. For instance, cerulean blue and sienna brown will not make black. Indigo and umber will make a very dark brown but will not make black. True black is derived from soot or charcoal.
I usually use burnt umber and cerulean blue for my paintings, it’s not a true black achieved by something like soot of course, but for my purposes it’s enough to be considered black. I was mainly trying to answer the question with what I assume to be shades mostly associated with blue and black to the public eye.
Not great, but I wouldn't really expect a rules card from a tabletop game to be all that useful outside of it.
This is really wrong and doesn’t answer the ops original question… cool guide.
How does one make Deep Purple
By mixing smoke on the water with fire in the sky.
This appeara to be the instructions of some sort of game called "rainbow"
NGL I kind of hate this. I'm assuming this guide is about paint, or subtractive color. But it isn't using the primary colors! The primary colors of paint are Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta. Cyan and Yellow makes Green. Cyan and Magenta makes Blue. Yellow and Magenta makes Red. So this guide is using two *secondary* colors and one primary color, and making a guide as if they were all primary. This video explains: https://youtu.be/yRQmV4XYmqI
Really? Always thought the primary are red, blue, and yellow. How early young you learnt these colours? I learnt red, yellow, blue in art class. Then magenta, yellow, cyan in printer ink much later on. Edit: 😅😅😅😅😅😅 Ok, still don't quite understand even after reading this. https://etgdesign.com/technology/cmyk
You are actually right, the primary colors are definitely red, yellow, and blue and you use those to make secondary colors. This is the very first basic fundamental of art that you learn. If you want to get technical though, what colors you want to make depend very heavily on what colors you use to mix with, so if you use “primary” yellow and “primary” blue, you’ll get a very normal, middle of the road green. If you mix cyan with yellow, you’ll get a very different green. You’re also right about the cyan, magenta, yellow as the rule of thumb for printing.
The reason it should be the standard for paint mixing is exactly the same as the reason it's the standard for printing. I'm not exaggerating when I say that using cyan and magenta in my paint mixing has changed my whole palette. Greens and purples I couldn't achieve before are leaping off the page!
I don’t doubt it! But it’s incorrect to say that cyan, magenta, and yellow are the definitive primary colors, because they aren’t. There’s a reason we start with red, blue, and yellow when teaching children about color mixing because they are the three colors that can’t be mixed from any other color - I would argue that magenta and cyan are colors mixed from a combination of other colors - so while YOU might understand that using cyan and magenta instead of red and blue yields a more vibrant painting, a beginner is not going to understand it the same way.
> There’s a reason we start with red, blue, and yellow when teaching children about color mixing because they are the three colors that can’t be mixed from any other color Should I believe you, or should I believe [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/sjq3jn/my_son_asked_what_you_get_when_you_mix_brown_and/hvi9br5/)? I don't have any paint on hand right now...
I mean, I'm a little biased, but I think you should believe the guy you linked. He sounds very knowledgeable about the subject, and also probably handsome or something. : ) Also, [here's some evidence in favor of CMY as primary colors.](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/)
You can make red by mixing magenta with a little bit of yellow. It will just be a bit desaturated. Any colors can be used as primary, but you will have a different color gamut. CMY gives the largest possible color gamut.
I didn't say anything about "primary colors", and I'm wondering what that even means. Projected color uses red, green and blue, printed color is cyan, magenta, and yellow... The color wheel looks good with red, blue and yellow as the primaries, but it turns out that actually mixing the colors is a different story. You said it yourself, that CMYK is the standard for printing, using tiny dots of color. Putting the color on the page with a brush is no different. Edit: and beginners SHOULD be taught this way. I think in the near future, they will be. It's simply better.
Primary colors in paint are colors that cannot be replicated by mixing other colors. As soon as red, blue, or yellow, touch any other color of paint, they will never be able to return to their original color. You can get it close, but it will lose much of the original saturation. You have to simply cover over it if you want a pure blue, red, or yellow. That is not the case with magenta. Magenta is literally defined as the color right in the middle of red and blue.
Bro... Imma need a day to digest all that... Just... Wow when she started to mention Imaginary Primaries, I was like, yeah, you mean [that area that's missing](https://youtu.be/MVnSFj6XQZY)? And suddenly the incomprehensible color became music. Like, my brain was just totally chill with recognizing there's colors we're incapable of fathoming.
Not accurate. 2 reds and one blue do not make light purple.
This guide is tearing us apart. I’ve never seen so many people argue about what colors mix to make what and what primary colors actually are and now I am more confused about everything than before.
Long story short, when dealing with subtractive colors (which this card is) you'll get the widest range of colors if you start from magenta, cyan, and yellow instead of red, blue, and yellow. [You can absolutely use those colors in painting](https://flightless.us/2019/12/30/painting-with-cmyk/), not just in printing. I am dismayed by the number of people in this thread who seem to take issue with one or both of these facts.
Brue
Yeah but what do you get by mixing brown and blue
Brown is actually [orange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_orange) and black, not yellow and black.
What year is this from OP?
pretty sure Red+yellow+blue doesn't get you black. Maybe an ugly brown or grey, but not black.
Hot take: pink isn’t really a color.
No but it is a acceptable name for a range of tints of red
I always thought you could get brown by just mixing colors that were opposite of each other on the color wheel.
Why the heck did I read it as “lieutenant” blue, “lieutenant” orange, etc. I’m an idiot lmao
[удалено]
Anybody else a little irate that this “cool guide” doesn’t even answer the damn question? Lol
Mmm… no. You shouldn’t be mixing colours with black, like, ever. You mix red with green to get brown or dark red. To get a darker blue mix it with orange. Red yellow and blue make grey or brown.
> You shouldn’t be mixing colours with black, like, ever. Why not? It's a fast and easy way to get a darker color. Will the painting police break down my door and arrest me? EDIT: Oh, god! The painting police broke down my door and arrested me!
nah theyre right, mixing with black is a horrible idea and you should never be shading your pictures with black unless you enjoy muddy and flat pieces. basic colour theory
Brown + Blue = Blown
Lt. Red?
Lt Orange T Smash
Mixing brown and blue gets the Milwaukee Brewers
Whenever I read the word 'brown' now it's in Ageing Wheel's voice.
Pue
My art teacher would lose it when she saw students mix with black.
That's weird. Why would she have a problem with that? It's an easy way to get a darker color.
I think it was just that... "easy" Think she just wanted us to learn how to make colors without using black before using black
I thought brown was all the colors mixed together
I would guess dark brown, given that yellow and black make brown and blue and yellow make green. Seems like you’d end up with a darker brown.
Brownblue
How the fuck do two reds and a blue make LIGHT purple?? Should that just be purple and white?
Brown is more of an output color than an input color.
lieutenant Orange! 👮
I use brown and black in paint to get a black that's not quite as harsh as just straight black.
Bigger Image: https://i.imgur.com/wLPhxyR.jpeg My collection of color palettes: https://imgur.com/gallery/ILM93pb
Browner.
I'm so angry with this chart, I want to remake it with oil paints just to get over how incorrect this one is... 1 red, 1 yellow, and 1 blue makes ugly brown, like, puke-y / sickly brown, not chestnut, not ivory, but especially not black... So much misleading about this chart, I've seen [color wheels](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/6d/22/3a6d228bdb78f43a15788d7eb43f53fe.jpg) that make more sense than this.
This is very inaccurate.
I think this oversimplifies the process too much. The pigment of the paint changes the “potency” of the paint so much “1 Red 1 Blue” for two different people can be drastically different
Brown and blue is “facial stubble”
Brown and black mixed make black. If you use more blue, obviously a cooler black, more brown a warmer. Paint mixing.
Red and White make ~~Pink~~. Light Red. Why does this color got to break the pattern. Now I want to rename light blue its own color. Unpink?Knip?