“Labs”… is that for one-off photo printing or commercial printing? I don’t have a print vendor on my list that doesn’t insist on CYMK. But yes, photo-grade printing in limited quantities is optimized around RGB files. I think that’s as much “relaxing to the inevitable” as for for considered reasons.
The reason why tinting using hex or (8 bit) rgb isn’t intuitive and is difficult is because tinting means to mix a uniform amount of white into the color making it brighter. It’s not a saturation thing but a luminance thing.
A 70% tint of FFB600 (255, 182, 0) would look more like FFECB3 (255, 236, 179).
You can check rgb/hex values here
Are you sure? That looks like the numbers for 30% tint instead of 70%. At least the way I parse it, 70% tint is still mostly the base color, with 30% white mixed in.
Since it’s an additive model you’d use the inverse.
In subtractive models, a 70% tint would mean to mix in 70% white.
I should clarify this a bit. The terminology is already a bit arbitrary, and when tinting paint, pigments or anything else in the subtractive color model, it’s not a 1:1 ratio to get an absolute tint value (i.e. If you wanted to tint a color by 90%, this doesn’t necessarily mean all you’d need to do is add 90% white by volume to get a true 90% tint).
And working in the almost absolutes of digital RGB space, additive on top of everything else, well, it muddies the terminology and what might be meant by it, so to speak.
All in all, tinting is an archaic word to even use in the OP’s application.
Here’s a quick color swatch showing both 30% and 70% tints of FFB600 and their respective rgb/hex values I threw together in photoshop.
I guess I’m confused. I’m basically using the term 70% tint to mean 70% saturation, which would give a number of #ffcc4d. I think of 100% tint to mean our original value, #ffb600, and 0% tint would give us white #ffffff, so 70% tint is #ffcc4d, while 30% tint is #ffe9b2 (which is pretty much your number.)
ETA: Just saw your diagram. So 100% tint would then mean white, by that definition? I would have guessed 0% tint would be the one without color and 100% tint to be the one with full color, but it is not a word I use in this context. (For me, Tint is generally used for magenta-green values.) If that’s the case, the equation I gave above can be modified by substituting (1-S) for S.
No, it makes sense. A “70% tint” means that you have 7/10ths as much color strength as the pure hue. In subtractive color (RGB) you get that by dialing in “30% white” or increasing the component color values by around 30% each. (You make it lighter/whiter by increasing R, G, and B in equal amounts.)
In additive color (CMYK) you lighten the color by reducing the color values by 30% - effectively, by adding 30% white dilutant, whether it’s white ink base or by reducing ink coverage to let the nominally white paper show more. (You make it lighter/whiter by reducing the tint content.)
OK, but then you should get the color that is more yellow, not the one that is more pastel. Look at cmyk’s link. His 70% tint is the “more white” version than the 30% tint. See what I’m saying? By that model 0% tint is pure color, and 100% tint is pure white.
Tint, by conventional terms, means to increase it’s “whiteness” or brightness/lightness. Indeed, it is how you arrive at pastels.
Increasing saturation isn’t the same as tinting, where the chroma or hue is bound to change, because you are pushing the vividness of the hue more toward full strength of a primary or secondary hue.
If we replace “tint” with “add white”, it’s basically the same meaning. So, in Photoshop, I simply laid two squares of white atop the original base color (FFB600), and set their opacity to 30% and 70% to get their respective tints.
Ok, so 100% tint is white, and 0% tint is pure color. That’s all I need to know.
So, in my original formula, substitute (1-S) for S. I was going under the assumption that 100% tint meant full color and 0% tint would be white.
As for tinting not being the same as saturation, I was using the HSB model to come up with the formula, and hue stays the same throughout, while saturation varies. So the numbers in my formula should not alter the hue value at all.
Although note that the OP interprets 70% tint to mean 70% strength. In that case, my original formula, or what you call “30% tint” is what the OP desires. (A value of #ffcc4d in this case.) But it would help if the question were better defined.
Right. It’s hard to say because it’s easy enough to interpret “tint” or “strength” either way.
I was just going off what is conventionally meant by tinting a color (whereas to darken a color would be “shading” it).
Yeah, I knew that part of my post would generate some discussion. Keep in mind this was almost a decade ago, but most industrial print operations worked off of CMYK. Think high-volume, like the printed boxes packs of soda/beer come in. If you were just sending a few things to a laser/inkjet printer, then RGB was fine.
I’d argue that this usage is as archaic as printers talking about “red” and “blue” ink. I’ve never heard “tint” used in that context - everything I can rummage up is the reverse. You don’t “tint” red to a pastel pink; you “tint” white with some red.
I didn’t know cmyk’s usage before this thread, but if you google “tint and shade” you should find plenty of support that say it is the adding of white to a color (it’s not phrased as adding color to white.) It appears to be the way the word is used in basic art theory (which surprised me, because somehow I must have missed that.)
So, if you accept the definition that tinting is adding white to a color, I suppose the idea that 80% tint means 80% white makes sense. But I really can’t find any website that uses the value of tint in percentages. Well, there is this, but that is using tint in the way you and I interpreted it in the OP.
I don’t know how this fits into it exactly, but in car window tinting terminology, 0% tint would be black, 100% tint would be see-through, so that might be the opposite of what we both would have expected.
Personally, I’m going to stick with the conclusion that this problem is ill-defined, and 70% tint might mean 70% white or it might mean 70% color, depending on who wrote the specs and how they interpret the meaning.
Sure, we did plenty of our own CMYK separations back when I worked at a newspaper. I was somewhat nit-picking, but not completely. I just didn’t want people to be confused and think, oh, if I’m printing, I have to or should be working in CMYK. For your average user, there is little reason to leave the RGB space and, in many cases, reasons not to. I only print small run stuff (mostly photographic albums, but occasionally your traditional offset four-color printing), and every vendor I deal with is fine, if not requires, RGB. Even at the newspaper, they wanted us photographers editing in RGB, and then production would take care of the CMYK conversion. (Although I also worked at a paper where we did work in CMYK).
So, yes, CMYK is almost exclusively used for printing (I would say exclusively, but there are some advanced Photoshop photo editing tricks that make use of CMYK channels), but I didn’t want anyone to think that RGB isn’t also used quite often (and almost exclusively for the average user) to deliver printable files.
Back in the day when I worked in pre-press, running film separations required us to convert any RGB images to CMYK beforehand.
I’ve been out of pre-press and lithography going on 8 years now, and I’m sure most modern software takes care of this process on the fly when printing offset or what-have-you. Certainly printing an RGB image from your home computer to your consumer ink-jet handles the color-manegement and conversion just fine. But in my days of graphic design for print, working directly in the CMYK space made a lot of sense for flooding specific areas with a rich black (c-m-y=30%, k=100%) or having tight control over overprinting, spot colors, etc.
That’s advanced-level graphic design for press technique though, and if someone just wanted to run something 4-color process, no fuss no muss, then I imagine sending straight up RGB images would be perfectly fine for most things.
Which is why I said it’s archaic all around. Using words like “tint”, “shade”, “strength”, etc. all need to be qualified in some way because on its own it’s impossible to determine what is really meant since these words all mean different things in different contexts now-a-days.
That’s an interesting point. I’ll have to look at that some time.