I need a cite that has Brown as only one wavelength of light and not multiple wavelengths.
http://departments.weber.edu/physics/carroll/Wonder/color.htm
(Personal aside follows…)
Back when I used to be a real smart-ass, I would usually identify my favorite color, when asked, by a Pantone number. “So what’s your favorite color?” “Pantone #5988”, I would say, or something like it.
The intended joke of course was that my favorite color would be so ridiculously specific. That at some point in my life I must have browsed through the Pantone catalog, reviewing each sample square, rubbing my chin, taking notes, until finally — aha! — there it is. Sweet, soothing Pantone color #5988. Rapture. I think I’ll paint the den that color. 'Cause right now the walls are a hideous #5987.
No one ever got the joke, and eventually I had to give up on it — after, you know, a couple hundred tries.
Not sure if it will stand up but using a HSL color model one can get pure yellow with luminance at full and brown when it is reduced.
I stand by the statment that all colors cannot be fully described in one dimension and our perception of light is a big part of that. If you want a tail chasing exercise use a windows color picker to make a color that looks like gold.
No you can’t. At least, not with positive values of R, G and B.
A similar quandary with an interesting twist might be: How does one describe colors to a person who was born blind?
Could you elaborate on this?
It can get quite technical but basically, there are colours that can only be made by using both addition and subtraction. ie: (200, 200, -5) is a colour that exists but cant be displayed on a computer monitor.
Correct. Otherwise language would be circular. This can be got around with ostensive definitions. If I point to things stating their names, and you learn this, that can be the basis of a language.
I don’t think you can. Color is a visual medium, and one who is born blind has no frame of reference.
Back in high school we were taught a section on semantics. I remember being told that going “down the ladder” is better than going “up the ladder.” So when someone says “What’s red?” and you answer “It’s a color,” then they say, “What’s color?” But if you answer, “See that fire engine? It’s painted red” then they know what you mean.
In fact, there have been a series of experiments in which people who were blind from birth gained, one way or another, their sight. They could not at first visually distinguish between a ball and a cube, although they had certainly FELT those things before. But with no prior visual point of reference, they were at a loss to know what those objects were. Further, they did not know what to make of a painting. They had never experienced the illusions of three dimensions before, so they originally viewed the paintings as a random array of paint splotches. Again, with no prior referent, they could not identify what they were observing. Which leads me to suspect that, of course, one could not explain nor describe a color to someone who had never seen before. (Incidentally, those experiments had been considered and speculated upon, in theory, years before medical advances made the events actually possible, and many people suspected that a newly seeing person would be able to distinguish between a cube and a sphere. I believe those scientists were unable to ignore their own experience in making their hypotheses.) That is all. xo, C.
Seems to me that most of the group agrees we describe colors by pointing at things of that color. (IMHO, that includes a Pantone color chart.) CC, whether that’s describing colors with colors within the meaning of the OP’s question is something only Thin Lizzy can tell us. I thought (and still think) that s/he meant defining colors by their constituent colors, as for example in the RBG system.
Well, you could go all movie-of-the-week on them.
Dunk their hand in cool water and say “this is blue.”
Rub their hand on a patch of grass and say “this is green.”
Hand them a snowball and say “this is white.”
Put their hand on a hot faucet and say “this is red.”
And, of course, they already know black.
I got nothing for yellow.
The colour of T.J.'s uniform?
Speak for yourself!
Come on, dispell our ignorance! Pretty please?
And,
Can you, um, elaborate on this some more? (Or point us to somewhere that does).
He’s probably referring to color gamuts, and the fact that adding together primary colors really only gets you a subset of all possible colors the human eye can perceive.
Obviously it’s impossible to have a negative amount of blue light, or any other kind.
Here’s Wikipedia’s Color page.
Down near the bottom under 'Measurement and Reproduction of Color" is probably most relevant, along with the links there.
[anecdote]
My girlfriend is one of those rare women who is colorblind. She’s so colorblind that she sees roughly 1/50th of the spectrum that I do. The only method I have to communicate colors to her is using that 1/50th as a point of reference and then adding lots of adjectives and other creative descriptors.
It makes for some interesting situations. The “What color was that car?” game…The “Do the clothes I’m wearing clash?” game…The “I’m no help at painting so I’ll just sit here and sip on iced-tea while you do it” game. It has really been interesting adapting my communication to not rely so much on color.
I honestly have a hard time trying to visualize how she sees the world. Anyone know of any computer programs that might allow me to do so?
Of course she can read a book as thick and chewy as Mists of Avalon in the time it takes to fly from New York to Dublin, and can sit at a piano and compose a piece of music in 5 - 10 minutes. Somehow it just totally deflates any of my assertions like…“Yeah? Well…I can tell the difference between mauve and taupe…so there!” 
[/anecdote]
I didn’t know such an affliction was possible — assuming I’ve understood you right. Do you mean that she sees the world essentially in black & white (and shades of gray), except for a single color of the rainbow? Because 1/50th of the spectrum would be a tiny band, and appear as only one color pretty much.
I just called her and left a message at work, asking for clarification and the particulars of her diagnosis. I believe I’ve probably mis-spoke a bit, or mis-remembered/mis-heard what she said.
It isn’t a single section of the spectrum that she can see, but small portions of it spread out across the whole thing. I’m totally willing to admit that she may have said “15” and I heard “50” as the quantification was relayed over the phone while we were a’courtin’, and I just swallowed and ran with what I thought I’d heard.
The way she said it was something to the effect of: “For every [50/15] colors you see, I see one.”
Aha! Not-fully-listening-to-the-girlfriend trouble. Mmmm hmm.
For your earlier question, I googled around a bit and found this page, which simulates a few types of color blindness. Perhaps she falls into one of those categories.