Are white and black considered colors?

[cmhardw]

Anyway, as I hope is clear now, different people have different opinions about this, even scientists. And I stand by my earlier assertion that the only wrong opinion is the opinion that one's own color-opinion is the sole correct one and that different color-opinions are wrong.

Well said.

 

[Stefan]

I didn't realize you had double posted earlier

Argh. The whole point of double-posting is to have you not miss the additional information

I'd really like for them to include where that definition can be found.

Well, not surprisingly (though surprisingly far down), their page does cover the question "What is color?":
http://www.cis.rit.edu/research/mcsl2/outreach/faq.php?catnum=#230

 

[hatter]

Honestly, as an engineering student, I think (as in I admit I can in no way know this for sure, it is just a speculation) that the reason science hasn't "agreed" upon a solid answer on this is because it is completely insignificant. And, you know what? I'm really glad! I'd rather people put their brains to finding higgs-boson, the cure to cancer, or any number of things rather than waste their time on something as petty as the title of black or white.


I think I do have some weight in this to say that I am an optical engineering major so everything I do deals with light and how it is affected. Black and white can be very important but if they are colors or not is of no value to me (and, as I would assume, any other scientist, artist, etc).

 

[bluedasher]

Note he didn't say "It is the absence of color". At best, that's an incomplete answer. He'd need to define what color and light are and how they relate to each other. Pretty pathetic if that was his whole answer.

Yeah,that response doesn't seem too detailed. However, "Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of light, as it is reflected or absorbed, as received by the human eye and processed by the human brain" Quote taken from this website:
http://www.devx.com/projectcool/Article/19954

So the absence of light inevitably, is the absence of color.

 

[Kirjava]

Black and white are colours. I am correct.

PROVE ME WRONG.

 

[Metroidam11]

Stupid thread. Of course its a color! Anything that you can see has a pigment. The absence of light is darkness. You see black in darkness. But it is also possible to see black in the light. Like someone said earlier, its like saying 0 is not a number. Even though it is. This shouldn't be a debate. When you say white is all colors you are referring to light, not colors. Colors are the pigments that are reflected from an object when light hits it.

 

[bluedasher]

Black and white are colours. I am correct.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Prove yourself.

 

[Kirjava]

I already proved it by stating that I was correct.

 

[MichaelP.]

I really don't know enough about this to state anything useful that I'm sure about and I'm completely speculating, but I don't think that black is a color, because it is the extremes that we cannot see. If the definition of color is reflected light unto are pupils, then black wouldn't be a color because it doesn't reflect light. From what I understand though, the black that doesn't reflect light is like the inside a black hole, where as the black of anything we can see (for example an off TV screen) is pseudo-black. So pseudo-black is a color, and black isn't.

 

[bluedasher]

I already proved it by stating that I was correct.

Since when is that proof? What are you, a god who knows all or something?

 

[Stefan]

Yeah,that response doesn't seem too detailed. However, "Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of light, as it is reflected or absorbed, as received by the human eye and processed by the human brain" Quote taken from this website:
http://www.devx.com/projectcool/Article/19954

So the absence of light inevitably, is the absence of color.

You're a quite funny guy.

1. That's a different source. You don't know whether the first agrees with this. Beware, you might not get what you want.

2. "Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of light, as it is reflected or absorbed". Black absorbs quite a lot, don't you think?

3. But this part is the most fun: "CMYK stands for cyan, magenta, yellow, black -- the four colors that make up the standard printing process". Yep, that very article calls black a color.

So you combine the two sources and get that black is a color that is the absence of color. Cool.

Why do you guys keep pointing out texts that disagree with you? You're making this way too easy.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Argh. The whole point of double-posting is to have you not miss the additional information

Ha, I think what happened was I was writing my reply before you got that second post in. Actually, I was somewhat surprised to see the double post, but then realized it's because you wanted me to see it in the event I had already read your post. I do agree though, and just like Chris said: "Well said."

Why do you guys keep pointing out texts that disagree with you? You're making this way too easy.

Lol. At least some texts disagree with themselves

 

[bluedasher]

You're a quite funny guy.

1. That's a different source. You don't know whether the first agrees with this. Beware, you might not get what you want.

2. "Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of light, as it is reflected or absorbed". Black absorbs quite a lot, don't you think?

3. But this part is the most fun: "CMYK stands for cyan, magenta, yellow, black -- the four colors that make up the standard printing process". Yep, that very article calls black a color.

So you combine the two sources and get that black is a color that is the absence of color. Cool.

Why do you guys keep pointing out texts that disagree with you? You're making this way too easy.

That's a good idea. Lets keep editing your message and make it impossible for people to respond to the right post. Yes, I think black does absorb light. Notice, IT NEEDS LIGHT TO ABSORB. No light equals no color. Color is a relative term. People refer to black and white as colors, but they are not. Scientifically speaking they are not colors.

 

[Stefan]

Sorry about the editing. I wrote pretty much what's there now, then realized I didn't actually get your point and asked for it instead, then got your point and realized you really don't make sense and put the original back, pretty much just adding the "so you combine" line.

And again: Why do you try to argue using an article that actually disagrees with you?

Scientifically speaking they are not colors.

[citation needed]

 

[Stefan]

No light equals no color.

So if there's no light, red is not a color?

 

[Kirjava]

What are you, a god who knows all or something?

I must be. No-one has challenged my statement with contradictory information.

 

[cmhardw]

So if there's no light, red is not a color?

OOooooohhh...... I've mostly been lurking, but this comment piques my interest.

If color is determined by light and perception of things at that moment, then yes a red object in a darkened room (read: pitch black) has no color. Or you could make a reasonable argument that its color is black at that moment in time.

If color is a property of a shape, determining how it will reflect light, then a red object that is in a pitch black room is still red, even in the absence of light.

Wow..... ok this brings me into the discussion now. I never thought about a red apple being a black apple when the lights are turned off. But this is how my mind would perceive it (or at least dark gray, since there would need to be enough light that I could know that I was looking at an apple). Or, perhaps the dark gray apple is still a red apple, I am only perceiving it as dark gray because of the lower lighting.

My head asplode go boom

Chris

 

[bluedasher]

Sorry about the editing. I wrote pretty much what's there now, then realized I didn't actually get your point and asked for it instead, then got your point and realized you really don't make sense and put the original back, pretty much just adding the "so you combine" line.

And again: Why do you try to argue using an article that actually disagrees with you?

"Scientifically speaking they are not colors."
[citation needed]

I'll repeat this again. Color is a relative term. Of course people refer to black as colors, but IMO it isn't. Also many websites agree with me. Why don't you back up your argument with a website that says something along the lines of, "Black is not a color?"

I guess I meant IMO and since many websites agree with me I take it as scientific proof. As far as the citation goes I probably should have one, but once again can you show me a website that proves your theory?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Bluedasher: I'm not sure if you have read through the post history in this thread, but if you have, you would understand that at best you will find this is debated even by scientists against scientists.

Chris: The red apple with the light turned off is in one of the articles Stefan or I mentioned, the one that says "No light and color." I think it even says the apple is still red.

 

[bluedasher]

So if there's no light, red is not a color?

Yeah, that's what I've always heard. Red is a color because it reflects/absorbs light. However, when there is no light for the object to reflect/absorb the object that is red will be black. At least that's what I have heard. I wonder, however, if absorbing light is almost like sticking a metal spoon in a flame. After you take the spoon out of the flame it is still hot. this might apply to why the object that is red could be red for a bit longer without light.