Are white and black considered colors?

[bluedasher]

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.

Yes, I understand that. So there is really no citation that anyone could give to prove there theory. The question that this thread is based on is purely personal preference that you could back up with a plausible explanation. As far as theories go, most of them tend to lean towards the conclusion that black is not a color as far as I've seen.

 

[hatter]

I'll say this again:

Scientists don't care if black and/or white should be labeled as colors. The only important thing is that black absorbs all light and white reflects all light. Red, for instance, absorbs a lot of light and reflects only a small range of light... same with blue, green, magenta, turquoise, and every other color. Black and white are special, but the classification of white or black is irrelevant and obviously no one side can convince the other.

 

[Stefan]

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.

That's a different issue, though. We weren't talking about whether an object has a color if there's no light, we were talking about whether black is a color.

Yours is an interesting question as well, but I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the object wouldn't have a color.

Why don't you back up your argument with a website that says something along the lines of, "Black is not a color?"

Huh? Why would I try to back up my argument with a website disagreeing with me? That appears to be your job.

but once again can you show me a website that proves your theory?

Again: I'm neither of the opinion that black is a color, nor am I of the opinion that it isn't. I say it depends on the definition.

If you want me to show a site that says black is a color... what about the Rochester one I already showed?

Red is a color because it reflects/absorbs light.

Black also absorbs light, so now you're saying it is a color? You're confusing.

when there is no light for the object to reflect/absorb the object that is red will be black.

Way to change the subject. This is not about the color an object has, this is about whether black is a color.

 

[bluedasher]

Black also absorbs light, so now you're saying it is a color? You're confusing. Way to change the subject. This is not about the color an object has, this is about whether black is a color.

Black does absorb light, but it doesn't reflect any and I'm not mistaken the reflected light is what we see. I was answering your question. "So if there's no light, red is not a color?"

 

[cmhardw]

That's a different issue, though. We weren't talking about what color an object has if there's no light, we were talking about whether black is a color.

Yeah, but I think the question is still interesting. The answer seems to depend on the definition of color.

Let's consider two camps:

1) Black is a color
If color is the brain's perception of a certain input from the retinas through the optical nerve, then then a red apple is the color black (or dark gray) when left in a darkened room and perceived by a person.

If color is a property of an object (i.e. the chemical structure of the surface of the item dictates that it will absorb all wavelengths of light except for those that fall within the spectrum we call "red"), then even in a darkened room with no light at all that apple is still the color red.

2) Black is not a color

If color is the brain's perception of a certain input from the retinas through the optical nerve, then a red apple has no color (or has the color dark gray) when left in a darkened room and perceived by a person.

If color is a property of an object (i.e. the chemical structure of the surface of the item dictates that it will absorb all wavelengths of light except for those that fall within the spectrum we call "red"), then even in a darkened room with no light at all that apple is still the color red.

At least that's how I see it so far. The problem with this line of thinking is that we run into the issue of "What color does the apple have if no one is looking at it," which again depends on the definition of property of the object, or perceived state of the object. However, I still find the question interesting.

 

[bluedasher]

Chris: You didn't sign your name at the end of your post. Haha.

 

[cmhardw]

Chris: You didn't sign your name at the end of your post. Haha.

I'm trying to wean myself off of that

 

[Stefan]

Black does absorb light

Black doesn't absorb light, black things do.

but it doesn't reflect any

A black body, not black, indeed doesn't. Go on...

and I'm not mistaken the reflected light is what we see.

Now you've lost me. What's your point here?

You seem to have somehow missed this, btw:

but once again can you show me a website that proves your theory?

Again: I'm neither of the opinion that black is a color, nor am I of the opinion that it isn't. I say it depends on the definition.

If you want me to show a site that says black is a color... what about the Rochester one I already showed?

 

[bluedasher]

Stefan: What I meant by this: "and I'm not mistaken the reflected light is what we see." is that if colors reflect light and we see colors, yet black doesn't reflect light so it is not a color. Looking back at that post by me I am seeing how that can confuse somebody. As far as your Rochester website that you did indeed give a link to, it really isn't relevant anymore. When I asked you for a source I figured based on your other posts that you were defending the fact that black and white were colors and I wanted you to prove it. However, you don't think that, so don't back up what you don't think.

 

[Stefan]

Yeah, but I think the question is still interesting.

Yes, I agree, I was just too slow to edit that in.

colors reflect light and we see colors,

Again: colors don't reflect light, objects do.

yet black doesn't reflect light so it is not a color.

You still haven't given a reason why not reflecting light means that black isn't a color.

As far as your Rochester website that you did indeed give a link to, it really isn't relevant anymore.

Yeah, sure, continue ignoring that site. You claim "scientifically speaking" black isn't a color, ask for a website saying it is one, and conveniently ignore the by far most scientific source presented which clearly states "There is no question that black and white are colors". Well done, you're hopeless, and I'm out of here.

 

[Dene]

@Chris:

Of course an apple in a room with no light is still red. There might be insufficient lighting to activate the cones that perceive colour so the object will be perceived in shades of grey, but given sufficient light (not much is needed) the true nature of the object will be seen.

That is, the colour is a property of the object.

To be honest this is more of a philosophical argument though. Berkeley might disagree.

 

[Stefan]

One more little thing...

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.

No, not really. I haven't seen any scientists "debate" it. I've just seen them having differing opinions. As hatter pointed out, scientists don't really care much (of course they might have an opinion about it and share it if asked, for example by us).

 

[JL58]

May I stress again that colors don't really exist? It's just coming from a fabricated resonance of 2 resonators (one for blue wavelength and one for red wavelength) in our eyes. The real world is black, white and shades of grey, only defined by the intensity of light.
But as far as I can see through my human eyes the decoding of the light combination I receive is translated in blue, green, yellow, etc. depending on the overall light intensity, its blue component level and its red component level.

Trying to translate this to sound you realize that our eye is a very poor sensor: its like hearing a noise and being able to say how loud it is, how much of a middle C it contains and how much of the next G key it contains - no more. Well the eye is actually very powerful as it can do this crude analysis for any point in the field of view at the same time, and that's a lot of information. But as a frequency analyzer it is not the best tool we have.

Going back to colors, the perception we have can be modeled in the YCrCb space (Y is the luminance or overall light intensity, Cr is the level of the red component of light and Cb the blue component). A zero value for both Cr and Cb correspond to all shade of grey (from black to white). Any non zero value of Cr or Cb will add hue to the perceived color. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr if you're curious (Stephan is right, lots of good stuff there )
Black and white belong to this space, as much as all shades of grey. And all of those are only singularities of the color space we can perceive.

If we were missing one of the eye pigments (extreme case of color blindness) we would see all shades of gray, including black and white and anything going from bright red to teal, but no blue, green yellow or orange in the case blue was missing, or from vivid blue to yellowish orange, but without purple, green, or red in the case red was missing.

If we had one more pigment type, TV's would need one more color to display beyond RGB. Its like seeing space in the 4 dimensions compared to what we are used to. Hard to comprehend.

All this to say (again): colors are only created by physiological benefits of 2 frequency resonators and have no physical reality. The real world is just grey. Our preceptions of pitch black and bright white are very subjective, reflecting our limitation as a light sensing machine. We see black when the light level is just too low for our sensor to feel. We see white when all our sensors (luminance, red an blue) are saturated in the narrow spectrum we are receptive to.

One more thing, from a very different angle: when a kid asks for the color of an object and s/he's told it's black or white he understand exactly what the answer is. A kid's learning about black, white, red, green or pink is the same. We all know what a black cat or a white T-shirt look like. These are perfect descriptors of the intensity of light and color saturation our eyes would receive when we see one. This are perfect descriptors of what our brain integrates and of how our data processing is functioning.

I think white and black belong to the color space

 

[Stefan]

Ugh, another little thing:

When I asked you for a source I figured based on your other posts that you were defending the fact that black and white were colors and I wanted you to prove it.

1. I was defending the opinion that black and white are colors. It is valid.
2. You asked me for a site that says black is not a color.
3. Again: you don't prove or disprove definitions.

 

[cmhardw]

Ugh, another little thing:

Stefan, are you sure you weren't meaning to quote bluedasher there? I don't remember posting that.

 

[rock1313]

black and white is a shade

 

[Stefan]

Chris: oops, my mistake, probably caused by the new forum software repeatedly including quotes I've long used already so I have to cut them out. Will fix.

black and white is a shade

The question is whether they're colors.

 

[bluedasher]

Ugh, another little thing:
1. I was defending the opinion that black and white are colors. It is valid.

Why defend something that is not your opinion? I already know that under the right circumstances black can be considered a color. Merely can it not be considered a color? I believe that you can look at this question (Which is almost flawed considering there is no right answer) and say black is a color and it is not a color. This almost isn't worth debating since everyone will still refer to black as a color if proven otherwise.

 

[Stefan]

Why defend something that is not your opinion?

It is valid. Always defending truth and reason. One of my biggest flaws. Huge waste of time.

I believe that you can look at this question (Which is almost flawed considering there is no right answer)

There are several right answers.

I believe that you can look at this question [...] and say black is a color and it is not a color.

Of course I can. And I do. Like I clearly stated at least two times! Where have you been?!

 

[bluedasher]

It is valid. Always defending truth and reason. One of my biggest flaws.
There are several right answers.
Of course I can. And I do. Like I clearly stated at least two times! Where have you been?!

When I say there is no right answer I'm implying that there are multiply answers that could be considered right.

I guess it doesn't seem like you are defending both possibilities because you seem determined to prove my theory false when no one can prove anything. We can only state that there are two theories that have not been proven.