The bulk update request #7366 is active.

change category primary_colors (1) -> meta
create alias pastel (0) -> pastel_theme (1529)
change category pastel_theme (1529) -> meta

Reason: Other color theme related tags are in meta, so should these.

"Pastel" is sort of ambiguous even though the tag is consistently used for pastel colors, it would be best to match colorful_theme.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7366 (forum #398719) has been approved by @slyroon.

Alternatively we can just mass update pastel to pastel_theme and alias it to a disambiguation. I'm working on cleaning it up RN though and there aren't that many mistags. Did get to create pastel_(object) though.

The bulk update request #7366 (forum #398719) has been approved by @slyroon.

hmmm...
I'm not a huge fan of calling a tag "primary_colors" when it's seemingly specifically RBY, rather than either set of actual primary colors.

dba_afish said:
hmmm...
I'm not a huge fan of calling a tag "primary_colors" when it's seemingly specifically RBY, rather than either set of actual primary colors.

Could have called it vivid or bright_theme, I guess.

dba_afish said:
hmmm...
I'm not a huge fan of calling a tag "primary_colors" when it's seemingly specifically RBY, rather than either set of actual primary colors.

Yeah, this is a problem.

Magenta/Yellow/Cyan is negative primaries based on absorption and science of light.
Red/Green/Blue is positive primaries based on emission and science of light.
Red/Yellow/Blue is weird historic one that makes little sense compared to CYM(K). Isn't it still taught when learning how to mix colors in early education?
Calling yellow a secondary color because it's made of green and red ranges of photons shows how we should be specifying what color space we're talking about. :facepalm:
Incidentally, yellow as actually perceived is based on the antagonistic theory where some cells get triggered by photons nearer to red more often than other cells more sensitive to yellow and green, right? Thus RG colorblindness often still allows distinction of blue against what are effectively browns.

That thing with overlap allows for fun stuff like hypothetically adding invisible watermarks that can only be detected if you have a way to discriminate two very close wavelengths. Of course there's cameras with said multispectral features.

coffeeco said:
Could have called it vivid or bright_theme, I guess.

honestly, I don't see a problem with having something like rby_focused_palette, along with any other fairly comon palette. the problem is that calling that primary_colors is, like, ambiguous... and also not technically correct.

although a quite a bit of the stuff in primary_colors is CYR, or MBY...

dba_afish said:
I'm not a huge fan of calling a tag "primary_colors" when it's seemingly specifically RBY, rather than either set of actual primary colors.

I wouldn't call RBY "primary colors". As far as our eyes are concerned, RGB are the primary colors as those are what our cones are tuned to, and any other visible color is some ratio of these. Computer graphics, LEDs, and many other uses are based on RGB being the primary colors. If we're talking subtractive colors, that would be CYM. Calling RBY primary colors will definitely lead to confusion and mistags.

watsit said:
I wouldn't call RBY "primary colors". As far as our eyes are concerned, RGB are the primary colors as those are what our cones are tuned to, and any other visible color is some ratio of these. Computer graphics, LEDs, and many other uses are based on RGB being the primary colors. If we're talking subtractive colors, that would be CYM. Calling RBY primary colors will definitely lead to confusion and mistags.

Also, this site is using images displayed on screens, and with exceptions of some eInk stuff, AFAIK all of them are RGB so it's not really arbitrary to use the positive primaries definition.

For fun, good ol' Ponyynton: https://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html
There's many many color spaces than these 3 obvious ones. Half of the point of hue-based systems is human perception. The frequently-questioned answers one is kind of funny, if you deal with CRTs. The last point about perception and lossy compression actually sort of applies to this topic.

alphamule said:
Also, this site is using images displayed on screens, and with exceptions of some eInk stuff, AFAIK all of them are RGB so it's not really arbitrary to use the positive primaries definition.

For fun, good ol' Ponyynton: https://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html
There's many many color spaces than these 3 obvious ones. Half of the point of hue-based systems is human perception. The frequently-questioned answers one is kind of funny, if you deal with CRTs.

What about scanned traditional media?

dba_afish said:
honestly, I don't see a problem with having something like rby_focused_palette, along with any other fairly comon palette. the problem is that calling that primary_colors is, like, ambiguous... and also not technically correct.

although a quite a bit of the stuff in primary_colors is CYR, or MBY...

Well it only says "primary_ colors" so it can include/combine both positive primary and negative primary, maybe.

coffeeco said:
What about scanned traditional media?

Well, that's kind of the point. The entire reason they qualify negative and positive primaries in the first place is because they're (supposed to be) entirely out of phase on a color wheel like the one at this article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikpTVwlXp7E Oh, neat, a good explanation. Yeah, some use the subtractive and additive terms, instead. You can safely stop it once it gets to the ad for the courses unless you are actually joining that class. ;)

An actual wheel: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/RGB_color_wheel_10.svg

watsit said:
I wouldn't call RBY "primary colors". As far as our eyes are concerned, RGB are the primary colors as those are what our cones are tuned to, and any other visible color is some ratio of these. Computer graphics, LEDs, and many other uses are based on RGB being the primary colors. If we're talking subtractive colors, that would be CYM. Calling RBY primary colors will definitely lead to confusion and mistags.

I called it that because that's what I've always heard the palette called. T-T They're the primary colors of traditional color theory, not screen-wise. I guess it could be updated to red_blue_and_yellow if necessary.

Actually, I'm fine with rby_palette, too. I wasn't aware of the ambiguity.

The bulk update request #7572 is pending approval.

mass update primary_colors -> rby_palette
change category rby_palette (1) -> meta # missing

Reason: Fixing ambiguity I wasn't aware of, oops! See above.

Should be an easy fix since the tag hasn't been used much yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HHCQnyxCj8 LOL, the comments on this one.

https://youtu.be/0HHCQnyxCj8?t=246 This point where he shows the deficiencies of color spaces with skewed axis is great example.

A literal colored wheel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lil4co0z7QA
Better version, with mixing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37vPrNagz8M

nimphia said:
I called it that because that's what I've always heard the palette called. T-T They're the primary colors of traditional color theory, not screen-wise. I guess it could be updated to red_blue_and_yellow if necessary.

Actually, I'm fine with rby_palette, too. I wasn't aware of the ambiguity.

Kinda weird that there was not much discussion before the approval.

coffeeco said:
Kinda weird that there was not much discussion before the approval.

My apologies, if someone had brought it up before it was approved I would have changed the BUR before this went through.

I feel like something like high_saturation or saturated_pallet would probably be the most useful, it's less restricted and a bit easier to understand.

nimphia said:
My apologies, if someone had brought it up before it was approved I would have changed the BUR before this went through.

Nope, it's not really your fault. Like I did upvoted your BUR, too.

dba_afish said:
I feel like something like high_saturation or saturated_pallet would probably be the most useful, it's less restricted and a bit easier to understand.

That sounds better. I thought RGB focus would get few to no posts (coz it excludes yellow.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color BTW, human vision has all kinds of screwy flaws like this.

alphamule said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color BTW, human vision has all kinds of screwy flaws like this.

chimerical colors have always been kinda suspect to me. I can't fathom why making some of your cones less sensitive by fatiguing them would allow you to see an impossible color. that'd be like saying putting rubber bands on an analog stick would allow you to push in new direction.

coffeeco said:
Kinda weird that there was not much discussion before the approval.

There are many BURs, and there are fewer approved BURs. Easier to give attention to the consequences when they're already in force

nimphia said:
The bulk update request #7572 is pending approval.

mass update primary_colors -> rby_palette
change category rby_palette (1) -> meta # missing

Reason: Fixing ambiguity I wasn't aware of, oops! See above.

Should be an easy fix since the tag hasn't been used much yet.

To be clear it's restrictive on purpose because I wanted to see images with this palette. Not that a general saturated colors tag is a bad idea, it's just not the subject I had in mind. I was also unfortunately just unaware of the ambiguity of the term I used.

nimphia said:
To be clear it's restrictive on purpose because I wanted to see images with this palette. Not that a general saturated colors tag is a bad idea, it's just not the subject I had in mind. I was also unfortunately just unaware of the ambiguity of the term I used.

the problem is that not all of these are even RBY here are a few (not all) examples.

CYM
post #1055870 post #3921528 post #4578335 post #2948273

RCY
post #4138645 post #4223239
post #3751013 post #4338269

other
MBY: post #4671628
RGB char + Y background post #2796074

dba_afish said:
the problem is that not all of these are even RBY here are a few (not all) examples.

CYM
post #1055870 post #3921528 post #4578335 post #2948273

RCY
post #4138645 post #4223239
post #3751013 post #4338269

other
MBY: post #4671628
RGB char + Y background post #2796074

They look like shades of blue and red to me. Shrugs. Cyan and magenta aren't valid colors on e621, I thought?

nimphia said:
They look like shades of blue and red to me. Shrugs. Cyan and magenta aren't valid colors on e621, I thought?

Cyan was given new life with "teal" colors being un-aliased. Teal being a colloquial term for shades of cyan.
Magenta is still stuck in the purple/red/pink confluence, however.

Are there any other suggestions for what to do with this tag then? I just feel like saturated_palette etc are rather non-specific and cover a whole lot of things.

My only other idea is to just mass update to colorful_theme and leave it at that.

nimphia said:
They look like shades of blue and red to me. Shrugs. Cyan and magenta aren't valid colors on e621, I thought?

teal_* is cyan and pink_* is currently kind of pulling double dusty covering most of magenta as well as lighter shades of red.

dba_afish said:
chimerical colors have always been kinda suspect to me. I can't fathom why making some of your cones less sensitive by fatiguing them would allow you to see an impossible color. that'd be like saying putting rubber bands on an analog stick would allow you to push in new direction.

Because there's neurons setup for both black and white presence, you can trigger both. It's actually an illusion that occurs in the brain, itself. You can't physically have both yellow and blue, but you have separate paths for those that can be activated at the same time. This is even mentioned in the article, sigh.