WMN: t3_35edub_t1_cr3n97f

[TITLE]

CMV: Black and white are colors

[G01denW01f11]

Artists, pedants, and pedantic artists like to say that black and white are not colors, because of some property about not reflecting any light, or something along those lines. I am not saying anything against this definition. If the experts want to define things this way, I'm certainly in no position to say otherwise. However, "Black is a color" should still be a valid statement. My shirt is 'black.' I'm not a color-physicist, but I'm almost certain that it does not completely absorb the full spectrum of colors. If I wanted to be totally correct, I would have to say: "My shirt is a color that very nearly approximates black." (Disproving this would be a very easy way to CMV!) There are enough black-colored items in the world for this to be ridiculous. Thus, it's only logical that when we are casually talking to other humans, and mention the word 'black,' it can be assumed that we're referring to this close-enough faux-black, which does reflect (I'd assume) some light, and thus is totally a color. The argument for white follows similarly. Edit: I'm not saying that it's wrong to say that black and white aren't colors. I'm saying that it's okay to say that they are, in certain contexts. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[fullmontis]

There are two types of cells in our eyes dedicated to sensing light: cones and rods. Cones are the ones that perceive colored light, in particular red, blue and green light. So, if we think about black and white as colors, they should be recognized as colors by the cones. Instead, the concept of black and white (the "value" of the color) is understood by the brain through the other type of cells, the rods. These are almost completely dedicated to seeing a black and white image. So basically, the rods create a black and white image of the scene we are looking at, the cones fill it up with colors. Shadows and light (or black and white if you wish), while still visual input, are a completely separate sensation from colors, even on a biological level. This is also why color blind people see stuff in "black and white", in the most extreme cases.

[phcullen]

Artist deal with color in way that actually refers to the waves that hit your eyes. Paints get their color by blocking some frequencies and reflecting others. Black and white don't do that they reflect all or nothing. (if you turn out the lights does a blue shirt turn black or is it still blue? ). In the colloquial term color referring to what we see black and white are colors but not to artist and not to physicist. Sort of like the child's argument of nothing is something and everything is something. The idea of nothing and everything are both things but you can't have a nothing or a everything like you can have a something. It's all about the perspective.

[k9centipede]

Black and white would be the tint/shade. Like the volume on the tv. So sure, someone might say their favorite TV channel is silence. But that's not really what someone is asking when they ask what your favorite show is.

[AnMatamaiticeoirRua]

But in the context of favorite colors the wavelength probably isn't considered, it's the aesthetic we're talking about.

[k9centipede]

"I like watching GenericActionShow" "but it's so loud" "oh I usually keep the volume low". "My favorite color is orange" "really? It's so bright at tacky!" "Not that shade, the more muted shade. Like in a sunset". When we say a color is our favorite, we usually have a specific shade we are talking about. A darker red versus a brighter red. A blueish shade of purple versus a reddish shade. Etc. Not a perfect analogy, but still.

[niczar]

Pick a color, any color, a bright one. Red, blue, brown, violet ... Now desaturate it a bit. Still the same color. Sometimes with a different word for it, like pink for desatured red, but it's obviously the same color. Now desaturate it more. And more. It's now very light, but you can still see the color. Desaturate it to the max. It's white. No matter what color you start with. Ok let's try again, pick a bright color. Now reduce luminosity. It gets darker and darker, you can still see it's the same color ... until you reach black. Every starting color becomes black.

[JonathanSwaim]

This one doesn't exactly work. When I take red and "desaturate" it, I am not adding white, I am adding blue and green. At least, in terms of how we perceive color and how computer monitors work. Same with reducing luminosity. You just take away red to make it darker. Your argument only works to define color as "Red, Blue, and Green" or as "A combination of Red, Blue, and Green." In neither of these cases is black or white differentiated from, say, purple. I think the only arguments that will work are ones that make the definition "A wavelength on the visible spectrum" (which leaves purple out, but includes yellow and cyan), or one that claims black is absence of light entirely.

[cleansoap]

[STA-CITE]> My shirt is 'black.' I'm not a color-physicist, but I'm almost certain that it does not completely absorb the full spectrum of colors. [END-CITE]You are right, if you can see it then clearly it is not completely absorbing everything. It it, however, absorbing everything *equally*. Unlike every other color. Likewise white is reflecting everything *equally*. Unlike every other color. They are therefore unique and I don't see what the problem is reserving the word and concept of "color" for that which emits/reflects light in a non-equal manner.

[G01denW01f11]

Hmm... what do you mean by absorbing everything equally? That it will absorb the same percentage of each frequency? Is it correct to say that if a thing absorbs everything equally to some degree, it will be some shade of gray? I'm pretty sure you have a good point, I just don't understand enough of it to do anything with it

[cleansoap]

[STA-CITE]> That it will absorb the same percentage of each frequency? [END-CITE]Yes. [STA-CITE]> Is it correct to say that if a thing absorbs everything equally to some degree, it will be some shade of gray? [END-CITE]Not entirely. *In the context of pigments* black could be said to be 0%(reflective) grey, whereas white could be said to be 100% grey. EDIT: if you'll note this is a continuous spectrum (ha, puns again) we call *luminosity* which does not exist on the same axis as "color". EDIT 2: Color is how we define "what frequency of light". Black is how we define "not much light or none at all, so little, in fact, the human receptors can't even really tell what frequency it is because only our monochromatic rods can perceive it, not our frequency-discriminating cones" White is how we define "a whole lotta light, specifiably a whole lotta broad-spectrum light, or at least so much light our rods and cones get overloaded and the brain no longer has the information needed to discriminate frequency accurately".

[ivorystar]

In color theory the reason black and white are not colors is because they are values. They are what makes colors light or dark. When you look at a color swatch you are not just looking at a combination of rgb values but also a combination of black and white mixed in. A pure red is bright, a dark red is red and black. In layman terms if you want to call something black because its purely black you are not wrong but in all technicality it's not a color.

[G01denW01f11]

I think you *might* be on to something here, but I'm not sure what you mean. Are red green and blue not also values in this context?

[ivorystar]

I say rgb because they are typically used to describe hue. That is the color model used for monitors. When it comes to pigment like printing ink the color model is cmyk (because you're not dealing with light but pigment). Think of it this way, a color swatch has certain properties to it. To make it simpler I focused on two: hue which is the color in it's purest form, and the value which dictates the lightness/darkness of the swatch. The 'more' white the swatch has, the 'lighter' the red is, the 'more' black the 'darker' the red, but the color of the swatch is still red, not black or white. That is how we define the lightness/darkness property separate from the color property. You remember that blue dress that sent everyone into a frenzy a couple months ago? Part of the reason it was confusing is because it is simultaneously both color schemes depending on the way your mind perceives the lighting circumstances of the picture. When you do a color picker on the original picture, the black part of the dress is a dark yellow swatch (black/yellow) whereas the blue part of the dress is a light blue swatch (white/blue), objectively. The black/blue vs white/yellow is the mind filling in the blanks of the perceived circumstances of the picture like depth or lighting because of the way the pixels are arranged, so it can be perceived as one or the other color scheme because it is actually both (using layman terms of course).

[cleansoap]

In that context red, green, and blue are only significant because they are the center of the sensitivity curve of our three types of color detecting cells. **Humans** invented RGB color-space as a way of defining and reproducing the spectrum *as we perceive it*. This is unlike the much more *universal truth* that /u/eye_patch_willy brings up where all **color** exists on a spectrum from redder-than-red to more-violet-than-violet, and white is a place holder for "all at once" and black is a place holder for "none at all".

[AnMatamaiticeoirRua]

It depends upon your definition of color. If you define color as a wavelength of light, then black, white, and magenta are not colors. If you define it as the brain's interpretation of what wavelengths it is and is not receiving through the eyes, then black, white, and magenta are as much colors and green and yellow.

[eye_patch_willy]

Light is a spectrum. It extends beyond what we can see. Different colors are seen as different because they have different wave lengths. Black is what we "see" when there are no visible (to humans) wavelengths in the field of vision. We call the absence of color: black. When all the wavelengths are combined together in the visible field what we humans perceive as white- all colors combined. Yes, its pedantic. Black when referring to clothes is an approximation of what we perceive when there are no colors/wavelengths of light. Same with white. Context in these discussions matters, just like anything else. But that doesn't mean people are *wrong* about the fact that black and white, in their pure sense are not colors the way red, blue, indigo, rouge, etc are.

[blackflag415]

Since OP is referring to clothing rather than properties of light we should use the definition of color used in the ream of fashion. This definition clearly does include black and white. Is it your opinion that all colloquially used terms are wrong if the conflict with terms used in the realm of science? Do you correct those who refer to insects as 'bugs' unless they are within the specific genus bug? I wonder what you call peanuts because they are not technically nuts.

[gunnervi]

[STA-CITE]>I wonder what you call peanuts because they are not technically nuts. [END-CITE]Peanuts are actually very aptly named because they're legumes (like peas) but have qualitative properties of nuts (hard shell, etc). And "nutpeas" doesn't quite have the same ring to it....

[cleansoap]

I believe /u/eye_patch_willy is doing an appropriate job of explaining the how and why of black and white being different than colors. If we, as a CMV community, treat all views as nothing more than differing-context-specific-language than there is little room to change any view. I'm not suggesting that a black-and-white (ha! pun!) view of the world must be presumed, but rather that digging down to foundations is important.

[grapple42]

According to Wikipedia there are non-spectral colors like pink which are a combo of multiple wavelengths and pure/spectral colors which are made of only one wavelength. Wouldn't that make white a non-spectral color which by many is still considered a color.

[itspawl]

But if white is not a color then wouldn't that disqualify a lot of other colors as well? Like, if you have three sliders with "red", "green" and "blue" that creates white, turning down blue would give you yellow, which is also a combination of colors. So only the primary colors (probably?) would be colors, following that reasoning.

[cleansoap]

The primary "colors" are only primary because they line-up with the spectrum sensitivity of our three types of frequency-detecting cells. They have no significance outside that of human (mammalian) perceptions. Only the human constructed color spaces are based on these three colors. (Blended) color as a more universal concept exists on a much greater dimensional space.

[tit_wrangler]

[STA-CITE]> what we perceive when there are no colors/wavelengths of light. Same with white. [END-CITE]But white is the opposite. White is the perception of a mixture of colors. If your definition of color is the perception of the light spectrum, then wouldn't that make white a color? If anything, it's the ultimate color.

[G01denW01f11]

Thanks for replying! I think I worded my OP poorly. I should have said something more like "Black and white can, and do, refer to actual colors." I agree with everything you just wrote.

[ADdV]

The problem is that black refers to another color. The thing you call black, if not completely black, is a really dark shade of a 'true' color. For example, you shirt might be really dark yellow, so dark that we do not perceive the yellow and thus just call it black.

[G01denW01f11]

That is exactly my point

[cleansoap]

It is an incorrect point, however, well at least imprecise and over generalizing. Black as I said below, is (by definition) spectrum neutral. /u/ADdV is describing a ~~color~~ thing which is dark enough that it tricks the human eye into thinking it has no spectrum value. IF we accept that we're going to use pedantic definitions it is therefore NOT black and the argument is invalid. IF, on the other hand, we accept that we're going to use human perception as our definition then it is *indistinguishable* from black and therefore black, and *still not another color* (yellow).

[EpsilonRose]

It might help if you think of black or white like being bald. Bald is not a hair color, but if you are bald and someone asks you your hair color you will say "I'm bald". Black and white function in much the same way. They're not really colors (they're not on the color spectrum and you can get to them using the same operation regardless of what color you start at), but they can still answer the question of "What color is it?" in the same way bald can answer about hair color because they take up the same perceptual space.

[woahmanitsme]

The whole point of communication is to get a point across. This means that different communities define things differently in a way that suits their own needs. When artists talk about a painting needing more colour, other artists will intuitively know that this means add colours that are not black or white. If they all assumed "colour" included black and white that conversation would be way more confusing for everyone involved. If your day to day life involves talking about colour all the time, you should have an established definition of what counts as a colour so everyone's on the same page. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, it's just to ensure proper communication. So when they say things like that, it's just an arbitrary distinction that has been made for their sake. Not sure if I've changed your view, but maybe I've atleast shown you why they would do that, and why it's okay to do that

[CyanD]

So you're saying that artists' 'colour' is everyone else's 'hue' or kinda like the saturation setting in Photoshop?

[woahmanitsme]

Err maybe? Can't say I'm familiar enough with photoshop to say

[tit_wrangler]

I think that your point actually underscores the OP. S/he's saying that people shouldn't exclaim "Black is not a color" when you say that it's the color of your shirt. In this example, both parties surely understood one another and the main point was received, but someone is actually trying to obfuscate the matter by proclaiming whether or not black can scientifically be considered a color, when (as far as the context of their conversation of concerned) black is the most appropriate answer the original question ("What color is your shirt?"). In essence, the OP's argument stems from the point that language should be used in a way that is most understandable based on context, as opposed to making proscriptive rules for the sake of argument.

[woahmanitsme]

Yeah I agree being picky to start arguments is bad, but I think it only looks like that because of this particular example If somebody said "design me a colorful website" and I made it have a black background, I would express my discontent by saying "blacks not a colour" It can be picky sometimes but it's all about making sure people communicate well. Doesn't matter as long as everyone knows what ya mean

[G01denW01f11]

I certainly accept that different communities will use words differently. A thumb is not a finger, yet pianists will speak of the thumb as the first finger. Most people use the word 'song' more broadly than the 'official' meaning. Etc. I guess, specifically the view I'm trying to target is that 'Black is my favorite color' is a perfectly valid thing to say.

[woahmanitsme]

Yeah sure, if you wanna say that then go for it. The only thing you need to keep in mind is who you're talking to. This goes back to me saying the point of communication is to get a point across. If you're talking to somebody who regularly uses the word colour to indicate non white or black things then effective communication would involve using that definition. It's not they you're wrong or right and it's not that they're wrong or right, it's that in order to communicate properly everyone needs to be on the same page.

[G01denW01f11]

I think you get the ∆. There is no hard right and wrong here. The important thing is that you can properly convey your idea to the other party.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/woahmanitsme. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/woahmanitsme)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[woahmanitsme]

Yeah! Cool, glad I could help