These are typical of illustrations that purport to explain colour mixing.
There is no such thing as painters’ primaries.
When people say the primary colour are red, yellow and blue
,
they mean one of several things, all of which are misleading:
redand
blueas the colour names for magenta and cyan when they are talking about the subtractive primaries.
fundamental, unmixed colourswhich they fail to connect to evidence about human perception (or mixing paints).
primariesthat work well enough to be accepted. We accept them, given the complexities of subtractive mixing and the forgiving nature of human vision.
There are clear physical reasons why colour mixing is not going to be consistent from one type of paint to another. Perceptually identical colours will mix in different ways if their pigments have different absorbtion spectra.
process cyanbut the colour swatch on the tube was just as clearly blue, not cyan! The stain on my hand confirms that the paint is indeed cyan. I am fascinated by the contortions that people go through to maintain the myth that red, yellow and blue are the subtractive primaries.
three primariesfad became entrenched, painters would comfortably use four
basic coloursfor mixing. These would have been called
red,
yellow,
greenand
blue, but the
redwould have been more magenta and the
bluemore cyan than the red and blue used in these notes.
the primary coloursbecause this only confuses our understanding of every other use of colour. Basing the colour wheel on these primaries produces a misleading notion of what complementary colours are. The concept of complementary colours is only useful when it's based on an understanding of human perception, not on an understanding of the quirks of paint mixing.