>>11022429In practice it is ”wrong” because it’s inefficient and shouldn’t be used. Inefficient models shouldn’t be taught, especially when it doesn’t match how we see the world. According to RYB, Green and Red are opposites. However when they are mixed (in pigment) they produce a brownish color, which itself is a dark orange-yellow. This matches with light, as in light Green and Red appear ”Yellow” to our eyes. Cyan is the real opposite to Red, which when mixed produce white. Plus, when you stare at red or cyan and look away, it will appear as it’s opposite due to the cones being ”overstimulated”. RYB also claims that mixing yellow and blue create green, which they dont. Mixing a ”perfect” blue and a ”pefect” yellow would create white or grey, as they’re opposites. In reality you mix cyan and yellow to get green. The reason people think mixing yellow and blue makes green is because they’re not actually using ”blue” but rather some form of azure, which is a mix of blue and cyan.
If RYB states that the primaries are RYB, and it’s opposites are GPO (Green, Purple, Orange), then it is objectively ”wrong”.
CMY is objectively ”correct” because it tells us that the primaries are CMY and that it’s opposites are RGB, which does actually match how we percieve the world. If RYB was ”right” then printers would be using it.
>>11022476I’m retarded because I challenge a system from the 1600s built by myths?
