More on color

I'm probably taking off on a tangent that's different from your original train of thought, but I've noticed that the software I use for designing uses color sets that are "internet safe" colors. With these "safe" colors, the colors that show up on my monitor and printer are fairly close to what you will see on yours.

If you were to compare the range of internet colors to those of vendor floss cards, you would see that there are many, MANY more colors available for use as floss than are ever seen on charts. In some ways, technology is failing us, by encouraging the designers amoung us to take the easiest path in color selection.

Just my opinion, but I have wondered if anyone else has noticed this "standardizing" of design colors?

Phyllis Maurer

DMC lists its colours by 'family' on it's website :)

A colour wheel would also be useful for you - you should be able to pick one up at any art store :)

Blessings Tannia

I can understand the point you're making Phyllis. I can't say I've noticed the trend you mentioned but that is only because I haven't had the opportunity to see a lot of stitched models from different designers lately. A few of the designers whose work I've seen and admire don't chose their floss colors from a computer monitor but rather carefully select them from the skeins using proper lighting. One designer stitches her own model as she creates the design. These designers have a natural ability to put colors together that work and don't rely on technology to do it for them. I think this is what seperates the *brillent* designers from the mediocare ones. I'm sure there is a place for technology in designing but 'the easiest path in color selection' probably isn't the best one to take.

Mavia

As I have noted many times I am a scientist. Colors in real life are significantly different from those which are used in computers and over the internet. How much difference it makes, I am not sure, and trying to explain in in a few words in a message may be impossible. I know from the past few days that no matter how carefully one tries to express one's thoughts, it will *always* be possible for someone to misinterpret them. It is scientifically impossible to pick three real colors, red, green, and blue, which when combined, can reproduce *all* the colors which occur naturally. You can do it with three colors that can *never* appear in nature, as is done for the so called trichromatic coefficients. Hence colors we see on our computer monitors are limited. How severely, I dont know. A fellow scientist thinks the limitations are negligible, but I am not so sure. Sorry if this is a bit too technical. HTH. To make a footnote on something Pat P. said, the colors we see are decided by our brains, not our eyes. It is the brain which processes the images we get from our eyes, and which, in turn, becomes the colors we "see". Somewhat akin to the old argument. If a tree fall in a forest, does it make a sound? To add a touch of humor with a joke I have told before. If a husband speaks in a forest, is he still wrong?

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"

So how exactly does one use RGB values when deciding what goes together?

Jacquel>DMC lists its colours by 'family' on it's website :)