File talk:SubtractiveColor.svg

Simpler SVG drawing

When browsers get to the point that support for complex filters is universal then, drawing this file as three circles rather than seven paths will be nice. See http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/svg/Vplay1.svg David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, worrying about whether there are 3 or 7 shapes in a trivially simple SVG diagram that does just fine as an illustration already seems a bit silly. But furthermore, even if more complex filters were supported, they wouldn’t give the correct colors for CMY mixtures, because SVG does not support the requisite sophistication of color management, so this is un unattainable goal for in the foreseeable future. –jacobolus (t) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is that for accessibility purposes (geometry is semantics in SVG) simpler is better. It is not just the number of objects but the complexity of those objects, for sake of understanding. Using mode=screen and mode=mult in SVG should present perceptual values consistent with the point the article is making. David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by this image. From the CMYK page, we learn that the "brown" effect is a result of a combination of imperfect inks, for example in inkjet printers, while better processes (like photography printing) do not need the "black" component and the additive process *does* yield a proper "black". maybe a specific section on this would be appropriate in the CMYK page, but shouldn't we also show the result of a proper combination of CMY? :) I know I was able to produce such a result without problems in Inkscape using layer effects. And I also agree that producing a SVG image that clearly displays how does colors are combined is both simpler and helps teaching people how to use those tools. --TheAnarcat (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

ADD BACKGROUND BACK

Transparent background becoming opaque with any ink is not how subtractive works! Please switch it to white back!:@LC$J@D#RIOHHHHHHAM this is damn infuriating! 2A01:119F:21D:7900:4C40:6879:1133:5057 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)