Pfhorrest wrote:orthogon wrote:One of the most natural set of co-ordinates to use is Hue, Saturation and Brightness, where you start more or less with a pure spectral colour, add a certain amount of white (the more white, the less saturated) and then adjust the brightness of the whole thing. In this scheme, pink is desaturated red, i.e. red mixed with white, and brown is just dark red.
That's what I would mean by "pink", but in that MinutePhysics video he seems to mean "magenta". Really, "purple" would work better, because the line of purples is the usual term for the colors between red and blue.
My girlfriend however insists that "pink" and "light red" are different colors, so that combined with this video makes me think there are some people for whom "pink" means the less-blue hues of purples, i.e. magenta more or less. And yeah, those are pink of a sort... "hot pink" is a common term for magenta, anyway.
I think maybe a pie-slice out of the color wheel deserve the name: those hues from 300 until 0, and saturations from 100 to 0, and brightnesses from 100 to 0, with how much it counts as "pink" fading as it gets closer to (0,100,100) [red], (*,0,100) [white], or (*,*,0) [black]. Making magenta (300,100,100) the only corner of that "pink space" which is definitely solidly pink, but counting "light reds" (and dim shades of all of these) as pinks too.
I was thought pink was light red too when I was a kid. But it doesn't work all that great when mixing paint, you can sometimes get some pink, depending on the paint (probably depending on what red and white tints you're using, my school stocks generally had one red and one white, which I already thought of as rather off at the time, in retrospect especially the red was rather blueish) but not usually a nice deep pink that you're often looking for, sufficient for painting pigs though. I think additive colouring is even worse when terming light red as pink (try comparing RGB 255,110,110 to RGB 255,110,150), I think pink is more of a light magenta.