Notes, archived from some very old posts

colours.md

There are only 11 colours

I've been aware for a couple of years now that there are only really 11 colours. In my experience, this feels like a boy/girl distinction.

Let me explain: most colours that girls talk about are in fact just different names for the same thing (Death Cab for Cutie reference intended). For example: 'teal'. What's that if it's not a shade of green?

I will reveal what these colours are shortly, but before that, let me tell you why we have to stop somewhere—why we shouldn't go the whole hog and pare it down to just three, red, green and blue. Although you can describe most colours humans can see with just an RGB value, everyday experience necessitates a wider vocabulary, particularly in the surprisingly different subjective appearance of yellow from its red and green constituent primaries.

Starting with the rainbow then, we see that there is

• Red
• Orange
• Yellow
• Green
• Blue
• Indigo
• Violet

Of course indigo and violet are both just purple, so we have six so far. Then there's Pink (light red I know, but it looks quite different and is very common, so it needs a name), and Brown, which by some accounts is dark yellow, but on the same grounds as pink needs its own name.

There are also Grey, White, and Black, and with those and the words 'dark', 'light', 'shiny' and 'ish' you have the vocabulary to describe most colours in everyday experience.

It may sometimes be necessary to talk about silver, gold etc., but really they're just likening the appearance to certain materials, and their colours can be described as shiny grey and shiny yellow if needed.

Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, Pink, Brown, Grey, White, Black. 11 is all you need, and all there really are.

Ruth just asked me what colour I would say 'ochre' is in this scheme, but she clearly just made it up.

jpg_magazine.md

I wish I'd known sooner. Then I'd have given up, as usual.

JPG Magazine, a sort of community online and print photography magazine nearly shut down this month. Fortunately it seems that the news of its closure attracted interest, and it may survive as a result. Certainly it was only in the last week or so that I first heard about it, so I am a testament to the principle that 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'.

What is it? A photography magazine, obviously. But one of its major features is its challenges, for which the community plays a role in selecting the candidates for inclusion in the next issue.

I have been reading through some of the past issues and marvelling at the creativity and artistry of my fellow humans. And it is at times like these that I perform one of my most spineless and most deeply engrained behaviours. I give up.

I've always wanted to be good at photography, but I find that the raising of the bar by others is (while inspiring, I admit) ultimately a demotivating act. I find myself worrying about the dedication and time required to make beautiful images, and I begin to feel inferior, and then lethargy (I'm good at that) takes over.

The same goes for so many things. Playing music well, learning a computer language, making models, all are pursuits that I have at times been demotivated by.

Who else has this response, I wonder. It can't be everyone, or the wonderful work exhibited at JPG Magazine would never have made the thing so successful in the first place. What if I'm not particularly unusual in this trait though? How much more exciting would the world be if everyone who thought like me instead felt inspired and motivated by these same stimuli?

Is there anything you think you're good at? Would you still be considered a master if all the people like me got off their settees and took up the same activity too?

Just be thankful that I haven't yet read someone else's facebook notes and been blown away by the cool and innovative use they have found for this portal.

As soon as they do I'll give up posting here too.

JPG Magazine