From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Color (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

merge from value[edit]

These describe the same color attribute, and "lightness" is the term which is coming to be used in modern models like CIELAB and CIECAM. The value article should be merged into this one, and then redirected here. --jacobolus (t) 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Value is an extremely relevant term in drawing and painting, and it shows no signs of falling into disuse. I believe "lightness" has more industrial connotations, whereas "value" still applies to the fine arts. -bornon5, 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornon5 (talkcontribs) 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The article can explain that both words are used for the concept, and the value article can redirect here. The point is that we have a single concept, so it's silly to duplicate the information about it on two different articles. The popularity of the term "value" comes mostly from Munsell's use, as far as I know. More recent models like CIELAB and CIECAM02 use the term "lightness". --jacobolus (t) 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Is the term value used in painting to mean something not covered in the value article? If we mean that lightness=value=correlate of perceived brightness, I'm for merging them.--Adoniscik (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Does value mean something different in painting than its use by Munsell? I'm not aware of what that definition is. --jacobolus (t) 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I just checked a bunch of books, and they appear to agree that value is lightness or something reasonably equivalent. For example, this one. And this one pretty much says that artists use the Munsell system. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to the merge? Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. However, HSV should be mentioned as an unusual case, as colors don't progress from black to white. SharkD (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the diagram?[edit]

Could someone please add caption text to the first image (ColorValue.jpg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with the previous version[edit]

"Various color models have an explicit term which places the color on a scale from utter black to pure white. The HSV color model and Munsell color model have an explicit value, while the HSL color model uses a related parameter called lightness instead."

The "explicit value" of HSV refers to something different; i.e. the value/color is not "on a scale from utter black to pure white." The HSL parameter lightness is the one that's closer to the Munsell system.

"In the HSV and Munsell color models, a color with a low value is nearly black, while one with a high value is the pure color."

This is not true of the Munsell system. HSV is the oddball here. It also contradicts the first sentence I quoted.

As for the rest of the article, it was in need of cleanup (forming paragraphs out of loose sentences, etc.) You were right in that I deleted a good bulk of stuff on accident. SharkD (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the rescaling of the second image is ugly; it's hardly legible. This is a software issue however. SharkD (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, in the image, it might be a good idea to put the word "luminance" somewhere on the x-axis. It's explained in the caption, but it might not be enough. SharkD (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Tone (disambiguation page) links to Lightness (color), but the article never uses the word "tone", and I don't think they're at all synonymous. Anyone care to clear it up? —Pengo 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone is a term that was traditionally used in black-and-white photography for this concept, at least since the early 20th century. See tone mapping (not a great article, but a start). Or here is an old book example. And here is one that compares "Tone" to "Value" explicitly. Dicklyon (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Also Tone reproduction is more about the traditional use in photography. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In art, tone is a synonym for value, perhaps more common in drawing, where dark tone is built up with manual application of a dark medium like graphite or charcoal, than in painting. Michael Z. 2012-04-22 19:19 z

Extremely convoluted article[edit]

I came here to learn about 'value' from the fine arts perspective.

The first section is hilariously wordy and inaccessible. "... is a representation of variation in the perception of a color or color space's brightness. It is one of the color appearance parameters of any color appearance model."

Would it be that absurd to just say: "It's how bright a color is."

Then, the rest of the article is just gibberish to someone, such as myself, from a fine arts background, and offers nothing of substance as to how value relates to or is used in the fine arts. This article is horrible and should be rewritten by someone who isn't copy pasting from a science textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, yes, it would be absurd or, more to the point, simply wrong. Lightness does not equal brightness in color theory. I’m not saying the article can’t be improved – it most certainly can. But not in this way … If anything, you need more words to clearly point out the difference between lightness and brightness, as it is obviously easy to confuse them. --Uli Zappe (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

For the expert, I presume the article has much to say. For the laymen, as with so many Wikipedia articles, it is all but valueless. Perhaps that is the intent, though I would hope not. I appreciate the need for experts to express full concepts, and that they do so voluntarily is admirable. It would be even more admirable if the expert would then create a complementary article understandable by those not in the field. One does this, primarily, by avoiding undefined terms. Use the words and concepts understood by the audience and build from there, defining as one goes. Examples and illustrations in this context are very helpful. Education is not the spewing of words. It is the transmission and duplication, at receipt, of concepts. One hopes, despite evidence to the contrary, that this is the goal of Wikipedia contributors.