Talk:Monochrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monochrome article.
Article policies
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.
This article is supported by the Color WikiProject, 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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Why does this article still look like a disambiguation page?

  • It looks better now that some of the disambig entries have been moved to Monochrome (disambiguation), but it still has the look of a disambiguation page because of the numbering. Can't it be separated by topic into sections rather than numbered?--Hraefen Talk 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Saga City has done a nice job cleaning this page up. Good work.--Hraefen Talk 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further clarification

"In the physical sense, no real source of electromagnetic radiation is purely monochromatic, since that would require a wave of infinite duration."

Could someone further clarify this? Please, either explain what it means to need a "wave of infinite duration" in order to produce a single frequency, or point to another article that speaks of this. 24.38.129.70 01:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The frequency spectrum of a signal (in this case a sine wave) is derived by taking its Fourier transform. The property follows from that.--Adoniscik (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monochromatic Colour Schemes

The author says that monochromatic colour schemes are to be used with caution, among other things. (s)he cites no authority to back this up. Personally, I don't agree with his/her opinion - but that's irrelevant. I think a source should at least be cited to back up his claim. I hope this helps someone somewhere

  (Wrude bouie 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

In general this article refers to optical properties of monochrome light and producing it. Aspects of interior design really don't belong here to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.100.234 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph, per wp:not#HOWTO--Adoniscik (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from black-and-white and grayscale

These three articles basically describe the same thing. They would be better off merged together into one article, with information about sub-topics placed into sections (right now none of the three is much more than a stub). --jacobolus (t) 05:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see Grayscale kept as a separate article. As a noun it can be used to describe a reference in photography and on a line-up chart in colour television.Zir 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those is discussed in the current “graycale” article… the proposal is to merge the articles we have, not to merge the potential articles we might have if all the meanings of the words were properly described. ;) --jacobolus (t) 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to end up with a SINGLE article covering all these topics, HOWEVER as currently written there is a lot of overlap between these articles and the articles are not well-focused. I believe these articles should be reworked to narrow the focus of each article. (There's also a Black and white (colours) article which appears to be focused on the color-combination.) Ewlyahoocom 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That was the main intent of my merge proposal. If there are actually multiple separate article-worthy topics I'm happy to have multiple articles. I just don't like having 3-4 crappy articles about substantially the same subject, when they could be combined into 1 better article. --jacobolus (t) 13:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Spectral color is quite close to this subject too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.21.12 (talk • contribs)
I support Ewlyahoocom's idea because I'd rather we work on these articles instead of merge them. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not merge from either grayscale or black-and-white, though they themselves could merge. We need this article to get more technical.--Adoniscik (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Merging grayscale with either monochrome or black-and-white is absolutely ridiculous. They are separate concepts and neither belongs in the other article. Cburnett (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is not whether the words have potential definitions which are separate concepts; the current articles are essentially overlapping, and their content should be combined. If other senses of these words can be expanded into separate article,s that's a separate question. --jacobolus (t) 10:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monochrome definition

In the heading, it is said that "... A monochromatic object has a single colour...". This seems to hint at color being an object property, which probably is not true since it is a property of light (emitted by an object).

Further, I have a more general question about monochromatic referring to: "... radiation of a single wavelength ...", in the Theory section. Also at many other places in Wikipedia it is stated that monochrome refers to having waves a single wavelength. Color is perceived by receptors in the eye, with the eyeball filled by some liquid of a certain refractive index and speed of light. So, the wavelength will in general change when the light comes from outside into the eye, depending on the medium outside. The wavelength in the eye will depend on the frequency of the incoming light, and not fundamentally on the wavelength it has outside the eye. The color the eye detects is therefor fundamentally dependent on the light frequency, instead of it's wavelength. Is it therefor not more correct to say that monochrome refers to a signal of a single frequency? Or is this a matter of definition? Kraaiennest (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but it is conventional to describe light by its wavelength (in vacuum). For example, this book; "one-wavelength" characterizes the light, even though that wavelength varies with the index of the material the light goes through. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, so it is a matter of definition. Kraaiennest (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
But how about this then, from Candela: "... The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 × 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian...". This suggest monochromatic waves emerge from an source of constant frequency. Kraaiennest (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's also obviously true, and in general more precise. But it's not the most conventional way to describe monochromatic. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also objects can be defined as monochromatic, in which case the light reflected from them generally would not be of a single frequency. --jacobolus (t) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)