Dear Jane et al;
Isn't it odd that color terms related/derived from plants
seem so totally at odds. Examples
Roses are red - you get this response from many people, but
isn't the color 'rose' another distinctly different shade?
and Violets are neither blue or rarely violet, but more often
purple, yellow, etc.
Ebony (the wood/tree) is far from black.
I'm sure there are more plant related colors: lilacs, pinks,
orchid, primrose, cerise (from the french for 'cherry'), etc.
Speaking of black, 'Black' flowers are almost always far from
black, but usually a deep red or purple. In fact pure colors
especially red and blue ("red' iris, 'Blue' roses?) are fairly
uncommon in nature. This is easily shown by taking a small square of
construction paper of a pure red or blue color and lining it up with
a flower said to be red or blue. (also true of black and white). And
this seems to hold up more when you have pale 'colors'. Pale yellow
may be tan, cream or even pink etc.
Color is very personal and often has a meaning unrelated to
the evidence. This difference between perception and reality is one
of the reasons the RHS chart works so well and does not use names for
its colors, just numbers.
This avoids the associations that color names carry with them. By
comparing flower colors through a small aperture, the RHS color
charts eliminates surrounding/competing colors, isolates the color
you are seeking and somewhat evens the perception of the actual color
sample.
Jane, it makes editing an even harder job. best Jim W
--
Dr. James W. Waddick
Near KCI Airport
Kansas City Missouri 64152-2711
USA
Ph. 816-746-1949
Zone 5 Record low -23F
Summer 100F +