Stop the Foolishness: Of Course Pink Is a Color

By Rebecca Boyle Posted 03.07.2012 at 2:07 pm 14 Comments

Flamingo Flock szeke via Flickr

There’s an interesting volley online right now between two science journalists I admire, Michael Moyer and Robert Krulwich, over the color pink. In a blog post for NPR last week, Krulwich was shocked to learn from a video that pink does not exist, and Monday Moyer responded with his own ontological take.

Pink is not found in the ROYGBIV electromagnetic spectrum. But that does not mean it isn't a color! There’s a key distinction between colors of light and of pigment, between additive color and subtractive color, that everyone seems to be glossing over.

As Newton figured out, white light is a compendium of all the parts of the visible spectrum. This is the additive model of color. Take away the blue hues, and a white light will appear yellowish; and so on and so forth. Yet when you combine paints of every color, you get black. That is subtractive color theory, in which black, not white, represents the presence of all color. Additive color is the realm of transmitted light, while subtractive color is the realm of pigments, dyes and chemicals, explains Honolulu-based color expert Jill Morton. Morton is a former professor at the University of Hawaii who has consulted for Xerox, Kodak and others to whom color matters. “Of course pink is a color,” Morton says, “but with that said, pink is indeed not part of the light spectrum. It’s an extra-spectral color, and it has to be mixed to generate it.”

A pink wavelength of light doesn’t exist, and this is where the argument seems to have started. Specifically, in a 60-second video by Minute Physics, in which pink lies between red and violet on a curled-up light spectrum.

Thinking of pink the way we think of transmitted light is confusing, hence the controversy. Here's the thing: When you look at a pink object — that is to say, a thing that contains pigments or dyes which render it pink to light receptor cells in your eyes — you are not seeing pink wavelengths of light. An object appears pink because certain wavelengths of light are reflected, and others are absorbed, quenched, by the pigments. Pink is a reflective color, not a transmissive color — you can perceive it because your brain translates light bouncing off it. Color is a construct of our eyes and brains.

“If you take a tube of red paint and add white to it, you’ll get pink. If you work with watercolors, take red paint and add a lot of water to it and put it on watercolor paper, that would be pink,” Morton says. “Technically it’s right that you can’t generate pink in the rainbow colors. But you can mix other colors in light to get pink. ... This is about interpreting the visual world.”

So there you have it.

And for the record, my defense of pink has nothing to do with my personal double-X chromosomes. I sort of resent defending a hue society says I am biologically supposed to like. But I will come to the defense of any color.

Previous Article: Smart, Self-Healing Hydrogels Repair Themselves After Sustaining Damage

Next Article: Stowaway Seeds Carried By Unwitting Humans Are Colonizing Antarctica

14 Comments

Link to this comment

dancupid

03/08/12 at 4:03 am

The pink that doesn't appear in the electromagnetic spectrum is 'magenta'.
Pink created with white and red paint is just white light with a predominance of red - ie it's red, which does appear in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Interestingly when we see yellow on a computer monitor it is just a mix of green and red light, containing no yellow wavelengths of light, even though yellow does appear in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Any yellow you see on this screen now is not really yellow.

Link to this comment

Bagpipes100

03/08/12 at 9:39 am

It's not pink, it's lightish red!

Link to this comment

MelonHead

03/08/12 at 10:47 am

The same concept goes for any pale color, its dependent upon the concentration (I suppose)of the wavelengths. And what about brown? That's not included in the light spectrum either.

Link to this comment

JoolesC

03/08/12 at 1:24 pm

Just because you can make things we see as pink does not mean that pink exists. You can make light that looks pink as easily as paint that looks pink; simply remove green light from white and we will see it as pink. But even when mixing paint to make pink the only way in which anyone can perceive the colour of that paint is via the medium of visible light which cannot *be* pink. This is why pink doesn't exist.

On the other hand pink obviously exists as a colour because we can see things as being pink or brown or whatever. It all just depends on your definitions like so much in science and leads us to that wonderful phrase "for all practical purposes". Technically pink does not exist but for all practical purposes it does because it is easy to mix other colours together in a way that we see as being pink.

The fact that the Loch Ness Monster is pink is merely a coincidence... :P

Link to this comment

democedes

03/08/12 at 1:44 pm

You cannot separate the concept of color from the biology of how our eyes and minds perceive color.

What is unique about the color red for example, other than how we perceive it? You can define red as a wavelength of light from 700 to 635 nm. But what reason do you have for carving out that part of the spectrum? What is unique about red light wavelengths other than how it looks to us? How can you objectively define the frequencies that constitute the color red without referencing our biology?

Color is defined by our perceptions, not by any particular wavelength. Thus colors like white, pink, and brown that are not represented by any single wavelength of light are still colors nonetheless.

An interesting read on color perception:
http://blog.asmartbear.com/color-wheels.html

Link to this comment

Robot

03/08/12 at 1:53 pm

I like Pink Floyd.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Link to this comment

genedoug

03/08/12 at 5:09 pm

When viewing pink, retinal receptors responding to reed light are stimulated, and receptors responding to white light are weakly stimulated. In the case of water color, the paper provides the white color.

That is why he was trying to say, but did not get around to it.

Link to this comment

FreeRangeRadical

03/08/12 at 7:04 pm

Ya know, yadon't see a lot of brown light, either. And when you think that both pink and brown light are missing from the boudoir, it causes you to wonder if that whole pink vs stink issue concerning how many digits each requires might be better...enlightened...if every bedroom was equipped with newfangled pink and brown LED bulbs. They might serve to prevent accidental cross-insertion and whatnot. Which...seems...to...happen...to...me...often...*cough*

Link to this comment

Robotic_Waffle_...

03/08/12 at 8:01 pm

Omg guys chill. Pink's a pigment color, but not a light color, or whatever. I get that. Alot of other people get that. Why can't we just sit back, relax, and enjoy the freakin' double rainbow without it starting an argument? Seriously WHO CARES???

Link to this comment

Biscuit_Stix

03/09/12 at 11:11 am

So, it's technically not a color, but ts technically a color... It's TECHNI-COLOR!

Link to this comment

Amun-Ra

03/09/12 at 5:46 pm

BEST ANSWER!
I like to mail you a box of cookies sir.

Link to this comment

Peter10

03/13/12 at 5:04 am

Geee! And I liked the Pink Panther.

Link to this comment

Superabound

01/13/13 at 6:28 pm

Heres the thing about the whole "pink doesnt exist" argument: If pink doesnt exist simply because its not a discrete wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum, then that means that other colors like brown, black, and gray ALSO "do not exist" as well. Which is stupid. Just because something isnt on the electromagnetic spectrum doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I mean, IM not a wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum. Can you milk me, Greg?

Popular Tags

Science

All Tags All Photos All Videos

Science

+ More Photo Galleries

June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.