Talk:Flag of the United States/Archive 7

1486:

your display was colorimetrically characterized, what computer software you are using (e.g. a browser) and whether it does proper color management, where your specific eyes fall on the spectrum of human color vision, and so on. It is not possible to make a digital image which will precisely match a real-world scene when viewed by every possible viewer in every possible surrounding on every possible display, especially since most displays are poorly characterized and quite a lot of software punts on doing correct color management of images, and even in the best circumstances there is significant biological inter–observer variability. It is even more difficult to precisely represent a physical object, since the appearance of every object changes depending on the light source, immediate context, and adaptation of the observer. And now we are trying to represent not just an object, but an abstract prototype (and no, not every G-SPEC flag is precisely identical; they vary within specified tolerances when measured using a specific standardized procedure). One productive thing you could do here though is send a letter to the manufacturer of your flags, asking them what spectrophotometric/colorimetric measurements they target when producing G-Spec flags. Perhaps they have different numbers than the published measurements from the 1940s used on this page. –

1380:

the Valley Forge Company. One is Nylon (the most common) and one is cotton (not recommended for outdoor use and not usually purchased by government agencies). My flags look just like those in the photos when outdoors. Obviously the lighting varies greatly outdoors, but generally speaking those photos are accurate. Obviously lighting conditions, material of fabric, etc. play a role. The first one could have been taken in early morning light, which, as everyone knows, makes things look a little different and somehow whiter and more "pale." The other one is obviously a late afternoon photo (shadow length and fading sky). I see no real evidence that your claims of tampering with the colors are accurate. I think it just the time of day affecting it. The first one MAY have been embellished a little, but the second one is identical to the way my (nylon) flag looks outdoors in daylight. The photos are more accurate than you are suggesting. I could take my OWN photos with my camera or phone, but would I be accused of tampering with them?

210:

is not any kind of official recommendation about what anyone else should do in any other context. There is no law or executive order involved. It’s just the local style guideline of a particular government organization. There is no evidence provided about how the people who made this style guideline chose the colors, nor is there any evidence that they put effort into picking colors matching official national specifications. In such a context there’s an incentive to choose Pantone color swatches because despite being a proprietary system, they have wide adoption in the printing industry; if you specify a Pantone spot color when you take your job to your local print shop, people who are familiar with the Pantone system will through experience have some idea what to expect. Unfortunately nobody at Pantone ever tried to explicitly match the US flag colors, so the Pantone color chips chosen as an approximation are not very good. –

129:

efforts to replace them by one or another alternative someone found online somewhere, often completely ludicrous alternatives. No amount of “flags, being physical objects created by disparate producers vary from one example to another” and “it is impossible to precisely represent an abstract collection of physical objects as a numerical value to be represented on screen” and “we spent a lot of effort doing the best we could to make the most official set of color coordinates we could manage, so can we please just call this good enough and be done with it” would satisfy these editors. Adding excessive detail about the colors gave something concrete to point to, at least somewhat raising the minimum effort threshold for any would-be color warrior, and likely stopping some of these disputes before they started by letting readers see for themselves how the colors used here were obtained.

1367:

enough with the precise colors of the camoflage clothing, dirt, sandbags, walls, etc. in these scenes under the specific lighting conditions to judge how far those are from accuate.) Displaying a scene from the physical world on a photographic print or computer display is a very tricky problem which always involves significant compromises / artistic choices. It is very common for photographers (or hardware/software defaults) to intensify colors and contrast beyond what was in the original scene, because it makes the photographs look "better". So if you care about color accuracy per se you need to be careful. However, it would certainly be reasonable to add more photographs of flags to this article, though I would recommend trying to find some better photographs than these two. –

1818:

somewhere in the State Department took those Pantone identifiers passed them through some program (either in Adobe software, or the Pantone website, or some other third-party tool) to generate RGB (sRGB?) and CMYK (SWOP v2??) coordinates. But literally none of the criteria, processes, or decisions involved along the way are documented publicly. Color reproduction from one context to another is a pretty tricky business that takes quite a lot of care, but gets done sloppily all the time because most people (including e.g. State Department web design staff) reach for the nearest available tool without necessarily understanding it. –

98:

perhaps it's worth finding a source that it is currently used in a relevant way, say in the production of the 10th edition, as seems to be implied. That's not what I'd emphasise, though - on the whole, section could do with a bit less of the justification for using particular precise colors in the main illustration, and a bit more like an encyclopedic description of the standards governing/influencing flag use. (I'd even say that the fact that this CIE specification describes the standard one the matte side under Illuminant C is more relevant than whether or not it is used as a specification.)

1632:

just the ECA, and can certainly be called a current official choice of how to represent the flag, and a reasonable choice for our illustration for that reason, but we should be careful not to talk about it as an official definition of the flag in general. But the same caution applies to the FS DDD-F-416F specs - that is a military procurement standard authorized for use by the federal government, not a general definition of the flag. There are plenty of reasons why they may not be particularly consistent, while both being official enough within the relevant context.

2113: 150:

story. The fact that it has been common for all sorts of people to use military specifications doesn't mean that everyone has always used any specification that precise at all, or that the wheel has never been reinvented. In particular, I don't accept that all the "random people" that came up with a Pantone standard for the flag were necessarily trying to approximate the SRCA standards at all. I expect there are at least some cases where they were relatively independently trying to set a standard color that in their opinion suited their context.

949:

broader range of colors, then the text should reflect that. If we're not sure, we shouldn't simply emphasise the most clearly defined color statement that we do have. And if the range of colours used in digital or other depictions of the flag, even in government branding documents, is much wider than you'd expect from the cloth standard you're talking about, maybe the point isn't that one is always an approximation of the other, but that different standards have been developed separately, some more thoroughly than others.

1256: 1328:

using the "official" US government flags called G-SPEC (Government specifications). If anyone wants to know what the US flag should look like, that is the only "real" one that should be used. The one that hangs behind the president in the Oval Office is a good example. The military also orders "G-SPEC" flags. I've linked a photo below that shows an obvious G-SPEC flag at a military base in Afghanistan relatively recently (2015). This what the US flag is supposed to look like:

106:

common in Knowledge editing to lazily apply that sort of language to any example of a Pantone description of a flag colour that sits beside a different official specification. In this case, while some of the Pantone colors mentioned in the article seem to have been intended as approximations to the colors in the Federal Standard, there's no evidence that that's the case for quite a few of them, and I think it's misleading to open the paragraph in those terms.

31: 795:"...just pulled out the Pantone swatch list and picked something they thought looked close" is exactly what seems to have happened with this weird purple color. Why is a Wikipedian "picking something they thought looked close" more valid from (your assertion that) someone at the State Dept doing the same thing? It seems like the latter would have more weight if both sides are just "guessing" (to paraphrase you). 2152: 2065: 1212:

choice of illumination. A physical sample is *never* a particular RGB colour in general, only from a particular view in particular lighting. I'd say there are good arguments for some publications dealing with flags to focus on physical standards rather than digital ones when creating their illustrations, but that is always going to involve further editorial decisions.

2217: 192:...it sounds like we took a lot of weird steps to get a controversial set of imperfect colors. Meanwhile, the State Department itself has provided RGB color standards for use in digital files. In fact, there's an updated version of the State Department reference (ref/citation 81 is an archived/outdated version). Here's the new document: 133:

attributes of military purchases became a priority because the military wanted to do all it could to streamline national production. My impression is that other federal (and state, and private) institutions were happy to piggyback on that work that the military had already done, instead of trying to reinvent the same wheels.

1609:

You intentionally chose photos in low light conditions and none of those photos, save probably #1, #2, #4, and possibly #3 (the fly looks too short though), are G-SPEC. The #5 photo shows a wildly outdated design and does not reflect the modern one. The star ratio size and duck header is wrong on #6.

1465:

Don't need to. As I have REPEATEDLY stated, my flags are G-SPEC (they carry the G-SPEC tag/label required). G-SPEC flags are made to the standards set by the US government. They all look the same. Do you understand G-SPEC?? And I repeat, this very page presents a more accurate color representation in

1327:

I am glad this discussion about the WAY OFF color of the US flag is happening. I've wondered where on earth they got those colors from. The image given on the Knowledge page looks NOTHING like the actual US flag. What I see is a purple canton and that is definitely not accurate. For my purposes, I am

940:

Unlike the discussion which followed, I'm talking more about the wording in teh article than the choices in the illustration. There will always be arguments about the illustration that I don't see a huge point to get into unless we're talking about a more consistent approach across the project. (Then

851:

Well again, do you want the US embassy to the UK in the mid 1990s – PMS 193 and PMS 282 – or do you want the US Embassy to the UK 2002 – PMS 193 and PMS 281 – or do you want the US Embassy to Stockholm – PMS 186 and PMS 288 – or do you want a 2002 state of Calif. guideline – PMS 200 for red. All of

258:

Perhaps you can write a letter to the ECA asking if anyone knows where they got the colors from or how they were chosen. Or look at the older sources where one or another state department (or other) agency recommended this or another set of Pantone swatches, and see if you can find anyone responsible

233:

Those decisions made sense in the mid 2000s, when the Department of State had yet to provide RGB values. The editors of that time did the best they could, and I appreciate their work. But we now have better and more authoritative data, and when new/better sources emerge, we should be able to consider

209:

This is the institutional style guide of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, governing any web pages or printed materials produced by the ECA. Employees who work for the ECA are instructed to follow these guidelines when producing web pages or printed materials as part of their jobs. This

109:

This is a bigger issue that this article, but while I'm here, in general it's worth noting that the SCRA color definitions are hidden away in a government standard along with requirements for materials, headers, stitching, colorfastness and so on. Do those sort of color specs really deserve that much

1783:

When someone makes a document with a Pantone identifier specified, the printer can obtain the specific requested ink mixture and print with it as a separate color plate, rather than "separating" the color and printing it using a combination of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black plates. Spot colors can

1594:

You can split hairs a thousand ways. I never said we could perfectly convert real life naked-eye appearance to digital screen totally accurately. But most photos are WAY closer than the image presented. And Knowledge uses a more accurate approximate representation on that very page. The moving photo

1366:

These are both very oversaturated photographs which were corrected either by overzealous in-camera processing or an overzealous user of photoshop or similar software. You can see that e.g. skin, sky, plants, and traffic cones are all at least somewhat away from their typical colors (I’m not familiar

1211:

Can I push back on the idea that the 1940s measurements of the physical standards are the one, true way to understand the physical standards. There are quite a few debatable choices involved there, including some not mentioned in the text, like the choice to use the matte side of the sample, and the

1193:

In 2006, there was no consistent digital standard provided by the govt, only physical standards, which necessitated your earlier work. According to the colormetric measurements you keep citing, that white was not #FFFFFF. Altering the white point of those colors to #FFFFFF was an editorial decision.

176:

If you want to go talk to people in charge of physical flag procurement / production for other official uses (federal agencies, state governments, ...) and figure out what other standards etc. they are used to, go for it. If you can find some other official documents about flag standards for this or

132:

The reason color specification (including of the flag, but also stuff like uniforms) became an issue for the military in the early 1940s is that military procurement went absolutely bananas during WWII, and the military very rapidly expanded its range of suppliers. Standardization of color and other

105:

Some prominent flag publications deliberately provide fixed colors for the flags they document, in a consistent color scheme - the best known using Pantone. When there are official specs in another scheme, the Pantone colors given are reasonably called Pantone approximations to those specs. It seems

1858:

There's not really any clear evidence that a 13-stars and 13-stripes flag flew over any land battle of the American revolution (though of course the Grand Union flag, which had stripes but not stars, and the George Washington headquarters flag, which had stars but not stripes, were used). Variants

643:

To be clear, the 2012 State Dept document explicitly said that their RGB and CMYK values were derived from their Pantone choices using particular software, so in that sense they are "approximations". The fact that they are then used as the standard RGB values in particular contexts is probably more

340:

Pantone identifiers correspond to printed paper swatch samples which some person used some comparable (though likely less careful) method to approximate on screen to the one we used to approximate the dyed silk samples. The difference is that the conversion from measured color to RGB coordinates is

254:

You should not try to change the SVG file without finding all the people who were involved when this was discussed to death in the past, and pinging them to offer their feedback so you can form some community consensus. While you are at it you should also be a bit wary about making sweeping changes

128:

need so much ceremony, and I agree it’s more than necessary for a general encyclopedia article, getting somewhat out of scope. The reason it got this way is that otherwise there was endless debate about whether the colors chosen for the illustrations were “correct” enough, and repeated edit-warring

1817:

It’s not. But whichever person (whether at Pantone, at the Government Printing Office, at the London Embassy, or wherever else) chose a set of three Pantone swatches to represent the flag was almost certainly originally choosing them for use in printed brochures or similar documents. Someone later

1485:

Yes, you have shouted quite a lot about your flags. I am not disputing that you have a flag made by an authorized vendor. But you are also missing quite a lot. You haven’t said anything about what display you are using to look at Knowledge pages with what settings in what lighting context, whether

1379:

I will agree that translating real world color into digital format is difficult, but I believe you are in error. The first photo could be explained by morning light just as easily. Furthermore, G-SPEC flags are available for the general public to purchase. I have purchased TWO G-SPEC flags made by

756:

I have many friends and relatives who have worked in large organizations like the State Department, both as managers and as front-line workers, inside and outside of government. You have an entirely over-inflated concept of how the internal decisionmaking and design process works in a setting like

327:

The earliest source I have seen for these ECA Pantone choices was some random embassy website from like 20 years ago. But there has never been any explanation about who came up with them or how. My speculation is that some random State Dept. staffer just flipped through the Pantone swatch book and

149:

The habit of governments and other people piggybacking on military standards goes back a long way before WWII, both in the US and in many other parts of the world. The explosion in need to procurement at the same time as development of more detailed ways of analyzing color is just one part of that

1790:

There’s no perfect translation from Pantone's secret ink mixtures to CMYK or RGB colors, and the appropriate CMYK or RGB coordinates to use to closely match the appearance of a specific document printed with a Pantone spot color using CMYK printing or a computer display are going to significantly

1631:

Some comments from me: An internal ECA style guide is clearly not particularly authoritative, at least as I would use the term. The fact that the colors are consistent with an older branding guide for the whole State Department is suggestive that the color standards are a bit broader ranging than

1406:

used to take the picture, the aging of the print, or a poor-quality scan. Typical photographic film from the 1980s was not designed to precisely reproduce colors, but to make pictures attractive to average viewers, and the chemical processes involved have pretty significant variation. If you e.g.

1189:

If the argument is "we should accurately reflect the physical standard in our digital production," then accept no substitutions, make no modifications, the white of the digital flag should be more of a cream, like the original measurements before the white point modification. My argument is "this

731:

You did some damn good work a decade ago. It's fine to be proud of that! I think it's cool, that's why I left the table with all the colormetric data up. But the Dept of State has stepped up where they previously hadn't. You and I are not more important or authoritative than the US Dept of State.

1842:

There is no actual proof that the first time the Flag Few in battle was at Fort Stanwix. All historic sources lack description and none never mention a flag with stars. There is no mention in any of the historic sources that the mass troops brought word about the flag. The historical site itself

824:

There is nothing “authoritative” about your source, unless you are a staff person working for the ECA and you are currently making a page on their website. It is just more attractive to you because it hides whatever work or discussion went into the choices, instead of providing any transparency.

506:

Your comment about what “predates” this or that is a red herring. These Pantone color systems are also from the 1960s (not sure about these precise identifiers for blue and red), and predate sRGB. Again: there's no magical fairy dust that Pantone sprinkles on their computer program that computes

97:

It is true that the point of the 1946 paper was to provide a certain type of specification for those standards. I think the current wording (carefully measured etc ... and then adopted...) is clearer than what was there before my edit. If it's worth emphasising that role for the CIE coordinates,

1419:

I'm sorry I must disagree. The Reagan photo is older, but it is not as inaccurate as you are claiming. I took a photo with my phone (not the best or most advanced either) of my G-SPEC flag in two lighting conditions. One is in a dark room by a window and the other is in a brighter room by the

948:

As for the specifications developed in the 40s, what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to equate thorough work with official standing. If the fact is that these standards are followed for cloth flags, we should say that. It the facts are that government as well as others tend to use a

864:

You keep referencing Embassy documents only available via the Wayback machine, and PMS standards, neither of which I've advocated for even once. I cited RGB values from DoS ECA standards set in 2012, standards which have not changed since, and which are still actively available and cited in the

668:

They also provide no information about who came up with that particular choice of color swatches or how. My speculation is that some designer working at some State Dept. office or embassy at some point in the 1990s needed to draw a flag on their web page or maybe in a printed brochure, and just

503:

we should trust the combination of (1) an unnamed staffer at the US State Department from an unknown time/context following an unknown process and (2) an undocumented process applied at some particular time by a computer program coded by employees of Pantone to approximate their spot colors for

262:

As I said, in my opinion they didn’t make a very good choice; the various Pantone swatches are not very near at all to what official physical flags look like. My impression is that there aren’t really any very good choices for Pantone swatches, but someone was under pressure to pick one so they

168:

Most of the Pantone choices were just arbitrary people in one or another government agency (e.g. various state department websites) trying to pick some Pantone colors that looked (to them) about right, with no evidence anywhere of any careful analysis or consideration, no accompanying technical

153:

I understand that the nature of a publicly editable encyclopedia leads to some over-emphasis on details that get edit-warred. I just think it's worth making a bit more of a distinction between "this is an important official standard", with the implication that our illustration is justified, and

101:

The executive order "requires" the executive branch to follow the design specs, but maybe it's fine to use "US federal government" to refer to the executive branch. The Federal Standard with the color specs is authorized for use by all executive agencies - is "required" the right word for that?

299:. I applaud the work put into figuring out RGB approximations, and then modifying them for computer screens, but that's not an authoritative source on RGB values. That's Wikipedians making the best recreation they can for computers based on a source that was never designed for the computer age. 1169:

The relevant colors of the Standard Color Reference of America 10th edition are not to my knowledge different from the 9th edition, for which colorimetric and spectrophotometric measurements were made. Other sources that do not involve some superseding federal specification are not remotely

93:

The color specifications prioritized by this section are not legislated, or introduced in a general executive order, but are part of a standard developed and maintained by the military. This is a clear statement which in my opinion adds historical and other context to the nature of these

136:

Saying the Pantone colors are an “approximation” was not intended to imply that the Pantone company itself was attempting to approximate the flag, but only that random people looking through the Pantone catalog for a flag color settled on those as a (not especially close) approximation.

746:

They almost certainly used some (unnamed) software tool (either directly provided by Pantone, or some Adobe product, or some other third-party conversion tool) to convert Pantone identifiers to RGB values. But they didn’t document any of that process, so we can only speculate about the

1647:

Note this is not just a military document, but is published by the General Services Administration as a standard for flags procured by all federal government agencies. (For military use per se, this GSA Federal Specification supersedes previous military-specific standards documents.)

1279:

That sounds fine with me, but I think you’ll have trouble building any kind of consensus for that version. One issue is that the US flag is typically seen in the context of the sky or miscellaneous natural scenes, not in the context of an extremely reflective diffuse surface like the

504:

printing on glossy paper to an emissive display, instead of following the officially specified cloth colors because the latter requires a similar process but the whole thing can be documented and inspected and when I looked at the documentation it was too confusing for me personally.

169:

commentary, etc. There have been multiple (different) such choices, and as far as I know none of them are still current (witness all the wayback links). There have been several attempts over the years by wiki editors to label these as "official" but I would really push back on that.

486:

The only people saying "keep it" are you, citing your own work derived from a 1946 standard that predates the RGB colorspace, and @AnonMoos who keeps saying "RGB values are device dependent" - the way they subjectively appear on a screen may be device dependent, but data is data.

1309:“The U.S. Government Printing Office specifies Pantone 186 and 288 for the red and blue colors of the United States flag, but Pantone specifies Pantone 193 and 281. Other sources specify Pantone 282 for blue. This may be because inks look different on different paper stocks.” 1054:

This paragraph was removed from the article because its presence only served to confuse readers about the credibility of any source for CMYK/PMS/RGB values. The Dept of State ECA has maintained the same standards since 2012, and that standard is still cited in the article.

225:

I have no opposition to including the cable swatches and all the accompanying CIE colorspace study data, etc in the article itself. I've made several edits to clean/clarify color info in the article, and I've left all that data intact. Again, my issue is the SVG file

229:

SVGs natively use RGB values. We should be using RGB values. There is an authoritative RGB value provided directly by the Department of State. Instead, we're using an imperfect RGB approximation of a color that predates the creation of the RGB colorspace by several

769:

If new standards are created by a process fairly described as "choices made on a whim become accepted as conventional wisdom", then they have been created in that way. It's not reasonable to describe them as approximations to a more thoroughly researched standard.

727:

You're spending a lot of time assuming no thought was put into the specs just because you weren't special enough to see the work happen yourself, and constantly citing your own work and lifting it above the McFreaking US Dept of State reeks of an inflated sense of

287:

I've read through it all. Multiple times. It looks to me that the current RGB values were established prior to the existence of the DoS/ECA guide, and some have insisted those colors established prior to 2011 are more authoritative than the US Dept of State circa

154:"these are the official colours for the US flag" and everything else is an attempt to approximate them. Encouraging readers to tell the difference might even do a little to help reduce edit-warring on other flag articles where the situation is slightly different. 1284:

used as a reference for pure white in spectrophotometric measurements, or a very bright "white" background in webpage from a computer display. Human eyes adapt significantly to their context, psychologically treating bright objects or light sources as "white".

1564: 1434:

Have you EVER seen an actual G-SPEC flag? Those are the ONLY ones I am talking about. I OWN TWO OF THEM. I can vouch that the photos I have posted are mostly accurate. You can always quibble about photos and real life but why split the hair so much?

757:

that. People are on a tight deadline and just reach for the nearest thing that meets their immediate goal. Choices that were made on a whim years ago become accepted “conventional wisdom” without anyone who is still around knowing quite how or why. –

723:

You appear to have missed my point. I don't think they used a crummy conversion - I don't think they did a conversion at all. I believe they created a new standard with different mediums in mind (one of which didn't exist when the 1946 specs were

852:

these come from sources about which you are “not sure how much more authoritative it gets” (3 of the four are “THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE”). But they all disagree. Not a single one documents the process by which they arrived at those choices. –

263:

picked more or less arbitrarily. Then those have gotten passed down by others trying to make a similar choice under similar circumstances, with the result sometimes getting passed off as much more official than it has any right to be treated. –

1894:

If it's on a flag-pole, then it being "furled" (hanging down in folds) is fine, as seen at many political speeches, meetings between national leaders etc. If you want the whole flag to be visible, then you could attach it to a wall behind...

384:

An authoritative and contemporary source for RGB values already exists, and it wasn't created by a Wikipedian. It was created by the US Government. It's been around and stayed consistent for over a decade. We ought to document it properly.

2007:

Robert G. Heft predicted what a 50-star flag would look like, and his prediction turned out to be correct. Not sure how much influence he had over the workings of government agencies, such as the Heraldic Program Office (now known as the

2032:

Under "Code," the article reads, "Both of these codes are generally ignored, almost always without comment." There is no support given for this statement. In particular, I question the latter half. The first half might be supported by

692:

The CMYK values provided by the state department also don't translate to that hex value in any program I can find. They create something lighter, which would make sense when printed onto a paper document that will never be a true/pure

1775:

To be more explicit, The Pantone Matching System is a proprietary ink-mixing system dating to the 1960s. Each PMS color identifier is a name for a secret proprietary mixture of something like 15 or 20 different basic inks, used as a

879:

Did you do literally any other research about this topic? My impression is you found this particular source you like, and you want to privilege it above all sources based on your personal preference. The rest is all

696:

These disparities in PMS/CMYK/RGB shades lead me to believe that this wasn't a drag-and-drop situation. Even if you disagree with the process, it's clear different specifications were created for different mediums.

809:

There was a lot of math involved in getting from the 1946 color to an RGB value... the argument I'm making is that work is not more valuable than an authoritative definition from the Dept of State on an RGB value

944:

To be clear, in objecting to "Pantone approximations", I'm saying that the phrase implies a certain type of analysis or consideration involved in the choice, and in some of the cases at least that implication is

1707:

Yes. Although it's (a little bit) interesting that the version of the document you just linked is not identical to the one previously on the ECA website that was used as a reference in this article for a while.

1525: 1522: 570:“Made by a Wikipedian” is a red herring. There’s nothing that makes you or any random other person especially more or less qualified than “web designer at the US Embassy in London in the mid 1990s” (or whoever). 1081:

If someone wants to research to draw their own conclusions, that paragraph is still just as accessible as the other instances of this color debate that have been deleted time and time again from this talk

688:

RGB conversion that makes PMS 282 C into #0A3161. The conversions I've found create MUCH darker shades of blue, which would make it much more suited to a medium that would fade outdoors in the sun, like a

172:

If you want to clarify that ordinary citizens are free to make a flag with whatever colors they want and there are a wide variety of colors used in practice in private people's flags that seems fine with

302:

At the time, that was the best data that existed, but it's not anymore. Recreations are no longer necessary when an authoritative source on RGB values exists, and has existed since (at least) 2012 (

1970: 463:

There is no “actual data” here, is the whole point. Just internal documentation of the institutional style guide of a State Department sub-agency, with no documentation of how it was arrived at. –

1131:(These color references can be obtained from The Color Association of the United States, 315 West 39th Street, Studio 507, New York, NY 10018, telephone: 212 947-7774, www.colorassociation.com.) 1069:

So in other words, because you personally found it didn’t match your preconception, you want to hide the details from other readers also, to prevent them from drawing their own conclusions. –

399:

No, I am suggesting you could look with your eyes at a physical sample to see how far off the Pantone swatches are from the actual formally specified colors. It is not a subtle difference. –

1466:

the moving diagram that shows how to fold the flag. The photo below (not mine) is IDENTICAL to my G-SPEC flag so don't try to claim it has been embellished (note it is in partial shade):

331:

What we do have much better evidence about is that the Standard Color Reference of America provides color samples which are legally defined to be the official colors for government flags.

377:...are you suggesting I make RGB approximations myself to confirm your findings? If I came to different conclusions, would you accept them? Would buying a $ 400 book and looking at it 309:

Even if (as you state, in your opinion) they made bad choices, or you believe the DoS/ECA chose them "arbitrarily" (how would you even cite that?), that's still authoritative because

222:

Let me clarify my purpose here: My only real issue is the SVG file used to illustrate the article. The talk page on Wikimedia Commons suggested we discuss the file here, so here I am.

1350: 337:

Pantone colors are also not specified in terms of sRGB coordinates. And therefore any sRGB coordinates tied to Pantone identifiers cannot according to your logic be “authoritative”.

1563:

Here are a few more random flag images pulled from a web image search. You can see what a wide variety of colors you get depending on the lighting, context, and camera settings:

984:, these had changed to red PMS 193 and blue PMS 281. These latter PMS equivalents are listed on many websites including various other U.S. Government organizations, such as the 972:

A footnote on this article formerly went into what historical detail we could figure out about the Pantone colors; but there was never any especially reliable documentation:

313:. How they came to the decision is not as relevant as the fact that they made the decision. We don't create the standard. They do. And they did. We just need to document it. 1940: 533:" Making assumptions about my understanding of your work. I understood. I disagree that it's still relevant in the face of new data, and dozens have made the same argument. 1420:

window to approximate, as best I could, the lighting in that photo. There is no large scale difference. Sadly I see no way of uploading a photo here in this "talk" page.

1383:

I've included a link to a photo right here on Knowledge of the oval office during the Reagan administration (from 1988). I don't think "filters" were a big deal in 1988.

669:

pulled out the Pantone swatch list and picked something they thought looked close. Then that choice go propagated down to other people who needed to make similar choices.

1964: 1570: 684:

There was definitely inconsistency in early documents, but the state department has been consistently defining the same CMYK/PMS/RGB shades since their 2012 document.

237:(Additionally, the ECA isn't a "local" organization - it's a subdivision of the US Department of State. We ought to be able to afford its decisions their due weight.) 687:

For what it's worth, I've been looking for months (I've been working on other similar projects) and (using blue as an example) have yet to find a single Pantone: -->

1989: 1734:

The “brand colors” for the US State Dept mission websites are: #003875 , #06284C , #FFFFFF , #CC3333 . But these don’t seem to be directly about flags per se.

1311:

I would generally trust the US Government Printing Office as a much better source about color printing vs. random embassies. But I doubt there are actually

303: 711:

So in other words, they also used a really crummy conversion from Pantone to display colors, and you want to take that as further evidence of authority? –

1513: 1259:

I originally preferred something like this variant, but other editors wanted white to be #FFFFFF. Both choices seem supportable by reasonable arguments.

2012:), the official U.S. emblem-designing agency. There's a debunking article on the Slate website (and of course "Cracked" is not a reliable source)... 1692: 1402:

This Reagan photo doesn’t seem especially color accurate to me. Some parts seem unusually green and other parts seem unusually pink, perhaps from the

110:

more emphasis in an article about a flag than all these other physical procurement requirements, and even the sizes mentioned in the executive order?

2034: 2009: 1543:

Nearly all of those photos feature artificial lighting conditions and #8 is not the real oval office but a replica (the flags are also not G-SPEC).

1197:

A consistent standard provided directly by the government specifically for digital display now exists, and has stayed consistent for over a decade.

72: 67: 59: 1351:

https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2021/04/27/efe3e118-2612-40ef-92dc-d8c577044ced/efe3e118-2612-40ef-92dc-d8c577044ced_16x9_1200x676.jpg?width=1138

180:

The 1940s colorimetric data is the best source I know of, but I doubt anyone would have a problem if you can find better or more recent sources. –

2191:

The bold phrase highlighted in the sentence is not grammatically correct. The phrase could probably be simply replaced with "not horizontally".

1576: 1018:

The website of the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm instead lists PMS 186 and PMS 288 as the colors specified by the U.S. Government Printing Office:

362: 1803:

That is a better explanation, yes. But the question of converting from Pantone to RGB wasn't really what was being discussed in this section.

992: 1925: 662:

For what it's worth, the oldest source I know for these Pantone color choices is a US Embassy to the UK website from sometime before 1996:

361:– or you could try to find someone near you with a physical copy to inspect. For example you could inspect one at the Library of Congress, 1228:“These colors form the standard for cloth, and there is no perfect way to convert them to RGB for display on screen or CMYK for printing.” 1226:

Again, nobody here would claim that there is a “one, true way to understand the physical standards”. That’s the whole point of mentioning

1573: 2195: 624:

There’s nothing that makes you or any random other person especially more or less qualified than “The Department of State” (or whoever).

1974: 1567: 1844: 1611: 1596: 1544: 1472: 1436: 1421: 1389: 1353: 1334: 1528: 259:

and ask them what the process was like. I have never seen any evidence for who chose these particular Pantone color swatches or how.

1516: 980:

at the website of the U.S. embassy in London listed the colors red PMS 193 and blue PMS 282 (presumably PMS solid coated colors).

1610:

You cannot simply judge it by dim light. ANY flag looks different in low light. All flags are made to look best in daylight sky.

985: 1182:

You've referenced a standard for physical flags, not for digital display of said flag. What's displayed digitally right now is

1019: 1990:

https://trivia.cracked.com/image-pictofact-11188-35-counterintuitive-facts-about-history-that-have-no-business-being-this-true

358: 1025: 47: 17: 94:

specifications, and it should be possible to include this without suggesting that it is only followed for military purposes.

1275:

the white of the digital flag should be more of a cream, like the original measurements before the white point modification

1141:

The colors, from the Standard Color Reference of America, 10th Edition (see 2.2), of the US National Flag are as follows:

357:

You can also try finding a copy of the Standard Color Reference of America to compare for yourself. They sell for $ 400 –

102:

Either way, perhaps better to write it in terms of what actually happens, rather than lawyering the official requirements.

1386: 1012: 304:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191212164212/https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/state_department_u.s._flag_style_guide.pdf

1784:

be made more predictable and can achieve a wider range of colors and other effects than possible with 4-color printing.

981: 977: 663: 481: 1510: 1507: 234:

their inclusion, instead of locking ourselves into decisions made with the incomplete data we had over a decade ago.

2124: 1693:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130214222233/http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/Content/documents/style_guide_public_hi.pdf

38: 1116:

The General Services Administration has authorized the use of this federal specification by all Federal Agencies.

2162: 2075: 2035:

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/what-is-the-us-flag-code-and-how-does-it-work/2649925/

1761:, so there is no one Pantone-to-RGB conversion that is guaranteed to be "correct" in all or most circumstances. 1579: 1929: 1453:

and measure your flags to see if they match the specified Standard Color Reference colors, then report back. –

1003: 2199: 2158: 2071: 1948: 1848: 1615: 1600: 1548: 1476: 1440: 1425: 1393: 1357: 1338: 363:

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=LCCN&searchArg=82138254&searchType=1&permalink=y

240:

If this is the wrong place to discuss altering the SVG file, please direct me to the correct venue. Thanks!

1753:

As has been discussed in this page a number of times in the past (now in the archives), Pantone colors are

1255: 1202: 1090: 1060: 870: 842: 815: 800: 737: 702: 632: 561: 540:" I'm also not arguing for Pantone shades, which require their own RGB approximation. I'm arguing for the 492: 454: 421: 390: 318: 245: 200: 477:

Without any support? Easy to say when you keep deleting any dissent. Check the history of this talk page.

2101: 1407:

look up photographs of the resolute desk, most of them don’t have the same color as that Reagan photo. –

1151:

Which is not at all ambiguous about what colors should be used by “All Federal Agencies” for US flags. –

328:

picked a red and blue that looked good to them. But there’s no evidence about this one way or the other.

275:

Follow-up: I emailed the ECA to ask where these colors came from. I’ll report back here if they reply. –

796: 450: 417: 2097: 1190:

file is primarily displayed digitally on screens. We should use a standard designed for that purpose."

672:

But it's hard to be sure, as there has never been any public information about the process involved. –

449:

Correcting them all based on actual data instead of "we've always done it this way based on a hunch"*

416:

lol just take the L on this one. Make the top image the same color as *every other flag on the page*.

1921: 1387:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:President_Ronald_Reagan_working_at_his_desk_in_the_Oval_Office.jpg

906:

Because that's not what was done. We looked at the color data and measurement process explanation in

605: 593: 306:). Updated versions of the document (cited in the main article) still maintain those same RGB values. 2232: 2203: 2136: 2105: 2050: 2021: 2001: 1978: 1952: 1933: 1904: 1888: 1880: 1868: 1852: 1825: 1822: 1812: 1798: 1795: 1770: 1745: 1742: 1726:

The “US Web Design System” does not have any standard flag assets or make any mention of the flag.

1717: 1702: 1699: 1686: 1683: 1669: 1655: 1652: 1641: 1619: 1604: 1589: 1586: 1552: 1538: 1535: 1493: 1490: 1480: 1460: 1457: 1444: 1429: 1414: 1411: 1397: 1374: 1371: 1361: 1342: 1322: 1319: 1292: 1289: 1237: 1234: 1221: 1206: 1177: 1174: 1164: 1161: 1155: 1094: 1076: 1073: 1064: 1048: 1045: 958: 917: 914: 891: 888: 881: 874: 859: 856: 846: 832: 829: 819: 804: 779: 764: 761: 741: 718: 715: 706: 679: 676: 653: 636: 619: 616: 597: 565: 514: 511: 496: 470: 467: 458: 441: 438: 425: 406: 403: 394: 372: 369: 348: 345: 322: 282: 279: 270: 267: 249: 217: 214: 204: 187: 184: 163: 144: 141: 119: 501:

The discussion was on this page, not the commons file. But your argument basically boils down to:

2188:

as the Space Shuttle did on its landing approach, so the streaming convention was not followed."

2132: 2046: 2017: 1997: 1944: 1900: 1884: 1864: 1787:

The final color you get on paper from a Pantone ink mixture is going to depend on the paper, etc.

1766: 989: 612:

is an entirely deterministic process; the formula involved is literally the definition of sRGB. –

507:

approximate display colors from from physical paper samples. It’s just a similar bunch of math. –

482:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File_talk:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg#Discussions_regarding_color

1735: 1331: 2228: 1519: 1450: 1403: 1198: 1128:

THE STANDARD COLOR REFERENCE OF AMERICA, 10TH EDITION and supplement, THE U.S. ARMY COLOR CARD

1086: 1056: 866: 838: 811: 733: 698: 628: 557: 488: 431: 386: 314: 241: 196: 1194:

It may have been the best decision in the absence of other authorities, but it was editorial.

2120: 1122:

The following documents form a part of this specification to the extent specified herein.

359:

https://www.colorassociation-store.com/product-page/the-standard-color-reference-of-america

2119:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

1506:

Compare the color of the flag on these other oval office photos pulled from a web search:

1281: 1007: 996: 434:

just recently jumped all around Wikimedia commons changing them all without any support. –

193: 1988:

Apparently Robert G. Heft designed the current flag ("Robert G. Heft" redirects hither).

341:

not documented in the case of Pantone's published sRGB values, so we cannot assess it. –

1819: 1792: 1739: 1696: 1680: 1649: 1583: 1532: 1487: 1454: 1408: 1368: 1316: 1286: 1231: 1171: 1158: 1152: 1070: 1042: 911: 885: 853: 826: 792: 758: 712: 673: 613: 601: 508: 464: 446: 435: 413: 400: 366: 342: 276: 264: 211: 181: 138: 2128: 2042: 2013: 1993: 1896: 1860: 1808: 1762: 1713: 1665: 1637: 1217: 954: 775: 649: 159: 115: 2224: 2184:"Nevertheless, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were launched and landed vertically and 1103:

is DDD-F-416F, the currently active official Federal flag specification from 2005:

837:

IT'S THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. I'm not sure how much more authoritative it gets.

664:

https://web.archive.org/web/19971014170401/http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rcflags.html

538:

These Pantone color systems are also from the 1960s...just a similar bunch of math.

1347:

Perhaps we should just use an actual photo of a real US flag? Here is another one:

1033: 2038: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1777: 1230:

I have no problem with adding further qualifications or caveats in the text. –

1085:

Also, sorry the Department of State standards don't match your preconception.

1029: 1679:– I have not seen evidence such a document, but it’s possible one exists. – 1469: 1467: 1804: 1709: 1661: 1633: 1213: 950: 907: 771: 645: 155: 111: 627:

Anyone can look at the RGB values published by the Department of State.

2096:

edit flag color to a lighter red because it looks more modern and new.

579:

by the nations top color scientists at the National Bureau of Standards

1000: 1531:. As you can see there is a huge variation from picture to picture. – 596:

transformation) to adapt the white point of those measurements from

1727: 1307:

Oh the 2001 page at the Stockholm embassy explained slightly more:

334:

The rest of your comment is based on fundamental misunderstandings.

255:

without consensus; they will likely be reverted or further amended.

1254: 941:

again, I haven't read it all yet.. I might have something to add.)

1595:

diagram showing how to fold the flag shows more accurate colors.

609: 381:

closely make me more authoritative than the Department of State?

2146: 2059: 1315:

Pantone colors which closely resemble the silk TCCA samples. –

25: 1736:

https://sample2.usembassy.gov/documentation/design-standards/

1332:

https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001270456/

1111:

FLAG, NATIONAL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND FLAG, UNION JACK

430:

Some other flags on this page have different colors because

1879:

How do you display the Flag behind a speaker at a podium?

1875:

How do you display the Flag behind a speaker at a podium?

1691:

Oh I guess you mean this (now vanished) 2012 document.

194:

https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/eca_design_guide.pdf

297:

it predates the existence of the RGB colorspace (1946)

1022:. United States Embassy Stockholm. November 2001. 480:Also, check the discussion oon the Commons file: 1965:Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 2143:grammar issue in "Display on vehicles" section 2039:https://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq4.html 1032:suggested PMS 200 for red in a 2002 document, 1677:branding guide for the whole State Department 865:mainspace article. Stop muddying the waters. 8: 1034:"Flags over California, a history and guide" 910:which you are welcome to look at yourself. – 546:published by the US Government Dept of State 177:that purpose, please feel free to add those. 2056:Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 1992:. See his simple-English Knowledge entry. 1186:of that standard made for computer screens. 1125:The Color Association of The United States 1919: 592:Then they can apply a standard formula (a 589:(see how silly it is to bold everything?) 2010:United States Army Institute of Heraldry 1757:, while computer-monitor RGB colors are 644:relevant than their derivation, though. 2186:could not horizontal atmospheric flight 1971:2603:7000:2101:AA00:4DA2:4C41:6BB1:F7CE 1859:did fly during sea battles, however... 1470:https://www.gideonflags.com/usflags.php 295:be authoritative on RGB values because 1676: 1308: 1274: 1227: 976: 750: 537: 531:it was too confusing for me personally 530: 520: 502: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 908:http://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.36.000128 751:I believe they created a new standard 581:of the silk color swatches that form 311:it comes from the Department of State 7: 1144:Old Glory Red; White; Old Glory Blue 573:Anyone can look at the colorimetric 587:The President of the United States. 24: 2215: 2150: 2111: 2063: 1728:https://designsystem.digital.gov 1170:“authoritative” or “official”. – 986:Millennium Challenge Corporation 29: 1449:If you like, you can borrow a 18:Talk:Flag of the United States 1: 2051:01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 2022:06:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 2002:18:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 1590:09:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC) 1375:01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC) 1362:18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) 1343:18:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) 753:This is entirely nonsensical. 585:colors by Executive order of 124:The details about the colors 1979:23:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1826:04:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC) 1813:03:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC) 1799:22:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1771:21:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1746:02:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1718:03:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1703:02:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1687:02:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1670:01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1656:01:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1642:00:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1323:18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1293:21:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1238:01:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 1222:23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1207:20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1178:19:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1165:19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1095:18:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1077:18:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1065:18:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 1049:17:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 959:23:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 918:18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 892:18:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 875:18:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 860:18:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 847:18:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 833:18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 820:18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 805:17:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 780:23:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 765:18:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 742:17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 719:17:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 707:17:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 680:17:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 654:02:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 637:17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 620:17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 566:17:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 515:17:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 497:16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 471:17:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 459:16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 442:16:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 426:16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 407:16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 395:15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 373:08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 349:16:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 323:15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 283:08:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 271:07:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 250:03:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 218:23:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC) 205:22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC) 188:06:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC) 164:01:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC) 145:08:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC) 120:03:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) 2177:to reactivate your request. 2165:has been answered. Set the 2090:to reactivate your request. 2078:has been answered. Set the 1953:17:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1934:14:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 2249: 2233:20:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2204:20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 1959:Please add as a "see also" 1905:10:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 1889:02:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 1869:09:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1853:21:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 1001:"United States of America" 978:In 1998, "U.S. Flag Facts" 884:and rhetorical flourish. – 2163:Flag of the United States 2137:17:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 2106:17:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 2076:Flag of the United States 1620:16:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1605:16:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1553:17:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1539:16:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1494:20:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1481:18:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1461:17:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1445:17:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1430:16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1415:16:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1398:15:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1020:"Colors of the U.S. Flag" 1910:sesnovemdedecmbtrillion 1843:downplays this as well. 1120:2.2 Other publications. 523:the US State Department 2121:"change X to Y" format 1838:First to Fly in Battle 1260: 1006:July 13, 2010, at the 1918:What is that number 1258: 1107:FEDERAL SPECIFICATION 1099:What you are arguing 995:May 22, 2010, at the 42:of past discussions. 1791:depend on context. – 1660:That's what I said. 594:Chromatic adaptation 88:Color overstatements 1030:State of California 1026:Military Department 882:motivated reasoning 521:unnamed staffer at 291:The current source 1755:device-independent 1261: 1013:Flags of the World 604:. Converting from 2181: 2180: 2094: 2093: 1936: 1924:comment added by 1451:spectrophotometer 1404:photographic film 432:user:TheTaraStark 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2240: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2172: 2168: 2154: 2153: 2147: 2127:if appropriate. 2115: 2114: 2085: 2081: 2067: 2066: 2060: 1759:device-dependent 728:self-importance. 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2216: 2214: 2211: 2170: 2166: 2151: 2145: 2125:reliable source 2112: 2083: 2079: 2064: 2058: 2030: 1986: 1961: 1916: 1877: 1840: 1282:Magnesium oxide 1008:Wayback Machine 997:Wayback Machine 982:By October 2002 526:" emphasis mine 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2246: 2244: 2236: 2235: 2207: 2194: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2155: 2144: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2123:and provide a 2092: 2091: 2068: 2057: 2054: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1985: 1984:current design 1982: 1968: 1967: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1926:213.211.87.194 1915: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1839: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1788: 1785: 1781: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1732: 1730: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1607: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1432: 1384: 1381: 1348: 1329: 1325: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1277: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1184:a modification 1180: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1117: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1083: 1039: 1038: 1023: 1017: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 946: 942: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 754: 748: 729: 725: 694: 690: 685: 670: 666: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 641: 640: 639: 625: 602:Illuminant D65 590: 571: 550:approximations 534: 527: 484: 478: 475: 474: 473: 411: 410: 409: 382: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 338: 335: 332: 329: 307: 300: 289: 285: 260: 256: 238: 235: 231: 227: 223: 178: 174: 170: 151: 134: 130: 107: 103: 99: 95: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2245: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2213: 2212: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2196:174.44.211.37 2192: 2189: 2187: 2176: 2173:parameter to 2164: 2160: 2156: 2149: 2148: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2089: 2086:parameter to 2077: 2073: 2069: 2062: 2061: 2055: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037:and possibly 2036: 2028:Code practice 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1983: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1945:Chaheel Riens 1942: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1913: 1911: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1837: 1827: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1797: 1794: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1779: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1731: 1729: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1651: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1585: 1581: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1257: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1143: 1142: 1140: 1137: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1124: 1123: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1104: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1044: 1037: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1021: 1015: 1014: 1009: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 974: 973: 960: 956: 952: 947: 943: 939: 919: 916: 913: 909: 905: 893: 890: 887: 883: 878: 877: 876: 872: 868: 863: 862: 861: 858: 855: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 836: 835: 834: 831: 828: 823: 822: 821: 817: 813: 808: 807: 806: 802: 798: 794: 791: 781: 777: 773: 768: 767: 766: 763: 760: 755: 752: 749: 745: 744: 743: 739: 735: 730: 726: 722: 721: 720: 717: 714: 710: 709: 708: 704: 700: 695: 691: 686: 683: 682: 681: 678: 675: 671: 667: 665: 661: 655: 651: 647: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 623: 622: 621: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 569: 568: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 532: 528: 525: 524: 518: 517: 516: 513: 510: 505: 500: 499: 498: 494: 490: 485: 483: 479: 476: 472: 469: 466: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 448: 445: 444: 443: 440: 437: 433: 429: 428: 427: 423: 419: 415: 412: 408: 405: 402: 398: 397: 396: 392: 388: 383: 380: 376: 375: 374: 371: 368: 364: 360: 356: 350: 347: 344: 339: 336: 333: 330: 326: 325: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 305: 301: 298: 294: 290: 288:2012-present. 286: 284: 281: 278: 274: 273: 272: 269: 266: 261: 257: 253: 252: 251: 247: 243: 239: 236: 232: 228: 224: 221: 220: 219: 216: 213: 208: 207: 206: 202: 198: 195: 191: 190: 189: 186: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 166: 165: 161: 157: 152: 148: 147: 146: 143: 140: 135: 131: 127: 123: 122: 121: 117: 113: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 91: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2220: 2208: 2193: 2190: 2185: 2182: 2174: 2159:edit request 2116: 2095: 2087: 2072:edit request 2031: 1987: 1969: 1943:of course. 1920:— Preceding 1917: 1909: 1878: 1845:74.79.205.46 1841: 1780:in printing. 1758: 1754: 1630: 1612:47.7.240.106 1597:47.7.240.106 1545:47.7.240.106 1473:47.7.240.106 1437:47.7.240.106 1422:47.7.240.106 1390:47.7.240.106 1354:47.7.240.106 1335:47.7.240.106 1312: 1199:TheTaraStark 1183: 1138: 1119: 1106: 1100: 1087:TheTaraStark 1057:TheTaraStark 1040: 1011: 971: 867:TheTaraStark 839:TheTaraStark 812:TheTaraStark 797:Darthplaydoh 734:TheTaraStark 699:TheTaraStark 629:TheTaraStark 598:Illuminant C 586: 583:the official 582: 578: 577:as measured 574: 558:TheTaraStark 554:a Wikipedian 553: 549: 545: 541: 522: 489:TheTaraStark 451:Darthplaydoh 418:Darthplaydoh 387:TheTaraStark 378: 315:TheTaraStark 310: 296: 292: 242:TheTaraStark 197:TheTaraStark 125: 78: 43: 37: 2098:Qwertywasdf 999:. See also 724:published). 544:RGB values 36:This is an 2209:References 2167:|answered= 2080:|answered= 1778:spot color 1139:3.5 Color. 945:incorrect. 793:@Jacobolus 542:definitive 447:@Jacobolus 414:@Jacobolus 2117:Not done: 1820:jacobolus 1793:jacobolus 1740:jacobolus 1697:jacobolus 1681:jacobolus 1650:jacobolus 1584:jacobolus 1533:jacobolus 1488:jacobolus 1455:jacobolus 1409:jacobolus 1369:jacobolus 1317:jacobolus 1287:jacobolus 1232:jacobolus 1172:jacobolus 1159:jacobolus 1153:jacobolus 1071:jacobolus 1043:jacobolus 912:jacobolus 886:jacobolus 854:jacobolus 827:jacobolus 759:jacobolus 713:jacobolus 674:jacobolus 614:jacobolus 548:over RGB 509:jacobolus 465:jacobolus 436:jacobolus 401:jacobolus 367:jacobolus 343:jacobolus 277:jacobolus 265:jacobolus 212:jacobolus 182:jacobolus 139:jacobolus 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 2129:Cannolis 2043:Kdammers 2014:AnonMoos 1994:Kdammers 1922:unsigned 1897:AnonMoos 1881:Elteral3 1861:AnonMoos 1763:AnonMoos 1004:Archived 993:Archived 747:details. 552:made by 230:decades. 2225:Liu1126 1101:against 1028:of the 990:website 39:archive 693:white. 606:CIEXYZ 379:really 293:cannot 226:alone. 2171:|ans= 2157:This 2084:|ans= 2070:This 1082:page. 689:flag. 126:don’t 16:< 2229:talk 2221:Done 2200:talk 2133:talk 2102:talk 2047:talk 2018:talk 1998:talk 1975:talk 1949:talk 1930:talk 1901:talk 1885:talk 1865:talk 1849:talk 1809:talk 1767:talk 1714:talk 1666:talk 1638:talk 1616:talk 1601:talk 1549:talk 1477:talk 1441:talk 1426:talk 1394:talk 1358:talk 1339:talk 1218:talk 1203:talk 1091:talk 1061:talk 1024:The 955:talk 871:talk 843:talk 816:talk 801:talk 776:talk 738:talk 703:talk 650:talk 633:talk 610:sRGB 575:data 562:talk 536:3) " 529:2) " 519:1) " 493:talk 455:talk 422:talk 391:talk 319:talk 246:talk 201:talk 160:talk 116:talk 2169:or 2161:to 2082:or 2074:to 1823:(t) 1805:JPD 1796:(t) 1743:(t) 1710:JPD 1700:(t) 1684:(t) 1662:JPD 1653:(t) 1634:JPD 1587:(t) 1536:(t) 1491:(t) 1458:(t) 1412:(t) 1372:(t) 1320:(t) 1313:any 1290:(t) 1235:(t) 1214:JPD 1175:(t) 1162:(t) 1156:(t) 1074:(t) 1046:(t) 988:'s 951:JPD 915:(t) 889:(t) 857:(t) 830:(t) 772:JPD 762:(t) 716:(t) 677:(t) 646:JPD 617:(t) 608:to 600:to 512:(t) 468:(t) 439:(t) 404:(t) 370:(t) 346:(t) 280:(t) 268:(t) 215:(t) 185:(t) 173:me. 156:JPD 142:(t) 112:JPD 2231:) 2202:) 2175:no 2135:) 2104:) 2088:no 2049:) 2041:. 2020:) 2000:) 1977:) 1951:) 1941:42 1932:) 1914:🔨 1903:) 1887:) 1867:) 1851:) 1811:) 1769:) 1716:) 1668:) 1640:) 1618:) 1603:) 1580:#6 1577:#5 1574:#4 1571:#3 1568:#2 1565:#1 1551:) 1529:#8 1526:#7 1523:#6 1520:#5 1517:#4 1514:#3 1511:#2 1508:#1 1479:) 1443:) 1428:) 1396:) 1360:) 1341:) 1220:) 1205:) 1093:) 1063:) 1010:, 957:) 873:) 845:) 818:) 803:) 778:) 740:) 705:) 652:) 635:) 564:) 556:. 495:) 457:) 424:) 393:) 321:) 248:) 203:) 162:) 118:) 64:← 2227:( 2198:( 2131:( 2100:( 2045:( 2016:( 1996:( 1973:( 1947:( 1928:( 1899:( 1883:( 1863:( 1847:( 1807:( 1765:( 1738:– 1712:( 1695:– 1664:( 1648:– 1636:( 1614:( 1599:( 1582:– 1547:( 1475:( 1439:( 1424:( 1392:( 1356:( 1337:( 1285:– 1216:( 1201:( 1089:( 1059:( 1041:– 1036:. 1016:. 953:( 869:( 841:( 825:– 814:( 799:( 774:( 736:( 701:( 648:( 631:( 560:( 491:( 453:( 420:( 389:( 365:– 317:( 244:( 199:( 158:( 137:– 114:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index