On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...528...> wrote:
And I also strongly object to dropping the light grays (5% and 2.5%). They are useful.
Assuming you mean they are useful because of gamma and such I've now chosen the values to be linear in "linearRGB" and then transformed them to sRGB, this gives finer steps in the high regions and coarser steps in the low regions.
No, I think it's over-smarting it. The labels are now misguiding: the 50% gray is not actually 50%, at least not what all other programs call 50% gray. This alone is bad enough, but also the contrast between your "90% gray" and black is much too big and begs for inserting extra steps there.
So, I would much prefer the original with truthful labels, at every 10% plus the extra steps at the lighter end.
As for your "primary" colors, I notice that only a few of them have names, other are just RGB values. In the old palette, they all had both names and values. If they are indeed primary, shouldn't they all have some kind of standard names?
I like your changes in the h/s/l section, they seem to make the spans more even lightness-wise. (And unlike the grays section, here we don't have an established standard to follow, so deviation from RGB uniformity is OK). However, can you increase the contrast in saturation between the 11/9/7 groups, so that 9 and especially 7 are even less saturated?