I'd mix, and mix and end up with a dark yellow, that when printed over blue turned green, or reddish or some other stupid hue. And my printmaking professor came over, and she said to use gray, and some yellow, and some brown (please, don't ask for the exact ink mix). When we were done, the ink sat on the slab as a puce, but printed slightly yellow.
However, when printed over a thalo blue, it was exactly like I needed: yellow-blue. Not green, yellow-blue. It was the damnedest thing, and not lost on the other students: I had to remix it at least six times within a week for other people.
The color doesn't reproduce at all on screen, so I have to assume it's partially an optical illusion.
I'm sure you know this, but RGB is not able to represent all possible colors, and monitors themselves are not able to represent all of RGB. This gives us a somewhat limited subset of available colors for use on screen, which is why (I assume) photographs don't look as colorful as the subject did real life. The film / CCD can't record all color information, and the print / monitor can't display it all.
Indeed, but it’s not completely an issue of gamut: the hue is always off even if it’s balanced against a card.
I don't seem to get a blue/yellow unless you count where I can get it to be yellow in the middle with some blue at the edges that tends to merge with the black border.
I'm sure this stuff is highly idiosyncratic. Everyone's visual system is different. It develops via visual feedback at early ages and so is different for everyone, sometimes to one's detriment:
You can see some imaginary colors here:
Also, any time I do these afterimage experiments I notice that my eyes are not very well aligned.
For example, one can have metameries (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)), where different physiclaal signals lead to perception of the same color.