Re: Metamerism
Re: Metamerism
- Subject: Re: Metamerism
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 22:48:56 EST
In a message dated 11/3/01 3:59:56 PM, email@hidden writes:
>
Are you saying that version one *is* metamerism? Are you saying that
>
version two *is not* metamerism? I honestly haven't a clue where you're
>
coming from on this one.
Sorry if I was unclear, but I believe that the only difference between the
two scenarios was that in one the original image was viewed, in addition to
the print, under the different light sources, while in the other it was not
included. So the first fit your literal definition of metamerism, and the
other didn't. I have suggested on previous occasions, to meet this
technicality when an original is not available (such as with a digital camera
shot) that a true photo print like a LightJet print could be used as this
second, unchanging, image. The point it that the disgruntled inkjet owner
whose prints change color relations radically under the differing light
sources will hardly care if a second image is used to make it official or
not. His prints are changing, they are unacceptable, and the phenomonon that
is causing it is the same with or without the second print. So lets give the
poor sucker a break, since he has already spent a good deal of money on this
problematic inkjet printer, and not require him to pay for a LightJet print
before you will allow him a term to use in complaining about his problem.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden