Re: Metamerism
Re: Metamerism
- Subject: Re: Metamerism
- From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 14:59:27 -0600
I wrote:
>
1) Each print (by itself) looks different when viewed under the four
>
different conditions: viewing booth, tungsten, fluorescent, daylight.
>
This is not metamerism.
>
>
2) David could instead have meant that each print, *when viewed along side
>
the original photogravure*, matched the original to a greater or lesser
>
degree, depending on the illuminaton. This is metamerism.
C. David Tobie replied:
>
Versions one and two are the same except for proximity of the original,
>
which does not much effect the viewer's dissatisfaction with the variations
>
among the viewed reproductions... the idea that version one in is therefore
>
not metamerism while version two is, qualifies in my book as a level of
>
literalism worthy only of those who have been elected to public office!
You can't possibly be serious (versions one and two are the same except that
they are completely different!). No one who actually knows what metamerism
means would agree with you.
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.
--
Bruce J. Lindbloom