Re: Metamerism
Re: Metamerism
- Subject: Re: Metamerism
- From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:37:16 -0600
Bruce Fraser wrote:
>
If your on-screen image is one sample, your inkjet print is the
>
second sample, and they match under one lighting condition but not
>
another, then you have a metameric pair -- a pure example of
>
metamerism with no quotes required.
I would disagree with this statement. The colors on the monitor are not
formed by, nor influenced in any way by the lights used to view the print.
This is *not* an example of metamerism, IMO. The observation that a single
print looks different under two different lighting conditions is normal, and
unrelated to metamerism.
Bob Binder wrote:
>
Likewise if a proof and print match each other in one light source but
>
deviate from one another as we move to another light source, this is
>
metamerism. The color or balance of a single proof changing as we move
>
from one light source to another is not metamerism.
Bob is right on the money. He points out the essential difference. Rather
than calling it "metamerism" (quoted version), haplometamerism, monomerism
or whatever, I vote it be called what it is: not metamerism.
Bob again:
>
metamerism is neither good nor bad
On the contrary, I would say that metamerism is both good AND bad. Without
metamerism we would be unable to perform color reproduction at all without
spectral matches. But it can also be bad, like when you've just dropped a
few grand on carpeting that matches your drapes at the store only to find
they don't match in your living room...
--
Bruce J. Lindbloom
www.brucelindbloom.com
email@hidden