Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
- Subject: Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
Steve Upton wrote:
>I don't disagree with the stated definition or your explanation of it but,
>to be honest, I've never really bought into the need for such differentiation.
>
>From my perspective, color inconstancy is typically most noticeable
>/ cited in neutrals. Neutrals are one of those color groups I believe
>we actually have memory for. We know what we want to see and can tell
>when the colors are not achieving the grays we expect.
Depending on the specific case at hand, other colors can and do appear visibly inconstant besides neutrals. When changing illuminants, some colors gain or lose saturation, or change hue, more or less slightly.
>While clarifying the difference between metamerism and color
>constancy is technically correct, I have to question the value of it.
To me, the value is in knowing the difference, and applying the right term to the phenomenon. Because they ARE different in what they indicate.
>Are we not really talking about printed goods that differ in their appearance
>under different lighting in an undesirable way? Are we doing a service or
>disservice to the graphic arts industries by splitting these hairs or just
>introducing more arcane jargon to a group that is already weary of our ramblings?
This is not a case of a group of color management experts looking at the problem a number of years ago and deciding, in full knowledge of the situation, that it should be called "metamerism" though they knew it really should be called "color inconstancy". This started with people, some in influential positions (who exactly it's probably impossible to pinpoint, but we could guess) who used the term incorrectly FROM THE VERY START due to lack of proper knowledge -- only later figuring out (some of them, not others) that it should have been called something else. Oops...
By then the cat was out of the bag, so now most everyone pretended to be OK with what originated as a mistake. A wall of omertà ("I'll say nothing about it as long as you don't") was raised to defend people from embarrassment, and it still stands.
(What is so arcane with the expression "color inconstancy" anyway? To a novice, it must certainly sound like a far less "arcane" word than "metamerism"! Let's call it "inconstancy" for short, if it makes it easier to accept by our culture's craving for brevity at all costs.)
I don't see the use of correct terminology as constituting "arcane jargon". Pidgin English is serviceable, but Shakespeare it ain't. "Metamerism" in lieu of "color inconstancy" is Pidgin English. Serviceable? Sure. I guess it's a matter of choosing one's preferred level of communication.
>So, I choose to see the gray problem as a miss-match between the observed
>gray and the one "in the mind" (expected). For me it's a kind of metamerism
>between real printed samples and the "virtual, expected" samples I desire.
That is a bit of a mental stretch, in my opinion. Good for reassembling the facts of the matter ex post facto to favor the preferred outcome. Still incorrect, though.
>Surprisingly, this bit of mental laxness doesn't bother me at all...
Well, as long as people sleep well in their established beliefs, I guess I ought to shut up, not to disturb the universally agreed-upon peace.
Amen and poveri noi...
Marco
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden