[Tig] color nomenclature tool
rob at colorist.org
Mon Nov 9 15:49:57 GMT 2009
On Nov 5, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Richard Kirk wrote:
> No Cambridge Blue? Bah.
That is the default color for an Oxford shirt, so it should be there,
have to do a little recoding.
> True. We don't know the display or the tone curve or the viewing
> conditions. However, things are not necessarily that bad. If the
> is self-luminous then the user can look at it in reduced lighting if
> want to be accurate. Dark is the same everywhere, so that ought to
Dark is the same everywhere. That seems to be a true statement, but
there might need to be a lexical proof was well as a physical one.
> We are then looking at the color on a self-luminous screen with other
> stuff that gives us the sense of display white. That is not a bad
> criterion for viewing conditions.
For fresh eyes it is, but as outlined in various papers on monitoring
conditions from the standards organizations, the eye eventually needs
focus relief: something with a texture several feet behind the plane
of the monitor, illuminated to a color reference.
> If we increase the monitor
> brightness, our sense of color increases (the Hunt effect). If we
> the saturation, our sense of brightness can increase (the Stevens
Hunt and Stevens, two more effects to add. (one thinks of the
Swinsonian Bent-Elbow Theory, and the Topazio-Robinson Effect, each of
them in the TIG archives).
> In practical terms, we are probably ranging our sense of color to
> fit what
> we see, and we will not spot the difference between a video display
> and a
> video+10% display unless they are put next to each other. I vividly
> remember seeing the same video signal going to a Sony BVM and a Barco
> DP90P, and the red on the Sony looking red until the Barco turned
> on, when
> it promptly turned orange.
There are so many effects like this, and I think a colorist who has
been looking at monitors and projections for years and years knows how
to recalibrate. In non-ideal conditions, I've had to exit the room,
look at something else (daylight; another monitor) then, consciously
making an effort to memorize the color, close my eyes and find my way
back to the suite and open the eyes in front of the display. This
depends on getting there quickly, which can be tricky.
> In this case, the worded description of a color is probably a fair
> to our internal sense of that color if we do not have any color
> coming from outside the display.
The names that come up from someone's ideas of what they should be
seem serendipitous. What hue/saturation would you guess the following
colors to be?
..and there are many more.
> Of course, that is an easy thing to say
> as we have no way of measuring our internal sense of color. I
> suspect the
> tool would work well enough.
> But, is it useful?
The original tool was developed, based on other work, for those who
are color-blind, in helping to find the web-based hex-value for colors
that otherwise may not be named. It helps to fill in the blanks
where names aren't assigned.
The intent in having it available as a tool on the TIG is experimental
but might serve to help a colorist or client use a particular term of
description, or return to an exact value (for only the display used in
the Color Picker).
Anyway, it was fun to port it to the wiki.
Rob Lingelbach TIG admin
rob at colorist.org
More information about the Tig