Something to ponder when trying to make realistic images is the question, who's reality?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10831892

The article mentions a sex difference in color acuity but fails to mention that a very high percentage of males have substantial color acuity impairments. These impairments are often not detected by the standard color impairment test and many men do not realize their diminished acuity.

Yes, it just mentions one set of gender perceptual differences. I suspect, on average, there is a wide range of differences in the way people perceive reality. There is a wide range of vision acuity. As it happens a eye doctor once told me I had unusually acute vision - much better than 20/20. How much of that have I retained? How does that impact how I perceive the world compared to other folks? I don't know. What are the differences in how people perceive other aspects of vision, such as dynamic range? How does experience and development impact perception? So many variables.

+1 @ variability in perception.

I literally had to get a paint swatch to put next to my house to get someone to believe me when I told them what color it was. At the time it was a pale green, yet they insisted it was beige. The funny thing is that they are not color blind and have a great eye for color in their own artistic endeavors.

I've since painted the house a darker green ... some days it ranges from a middle green to a hunter green depending on the variability of the sun's. It really is perceived as a significantly different color, even though it never changes.

Between the viewer and the environment ... chasing reality with uncontrolled variables gets to be a bit of "wild goose chase" at times. For me, I suppose I'm more sensitive to seeing the blue's than most, since so few people seem to notice/care @ the blue/cyanic casts from the overhead sky the way I do.

There was a link to a color detection test a while back (alt forum a few years ago) that revealed some interesting results as various FM members reported their results. Mostly guys taking the test iirc, but even within that gender, the variability was noted.

Hmm, my wife always wants to know what color the car was. I tell her it was a 1955 Chevy Coupe 2 door hardtop. Never can recall the color. Same for houses, shirts etc.

Guess I categorize things by geometry rather than color. I think I have normal color vision (for a man perhaps) but my sensitivity to hue is not so great. You could probably tell by my image posts. This is why I prefer to do color by the numbers and use calibration techniques.

I would say I am over sensitive to fine detail. I trained myself to estimate the thickness of sheet metal and could hit within .010 inch or so. Part of the business I was in.

+1 @ job required detail ... shimstock @ .001 by feel (but those days are long gone). Probably plays a role in my tendency to oversharpen.

Here's a link for the test (I couldn't find the FM thread yet) I mentioned earlier.

http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77

Of course ... you might want to make sure you are using a calibrated monitor when you take the test.

Ok, took the test, got 47. Just about the middle of the range.

I used a calibrated monitor and Safari to make sure I has a color aware browser.

I took it on my laptop and got a 7 ... moved down to my desk and got a 4 (which is the same I got first time I took it a few years ago). Both times using Mozilla Firefox browser.

Cyan seems to be my nemesis ... but given my difficulties with sky colors ... I could have told you that already.

It occurs to me there is another aspect about color, that is color memory. The test would be to look at a color, then try to match the same color later from a color sample set. I would probably do poorly at this.

Given the adaptive nature of the eye/brain to WB, I think that would reveal the greatest variability in human color perception, particularly if you changed the ambient lighting ... which is what occurs EVERY time when we capture an image in the field (as we saw it) and then process it off a monitor indoors.

By the way, I am really surprised at your low score, so much so that I wonder if I read mine right. But it did read 47 in the box and I did not think that was a good score. The error bar graph shows minor placement errors.

One thing I have done was to make a print and then take it outside to compare sky color between my print and the sky. Did it a long time ago and don't even recall my conclusion, so maybe I need to do it over.

This test does not measure perception of color accuracy; it measures sensitivity to differences in adjacent patches of color. I would say it sheds little light on how how we perceive colors in nature. It's perhaps a very useful guide when trying to match color in prints

I have taken this test several times over the past few years. With my desktop I typically scored between 2 and 5. When I got my laptop I found that I continued to score in the same range. Some photographers make a big deal about calibrated monitors but seem to have images with greatly oversaturated red colors. I suspect one's visual acuity is much more important than monitor calibration. I never saw a detectable difference between my calibrated desktop and my uncalibrated laptop monitor except the laptop requires constant attention to be sure the screen is at a 90 degree angle.

Ok, retook it and took more time and got a 27, now I see lower is better. Guess my reading is not much better than my color.

sadja wrote:
This test does not measure perception of color accuracy; it measures sensitivity to differences in adjacent patches of color. I would say it sheds little light on how how we perceive colors in nature. It's perhaps a very useful guide when trying to match color in prints

I am not sure you are correct. To be able to put these swatches in order seems to require a high level of color acuity. In any case if you want to assess your color acuity there are very accurate tests. Check with an ophalmologist. I once had a job where extremely sensitive color perception was important and as I remember the color test involved about 75-100 individual images some with extremely subtle variations. I scored near perfect but was told that a very high percentage of males showed some level of deficiency.

I tend to agree with Sadja that it is probably weighted at least to sensitivity @ differences, but it still clearly showed that I had sensitivity or detectability issues at a specific point in the cyan range.

I guess the point of it is that most people seem to feel that they see things "accurately" ... yet few of us really do in totality.

Camperjim wrote:
I have taken this test several times over the past few years. With my desktop I typically scored between 2 and 5. When I got my laptop I found that I continued to score in the same range. Some photographers make a big deal about calibrated monitors but seem to have images with greatly oversaturated red colors. I suspect one's visual acuity is much more important than monitor calibration. I never saw a detectable difference between my calibrated desktop and my uncalibrated laptop monitor except the laptop requires constant attention to be sure the screen is at a 90 degree angle.


I agree, view angle is the biggest gotcha with respect to low quality monitors. The next one is when using a wide gamut monitor that is calibrated. Looks great in color aware viewing but can really look strange on a none color aware viewing environment.

I don't routinely view images on a standard monitor but I often view my WG monitor using Chrome where colors can be really strange, I am not sure about your statement only because I don't have a good way to verify it.

I will say that a non WG monitor is very insensitive to browsers, but a WG monitor is very sensitive.

After I upgraded my Color checker and making a new camera profile and getting a new monitor cal system, I have fixed a problem that was really bugging me. I always had to desaturate blue at the end of processing and it often looked off before processing. Now I hardly ever see this problem and only when I have done too much Topaz.

Given the wide range of perception difference, I just make the colors what I feel they should be. Besides, as I like to say, reality is for folks who lack imagination.

Aunti, you do have a knack for cutting to the core of an issue.

AuntiPode wrote:
Yes, it just mentions one set of gender perceptual differences. I suspect, on average, there is a wide range of differences in the way people perceive reality. There is a wide range of vision acuity. As it happens a eye doctor once told me I had unusually acute vision - much better than 20/20. How much of that have I retained? How does that impact how I perceive the world compared to other folks? I don't know. What are the differences in how people perceive other aspects of vision, such as dynamic range? How does experience and development impact perception? So many variables.


Just the opposite here, I have better than 20/20 to about 20 inches but can't see a stoplight without my glasses on. Been like this since childhood (before glasses were invented) :-)

But I can see pretty good if I get up real close and so I always do. Being a pixel peeper is just a fact of life for me. I am pretty sure this has a great deal to do with my photography ideas.