Subject: Color standards
Beatrix Arendt <barendt [at] monticello__org> writes >... So we would like to say, "these >'x' blue chips that we pulled from Munsell's color books are going >to be the range for 'blue.' And these 'y' chips are the range for >light blue." That way, when an archaeologist looks at other's >reports from different sites, they will be able to know exactly what >range of blues they were talking about. We are hoping it will take >out some of the subjectivity of color choice. It is a first attempt >at speaking the same "language." I'm sure you will get a lot of great answers from the DistList, but here are my thoughts on the matter. I do not believe you can "take the subjectivity out" of color viewing. Color viewing is an inherently subjective event. The solution, instead, is to "control for the subjectivity". This is because there is a problem here that goes deeper than the imprecise or inconsistent language that is used to describe color. The problem lies in the very nature of the color-viewing event. Even if you were to choose a standard color-chip set as a reference, you would run into two problems: One is the "two-socks problem", named for the situation when you pull two socks from your drawer and think they are the same color, only to see in another light that they are definitely not. The other is trying to control for the fact that a viewer working at a different site (even the same archaeologist) is liable to see colors differently than in the reference conditions. These are actually two aspects of the same basic problem; our color sensing ability is great at distinguishing between colors, but not as good at absolutely identifying colors. This is, in part, because it always works in a context. You can point to a particular chip from Munsell as a reference, but the experience of that color is going to be affected by things like the nature of the light in the viewing area and the surrounding colors (sometimes referred to as "background noise", but in fact they are a very important part of how we identify color--that is, by differentiating it from the other visible colors which surround it). You must try to control for the nature of the light in effect during the color-viewing event. Your reference would then become "this chip from Munsell viewed under the standard conditions". Typically you would reproduce the "standard conditions" in a special light box. Unfortunately to properly match you need to also see the artifact under the same conditions and there will be times when you cannot physically stuff it into the light box (or, for that matter, it might be impractical to bring the light box to the artifact under observation). In these cases a handheld colorimeter might not be a bad solution. A scholar would bring it along and use it to compare the Munsell chip to the artifact, or simply record the L*a*b* values and do the comparison later (depends on the features of the colorimeter). Best of luck, it sounds like an interesting project. Bob Savage Media Preservation Unit Stanford University Libraries *** Conservation DistList Instance 14:64 Distributed: Thursday, May 24, 2001 Message Id: cdl-14-64-003 ***Received on Wednesday, 23 May, 2001