Colorimetry — where it appears
Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A spectrum is not a colour
What arrives at the eye is a function of wavelength. What the eye reports is three numbers. Keeping the two apart is the single most useful habit in the subject, and almost every confusion in applied colour comes from letting them merge.
Matching is not appearance
CIE XYZ predicts when two lights will look the same under identical viewing conditions. It was never a model of how anything looks, and most of the confusion in applied colour comes from using it as one.
A viewing condition is an argument
An appearance model takes a stimulus and a situation. The second argument is not a refinement of the first — it is the content of the claim, and a model that returns an appearance from a colour alone has assumed a room without saying which.
Five nanometres is a choice
Every integral here is taken in five-nanometre steps, and the interval has never had to be defended. Coarsening it to twenty costs daylight two hundredths of a colour difference and a fluorescent tube six and a half — and which way of coarsening is used decides a further factor of six.
The colour is right first
A reconstruction of a lamp from twelve filtered readings gets its colour right to half a unit while two thirds of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That combination is not a partial success — it is the exact condition under which a spectral prediction made from the reconstruction will be confidently wrong.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AdaptationCIECAM16Colour appearanceΔELightnessMeasurement errorSpectral power distributionSpectrophotometrySurroundViewing conditionBandpassCIELAB