Talk:Chromatic adaptation

Merge proposal
Someone has proposed merging a section from color vision to this article. That may be a bad idea, since this article is more about the technological process. The vision aspect should probably be kept in the vision article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a discussion of both belongs on this page, since chromatic adaptation transformations are often explicitly designed to mimic human response. It’s probably a good idea to leave a reasonably complete if slightly less technical/mathematical description on color vision, but (at least, e.g.) the bits about a Von Kries transformation via matrix multiplications definitely belongs on this page. –jacobolus (t) 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the linked page "Working examples of Chromatic Adaptation" is good fun, I think its an example of colour receptor saturation, not of chromatic adaption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.164.28 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

photoreceptor saturation leads to after image phenomenon. color constancy, chromatic adaptation (for simple and complex fields), chromatic assimilation, and chromatic induction are all different things. for details and differences: The Science of Color. S K Shevell editor. Chapter 4. 2003 98.206.164.226 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-Santana98.206.164.226 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Color constancy and Chromatic adaptation are 2 completely different things. Please, remove this section or review it completely. This is leading to a huge confusion of concepts. The definition presented here is about color constancy and the math (Von Kries) is about chromatic adaptation. Please, check it: http://books.google.com/books?id=-fNJZ0xmTFIC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=the+science+of+color+shevell&source=bl&ots=rYjEAUf6MF&sig=ictLZdLbXu_dmI31i4dAH554c60&hl=en&ei=y-zSTYOSJqTRiAK47OTWCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false (pp. 167-187). Feitosa-santana (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by 2 completely different things? Chromatic adaptation is one of the mechanisms by which the HVS obtains color constancy. Agreed? Harbre (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the lead section, it says "This feature of the visual system is called chromatic adaptation, or color constancy; ...". And yet color constancy and chromatic adaptation are different articles; confusing. 78.162.9.22 (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New related article
Please take a look at Von Kries Coefficient Law and add the apropriate/required Categories, Templates, WikiProjects, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
I think its not approbate to start the definition of Chromatic adaptation as one aspect of vision that may fool someone. This isn't really the primary point. Also the example of the apple viewed at night or day is misleading (this example would rather point to scotopic/photopic vision).

How about this definition?

Chromatic adaptation is the human visual system’s ability to adjust to changes in illumination and preserve the appearance of object colors. It is responsible for the stable appearance of object colors despite the wide range of light reflecting off it and entering our eye. Harbre (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, done. Da5nsy (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

article "White" -- more color science needed, including weighing in on current dispute about how to begin the lead (and ultimately other parts of the article)
Most of the editors of the article on the color "white" don't know what color constancy is, much less chromatic adaptation, and they don't even know there's a difference between "white light" vs a "white surface", or how these are related to the color "white". They see that article as being primarily about the cultural usage, figurative associations, and history of "white" (and "white" being no more fundamental than any other color like orange), rather than stating or explaining what white literally is as a color, which is well-understood in color science. Could any of you weigh in on the current dispute on the talk page talk:White there, which mainly is between just two editors about the lead and its first sentence? One of them wants the first paragraph to rely first on citing illustrative examples of white like snow, chalk, and milk, before even defining white in any objective sense, and based largely on one colloquial dictionary definition of the word "white". 129.33.253.142 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)