Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Justan on December 15, 2009, 09:52:38 am
-
FACT: 1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency.
Take the online color challenge, based on the official FM100 Hue Test by X-Rite.
Best possible score is 0 and the worst or highest is 1241
I got 16
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77 (http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77)
-
A little disappointed with a score of 7.
-
I did this test a few days ago and got 8. No idea if that is good, average, poor.
What I did find interesting is the graph of the colour ranges where my eyes had there fall off points, which where very correctly placed.
I did the test on my second HP Dreamworks monitor, calibrated and profiled with the HP APS for this monitor.
-
4 for me. Seems I have a little problem in the salmon colored region.
-
14. Getting old sucks.
-
Male 67, score 8, weak in red and green.
-
* Your score: 0
* Gender: Male
* Age range: 30-39
* Best score for your gender and age range: 0
* Highest score for your gender and age range: 1324
-
This is a pretty silly test since one's perception of colour and colour differences vary, depending on the colours they are placed next to. This is a well know fact of colour perception, a fact exploited by Van Gogh when he was painting his sunflower pictures. He was finally able to get the intense yellow he sought by making the background colour a pale greeny-blue (other paintings have yellow backgrounds). This is known from correspondence of Van Gogh with others, notably his brother Theo. Most good books on photography refer to this effect.
See also this and related links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy)
I am sure that everyone found as I did, that once the similar colours are placed adjacent to each other that it became much more difficult to tell the difference between them - a demonstration of the effect that adjacent colours have on each other.
Folks. The test is hokum. Your scores highly unreliable. The good news is that your eyesight and visual perception are just fine. Rest easy and enjoy a happy, and colourful, Christmas !
-
I am sure that everyone found as I did, that once the similar colours are placed adjacent to each other that it became much more difficult to tell the difference between them - a demonstration of the effect that adjacent colours have on each other.
It's true that when the tiles are in the correct sequence some of them look almost identical. But when you move one out of order by just one spot, the error in the sequence should be pretty apparent, because our visual system picks up on these types of subtle irregularities.
If there's a flaw in the test, I think it would be that a poor-quality display could make things much more difficult (as would a less-than stellar LUT-based display profile, I suspect).
-
Zero.
I wonder if I trained my perception while painting, designing and staring at the test color patches and images while profiling printers and displays, or it's just a natural skill...
-
I thought that this was a dual purpose test to evaluate both monitor and color profile, as well as color perception and acuity. Obviously, without a decent display, no eyes are going to be able to discriminate between similar shades, but that is part of the integrated system we use every day and are testing here. Of course, color perception is based on many factors, but I don't see how distinguishing subtle differences in colors could not be a worthwhile skill to evaluate.
-
4, Samsung 215TW calibrated with a Spyder 2, 34-year-old male eyes calibrated with Argentinian red wine. Had my four wrong all next to each other midway between green and yellow, which was the toughest row for me.
Not sure about monitor tech, but none of these colors were fully saturated, so that should minimize the impact a poorly calibrated or clipping monitor would have?
Pretty meaningless test since it doesn't give any score distribution for your age/sex group, or even average or median, just min and max.
This is a pretty silly test since one's perception of colour and colour differences vary...
I take it you got a score of well over 15?
-
I've got you guys beat all hollow. Male, age 70, with "red-green" color-blindness: 108.
If I spent a lot of time at it, I think I might be able to get it down to about 100. You see why I feel more comfortable in black-and-white.
-
You are all wasting your time unless your monitor is calibrated to the same standard as the test charts.
-
without any real effort or time investment, I got a 14.
-
You are all wasting your time unless your monitor is calibrated to the same standard as the test charts.
I found it an interesting exercise.
I did the test twice, scored 4 both times, and having the same problem region. Once with my own monitor profile built with i1 match, the other with the apple stock profile. While the colors look different, they differences don't affect them in a way to be deceiving. All the colors shift in a way they still seem to progress from one side to the other. This isn't about color accuracy, just the perception of subtle color differences.
Since I found the same color regions gave me problems both times, even though the second time I knew about the problem and tried really hard to get it right but didn't, I would assume there is possibly something in the way my eyes and brain are interpreting that color that makes me "different". I won't use the word deficient, since as humans we all see things slightly differently anyway.
-
This isn't about color accuracy, just the perception of subtle color differences.
It definitely is about both color accuracy and your perception of color differences. The starting position should be complete uniformity of the calibration standards employed in the creation of the colored hues, and the calibration of your monitor.
If there are any differences in those two calibration standards, it's not possible to determine which differences are due to calibration effects and which differences are due to your visual deficiencies.
-
It definitely is about both color accuracy and your perception of color differences. The starting position should be complete uniformity of the calibration standards employed in the creation of the colored hues, and the calibration of your monitor.
If there are any differences in those two calibration standards, it's not possible to determine which differences are due to calibration effects and which differences are due to your visual deficiencies.
whatever. Just did the test on an uncalibrated iMac. score 4, again. Problem is in the same area, again despite my knowing. Calibration doesn't seem to cause a deceptive condition.
-
Male in mid-20s with partial Red-Green Colorblindness. Score: 16.
I think I may have become ... better with color? since starting to work so much with photo editing and printing. I have previously failed colorblindness tests, now I pass most of them.
-
I am a 34yr old male and just carried out this test at work on an low end uncalibrated display. Got 3. Will try it again when I get home on my NEC 2690 Spectraview Reference monitor and see what I get.
-
HUZZAH!!
Got zero-
Now if I could just see a crow on the top of my barn, that would be something.
I'm sure I could benefit from a 12 bit monitor.
-
Struggle with the test?
No. Started it and quickly realised it was a waste of time. Fun, in a kind of masochistic sort of way, though !
-
No. Started it and quickly realised it was a waste of time. Fun, in a kind of masochistic sort of way, though !
This has been on a few forums. It is obviously doing the rounds. The hue wheel is a joined up graph that has all the hues in the correct order so there isn't a need to differentiate them in the real world?
-
53 years old, my score, 8
-
It's rather amusing that the "color pattern" I discern from this test is that those who did well like the test and those who did poorly think it's crap. LOL
-
I thought it was a novel test, but I agree that it will measure the performance of your hardware as much as your eyes and brain.
Differentiating gradations of like colors isn't incredibly relevant to what we do. Recognizing when gradients aren't smooth is far easier and more common. I also think that having a good eye for the color cast of an image is as important as discerning gradations in one color. Seeing an image that looks off and knowing what colors to tweak is the real talent that most of us try to cultivate. I can see graphic designers needing close color discrimination more than photographers.
second try, actually turning the lights off and taking more than five minutes, I got a 3.
-
It's rather amusing that the "color pattern" I discern from this test is that those who did well like the test and those who did poorly think it's crap. LOL
I did the worst of anybody here so far and I like the test. It just verifies what I'v known for many years from amny other tests (Ishihara being the first): I have faulty red-green vision and no amount of monitor calibration is going to fix that.
Now if someone could come up with an effective way of producing a reliable "eye calibration profile", I'd be interested.
-
Kind of interesting. I did it very quickly the first time, and scored a 16. I went back and did it again, this time really paying attention, and I scored a 0. So I guess that means I'm capable of seeing the relationship between the colors correctly if I make an effort?
Now when I close my eyes I see little colored squares...
-
Wow, I'm kind of disappointed with my score of 20.
Tried it again and got a 4.
-
A quick run through
Online ColorIQ Challenge Results
Your score: 4
Not bad.
-
Tried it last night, took my time, about 15 minutes, on a standard but calibrated ViewSonic VX910. I am 70 years old, wear slightly tinted glasses and got a zero (0). I wonder if equipment matters, mine or the computer's!
-
Wow, I'm kind of disappointed with my score of 20.
Tried it again and got a 4.
I think this shows the futility of the test.
-
Tried it last night, took my time, about 15 minutes, on a standard but calibrated ViewSonic VX910. I am 70 years old, wear slightly tinted glasses and got a zero (0). I wonder if equipment matters, mine or the computer's!
62, score 0. Took my time too last week on a reasonably calibrated Samsung 205BW used for the web only. Then thought it would be easier on a wide gamut NEC 2690 ........... it is easier so that is a flaw in the test.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
I wonder if equipment matters, mine or the computer's!
On my calibrated laptop in a bright room, I got a 37 ... on my calibrated wide gamut LED-back LCD, I got a 0.
I tried equally hard to get it right each time.
-
25 male with a red-green deficiency (protanomaly) , scored 74.
Took me about 10 minutes and was a nightmare.
If you are interested in color blindness, I recommend this site : http://www.colblindor.com/ (http://www.colblindor.com). Has a lot of information on color blindness, also includes a color blindness simulator for any image you upload, so people with normal color vision can finally see through eyes like mine (not sure it's that accurate, but it's a start).
-
Male 49, score 0.
Apple monitor color maybe not as bad as Will Crockett would have us believe......
-
Damn, maybe it's not my monitor, maybe it's my eyes!
I scored 54, almost my age... 58/female
-
Male, 40 and a score of...0
I guess when you have such a score you find this test very good....
Old NEC Diamondtron calibrated monitor.
-
I did the worst of anybody here so far and I like the test. It just verifies what I'v known for many years from amny other tests (Ishihara being the first): I have faulty red-green vision and no amount of monitor calibration is going to fix that.
Now if someone could come up with an effective way of producing a reliable "eye calibration profile", I'd be interested.
This test appears to be similar in a way to audio tests in which a person can compare and try to reproduce a specific series of tones. The goal of the test is to see if one has “perfect pitch,” or how close to “perfect pitch” one has.
Here we see that, in a similar way, not everyone sees color hues as they exist. Of course there are a number of possible reasons for this. The accuracy of the monitor, if the monitor is color calibrated, if the background lighting in the room are too bright or impart a color, the mood of the person taking the test and any number of other external influences. But the long and short is that many don’t have quite the ability to discern hues as they might want to have.
This phenomena raises some interesting philosophical questions, but they are perhaps best left for other forums….
-
Score of 4 on old calibrated Trinitron monitor
-
FACT: 1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency.
Take the online color challenge, based on the official FM100 Hue Test by X-Rite.
Best possible score is 0 and the worst or highest is 1241
I got 16
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77 (http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77)
I'm 69 and male. A quick rearrangement of the color tiles gave me a score of 11. I had 7 problems in the green-to-blue range, and 4 in the pink area.
I have a well-profiled NEC 3090. I think I could have done better except that it got too tedious and I became bored. I'll go back in a few days and try again, before I work on my pictures for the day.
I'm not sure what this test actually shows, and how valid or reliable it is.
Thanks for posting the link. Just something more to obsess about, I guess. At least it didn't cost me any money!
-
Interesting exercise. As I moved the tiles around, my perception of a given tile changed depending on it's location in the line. Had a bit of fun just playing with that.
And since we see with our brain, many other factors can influence the outcome at any given time as well and renders it somewhat subjective.
For the morbidly curious - Age 58 male, calibrated '06 iMac, score 7(trouble with blue/green). At this time.
-
Interesting exercise. As I moved the tiles around, my perception of a given tile changed depending on it's location in the line. Had a bit of fun just playing with that.
And since we see with our brain, many other factors can influence the outcome at any given time as well and renders it somewhat subjective.
For the morbidly curious - Age 58 male, calibrated '06 iMac, score 7(trouble with blue/green). At this time.
It's well known that the perception of a specific color will change depending on its proximity to an adjoining color. This effect is also very obvious with shades of black and white. A pale grey square next to a deeply black square may appear as white. But the same pale grey square next to an even paler grey square will appear grey, and the paler grey will then seem white.
Checking on the RGB values of the squares in the first row in this test, I find a few pairs of values that are probably too close to differentiate, no matter how well-calibrated your monitor or how good your eyesight, but I could be wrong .
They are: (1) 164, 114, 92, and 164, 114, 88, (2) 163, 121, 81, and 163, 119, 82, (3) 162, 117, 84, and 163, 115, 86.
The 0-255 system of 8 bits per channel creates a maximum range of 16.7 million colors. There's no way any person could visually distinguish between all those different shades (outside of numerical description). Most images, even high resolution images processed in the ProPhoto color space in 16 bit mode (capable of several billion different shades), in practice contain only a few thousand, or fewer, perhaps only a few hundred, visually distinguishably different shades, so I believe, but you understand I haven't personally counted all the different shades that may exist in any one of my photographs.
-
I took a screen grab of my first test prior to scoring and went back to view it in Photoshop to check if I could see the difference on any tones I got wrong first time.
I could, so it just needed some patience to work through it and get a perfect score second time around.
It would be interesting to get a secondary score based on how long it took to complete the test or how many you could arrange correctly in a given time.
Score 6 at first attempt, 0 on second.
53 male.
NEC Spectraview 1980
-
Just tried it with my Dell 2408wfp regularly profiled with a ColorMunki, luminance level 120, whitepoint D50.
Age: 55-60
Score: 0
Found it quite difficult in certain areas, but obviously guessed right. IE is not colour managed, so I'm not sure what the result means.
-
Score 0, age 46, male
At first try. However the way you can shove around the tiles makes this test somewhat easier as you can compare to siblings, so more a less a relative test then an absolute test of color vision, as in absolute hearing, no worries, in a few minutes i'm of to a new years eve party with friends :-)
[attachment=19052:Schermaf...17.55.02.png]
(iMac 27", calibrated)
Happy new year everybody!
-
A 32, on my uncalibrated monitor at work. Some difficulty in the blue-ish green region. male, 54 yo.
Paul
-
lol, I got a 121....and yes I am color blind (2 different kinds)
It was very hard for me to do some of the colors, In fact 2 of the rows looks almost identical other than the darkness of the colors...so I arranged by how dark some of them were.
Luckily I have a wife who proofs all my print work before going to a client, she also helps me get WB right when I forget my gray card.
-
lol, I got a 121....and yes I am color blind (2 different kinds)
It was very hard for me to do some of the colors, In fact 2 of the rows looks almost identical other than the darkness of the colors...so I arranged by how dark some of them were.
Luckily I have a wife who proofs all my print work before going to a client, she also helps me get WB right when I forget my gray card.
I just did the test again and I am still in the 100's Man I wish they would come out with a color blind treatment
-
couldn't resist. I'm 57, male, got a score of zero. dang.
David Saffir
http://davidsaffir.wordpress.com (http://davidsaffir.wordpress.com)
-
I think this shows the futility of the test.
No, I think it shows its sensitivity. Small errors are easily caused by partial colorblindness, and many people are partially colorblind. From other tests I know my color vision is good, and this test gave me a zero score.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I just did the test again and I am still in the 100's Man I wish they would come out with a color blind treatment
I'm so disappointed! Your 121 beat the heck out of my 108. But I only have one kind of color blindness to my knowledge.
-
Surely, color-response/color-blindness is an important component here – as is monitor condition and status, i.e. calibrated or not, new or old, high quality or old, etc. But there is also another element that is missed in these discussions (this fun test is making the rounds): technique plays a roll as well. Many people do not know that there is something referred to (in some circles) as the "master eye effect". This is a bit different than the "dominate eye" in which we have one eye which dominates over the other with regard to perspective. It's used 100% of the time in diamond grading to determine the color grade of diamonds as they are compared to "masters" of known color grades.
Without getting into to the details of color grading diamonds (for fear of boring folks), one may see an improvement in the test results here if they are deliberate in the way in which they analyze troublesome patches. When you are confronted with squares which are difficult to separate, be sure to view them on opposites sides of each other. That is, if the tiles are "A" and "B", view them as AB and BA and back again – sometimes several times if needed. This is how diamond grading is done (with additional rules applied for when AB shows no difference, or BA shows no difference, but the converse does show a difference, etc. [colorimeters aren't great for diamonds because transparency enters in and it gets messy, etc.] )
-
FACT: 1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency.
Take the online color challenge, based on the official FM100 Hue Test by X-Rite.
Best possible score is 0 and the worst or highest is 1241
I got 16
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77 (http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77)
My advice, if you work with color on a regular basis, is that you schedule a battery of color vision tests (Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue Test, Ishihara, etc.) at a local university's optometry department.
I do that based on the rule that knowing whether your color vision is accurate or not is always better than not knowing. At least, if you detect a problem, you will know when to be careful, thus avoiding embarrassment, and will preserve a certain level of professionalism by not being too cocky.
I go to UC Berkeley every four or five years. Last time it cost me $175.
-
64 yo male.
Got a 4 last night. Drove around a couple hours today in bright sunlight with sunglasses, got a 28 shortly thereafter.
No matter. It's not how big your gamut is, it's how you use it.
-
I got a zero too, and I had fun doing it! Thanks for posting the link!
-
Hi, just did the test a bunch of times.
Lowest score was 101, highest 131. Did the test on 3 different computers with different monitors. Blue/green is a problem for me.
-
Hmmm, scored 4, on a calibrated iMac. I could even see where the problem was, but couldn't get the tiles into a pattern that looked right.
-
I got 9 on a MacBook Pro (not calibrated).
PdF
-
didn't try, been colourblind since birth, so no use re-inventing the wheel. :)
However, one thing these tests all miss, not just this one, is your skill at determining contrast. I have gone for a few studies & extensive testing on my lack fo colour vision, and what has been found out is that over the past 17-18 years, my colour vision has "improved" by 18%.
These stats are form studies I have participated in at a local university that has my records/tests on file and can do comparisons.
What they think is really happening however is my ability to detect contrast has remarkably improved, likely due to necessity more than anything else. You know that old wives tales about a blind man having superior hearing, but in reality all it boils down to is that person needs their hearing more than somebody with sight, so they work at paying attention to what they are listening too.
My whole point is this - regardless of what your test scores are, you can, each one of you, but working at it, imcrease your ability to detect contrast. Think the zone system if you will. And if you have good skill at detecting contrast in a scene or a photo, that will in the long run translate into better photographs.
So don't give up, just work harder at it.
:)
-
I only scored 19 ::)
-
14. Getting old sucks.
54! Being old sucks more (74) :-[