Phone color apps- are they really all that?
I don't personally have an iPhone, or other blackberry type device, but I'm always fascinated by the latest and greatest apps available...the color-related ones, in any case.
SW's Color SnapDesignhole recently wrote a great review of Benjamin Moore and Sherwin Williams color-matching applications, both free for downloading. She astutely summarizes, "No color app is going to identify a color correctly when the camera is the problem. How could both companies fail to see this? At least they’re free."
BM Color CaptureFor another take, you can read this color app analysis.
Anyone have either of these nifty applications? What do you think of what paint companies are trying to do? Do you think it's successful? Let's discuss!
(Added 7-6-09: be sure to read the comments from this blog post, as there was a fabulous discussion that ensued. Great nitty gritty details about subtractive versus additive color mixing)
Posts
13 comments:
I spent more than 10 hours testing, and comparing, these applications - and more - from the perspective of interior design....
You can see the full review at "Airings on Design"
http://areaaesthetics.typepad.com/airings_on_design_by_area/2009/06/confessions-of-an-app-addict-the-skinny-on-color-apps-for-the-iphone-.html
Peggy Berk
Area Aesthetics
Blog: "Airings on Design"
Rachel, I left this comment earlier this month on DesignMilk's Blog. I pasted it in below. Everyone should look up the color BenM features in their app example, New Lime 2025-30. Now that's some "color inspiriation" for ya.
Still shakin' my head. :~D
“Snap a picture of any color inspiration and instantly match it to one of the more than 3,300 hues that comprise Benjamin Moore’s color system?” Sherwin Williams has an iPhone App as well.
They can’t be serious.
The Sherwin Williams April issue of STIR had a lovely article about additive vs. subtractive color; why various paint program’s colors you see on your monitor do not sync up to real-life paint chips or what your printer spits out. “Montiors are like snowflakes” is what the article said. So, what?, iPhones are somehow *special* snowflakes? Monitors emit light and so do iPhones. Let’s call a snowflake a snowflake, shall we.
Releasing this with no caveats or warnings is irresponsible or maybe just plain stupid. As a color professional, I am offended — as in just what are they trying to pull and who the hell do they think they’re foolin’? I know that there are throngs of color novices also known as the consumers of color who do not don’t know any better; they don’t know the difference between additive and subtractive color. I promise you if they rely on these Apps to match their screens to a paint color as the hype promotes, they’ll understand. Ohhh, will they ever. The phrase “baptism by fire” comes to mind.
It will be interesting see how well this App to snap or capture a color and turn it into a paint color business goes. I’m guessin’ fun is about all it’s good for.
Of all the issues with these color capture apps, the issue of screen color vs. paint (or print) color is the one that easiest to address in software situation. Take a look at the iphone app Palette, which enables the user to set a preference for a match based on print or screen usage. Or check out the pantone color book in recent versions of Photoshop - they can match what you see on your screen to a spot print color that will look the same when you take the job to a printing press (not just a digital press but a real 4 or 6 process press!)
The bigger issue is that color, whether additive or subtractive will capture differently under different lighting conditions - because the end result of both is that the color you see is just reflected light... or in software terms, "Garage in...garbage out"
I did not give any of the paint company applications a good review in my blog post, but the technology exists today that can correct all the the capture, lighting and display problems in a software application - I doubt that there is sufficient "back end" processing available to make it all happen in an iPhone, but utilizing the internet capabilities of the phone - as many apps do -- it could be accomplished with a back end connection to a server on the internet that would handle the additional processing.
Benjamin Moore has told me that they meant their app as a "starting point" , not a definitive answer. This of course is not clear in their description of the app in the iTunes app store...and I believe,like you, that many people unschooled in color - consumers or professionals - could make a costly mistake.
"The bigger issue is that color, whether additive or subtractive will capture differently under different lighting conditions - because the end result of both is that the color you see is just reflected light... or in software terms, "Garage in...garbage out"
Lots of good things to think about in your posts, TD, but I have to point out one thing:
Additive and subtractive are not both reflected. Additive is emitted light and subtractive is indeed reflected.
It's that fundamental difference in conjunction with the nature of the human vision system that will in every circumstance render color toys like this toy (or maybe I should call it a starting point ;-D) toys and not tools.
There is no software (that I'm aware of any way) to apply to our eyeballs that will make these things of any value. Technology does not exist to address this fundamental, three-dimensional issue of color and light.
While there are numerous avenues to employ to address two-dimensional color challenges like getting monitors and screens to coordinate with various modes of printing, these apps are not targeting the graphics and printing color arenas.
They're toying in the field of color expectations and the human experience in terms of physiology specifically and psychology on the out-skirts.
It's as clever as it is stupid. There's no way the apps are ever going to be able to provide any set of eyeballs with color information that will be tangible. *Useful* is yet to be seen and will be debatable.
What the apps are, however, are hooks. Hook the consumer of color on a color idea, hook 'em up to a GPS to guide them to the nearest BenM or SW store, hook 'em up to a paint store staff person who can explain that the app is just a "starting point", and then hook 'em up with all the paint and supplies they need to fulfill that initial "inspiration".
Gosh, typing it all out like this makes me wish I had thought of it first. lol! :)
You are right in that I should have said "emitted" when referring to additive light sources... but except in the world of physics where we make that distinction, the bottom line is that your eye perceives the light rays coming off (or out of) the plane.... although in physics we can distinguish two different types of light rays ( emitted vs. reflected) base on their directions (reflected light scatters while emitted light combines), the human eye cannot perceive a difference - it only perceives the end result.
But I beg to differ with you on what technology offers us today - we can indeed, and printers do it every single day, match screen colors to a conversion output. In the print world, this is standard today. And film and video editors do it every day. That is what the whole world of color profiles is about. An out of the box (no additional purchases) copy of Photoshop or Illustrator today ha more than 90 color profiles to work with - you can match to any printing press, all the most popular films in use as well a custom profile you create. All professional film editing applicaions can color match to a myriad of films, videotapes, etc. And yes, you have to take the time to color calibrate your monitor and create a profile for it (takes about 3 minutes on a Mac). But it most certainly is doable and used very successfully.
No one to date, has done it for paint, except for Pantone which has done a full color bridge for all of its products, including their line of interior paints.
There is no technological reason that it can't be done for any line of paints.
The new iphone has auto white balance correction - and Apple publishes its white point so that part of it is a no brainer to rebalance the color in a captured photo.
Ben Moore told me that they could not get an advance prototype of the new iPhone 3GS to work with when they were developing their application so the capture aspect of their app - and I'm sure the Sherwin williams app - is obviously off. (though they could have done it with software filters built into the app)
But I am going to rerun all the color tests I did on the second generation iPhone on my new 3GS phone and see what happens! I'll let you know.
"But I beg to differ with you on what technology offers us today - we can indeed, and printers do it every single day, match screen colors to a conversion output. In the print world, this is standard today.
Actually, I think we are pretty much on the same page to a point. As this is what I had said: While there are numerous avenues to employ to address two-dimensional color challenges like getting monitors and screens to coordinate with various modes of printing, these apps are not targeting the graphics and printing color arenas.
"we can indeed, and printers do it every single day, match screen colors to a conversion output."
This is what I meant by "to a point". The word "match" is the problem. What happens with the devices known as monitors and printers is that they get close with color, they don't ever really "match" - it is not possible for them to actually, literally "match". Kind of doesn't matter though because all that has nothing to do with the issues at hand which are apps and paint chips.
The apps aren't printing anything. The only two devices involved here are the app screen and the eyeballs -- there is no printing involved in the loop.
"There is no technological reason that it can't be done for any line of paints."
Yes, there is. The reason why this can't be done (at this point in time) has to do with the very basic and fundamental differences between and properties of additive and subtractive color.
This next statement is simply not accurate on many levels, and I'll address it narrowly in order to stay on topic:
... but except in the world of physics where we make that distinction, the bottom line is that your eye perceives the light rays coming off (or out of) the plane.... although in physics we can distinguish two different types of light rays ( emitted vs. reflected) base on their directions (reflected light scatters while emitted light combines), the human eye cannot perceive a difference - it only perceives the end result."
If that statement was indeed correct, that the human eye could not perceive the difference and it only perceives "the end result", then there wouldn't be a need for color management in the terms and for the purposes of printing in the first place.
It wouldn't matter because according to that statement we couldn't tell the difference between beamed light and reflected light anyway, so why bother with any of that color management business to get what is seen on a monitor to a piece of paper.
Color management for printing exists because there is a need to translate and manage one space of color into the next from device to device. Color management is necessary due to the human vision system's ability to see, compute, and register fine nuances of color.
*Good* additive color or *bad*, perfectly set white points or a mile off, or however a color is captured is irrelevant. The apps are still about additive color emitted from the screen of an iphone.
Ten hours of evaluation would have been about about nine hours and fifty-nine minutes too long for me because the fact would still remain that additive and subtractive color are two different spaces, two different properties of color. Given well-controlled circumstances and a respectable amount of color expertise it is possible to translate (profiles are an example) from additive to subtractive so they able to relate or immitate but not "match" -- on paper. And, again, printing and paper have nothing to do with the problems that will come from placing color apps in the hands of those who who are in the dark when it comes to color and light.
It's going to be the same on a 3G phone screen. It's still a screen emitting color/light, the paint chip is still a paint chip, and eyeballs will be eyeballs.
Actually MOST of the color apps available for the iPhone DO target the printing and graphics arena... and you can already correct for the differences between additive and subtractive color in iPhone apps like Palettes and Color Expert. By the way, you CAN print from these apps - and they also convert the color format and generate importable palettes for graphics and film editing programs. (Don't forget when printing is involved, you have to install the printer's color profile - and choose it when printing. )
Pantone's Color Cue device (about $400) which I own and use for things like matching a paint color to a logo can give you a perfect paint color match to a captured color - the device successfully converts a captured color to a print, screen, paint color or any one of their spot ink colors or fabric dyes. It's not "to a point" - it's a match and if you don't get a match, it's because the color doesn't exist in their product line (you can generate million of colors on your screen, but no company offers millions of paint colors,or million of ink colors - so they then default to the closest match).
You can test this yourself - choose a color to capture (or generate on your computer screen) based on its CMYK or RGB value) which you know exists in a particular product line, such as a primary, secondary or tertiary - which are pretty basic colors in all color based activities. You will see that you can get a spot on match to a paint color.
I think you missed the point and about what you your eye can't perceive - my point there was not about the process of color matching, but rather to say that when your eye perceives a color, the brain doesn't discern whether the color you perceive was generated by emitted or reflected light. it's just processing the light waves coming off the plane without regard for their origin. So in the world of color matching and developing color profiles, you are starting at the same point - at the perceived color no matter how it was generated.
This is how custom color matching computers work in paint stores - someone might bring in a swatch of color, a piece of wallpaper or whatever. While the object itself is generating but that color is read the same exact way your iPhone reads color, with a camera, so it gets converted to and additive color and then back again in the paint production process to a subtractive color formula. I do Benjamin Moore custom color matches all the time using this method and get perfect matches.
To my mind, the question is not whether it's doable, but rather why create a color matching software app if you're not going to take the time to do it right and deliver a usable app that has real value.
Wow! great discussion/debate we've got going on here.
thanks designer and funcolors for all your input and passion about color- it's always so inspiring to really delve into the topic of additive and subtractive color.
"You can test this yourself - choose a color to capture (or generate on your computer screen) based on its CMYK or RGB value) which you know exists in a particular product line, such as a primary, secondary or tertiary - which are pretty basic colors in all color based activities. You will see that you can get a spot on match to a paint color."
I've been taking pictures, painting them virtually -- and then printing them for clients long before iphones. Before I became an architectural color consultant I was a gaphic designer. For the twenty or so years I've been at this color thing I've always had the knowing that if you do not have a command of additive color, it is impossible to have a command of subtractive color.
The basic and fundamental differences between additive and subtractive color is the issue at hand. And it will remain the issue into the future.
If the apps are indeed marketing to the graphic-savvy set -- I don't care. At this point in time, even the most novice of that group has Color Munkis and stuff flying out their behinds and I know they can take care of themselves. They haven't just looked up the definitions of additive and subtractive color, the understand it and live it everyday. Color "matches" have been defined in their own terms and for their own purposes. They'll continue to work with their own devices within their own loops, be it open or closed, in their own rythm of their daily workflows and they'll be just fine.
Again, the apps to paint chips issue has nothing to do with the workflows and loops for printing.
"I think you missed the point and about what you your eye can't perceive - my point there was not about the process of color matching, but rather to say that when your eye perceives a color, the brain doesn't discern whether the color you perceive was generated by emitted or reflected light. it's just processing the light waves coming off the plane without regard for their origin. So in the world of color matching and developing color profiles, you are starting at the same point - at the perceived color no matter how it was generated."
Maybe, but I don't think so. You are talking in circles around radiant energy and in and out of gamuts -- from the paint store and back again -- all the while oversimplifying and underestimating the workings of the human vision system.
Again, the only *devices* involved with this issue is the emitting light little iphone screen and a pair of eyeballs. The loop is limited -- there is not a familiar printer on the end to manage. There's a human being with a complex vision system at the end of this loop.
However the color gets into the iphone doesn't matter. If its captured quality is good, then the challenge is good additive color translating to a subtractive color paint chip. If it's bad captured quality then the challenge is bad additive color translating to a subtractive paint chip.
In either case - it doesn't matter -- you still have to deal with the eyeballs. More importantly you have to deal with the individual human being behind each set of eyeballs. Color management becomes about managing the human at the end of this loop; managing and meeting that human being's expectation for three-dimensional architecural color.
Three-dimensional architectural color deployed to support, appease and enhance the human experience. Not color theory 101, not spectral curves and bumps and turns, it's not something you can hold in your hand. It's bigger than that.
The color information emitted from an iPhone screen it not able to provide tangible color information to a human set of eyeballs.
Ben Moore's restatement that the colors shown are "starting points" is something I can agree with. It would be nice if they were more forthcoming and transparent with that information for the benefit of the typical consumer of their paint -- the paint consumer for whom the majority of the marketing up to this point has been poignantly directed.
Well, guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree...
I approach the science of color from physics - light waves are mathematical in nature with just 2 variables - frequency and amplitude - and you can measure that very easily with tools that have been around for ages (spectrometer and thermometers!)... and if you understand the difference between the characteristics of additive and subtractive color in terms of the light waves generated, then you can mathematically factor a "correction" into the equation to match colors from many different systems, whatever their origin. You can also correct for luminosity (which is another attribute that comes into play when dealing with computer and tv and electronic device screens).
This is an objective, not subjective challenge.
I think your point about human eyeballs is a whole other issue - and wanders into the realm of subjectivity. I don't know of any color matching application that claims to be able to correct what a person sees - if someone is red-green color blind, they will not see those colors no matter how perfectly you've matched two of them. But I think those issues are way outside of what color matching technologies are about - they are simply about matching a color in one format to a color that has to be generated in a difference format. And that's just science.
"I think your point about human eyeballs is a whole other issue"
Alrighty then, that statement kind of paints a clearer picture of what is we have to work with here.
The fact that you believe that eyeballs are a whole other issue and you trust the source that provided you with the misinformation that human vision can not sensate between additive and subtractive color doesn't mean that we disagree. In no short order, I do not agree with you on several points and I believe you have collected inaccurate information or have simply interpreted incorrectly.
At this point in the conversation there's nothing left but for me to be very blunt and to the point.
In the melange of buzzwords and scientific terms that you've collected and as you sift thru that collection of information over time, keep in the forefront that you can not take light soley as radiant energy and/or in place of addressing light as a stimulus for vision. In simpler terms, you can not color by numbers alone.
Good luck and have fun with your color trials and experimentation.
Peace,
L.
Wow, what a terrific discussion. I spent about an hour testing the Bennie Moore version. FAIL.
I don't know why anyone would use this app. It's truly useless. However, from an interior design point of view, I think their online "paint a room" program is worthwhile. Most paint brands offer this on their sites.
So many of my clients have a difficult time visualizing things. While the screen color isn't going to match the real paint, it is a good starting point.
I think they're also a nice tool for homeowners to play with. Why not try painting the ceiling red? They can play with that without making any commitment.
But the phone app is just plain silly.
I agree re: the home visualizers. Great tools as long as people know what to expect when using them.
I do remember when they first became mainstream. I had a client refer his neighbor to me for some color intervention because she had told the painters Ben Moore Baby Turtle for her exterior and Heritage Red for her front door. It looked fabulous to her on the visualizer on her monitor, but in real life she ended up feeling like she lived in a giant olive complete with a pimento front door.
I think some hard lessons were learned with the visualizers early on. Present day there is a fair to decent amount of warning from those programs to their users so they do not take the colors represented as fact. Rather just loose representations of colors. At this stage of the visualizer game, I think it's well established that those non-professional paint programs are to be used to get a feel for how a structure can wear different hues, i.e. a green vs. a yellow, and how the corresponding vibe and look resulting from each hue can vary.
Used responsibly as ONE part of the overall process in previewing color before making color decisions they can be useful.
There are many pieces and parts of color theory and the science of color that just do not fit or work as well as one might think they should when it comes to 3D architectural color.
Determining what pieces of theory like additive vs. subtractive are truly applicable and what details are vital when it comes to 3D architectural color isn't exactly an easy thing to figure out. It's not like an evening of mad Googling will produce all there is that one needs to understand and know.
I may be preaching to the choir here on a blog like Hue but one can not ignore what is *in between* additive and subtractive color. Whether it's one of those fun new apps or the old familiar paint programs.
Additive is a pure mixture of nothing but properties of light beaming directly into the eye.
With subtractive, there is the factor of material or substance and the quality and texture of that material that is the hosting vehicle and reflecting color to the eye. It’s that material or substance *in between* the properties of light and the eyeballs that creates the need for managing color and expectations.
In the end *we* decide what is a color "match" and what is not. Not a number. At the same time, that needs to be balanced by the knowing that the purpose of our experiencing color is not to simply identify colors.
We experience color, have a visual system, for the purposes of understanding and decoding our environments. Color is an attribute of the human vision system. If it were not for the human vision system to sensate and experience light as color, then there would not be color. It's not like light can make color out of thin air all by itself.
I know Rachel ponders how deep is too deep to go with the super color geek stuff. Most of the time the average person doesn't have a need for a super-uber-indepth understanding of color. And, hey, that's what color strategists and consultants are for any way, right? :~D But when things like the color apps and paint programs become a topic on proverbial Main Street, really long posts on an expert blog like Hue can be of value and I hope Rachel doesn't mind my butting in.
Post a Comment