3 ms·

We have CIELAB for expressing colour in absolute form. This could always be used to express an intended colour. However you are correct Pantone is entrenched a

by quitit 4y ago

We have CIELAB for expressing colour in absolute form. This could always be used to express an intended colour. However you are correct Pantone is entrenched as it is based on a simple set of formulas for easy mixing by print shops, this is also cemented into various systems that take premixed pantones directly (eg HP Indigo). Pantone also extends into neon and metallics where LAB of course doesn’t exist. Declaring arbitrary CMYK or RGB values without including a corresponding colour profile will produce inaccurate results across different devices/output methods due to variation (hence why we have colour profiles.) This change will just likely lead to more colours being specified as arbitrary rgb and cmyk values with accuracy be damned, which is a trend of new style guides for the last few years (also due the rise of trademarking colours).

aidenn0 4y ago
I know of at least one color lab that spent years and had multiple really smart people trying to come up with a closed-form solution for the color (both diffuse and specular) given a {ink, illuminant, substrate} combination and last I heard never succeeded. Without that, you are limited to making giant tables, which is what PMS does and it's only useful if everyone is using the same tables.
- quitit 4y ago
  I think part of the reason is that beyond a certain scope there is limited commercial desire for such levels of exactness. While companies will talk the talk about always needing their brand colour represented perfectly. I've found very few walk the talk. Presenting printing quotations with PMS versus standard CMYK, they often compromise. Presenting premiums or other production which isn't print-based, suddenly they're happy to compromise rather than organise a custom dip. So while we have CIE as our solid reference, for cosmetic representations, we probably don't need more beyond than that commercially for the bulk of clients.
ilyt 4y ago
How you even define metallic paint in numbers ? Both shape and type of particles can differ
- cypress66 4y ago
  Bit of a cheeky response but you could always encode the BRDF with numbers.

by quitit 4y ago

aidenn0 4y ago

I know of at least one color lab that spent years and had multiple really smart people trying to come up with a closed-form solution for the color (both diffuse and specular) given a {ink, illuminant, substrate} combination and last I heard never succeeded. Without that, you are limited to making giant tables, which is what PMS does and it's only useful if everyone is using the same tables.

quitit 4y ago
I think part of the reason is that beyond a certain scope there is limited commercial desire for such levels of exactness. While companies will talk the talk about always needing their brand colour represented perfectly. I've found very few walk the talk. Presenting printing quotations with PMS versus standard CMYK, they often compromise. Presenting premiums or other production which isn't print-based, suddenly they're happy to compromise rather than organise a custom dip. So while we have CIE as our solid reference, for cosmetic representations, we probably don't need more beyond than that commercially for the bulk of clients.

ilyt 4y ago

How you even define metallic paint in numbers ? Both shape and type of particles can differ

cypress66 4y ago
Bit of a cheeky response but you could always encode the BRDF with numbers.