I can't argue with any of the technical data in this article which is clearly well researched. There is however some important nuance that is missing. Color the

I can't argue with any of the technical data in this article which is clearly well researched. There is however some important nuance that is missing. Color theory is a fractal and the deeper you go the more convolutions you find. Motion picture and video artists are typically a lot deeper in the weeds of color than photographers. One phenomenon relates to the psychological perception of color. One reason the picture of the flower is never the same as the flower is that you remember it differently (and yes I realize you may look at the lcd on your camera right after shooting). People in general carry certain "memory colors" grass green, brick red, that do not correspond to the metered color of these things. Grass is deeper green and bricks more saturated in memory. Alexis Van Hurkman wrote an amazing book called Color Correction which is about digital color grading for motion pictures and TV. The issues pomax discusses exist at every step of the process: Capture, Editing, DI, Projection. The engineering standards work around the practicalities of the physics. Canon and Nikon won't address this issue. Their markets are dying as it is. Red might. Arri might. Panovision might. Black Magic might. I suggest that pomax spend more time hanging out with cinematographers and DI artists and less time with photographers and coders to unravel more of this. Last comment on the flower picture. Many people fail to get the shot they want not due to camera inadequacy but because to light something for the camera, direction, quality, temperature of light cost money and takes a lot of skill. Point and shoot isn't. PS Mapplethorpe managed to get some flowers that look pretty good. And that was in the stone age.