Abstract
MR. GUILD'S letter1 makes it clear that the recent conflict in views on colour measurement arises by his adopting an interpretation of the role of the C. I. E. colorimetric system which puts it outside purely physical discussion. The explanation he suggests does not, however, apply, as I have not been concerned with the public and practical aspect to which he refers. As was clearly stated2, my remarks referred to the purely physical analysis of the phenomenon of colour, and measurement of the quantities following from such analysis: the C. I. E. system was therein referred to for what fundamentally, apart from all implication and interpretation, it actually is, namely, a conventional schematization of physical fact, having reference to certain conditions of observation, based, of course, upon averaged data but nevertheless representative in such conditions of a possible real observer (of. the analogous purpose served by Listing's typical schematic eye in ophthalmology). In this sense the system forms in general a representative first-order theory. Such use of the system accords with normal physical practice, for no suggestion of compromise in form, or simplification of the phenomenon has hitherto been implied in the reduction of physical data to refer to the C. I. E. normal observer.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
NATURE, 149, 442 (1942).
NATURE, 149 76, 247 (1942) ; 148, 961 (1941).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
PERRY, J. Colour Measurement. Nature 149, 553 (1942). https://doi.org/10.1038/149553a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/149553a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.