Another thing. Metamerism is concerned with tristimulus values, and tristimulus values have nothing to do with appearance. The entire article is about the appearance of Epson 2000P prints under different illuminations. Remember, tristimulus values are computed by multiplying a light source by the spectral radiant power distribution of an object by the CIE Standard Observer. These are objective values that have nothing to do with appearances, which are subjective and depend on the accommodation of the individual observer and the spectrum of the illumination. It just irritates me that the informal printer community has found this big word to apply to a phenomenon they are observing that has nothing to do with the way the word is used in color science. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -----Original Message----- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P > > > Here's a page specifically devoted to metamerism and the 2000P: > http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html I don't think this article is using the term correctly to describe the phenomenon they are referring to. To quote Wyszecki & Stiles in "Color Science", "Metameric color stimuli are color stimuli with the same tristimulus values but different spectral radiant power distributions. An equivalent definition states that metameric color stimuli are color stimuli that have different spectral radiant power distributions but match in color for a given observer." (p. 184) Thus, metameric refers to two different objects having the same tristimulus values under the same illumination but different spectral reflectances. This article talks about the same object having different tristimulus values under different illuminations, just the opposite of the definition! The odd thing is, the article starts with the correct definition, then goes on to use it in just the opposite manner in which it is defined. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684