Calibrate your eyes....

<p>... http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq</p>

<p>Oh well, 7 for me. Should check my eyes really. ;-)</p>

<p>Got an 8... thought I had done perfectly, too. Guess the monitor plays a part as well.</p>

<p>Ambient light and fatigue will affect your results too. When I tried this doodad last year I got very different results each time. The worst was when I was tired and had spent too much time at the computer. On another day when I was fresh I scored much better.</p>

<p>I scored a 12 - male, age 68. Monitor calibration must be quite important. I use a NEC LCD2690WUXi, calibrated with an Eye-One Display 2 (standard filters). My eyesight is less than great.</p>

<p>I scored a 4, yay!<br>

I found I could distiguish the variations better by using my peripheral vision. Male aged 37.<br>

Using the monitor at my autoshop - LG L1751S - not calibrated. I'll have to try it at home on my calibrated ASUS monitor. In the back room under 3 - 50W rough service incandesent bulbs.</p>

<p>IMO, it's not a good test to assess anything. Lex has confirmed my suspicions. But besides that it doesn't test for real world assessments of images which is what all this stuff is about. The test is to prove you can't use or trust eyeball calibrators and I don't even buy that either.</p>

<p>We don't photograph color squares and we certainly don't try to match to them as well.</p>

<p>BTW I got a low score as well but I can still edit an image that pleases folks as I've proven many times on the web.</p>

<p>I love this! Then again, I scored "0" ("perfect"). :) This may be the best I've ever done on a standardized test. Clearly it is a perfectly conceived exam. Thought it was kind of fun. Info: male, age 46; used uncalibrated office LCD monitor under flourescent lights with window and cloudy daylight at my back.</p>

<p>LOL Kyle.</p>

<p>I agree Tim but it was a interesting way of killing some time while waiting for some parts to arrive. :)</p>

<p>Tim, lower is better not worse. You are trying to get zero. Now I bet you have more respect for the test. I got 4.</p>

<p>While I agree that monitor calibration by a device might be very accurate and mostly fool-proof, I'd like to mention that for more than half a century, professional video monitors have been calibrated by eye using a color bar chart. You can train someone to do it pretty well in a matter of minutes.<br>

Until recently, the video cameras themselves had to be calibrated before use, and that, too, was done by eye.<br>

When you watch a sit-com that was shot on video, there are 3-4 or more cameras that must be 'matched' so that when they cut from one to another, the image doesn't look different. Done by eye to this day.</p>

<p>I got a 13 the first time, so I turned off the fluorescent light in my office and got a 0. I guess the ambient light really affects my eyes. </p>

<p>23 for a 66 yr old male with vision problems and a non-calibrated monitor, overcast outside grey blaring on my screen. Maybe tonight I'll try it in the dark.</p>

<p>When I said I got a low score I meant I didn't do too well. I think I got a 7 or something like that. Can't remember now. It was a while back when I took that test and I found it quite tiresome.</p>

<p>The issue I see with it is that they use a limited set of colors that photographers and image editors don't often deal with in real world situations so what's the point. It's like testing your driving skills in the middle of a NASCAR race. They'ld end up taking my driver's license away because I'ld certainly fail under such conditions, but I've never been in an accident or been given a ticket in the past 20 years driving in regular street traffic where most accidents occur.</p>

<p>C'mon, Tim, this was a fun thing to do really! My weakness was in the blue/green range, which does not at all keep me away from fiddling in Photoshop. ;-) And yes, I'd never take a picture of one hundred colourful squares anyway. (And know having to sort them...)</p>

<p>Here's another vote for calibrated monitors! I scored a 0 on my HP LP2475w monitor which is calibrated with the Greytag/Macbeth (Xrite) Eye One Display. I'm 50 BTW.</p>

<p>I don't know if it means much but it was kinda fun to try.</p>

<p>Monika, I do understand and can relate to the fun of it.</p>

<p>Just questioning the intent behind why X-rite, a very smart and professional company, would include such a simplistic test such as this. There's another simplistic test using a gray checkerboard pattern and a green cylinder casting a shadow created by a color scientist often referenced by a published expert to show we can't trust our eyes to see color. </p>

<p>It comes across more as marketing hype for the hardware calibration industry that doesn't need nor should it use this kind of hype. It's quite clear with LCD's today you now HAVE to use a hardware calibration device for professional color assessment and editing on such displays.</p>

<p>>> Just questioning the intent behind why X-rite, a very smart and professional company, would include such a simplistic test such as this. <<</p>

<p>Tim, it's probably a good marketing tool to bring people to their website. I doubt it has much real utility, except that it one does VERY poorly, perhaps there is a significant color weakness.</p>

<p>The other side of the coin is that this test looks like a web version (albeit for play) of a serious tool, the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test. This tests ability to make fine color discrimination, which is not the same thing as testing for color blindness. That is, someone might test as normal using color blindness tests, yet they could still do poorly on this test. By the way, this test predates digital by quite a bit.</p>

<p>I have done the test three times now. 7, 8, and 0. I noticed that each time, I have worked from right to left which I thought was a little strange since I read from left to right. Anybody else find you worked at it in a specific way? Anyway, fun test. Thanks Monika for sharing.</p>

<p>Bill, fine color discrimination can be far more influenced by outside physical factors this test can't assess for.</p>

<p>There's also the cursed red/green offset issue with white balance and mathematical color errors going on under the color management hood involved with calibration and profiling routines all of us have to deal with which has nothing to do with our eyes. Adaptation and the surround effect in real world color perception is another physical reality the test doesn't account for as well.</p>

<p>The only way we can color match exactly in the real world is to have one color patch overlap another and look for the dividing line for comparison and that's not how humans match color especially in photography. On top of that a commercial press can botch that consistency in a heart beat with press drift making us all think we're colorblind.</p>

<p>>> Bill, fine color discrimination can be far more influenced by outside physical factors this test can't assess for. <<</p>

<p>Hi Tim, as I said, I doubt that the web-based test has much utility.</p>

<p>However, if you talking about the actual Farnsworth Munsell 100 hue test, then you are plain wrong. Nothing you said has anything to do with this actual test; not white balance, nor color management, nor exact color matching. The F-M 100 hue test simply evaluates a person's ability for fine color discrimination, through all hues. If one has a substantial weakness or color blindness, it will show up.</p>

<p>Maybe it needs to be said that the F-M 100 hue test has a physical set of color samples which a person physically rearranges; it is not a computer simulation. </p>

 

<p>Linda, I did it from right to left until I got about 2/3 to 3/4 the way accross and then came at the other way. I got 0 so my cheap office monitor must have reasonably good tonal variation.</p>