From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Color (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hmmm... this is definitely only a poor stub. And a spectrophotometer does not have to have 31 channels, although merely a "better" colour-gauging device may. A spectrophotometer should have as many channels (or resolution) as is needed to accurately characterise whatever it is you're trying to measure. 2nm bin-size and a few nm FWHM is not hard to get for some $1000's.

I agree with the others that the page needs to start by "setting the scene" of what colourimetry is (and what it isn't), then the basic premises of the numerical approaches (or links to relevant articles), before going on to applications and instrumentation (or, again, linking). 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Andrew (

We gotta make this page mor related to what a person in the field of Colorimetry does. Yes, they use all the devices, but for whom and why and what are challenges, and move allthe device pages over to this page: Spectrophtometer (visual) spectroradimeter colorimeter, etc.

--Dkroll2 16:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

There isn't enough emphasis on the subjective nature of color - the fact that the calculations all rest on psycho-physiological experiments, and that various color models exist to bring out and quantify thigs that are in the end perceptive phenomena.

i need to now how colirmetry is used in industry and its back ground information if sum one knows then can u plz tell me thnk u


Colorimetry is an ambiguous term, let's discuss what is the best way to resolve the conflict[edit]

The word colorimetry is used by scientists working in different areas. On the one hand, it's used in color science, photography, printing and graphic communication industry. On the other hand, it's used in chemistry. On the one hand, colorimetry is the science and technology used to quantify and describe physically the human color perception. On the other hand, colorimetry is a method of analytical chemistry which is used for identification and determination of concentrations of substances that absorb light. Obviously chemists don't care about how colors are perceived by humans, the goal is to measure concentration of a substance. Similarly photographers don't care about how to measure concentration of a substance, the goal may be to get adequate color reproduction. Although the same instruments are used in both areas, it doesn't seem to be a good reason to merge these two topics into the same article. Actually I was going to add some new content to this arcticle, in particular, information on color matching experiments and I believe it will be confusing to people looking for information on chemical methods. So I think that it would be good to separate these topics into different articles.

Is there a primary topic? Well, I would say that the primary topic is color perception. But I'm afraid chemists will tend to disagree with me. Let's try to search Google and look at the first page: We find both meanings there. By the way, encyclopedia Britannica says that colorimetry is a chemical method (the link is on the first page). How this word is used in Wikipedia? Let's take a look at It looks like there's no primary topic.

So my proposal is to make this page the disambiguation page.

Dear Wikipedians, what are your opinions?

Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the large number of pages that link to the present Colorimetry page, the best approach is to just use Colorimetry (disambiguation) and an {{otheruses}} or such hat note. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Before your and my last changes this page referred to both meanings and I noticed that after reverting to revision 291168056 you removed the reference to the chemical method. I absolutely agree with you that the large number of pages are linked to the present Colorimetry page and there are many pages on chemistry amongst them; now they refer to the non-relevant page. My concern is that this may end up with an edit war. The idea is to minimize the risk of it. Many people will not agree to work on a page if it's constantly reverted. By the way, do you think that this article perfectly describes the subject? Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is far from perfect, but it's basically about the color-science topic, and should be left that way. I'm not so familiar with the chemical topic, but if it's really a distinct topic then making a separate article for it was the right move, thought it would have been more ideal to start with a {{split}} template on the article to discuss it first. Now that it's split, fixing the links where it was the intended topic makes sense. But before you go any further with that, it would be good to cite some sources on the new article to establish that it really is a notable topic. Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well... I didn't know about the {{split}} template. It's really a good idea to start with it. I believe this is the right way to go. Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

split the page already. these are two completely separate technologies; if i understand, the chemical application seems directed to measuring solute concentrations and has nothing to do with color per se, merely specific wavelengths where transmission is measured. Macevoy (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

Alexander has now added a split proposal template, as I suggested he should have done in the first place. But I think the split has already been done, so it's not clear what else we need to say. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the question is what is the primary topic? Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


I cannot find any credible reference to this being the correct spelling in British English. As far as I am aware it is colorimerty in ALL variations of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you’re right. For example, Hunt’s book The Reproduction of Colour uses the spelling “colorimetry”. –jacobolus (t) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Colorimetry/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

merge from Spectral reflectance

Last edited at 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Any official classification of color taxon within the spectrum of tetrachromacy?[edit]

I bet it'd be hard to distinguish, for example, the eye-sight perception of shrimp at this stage in science: but seeing as there is (putatively?) human tetrachromats, has there been any attempts at classifying by means of colorimetry the varying degrees of tetrachromacy? (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorimetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

article "White" -- input needed on talk page in disagreement[edit]

The color "white" is fundamental to colorimetry and color science, but most of that article's editors see the article as being primarily about the cultural usage, figurative associations, and history of "white" (and no more fundamental than any other color like orange), rather than stating or explaining what white literally is as a color, which is well-understood in color science. Could any of you weigh in on the current dispute on the talk page talk:White there, which mainly is between just two editors about the lead and its first sentence? One of them wants the first paragraph to rely first on citing illustrative examples of white like snow, chalk, and milk, before even defining white in any objective sense, and based largely on one colloquial dictionary definition of the word "white". DavRosen (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)