"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 23/11/2019 18:03, Sn!pe wrote:
We painted our walls in 'Calico' #e3ba93 (it looks a
lot lighter on the walls.) When we installed CFLs it
looked like baby ****. Fortunately, I had laid in a
stock of Chinese incandescent lamps before they became
illegal.

Try some other LEDs. We've got Calico, and never had that impression.

I've not noticed odd colour rendition with CFLs or LEDs, *in normal usage*.
I can see differences in photographs if I do a test with specific coloured
objects (eg red is darker and blue becomes more violet), having
auto-balanced the camera against a sheet of white paper illuminated by the
relevant light for each test. What I have noticed with "daylight" CFLs is a
faint greenish cast in a room lit by them when my eyes are adjusted to a
room lit by daylight LED bulbs or "tungsten" LEDs.

Colour charts for paint are notoriously inaccurate. We bought some
"terracotta" emulsion paint, judging the colour from the colour chart and
from the paint in the transparent plastic "tin" that it came in. It was the
correct colour when it went on, but it dried a much lighter pink rather than
a darker colour of a terracotta plant pot.

Then we bought some very pale green paint for the bathroom, and that dried
vivid, almost fluorescent green. So we bought some replacement paint which
looked very pale green on the colour chart (though pale blue when viewed on
the online colour chart). Given that the colour was described as "Jade
White" you'd expect green. But it was actually pale blue. We decided to live
with that. And both of us see it as blue on the wall (and both of us saw it
as green on the colour chart), so it's not a problem with one of us having
funny colour perception.

OK, there are some things my wife and I *do* see differently. Remember "that
dress" which was the topic of hot debate on the internet the other year? I
see it as white (or very pale blue) and gold, whereas my wife sees it as it
should be (mid blue and black). I think, in the absence of any reference
point, my guess of white and gold is more plausible (allowing for camera
possible balanced for tungsten light, but viewing something in daylight),
and that it was evidently *very* overexposed making mid blue and black
render as pale blue and gold (as determined by the RGB values) in the
photo). So the mystery is how a sizeable proportion of the population were
able (correctly) to make a very large correction for a grossly overexposed
photo, rather than seeing it as the photo reproduced it.

Likewise, we beg to differ on the "yanni/laurel" audio clip that was being
discussed earlier this year.