Does “Color Science” even matter?

yogi4fitness wrote:

tko wrote:

What do you folks think about color science?

That anything F-stoppers have to say is probably wrong.

Oh I didnt know that. I am new to the hobby so dont know much about fstoppers. Is there any truth to the video then? I thought his explanation made sense.

Science isn't a video, its an article with facts, tests and test methods, and comparisons.

F-stoppers used to be solid, but now they just publish click bait articles designed to pull in traffic.

They tend to do what they did in that "article": promote someone else's work. They do that more often than their own. Still, the video is fine.

I wish he would have mentioned that in addition to using say Adobe standard another common tactic to gain consistent color across cameras and lenses is to use a color chart like the Colorchecker, and create your own profiles. Getting color consistent is often especially important where say two bodies are used to photograph a wedding, or even more so with different cameras used to shoot a scene in movie. You don't want skin tones to change color based on shots from different angles.

I think "color science" is rather a useless term when tossed around to compare cameras. When someone is really talking about the quality (not accuracy) of various out of camera JPEGs based on the different settings.

I mean what's next: Manfrotto has better "support science"? Peak Design has better "gravity science"? The science around color is fascinating, and to see it reduced to a marketing cliche is just sad.