Does “Color Science” even matter?

ggbutcher wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

ggbutcher wrote:

Stan Disbrow wrote:

(snip)

The term Engineer comes from the steam engine. A manually controlled power plant that loved to blow sky high if the guy running the engine wasn't paying close attention.

I just had to go find an etymology of the word "engineer", found one here:

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=engineer

An extract: "mid-14c., enginour, "constructor of military engines," from Old French engigneor "engineer, architect, maker of war-engines; schemer" (12c.)"

Sorry, just had to... geesh, so much to do in retirement!

So if you were designing a catapult, you weren’t a “gravity scientist “?

Speaking from the perspective gathered working as an engineer of military systems, very little actual "discovery' science occurring there. It was always about the application of science to the construction of articles to perform a function. And, the effort of engineering was less about the tech and more about how to communicate to a large group of people to participate in the construction without stepping all over each other.

Ah, yes. Nontechnical practicality is very important. As the team gets bigger, the importance grows. See The Mythical Man-month.

(snip again...)

And, in the scheme of color, I am most decidedly a Technician. Not an Engineer, and probably will never get there. I certainly will never get to Scientist.

Me too. Just want my images to look nice...