Talk:Adams chromatic valence color space

Adams-Nickerson scale

Since the scope has been enlarged to cover both "valence" and "value" scales, should we go one step further and rename the article "Adams-Nickerson scale", after mentioning Nickerson's contributions? It would be less of a mouthful, and more general. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These topics (chromatic valence and chromatic value) should probably be in separate articles. For one thing, the title would become a bit awkward. Lovibond (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIELUV and opponent process

Article states that “Chromatic value/valence spaces are notable for incorporating the opponent process model”, but that's not the point with CIELUV. In the talks section on CIELUV (see Adams chromatic valence there) it is said that u'v' scales resemble “green-red” and “blue-yellow” simply by coincidence, not intentionally.

And there is still no clear explanation of how CIELUV implements Adams principles, — neither in CIELUV article nor in this one. 213.234.235.82 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there had been at one time. Perhaps that should be restored. If it wasn't, perhaps it should be included. If there are no objections, I shall do so. Lovibond (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, but a bunch of appreciation! :) 213.234.235.82 (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

The content of this article is a poor match for its title. Adams's notion of color valence is significant, and vital for understanding some of the color spaces still in use. Why, then, is more of the article devoted to color value, a different topic? If color value is important (I believe it is), it should have an article as well (as I believe it should).

Mention of the factor of 2.5 is irrelavant here, as is the entire discussion on color value.

Is this article about Adams's chromatic valance, or is it about Adams chromatic value? Lovibond (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]