From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Ca

I'd like to open up a discussion of using standard color charts at weighoffs. A bright orange pumpkin will look different depending upon the conditions, the camera, the computer monitor, etc. Munsell charts, for example, describe just about every shade possible. If a matching chip or chart page were held up next to the pumpkins for photos, that would be a great way to get standardized cross-reference. The charts aren't cheap, but could be used over and over.

10/10/2005 12:44:35 PM

Antigonish,Nova Scotia,Canada

Not a bad idea, but surely in this "digital I.T." world that we have all been forced to adjust to, there must be some type of electronic or computer version that would easily and possibly freely be available???....perhaps bohica Tom or some other computer guru out there in cyber-land could help us out here!....as a proud senior "Luddite" I look forward to more posts on this subject.....all the best, Bill

10/10/2005 2:26:25 PM

Thornhill, Ontario, Canada

I think that there are digital colour standards. But, the problem is that pumpkins are still analog. And, there are many more colours in the natural world than can be accurately reproduced on a computer. That's why whatever method you use to record or view the colour digitally (doorknob mentions some of them above), there will always be some distortion. So, there may not be any easy way to get around that problem other than holding a sample book beside the pumpkin and deciding which one matches best.

10/10/2005 2:53:48 PM

Rhode Island

what would be the purpose of this chart ?
is it to decide which orange pumpkin is the orangest?

10/11/2005 5:44:18 AM

Montoursville, PA

Such a chart has no competitive application according to the rules today. Digital photos can be photo managed by nearly all who have a computer so cyber image means nothing.
Both the suggested chart and the object could be easily altered.

10/11/2005 10:46:28 AM

Ca

I think the purpose of the chart would be to have a reference that is independent of the camera, or what you see on your screen. Say, for example, that you are interested in growing pumpkins that are orange-red (like those French Cinderella pumpkins, forget the name). If, as part of the photo documentation, a color chart is held up against the pumpkin's skin, then you might be able to see that the pumpkin almost matches a color chip named AK47, which just happens to be close to the exact shade you are looking for. But what you saw on the web didn't look that color, but looked like AK43. If you have the ability to cross-check, then you would be able to know that the pumpkin actually does have the color you're looking for, even if it doesn't look like it in the photo or monitor.
I personally don't see any competetive application, more as a tool to help growers search both online and possibly offline, with an outside reference as a yardstick.
My brother-in-law is in charge of color standards development at Canon, and spends his life trying to figure out if the blue sweater you see on the web page is actually the shade you want. He was the person who pointed out that Munsell actually has color charts that most closely correspond to the actual color wheel, even though Pantone ,which is more widely used by graphic designers, has the edge in being more recognizable.
So to summarize, a color chart can be used to reference a pumpkins color, regardless of digital issues, as long as it is tied to a reference number. Growers needing to see a hardcopy of the chart could see one at their local weighoff, and then make notes re photos from other locales.

10/11/2005 4:15:03 PM