Donate here: https://en.liberapay.com/aurelienpierre/
No perks, just honest donation with no strings attached either way 
2 Likes
Thanks for the info, and saving me the search.
I donāt understand that remark. Visualisation is a key skill in mathematics, which is invakuable in informing your reasoning. I would think that a person who lacks visual skills would be the one struggling with maths, because otherwise they are reduced to shuffling digits and latters around on the page according to some arcane set of rules, which is only going to take you so farā¦
2 Likes
I am not a psychologist or educator. I think normally the comparison is examined as it is here and in many ways supports what you are saying but perhaps also better frames what the comment in question should have clarifiedā¦
The only thing that I feel āuncomfortableā with is the unfortunate use of the word āinvalidā that appears to be used on 95% of my images. The word indicates to me that something is definitely wrong with the results that I an seeing and frankly the results, to me, look really first class.
Yes, it is a silly thing but I think that there is a need for a better word or phrase here.
3 Likes
As a guy with mathematical formation I strongly agree with this.
I recall that āLearning stylesā based teaching has been debunked for a while by now.
It may be debunked but you will find pages on many universities still touting it as part of their teaching philosophy. I do believe that it has been shown that learning is not better as demonstrated by test results when people are stratified however people still self identify or perceive themselves to be in one of these categories in many situations and will as a result feel more in their comfort zoneā¦
1 Like
The word āinvalidā applies to the value for colour temperature (in your example 3739K), not for whether the white balance in the image is valid or not. Since the light source in your scene doesnāt fall on the Planckian locus, then the temperature value is only an approximation of the sceneās illuminant, and is not really a valid representation of that illuminant. As you say, the actual colour balance that you observe in your image is perfectly fine valid; itās just that it canāt be accurately described by using a single temperature value.
I agree with you here ā the word will worry a lot of people who havenāt read the manual. Iāve tried to find a better one but I canāt think of anything. Iām open to alternatives.
1 Like
how about āIGNOREā haha
1 Like
The math model used to link color temperature in K to the color of the illuminant is used out of its domain of validity. Thatās what is meant by invalid: donāt trust the number.
Now, Iām not native EN speaker, shoot if you have suggestions.
2 Likes
Agreed, but without that longer explanation, the word āinvalidā on its own is going to cause people to think theyāve done something wrong. As I say, though, Iām not sure thereās a simple one-word solution to this problem (edit: apart from removing the term entirely).
1 Like
What about āartificialā or perhaps āarbitraryā?
While not as precise as āinvalidā, they would perhaps be less alarming?
1 Like
Instead of āinvalidā why donāt use the suggested action? Like āuse custom illuminantā (but this is a long string). The tooltip description is perfect.
āinvalidā stands for ānot blackbodyā, right?
How about something descriptive about temperatures or blackbody radiators? ācoloredā might actually fit the bill; or ātintedā, as an analogy to the old temperature&tint sliders.
I like ātintedā.
1 Like
Perhaps ācustomā would be sufficient?
5 Likes
I donāt know if itās the case or not, but if the given number is an approximation of the temperature, then maybe āapproximateā or āapproximationā could be less scary and as descriptive as āinvalidā ?
3 Likes
Or ān/aā (not applicable)
5 Likes
or āout of rangeā ?
2 Likes
The model is valid for blackbody spectrum between 2800 and 8000 K. Outside of these bounds, itās not an approximation, is dead wrong. Itās like computing air friction forces on a supersonic aircraft (\propto v^2) with subsonic fluid dynamics (\propto v) : you are off by a ^2. Nobody will die at the end, but it is no excuse to get sloppy. When valid, the model is an approximation already. When invalid, itās shit, really.