How well do you see colour?

[vc10um]

I got a 15. I literally had little bars straight across the bottom over the whole colour spectrum. I'm wondering if it has something to do with my room conditions/monitor that I messed up so equally across the board...

ETA: I'm 26.

 

[JewelFreak]

I got 6 on my only try. Not bad for old eyes. Way good on the acuity for age range, interesting. Had real trouble w/the pinky-browns -- had trouble distinguishing reds in them & that came up as the worst area for me. That was fun.

DH & I always disagree on color -- needle each other about being color blind. I'm sending this to him -- should settle it once & for all!

Thanks for putting that up!

--- Laurie

 

[Arcadian]

I also believe that your computer screen (what type it is) can have a great impact on how you did as well.

-A

 

[davi_el_mejor]

I got a 30... not surprised actually.

 

[Aoife]

I got an 8 on my first and only try, which is not too terrible considering I'm in my 50's. I suspect time of day may have something to do with how you score, too, and what the available light is.

 

[tyty333]

I didnt think I was color sensitive and according to my score...I'm NOT . My eyes really went downhill when I
hit 42.

 

[Clio]

I got an 11.

 

[kenny]

Wow, I thought I was more color sensitive than that. I got a 30 and I'm in my 20s, but then again, I did take the test in the dark before dawn in a dimly lit room so I will try again when the sun is out! Hopefully I'll score better than a 30!

I would guess a dimly-lit room would result in a better score.
A bright room would cause the pupils to constrict more, blocking out some of the light of the color chips that your retina needs to discriminate the hues.
You want your pupils fully open to let in more light of those color chips.
Light is the data and more data is good.

Along the same lines, I'd also guess turning up the brightness of of your monitor helps.

Just a theory.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I'm lazy and only did the first line so my score was 678. lol

 

[that_someone_special]

I was a little sad to see 4. I was striving for 0.
Being an artist, I feel like I failed a little... do claim to be color obsessed.

 

[brandy_z28]

I scored an 8 but got into a hurry. Oh well. Might have to go try it again.

 

[mastercutgems]

Oh well I scored a 12; not really that bad for 50 year old eyes... at least I can see the meets well on a faceted gem I was afraid to do it again as i might have scored 50 or more...yikes...

I wonder how the test would do on more vibrant vivid colors???

Most respectfully;

Dana

 

[Kismet]

My husband took it and got a 3, damn him. Blue/green was his issue too.

 

[Arcadian]

Wow, I thought I was more color sensitive than that. I got a 30 and I'm in my 20s, but then again, I did take the test in the dark before dawn in a dimly lit room so I will try again when the sun is out! Hopefully I'll score better than a 30!

I would guess a dimly-lit room would result in a better score.
A bright room would cause the pupils to constrict more, blocking out some of the light of the color chips that your retina needs to discriminate the hues.
You want your pupils fully open to let in more light of those color chips.
Light is the data and more data is good.

Along the same lines, I'd also guess turning up the brightness of of your monitor helps.

Just a theory.

Hi Kenny

My office is well lit. I think sometimes the wrong type of lighting can throw off what you see as can an overlit or underlit space. Light color also matters. My office is in the basement, I don't get natural light. When I look at pantone chips, I look at them under a light box that specifically mimics optimal lighting conditions.

When color is critical to a project, I tend to do those types of jobs at home. When its just database stuff, I'll travel for that!

I also have a well calibrated monitor. When I have to work with color, i have to be dead on because it can be my @ss if I get it wrong. I've done a few campaigns for clients where I had to use the exact color they wanted especially when its a registered color, which is where the type of monitors that I have comes in.

My main monitor is a NEC Multisync PA241W The other smaller one is a Multisync 90GX2.

How warm, cool, or neutral your monitor is, makes a difference. This is why some of us see different things when it comes to pictures of stones.

So the test is actually a pretty important one IMO. It says more about the type of monitor you use than your actual eyes.

-A

 

[elrohwen]

I got a zero, which is good because I sure didn't want to do that again! I feel cross-eyed now.

 

[kenny]

But this is a test of the ability to see slight differences in hues, not the absolute accuracy of those any of those hues to a reference standard.

Also whey you take the test the source of light is your monitor itself not the room light.
Plus the room light affects all of the colored boxes equally.
Even a cheap uncalibrated monitor does whatever it does to ALL of the color chips so it's a wash because the test is about slight side by side hue differences.

I'm just speculating and reasoning.
I could certainly be wrong.

If calibrating a monitor includes changing the difference in how hues are displayed then I'm certainly wrong.
If a calibrated monitor improves scores then they should shut the website down (or post a huge disclaimer) since I'll bet over 99% of people use an uncalibrated monitor.

 

[PrincessNuggz]

I got an 8 and I'm 28. Apparently for my age I should have gotten a 0. Whoops.

I want to try it again, but is anyone else's eyes throbbing? I can barely stand to look at my screen right now to type this.

(Edited to fix a typo)

 

[kama_s]

I did this test a few weeks ago. I scored a 3 on my first try. Didn't try again.

 

[Sparklelu]

I took it once got a 23 thought that was pretty good considering my trifocals! Then I cleaned the lenses and retook it got a 7 I'll stick with that.

Online ColorIQ Challenge Results
Your score: 7
FM Hue Test Results

 

[Arcadian]

But this is a test of the ability to see slight differences in hues, not the absolute accuracy of those any of those hues to a reference standard.

Also whey you take the test the source of light is your monitor itself not the room light.
Plus the room light affects all of the colored boxes equally.
Even a cheap uncalibrated monitor does whatever it does to ALL of the color chips so it's a wash because the test is about slight side by side hue differences.

I'm just speculating and reasoning.
I could certainly be wrong.

If calibrating a monitor includes changing the difference in how hues are displayed then I'm certainly wrong.
If a calibrated monitor improves scores then they should shut the website down (or post a huge disclaimer) since I'll bet over 99% of people use an uncalibrated monitor.

Being color sensitive does play some part in what you see but in the online world, your monitor does too. I will say that I think some of the scores are skewed because of the differences of people's monitors.

Certain types of monitors have a short viewing range. How you sit, either straight on or not, can affect how you see things on the screen. Some monitors are best viewed head on. Some tend to gray out a bit of you sit to the side. Some just are craptastic for viewing colors period. I think environment also plays a part. I have a very optimal environment. It took me 7 minutes on that test.

The site itself is selling calibration software..lol. They're doing what they're supposed to do so it makes sense why this test is there.


-A

 

[elrohwen]

But this is a test of the ability to see slight differences in hues, not the absolute accuracy of those any of those hues to a reference standard.

Also whey you take the test the source of light is your monitor itself not the room light.
Plus the room light affects all of the colored boxes equally.
Even a cheap uncalibrated monitor does whatever it does to ALL of the color chips so it's a wash because the test is about slight side by side hue differences.

I'm just speculating and reasoning.
I could certainly be wrong.

If calibrating a monitor includes changing the difference in how hues are displayed then I'm certainly wrong.
If a calibrated monitor improves scores then they should shut the website down (or post a huge disclaimer) since I'll bet over 99% of people use an uncalibrated monitor.

I would imagine that calibration wouldn't effect your results, but the quality of your monitor certainly could. A higher quality monitor will show more contrast and make the test easier. A poor quality one might not produce as many color pixels (depending on how old it is) and would have lower contrast. I would guess the average person's monitor is just fine for the test, but I wouldn't want to take it on a super cheap 10 year old monitor either.

 

[RissaLou]

8 is a great score!

My problem area seems to be the transition from green to blue. The problem is that when I see the "correct" graduation, it seems wrong to me, like some bars should be moved to the right or left.

Ditto, except from purple to pink for me. I scored a 12 the first time I'll try a second time after work to see if I can do better

*Edit to add*

I wonder if PS's are above average or about normal range?

 

[E B]

I got an 11 but I have a headache. Or maybe taking the test gave me a headache. (I'm 27.)

 

[lizzyann]

I got an 11. I'm 31. My problem area was green/blues.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

21 second time around, I increased the brightness on my monitor

 

[PaulaW]

This was SO cool, thank you! I got a 0 on the first try and I'm female and 35 (a graphic artist too, so that helped).

 

[Aoife]

I scored a 4 when I took it a second time, and I noticed that when I tilted the screen of the laptop it made a big difference in how intense the colors appeared. Interesting.

 

[AprilBaby]

I got an 11, I had trouble with the blue/green spectrum. I am 51.

 

[rosetta]

i only did the first row, got them all right, then got bored.

you guys have more patience than me!

 

[SuzyQZ]

I got a 6

I only took it once.

I'm 53, female, and wear progressive bifocal glasses, if that matters.