Isn’t there a broader problem here?
We’ve watched at least half a century of folks shovelling numbers around and pretending that there is some “reason”. The issue is that the problem surface is ill defined. When folks say “gamut mapping” they might as well be saying “flying spaghetti monster”.
I stress, the issue is not in the stimuli metric. No amount of C0, C1, C2 continuity of stimuli metrics will reveal anything we need to without evaluating whether the metric we are using is correct.
We need to evaluate the cognitive implications of the stimuli relationships. No one is doing this. Instead, it has been turned into a peak scientism chase of what folks are pretending to be the “problem”.
The problem surface is cognitive; how do we read a formed picture?
Case in point, we should be examining how we cognitively arrive at probabilities of reading a pictorial depiction along transparency mechanisms. I believe this is the axis that also embodies pictorial exposure.
