Thanks ! A few random thoughts :
I think this answers quite nicely Alex Fry´s question :
The question there is, which matters more? The colour of the light, or the quantity of the light?
I used to think like a year ago that the colour of the light (and its purity) should be maintained at all cost. But I have changed opinion on this specific matter, mostly because of the examples from this thread.
I also think your explanation about “path-to-white” (or “path-to-maximal-brightness”) is right on point. It reminded of this thread from almost a year ago (time flies) ! And it ties up nicely with what @paulgdpr hinted six months ago in this thread :
Most notably, I believe it makes the path-to-white an inevitable consequence of the constraints: it does not need to be “engineered” nor needs to be parameterizable.
This is why I am not a big fan of the expression “highlight desaturation”. I think it makes this mechanics looks like a creative thing when really it should not be ?
Finally, I found this quote to be quite mind-blowing :
we’re choosing mimicking the sensation of brightness as most important, and then exploiting the fact that a less-colourful chroma creates the sensation of higher brightness to create the sensation of more brightness than is really available on a particular display in a well-defined way, rather than leaving it up to display-dependent chance.
I am still a bit unclear/fuzzy on how to create a sensation of brightness that “exceeds” the display capabilities. But I think it ties up nicely with these two videos :
The same Seurat charcoal example is used in both videos to illustrate your point. Fascinating !
Update : this is very last point somehow corresponds as to what I described on my website as “Counterchange” or “Checkerboard Lighting”. I defined it as “a lighting technique of alternation of lighting and shadow areas to create depth”. I should update the definition to add that it is used “to maximize the sensation of brightness in any medium.”
I hope it helps a bit,
Chris