
In everyday situations, it doesn’t matter much if you think a tennis ball is yellow and your friend thinks it’s green. After all, there are a range of factors that influence color perception. For most of us, those factors lead to little more than casual disagreements.
For companies that rely on accurate color decisions, however, those differences can have real consequences. The same color sample may be approved by one person and rejected by another. A supplier may believe a production batch matches the standard, while a brand’s quality team disagrees. The result can be delayed approvals, additional lab work, rework, waste, and unnecessary costs.
Color perception is influenced by many factors, including lighting, background, age, memory, physiology, and environmental conditions. Understanding these variables is essential for anyone involved in color approval, quality control, product development, or manufacturing.
What if it’s your job to evaluate the colors of products? Well, that’s a whole different story. Differences in the way people see color can quickly escalate from disagreement to an expensive bottleneck.
An example: The design team at a well-known clothing brand is planning colors for an upcoming season. Someone uses the term “neon yellow.” Someone on the color team runs with this and does their best to find a color that looks like neon yellow. When the designer sees the lab dips, they look more like neon green.
The same thing can happen when color teams try to visually match a color to a production standard.
You might have 20/20 vision, but your eyesight is still unreliable when it comes to color.
Let’s take a look at some physical and environmental factors that influence color perception.
The most common factors that affect how people perceive color include:
For color-critical industries such as textiles, apparel, plastics, coatings, automotive, cosmetics, and consumer goods, these factors can influence color approvals, quality control decisions, supplier alignment, and production consistency.
Understanding these influences is the first step toward achieving more accurate, repeatable, and reproducible color evaluation.
Lighting is easily the most important factor when it comes to color perception. Datacolor explores this further in how different light sources impact color.
Here’s the science in brief:
Light itself also has color characteristics.
“Cool” light contains more blue energy. “Warm” light contains more yellow energy. These differences are described by the spectral power distribution, or SPD, of the light source.
When the SPD changes, the way light reflects from a sample changes too. That means the same material can appear different under daylight, fluorescent, LED, or retail lighting.
Light sources are often evaluated by how accurately they reveal colors compared with natural light. This is known as the color rendering index, or CRI. Many lighting professionals also consider TM-30, a newer method for evaluating color rendering performance.
This matters in practice because indoor spaces are affected by both artificial and natural light. Weather, season, time of day and building orientation can all influence how color appears.
That is why a sample approved in one location may look different in another.
Lighting designers can make appropriate adjustments by carefully selecting artificial light. Paint and textile colors can also be chosen to offset characteristics of natural light.
For instance, indirect northern light can make colors appear darker, so a designer might select brighter paint or textile colors than they would for a southern exposure.
In addition to color, the intensity of the light source can affect perceived color. Brighter is not always better. Some very bright light sources score poorly for color rendering, meaning they can distort the appearance of colors even when visibility is high.
For organizations that depend on accurate color decisions, controlling lighting conditions is critical. Brands, laboratories, suppliers, and manufacturing facilities should evaluate samples under the same standardized lighting conditions whenever possible.
This is why many companies implement standardized viewing environments using light booths and follow best practices for light sources and color evaluation.
Consistent lighting helps improve:
Colors can appear quite different depending on their context—not just the brightness of the viewing area, but also the relationship between a color sample and its background.
If you’ve ever seen an optical illusion that exploits this relationship, you’ve experienced this firsthand.
Even when variables are tightly controlled, color perception remains variable and subjective. A sample that appears acceptable against one background may appear noticeably different against another.
For this reason, color evaluation environments often use neutral gray surroundings and standardized viewing backgrounds. Datacolor discusses the importance of viewing environments in Munsell in Light Booth Background.
In quality control environments, controlling the background helps reduce visual bias and improves consistency between evaluators.
You might see your favorite blue pants as one shade at home and a slightly different shade while hiking at high altitude. Most people would never notice because those differences are rarely critical in daily life.
Research suggests that color perception can change at high elevations.
One study evaluated how reduced oxygen levels can create physiological changes in the eyes. Another found that some vision changes experienced by climbers at high altitudes reversed after returning to lower elevations.
While altitude may not affect most production environments, these studies highlight an important reality: color perception is influenced by human physiology.
This is one reason why objective color measurement is often more reliable than visual judgment alone when consistent color decisions are required across multiple facilities or regions.
Digital color communication helps organizations share objective color data regardless of geographic location.
The relationship between sound and color has fascinated scientists for centuries.
Plato and Aristotle speculated about the relationship between color and music. Sir Isaac Newton even arranged his color wheel to correspond with musical notes.
Today, synesthesia remains one of the best-known examples of the connection between senses. People with synesthesia may literally experience colors when hearing sounds.
While sound can influence perception, it remains unclear whether noise specifically affects color perception. Some studies suggest that white noise can temporarily suppress visual processing, but the direct impact on color evaluation remains uncertain.
Even if noise itself does not significantly affect color discrimination, it can create distractions that reduce concentration during critical color assessments.
For organizations making pass/fail color decisions, controlled evaluation environments remain a best practice.
It’s no secret that vision changes with age. Many people expect changes in focus or peripheral vision, but fewer realize that color perception also changes over time.
As we age:
Research has shown that the ability to perceive hue and saturation often begins to decline after age 50 and can decrease more rapidly after age 60.
These changes create challenges for organizations that rely heavily on visual color approval. Two experienced evaluators may genuinely see the same sample differently.
This reinforces the value of objective color measurement using spectrophotometers and standardized color management processes.
Several common medical conditions are treated with medications that can affect color perception.
A 2016 Canadian review examined a range of drugs known to influence color vision and color discrimination. While these effects may be temporary or subtle, they highlight another challenge of relying solely on visual evaluation.
Two examples include:
In most color-critical environments, these changes go unnoticed. A disagreement over color approval may appear to be a matter of opinion when the root cause is physiological.
For organizations that require consistent color decisions, objective measurement provides a more reliable foundation than visual judgment alone.
Color perception is both physical and psychological. It involves the eye, but also the brain.
Memory affects our ability to identify, describe, compare, and match colors in several ways.
First, memory influences how we categorize colors.
People are more likely to call the same orange-yellow hue “yellow” when viewing a banana and “orange” when viewing a carrot because they associate those objects with expected colors.
This phenomenon helps explain why color discussions often become subjective, even when participants are looking at the same sample.
Second, memory for color is surprisingly unreliable.
Imagine trying to match an accessory in a store to a garment you left at home. Most people feel confident they remember the color accurately. In reality, memory, lighting conditions, surrounding colors, and viewing context all affect perception.
For brands and manufacturers, this creates challenges throughout the product development process. Color approvals based on memory or verbal descriptions often lead to misunderstandings, additional sample rounds, and delayed approvals.
This is one reason why digital color communication has become increasingly important. Instead of relying on subjective descriptions, teams can communicate objective color data across locations, suppliers, and departments.
Organizations looking to improve consistency across the supply chain should also review the keys to reliable digital color communication.
Mood is another factor that may influence color perception.
Research has suggested that people experiencing different emotional states may perceive colors and contrast differently. Some studies have linked dopamine—an important neurotransmitter associated with mood and well-being—to aspects of visual perception.
Other research has found a relationship between depression and reduced retinal responsiveness.
Although these effects are generally subtle, they reinforce a broader point:
Human color perception is inherently variable.
Even highly trained professionals can experience slight differences in perception from one day to another.
For color-critical applications, consistency depends on systems, standards, and objective measurement, not on individual perception alone.
For consumers, differences in color perception are usually harmless. For manufacturers, brands, and suppliers, they can become expensive.
| Color Perception Issue | Operational Impact |
|---|---|
| Different lighting conditions between supplier and brand | Delayed approvals or rejected samples |
| Visual approval without objective data | More disagreement between teams |
| Inconsistent sample preparation | Poor repeatability and unreliable comparisons |
| No shared color tolerances | Subjective pass/fail decisions |
| Different instruments or settings across locations | Lower reproducibility between sites |
| Supplier misalignment | More lab dips, rework, and production delays |
| Poor documentation | Weak auditability and harder root-cause analysis |
A typical color approval process may involve designers, product developers, lab teams, quality managers, suppliers, manufacturing facilities, and brand approval teams. Each stakeholder may see color slightly differently. Without objective standards, subjective evaluation becomes a bottleneck.
This is why many organizations are moving toward a fully digital color management workflow and structured color quality programs such as these five steps for an effective color quality control program.
Absolutely. Spectrophotometers, color management software, digital workflows, and standardized viewing environments are designed to reduce the subjectivity of color perception.
They help teams:
However, these technologies only deliver reliable results when they are used correctly. Even advanced instruments can produce inconsistent results if:
Datacolor discusses several of these considerations in best practices for measuring color samples, best practices for textile sample measurement, and sample conditioning for digital color measurement.
Unlike human observers, spectrophotometers do not experience:
Instead, they generate objective numerical color data.
Organizations evaluating measurement technologies may also benefit from understanding the different types of color measurement instruments and the difference between a colorimeter and a spectrophotometer.
Instrumental data alone is not enough.
Visual evaluations remain an important part of many workflows.
To achieve consistent color approvals, organizations should ensure that everyone evaluates samples under the same lighting conditions.
This helps reduce issues such as metamerism, where two samples appear to match under one light source but not another.
Learn more about metamerism and the role of an LED light booth in visual color evaluation.
Organizations that consistently achieve accurate color results typically follow several key practices:
Use the same approved light sources throughout design, development, production, and final approval.
Related reading: how to implement a new light source.
Numerical tolerances help reduce subjective interpretation and improve consistency.
Related reading: best practices for Delta E tolerances and color systems: CIELAB and CIE2000.
Supplier alignment improves reproducibility and reduces approval delays.
Related reading: what you need to know about vendor empowerment and supply chain certification: the key to a strong brand.
Organizations should regularly verify instrument performance and inter-instrument agreement.
Related reading: why you should care about inter-instrument agreement and how instrument profiling supports accurate color data.
As we’ve seen, numerous physical, environmental, and personal factors interfere with our ability to perceive color accurately.
Lighting, background, age, memory, mood, medication, and physiology all influence how we see the world around us.
That makes objective, high-quality color management difficult to achieve through eyesight alone.
For organizations that depend on accurate color decisions, consistency requires more than visual judgment. It requires standardized processes, objective measurement, and reliable communication across the supply chain.
By combining controlled viewing conditions, spectrophotometers, digital color communication, and clearly defined standards, companies can improve color accuracy, accelerate approvals, reduce waste, and create more repeatable and reproducible workflows.
Lighting is generally considered the most important factor because changes in the light source alter the wavelengths reflected from an object.
Differences in age, physiology, memory, expectations, viewing conditions, and environmental factors can all influence color perception.
A spectrophotometer significantly reduces subjectivity by generating objective color data, but standardized processes and viewing conditions remain important.
Different lighting conditions, inconsistent evaluation methods, and reliance on visual judgment are among the most common causes.
Organizations can improve consistency through standardized lighting, objective measurement, digital color communication, supplier alignment, and clearly defined tolerances.
Human color perception will always be influenced by lighting, physiology, memory, and environment.
The goal is not to eliminate visual evaluation—it is to support it with objective tools and repeatable processes.
Datacolor helps brands, manufacturers, laboratories, and suppliers improve color accuracy, reduce rework, accelerate approvals, and strengthen quality control through digital color management solutions.
Learn more about Datacolor color management solutions or contact our team to discuss your color workflow challenges.

When data meets color, inspiration meets results.

Subscribe to our monthly Datacolor newsletter and stay up to date with the latest news, trends, and industry events.