This commentary expresses basic agreement with Saunders & van Brakel, gives explanations for some of the frailties they see in color science, and suggests that the conditioning forces of modern technology may render color categories increasingly useful even if not initially “real.”

Byrne & Hilbert (B&H) assert that reflectances embody the reality of color, but metamerism smears the authors' “real” color categories into uselessness. B&H ignore this problem, possibly because they implicitly adopt a sort of subjectivism, whereby an object is defined by the percepts (or more generally by the measurements) it engenders. Subjectivism is unwieldy, and hence prone to such troubles.

Shepard claims that color constancy needs linear basis-function spectra, and infers the illuminant before removing its dependency. However, of the models of color constancy that have exact (and reasonable) spectral regimes, some do not need linear basis-function expansions of reflectance and illuminant spectra, some do not solve for the illuminant, and some estimate only partial object-reflectance information for single or multiple objects. [Shepard]

Ignoring consciousness, I apply Palmer's ideas to a photometer, for which calibration is analogous to socialization of humans to agree in color. Some attributes of the photometer – such as its aperture – do not need to be known because their values are transparent to calibration. But a writing demon can wreak havoc if it permutes measured values before interpolation completes calibration – as happens in Palmer's color rewirings.