I am not a numba!..
Interesting how the faces pop out of those pictures, and the shoulders kind of fade in. I guess due to slightly lighter coloration on the face and the way the light hits it a bit more.
Where does the “flesh” colored crayola fall in the Pantone scale?
I see possible healthcare applications. Use not a simple photograph with a usually poorly controlled-for white balance and only three-band sensor,
A number of skin reflectance spectrums, for different racial backgrounds and health conditions may provide us a possibly interesting colorimetric data, if possible extended to near-IR, for various illnesses that show as that “you look sick” syndrome. Bilirubin-associated spectral bands are one example for all. Haemoglobin bands for perfusion and oxygen saturation data. And a plethora of other conditions.
A single-spot colorimetry could do an interesting job here. A hyperspectral imager as well, with the added advantage of multipoint acquisition in a single operation. And the data could lead to production of a cheap few-band sensor for e.g. telemedicine.
A variant on the theme is here (I knew I saw it here!):
Well. flesh color really isn’t. It should be renamed ‘honky’ or ‘cracker’. 
Slightly OT, but in the lab, I’ve always hated colorimetric analysis, probably because I frequently disagree with people on what colors are which. I prefer numeric wavelength values, even when they’re complete overkill. That’s how much I hate colorimetric evaluation. I think I just need more experience in the lab.
I remember my time on the old Specol, with a vernier knob to set the wavelength, which regularly gave different absorbance levels for the same wavelength depending on if you set the value clockwise or counterclockwise… That’s over 20 years now, we should be having a single-exposure acquisition of the entire spectrum in our pocket computers now. Would do us all a lot of good.
Flesh is red. Come closer and I’ll prove it.
If you check wikipedia for the Crayola crayons you will see that flesh was renamed to peach in 1962, so few if any of you had flesh colored crayons from Crayola. They made a multicultural set in 1992 with peach and others (Apricot, Black, Burnt Sienna, Mahogany, Sepia, Tan, White) in it.
From that article the hex for peach is #FFCFAB, which is Pantone 475 C using this tool.
(EDIT: I think the pictures are beautiful and I love the project, however, if she really wants to catalog all of human flesh tones the website should be searchable by pantone number at least. The writing is in the pictures!).
Neat. Also, repeat.
Yes she says that:
Born in late 60’s – grew up with lots -o- flesh crayons… Every family seemed to have a giant box of old crayons from previous siblings and flesh seemed to be conserved. (I only ate reds and blues)
There’s a neat out-of-context turn of phrase. I’m thinking creepy sci-fi short story.
There are two groups , “People of Color” and the Empty Set.
While I recognize that this is an artistic endeavor, the use of Pantone as the judge of color grates ever so slightly as it feels to me like the skin tones of people are being matched up against an arbitrary commercial color catalog, to what purpose? If the artist were to use automobile colors instead to match against human skin tones, would that represent much of a change? It seems to me that while this project may open people’s eyes to the menagerie of human skin tone colors–certainly a good thing in itself, it also has the benefit (to Pantone) of showcasing the variety (oh my) and the quality (?) of a Pantone product.
Or, this could just be me being pissy that Pantone chose Marsala as the Color of the Year.
why c pantones? C stands for coated.
Those people look uncoated.
It should be pantone U
Most humans have at least a little sheen to them unless they either have unusually dry skin or wear a whole lot of foundation.
but they’re not wearing any coats.
