Experimental Modeling of Colour Harmony
Ferenc Szabó,* Peter Bodrogi, János Schanda
Virtual Environment and Imaging Technologies Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Systems,
Faculty of Information Technology, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary
Received 3 March 2008; revised 15 September 2008; accepted 30 November 2008
Abstract: This study investigates colour harmony in visual
experiments in order to develop a new quantitative colour
harmony model. On the basis of new experimental results,
colour harmony formulae were developed to predict colour
harmony from the CIECAM02 hue, chroma, and lightness
correlates of the members of two- or three-colour combina-
tions. In the experiments, observers were presented two-
and three-colour combinations displayed on a well-charac-
terized CRT monitor in a dark room. Colour harmony was
estimated visually on an 11 category scale from 25
(meaning completely disharmonious) to þ5 (meaning com-
pletely harmonious), including 0 as the neutral colour har-
mony impression. From these results, mathematical models
of colour harmony were developed. The visual results were
also compared with classical colour harmony theories. Two
supplementary experiments were also carried out: one of
them tested the main principles of colour harmony with real
Munsell colour chips, and another one compared the visual
rating of the new models with existing colour harmony
theories. Ó 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Col Res Appl, 35, 34 – 49,
2010; Published online 17 November 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/col.20558
Key words: colour harmony; colour harmony formula;
colour harmony rendering; colour rendering
INTRODUCTION
Colour theory has long had the goal of predicting or speci-
fying those colour combinations that would ‘‘work well to-
gether’’ or appear harmonious. Scientists and artists of the
last centuries (Itten,1 Munsell,2 Ostwald3) and nowadays
(Nemcsics4,5) developed colour order systems, where they
defined rules to establish harmonic sets of colours. These
colour harmony studies were based on the orderly arrange-
ment of colours in the colour order system. The second
group of authors (Goethe,6 Chevreul,7 Moon and Spencer,8
*Correspondence to: Ferenc Szabó (e-mail: szafe@szafeonline.hu).
V
C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
34
Ou9) defined colour harmony as an interrelationship of col-
ours. The main principles of these studies are ‘‘complemen-
tary’’ and ‘‘analogous’’ but these concepts are not consistent
among the studies. Also, the colour wheel10 was often
adopted as a tool to define these basic relationships. Other
authors (Judd and Wyszecki10) define colour harmony as a
more universal concept: ‘‘when two or more colours seen in
neighboring areas produce a pleasing effect, they are said
to produce colour harmony.’’ Also, there is no consistency
among the principles and the keywords of colour harmony.
It is completeness according to Goethe,6 order according to
Nemcsics5 and Chevreul,7 and balance according to Mun-
sell.2
A quantitative model for two-colour combinations based
on the CIELAB colour space was developed by Ou et al.9
We carried out computations11 to investigate and compare
this model with classical colour harmony theories. Results
showed that there was a significant difference between the
predictions of this model and classical harmony theories.
We also conducted a visual experiment11 to investigate the
correlation between Ou’s model and our visual dataset, but
only a weak correlation of r2 ¼ 0.30 was found. One possi-
ble reason of this phenomenon can be the different ethnic
origins of the observers, hence our observers were univer-
sity students from Hungary, while in Ou’s model, they were
Chinese observers.
Nowadays, choosing of colours that are harmonious in
a defined lighting situation is an important task not only
for artists but also for engineers and for the overwhelming
majority of end users of colour products. It is important
in fashion design just as in developing programs for reha-
bilitation12 and teaching13. If we want to describe the col-
our quality of light sources with a new harmony rendering
metric, correlating well with visual results, a new model
of colour harmony, based on a set of new visual experi-
ments needs to be developed.
In the following sections, first the experiments per-
formed on a CRT monitor will be described. Based on the
results of this experiment, colour harmony models for the
different colour sample combinations will be developed.
Then the model will be tested on an independent data set,
COLOR research and application
using material samples. Finally the new models will be
compared with literature data and existing theories of colour
harmony.

FIRST EXPERIMENT
Stimuli and Procedure
A flat-screen colour CRT monitor with 6500K white
point and 116 cd/m2 peak white luminance was used to
display all stimuli. It had good colour channel independ-
ence hence the additive phosphor matrix characterization
model14 could be used together with a polynomial CRT
tone characteristics model. The monitor was characterized
and calibrated using a well-calibrated Photo Research PR-
705 spectroradiometer. Verification measurements showed
that the accuracy was within 2% for the tri-stimulus values
using this monitor characterization model.
All observations took place in a dark room where the
colour monitor was the only light source. Three series of
observations were carried out within 4 months with nine
observers. They were five female and four male university
students familiar with computers and computer monitors.
Colour vision was tested by the Munsell-Farnsworth 100
Hue Test. The viewing distance was 60 cm, the viewing
area of the monitor was 32.5 cm 3 24.5 cm.
Test colour samples were displayed on a middle gray
background (J ¼ 50). The background covered a rectan-
gular area of 29 cm 3 20 cm. There was a white frame
around the screen boundary outside the background. The FIG. 1. (a, b) Experimental images on the CRT monitor.
size of each colour patch was 4.5 3 4.5 cm2. The colour Examples of two- and three-colour combinations.
patches were spaced next to each other, see Figs. 1(a) and
1(b). The task of the observer was to rate his/her colour
harmony impression on a scale from 25 to þ5, by click- were selected from eight hues (with CIECAM02 hue
ing on the corresponding numbered button in the experi- angles of 0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, and 315 degrees)
mental computer program. Five corresponded to best har- and each hue consisted of 8 tones: vivid, pale, dull, dark,
mony and 25 corresponded to worst harmony and 0 cor- light grayish, grayish, dark grayish, and the ‘‘spectral’’
responded to neutral colour harmony impression. After (i.e., most saturated) colours. The five achromatic colours
each scaling, a middle-gray background with a white included the grayscale colours of CIECAM at J ¼ 15, 30,
frame was shown for 2 s between the slides to eliminate 60, 80, and 95. To examine the repeatability of the ob-
the after-image effect. The colour stimuli were selected server responses, the whole experiment was repeated.
from all parts of the CIECAM02 colour appearance
model. Three-colour Harmony Experiments
Three-colour combinations consisted of three square col-
Two-colour Harmony Experiment
our patches presented in a triangle position, having a com-
In the two-colour harmony experiment, there were mon vertex in the middle, see Fig. 1(b). Test patches of
2346 colour stimuli. Each stimulus consisted of two three-colour combinations were arranged similarly to the
squared colour patches presented side by side, in the mid- patches used in the two-colour harmony experiments with
dle of the gray background. These stimuli were generated the three squares having common edges. Two series of
from 69 colours, combining all colours from this set of experiments were carried out in case of three-colour com-
69 [(69 3 68) 7 2 ¼ 2346]. This set also contained 273 binations. One of them investigated monochrome three-
two-colour combinations of monochromatic harmonies colour combinations. The other experiment investigated
(containing colours which share the same hue). The 69 trichromatic three-colour combinations, which consists of
colours were selected systematically from the CIECAM02 three samples of different hues. The monochrome experi-
colour space containing five achromatic and 64 chromatic ment consisted of 3322 monochromatic three-colour com-
test samples. Positions of the colour stimuli in the CIE- binations. Test samples were selected from 12 hues (with
CAM ac–bc diagram can be seen in Fig. 2(a), CIECAM02 CIECAM02 hue angles of 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180,
correlates can be seen in Table Ia. The chromatic colours 210, 240, 270, 300, and 330 degrees) and each hue con-

Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010 35

FIG. 2. CIECAM02 ac, bc plot of test samples selected to investigate (a) two colour combinations; (b) monochromatic
three-colour combinations; (c) trichromatic three-colour combinations (having equal chroma and different lightness levels);
(d) tri-chromatic three-colour combinations (having equal lightness and different chroma levels).

sisted of eight tones: vivid, pale, dull, dark, light grayish,
grayish, dark grayish, and the ‘‘spectral’’ (i.e., most satu-
rated) colours. The five achromatic colours included the
grayscale colours of CIECAM at J ¼ 15, 30, 60, 80, and
95. Monochromatic three-colour combinations were com-
posed from these set of samples, selecting three of them
which had the same hue. The colour stimuli of the mono-
chromatic three-colour harmony experiment are shown in
Fig. 2(b), CIECAM02 correlates can be seen in Table Ib.
To examine the repeatability of the observer responses, the
whole experiment with monochromatic three-colour com-
binations was repeated.
Before starting three-colour harmony experiments, we
had the results of the two-colour harmony experiments
and our hypothesis was that colour harmony impression is
influenced by differences and sums of chroma, lightness,
and hue. Using the same sampling of the CIECAM02
appearance model as in case of the two-colour harmony
experiments (five levels of lightness, three levels of
chroma, and 12 hues) produces more than 50,000 three-
colour combinations, which is impossible to use in a vis-
ual experiment. Some simplification had to be chosen to
reduce the number of stimuli, but have still enough stim-
uli for statistical calculations and regression. The number
of stimuli was reduced to 14,280.
About 7140 stimuli were generated by using 54 colours
having moderate chroma (C ¼ 20) and three different
lightness levels [J ¼ 30, 50, 80; see Fig. 2(c)] by combin-
ing these colours within the set. Another 7140 stimuli
were generated by using 54 colours having medium light-
ness (J ¼ 50) and three different values of chroma [C ¼
10, 20, 30; see Fig. 2(d)], by combining these colours
within the set. Latter 54 colours contained five achromatic
and 49 chromatic colour samples. The chromatic colours
were selected from 12 hues (CIECAM02 hue angle: 0,
30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300, and 330
degrees). The five achromatic colours included the gray-
scale colours of CIECAM J ¼ 15, 30, 60, 80, and 95.
Chromatic colours can be divided into ‘‘equal property sec-
tions’’ by their lightness and chroma values, see Figs. 2(c)
and (d), CIECAM02 correlates can be seen in Table Ic, d.
To examine the repeatability of observer responses, the
presentation of 2 3 2000 randomly chosen stimuli from
both sets was repeated once.

36 COLOR research and application

TABLE I. Specification of colour samples used in TABLE I. (Continued)
harmony experiments.
# J C h ac bc
# Tone J C h ac bc
(b) Monochrome three-colour harmony experiment
(a) Two-colour harmony experiment 1 15 0.0 0 0.00 0.00
0 Achromatic 15 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 2 30 0.0 0 0.00 0.00
1 30 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 3 60 0.0 0 0.00 0.00
2 60 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 4 80 0.0 0 0.00 0.00
3 80 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 5 95 0.0 0 0.00 0.00
4 95 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 6 30 10.0 0 10.00 0.00
5 Dark Greyish 27 8.8 0 8.80 0.00 7 30 10.0 30 8.66 5.00
6 29 9.4 45 6.65 6.65 8 30 10.0 60 5.00 8.66
7 31 10.1 90 0.00 10.10 9 30 10.0 90 0.00 10.00
8 33 11.3 135 27.99 7.99 10 30 10.0 120 25.00 8.66
9 27 11.9 180 211.90 0.00 11 30 10.0 150 28.66 5.00
10 29 12.4 225 28.73 28.73 12 30 10.0 180 210.00 0.00
11 31 12.8 270 0.00 212.75 13 30 10.0 210 28.66 25.00
12 33 13.1 315 9.26 29.26 14 30 10.0 240 25.00 28.66
13 Greyish 47 8.8 0 8.80 0.00 15 30 10.0 270 0.00 210.00
14 49 9.4 45 6.65 6.65 16 30 10.0 300 5.00 28.66
15 51 10.1 90 0.00 10.10 17 30 10.0 330 8.66 25.00
16 53 11.3 135 27.99 7.99 18 50 10.0 0 10.00 0.00
17 47 11.9 180 211.90 0.00 19 50 10.0 30 8.66 5.00
18 49 12.4 225 28.73 28.73 20 50 10.0 60 5.00 8.66
19 51 12.8 270 0.00 212.75 21 50 10.0 90 0.00 10.00
20 53 13.1 315 9.26 29.26 22 50 10.0 120 25.00 8.66
21 Light Greyish 77 8.8 0 8.80 0.00 23 50 10.0 150 28.66 5.00
22 79 9.4 45 6.65 6.65 24 50 10.0 180 210.00 0.00
23 81 10.1 90 0.00 10.10 25 50 10.0 210 28.66 25.00
24 83 11.3 135 27.99 7.99 26 50 10.0 240 25.00 28.66
25 77 11.9 180 211.90 0.00 27 50 10.0 270 0.00 210.00
26 79 12.4 225 28.73 28.73 28 50 10.0 300 5.00 28.66
27 81 12.8 270 0.00 212.75 29 50 10.0 330 8.66 25.00
28 83 13.1 315 9.26 29.26 30 80 10.0 0 10.00 0.00
29 Dark 27 17.7 0 17.70 0.00 31 80 10.0 30 8.66 5.00
30 29 18.2 45 12.90 12.90 32 80 10.0 60 5.00 8.66
31 31 18.9 90 0.00 18.90 33 80 10.0 90 0.00 10.00
32 33 19.3 135 213.61 13.61 34 80 10.0 120 25.00 8.66
33 27 20.2 180 220.15 0.00 35 80 10.0 150 28.66 5.00
34 29 21.2 225 214.99 214.99 36 80 10.0 180 210.00 0.00
35 31 22.0 270 0.00 221.95 37 80 10.0 210 28.66 25.00
36 33 22.5 315 15.87 215.87 38 80 10.0 240 25.00 28.66
37 Dull 47 17.7 0 17.70 0.00 39 80 10.0 270 0.00 210.00
38 49 18.2 45 12.90 12.90 40 80 10.0 300 5.00 28.66
39 51 18.9 90 0.00 18.90 41 80 10.0 330 8.66 25.00
40 53 19.3 135 213.61 13.61 42 30 20.0 0 20.00 0.00
41 47 20.2 180 220.15 0.00 43 30 20.0 30 17.32 10.00
42 49 21.2 225 214.99 214.99 44 30 20.0 60 10.00 17.32
43 51 22.0 270 0.00 221.95 45 30 20.0 90 0.00 20.00
44 53 22.5 315 15.87 215.87 46 30 20.0 120 210.00 17.32
45 Pale 77 17.7 0 17.70 0.00 47 30 20.0 150 217.32 10.00
46 79 18.2 45 12.90 12.90 48 30 20.0 180 220.00 0.00
47 81 18.9 90 0.00 18.90 49 30 20.0 210 217.32 210.00
48 83 19.3 135 213.61 13.61 50 30 20.0 240 210.00 217.32
49 77 20.2 180 220.15 0.00 51 30 20.0 270 0.00 220.00
50 79 21.2 225 214.99 214.99 52 30 20.0 300 10.00 217.32
51 81 22.0 270 0.00 221.95 53 30 20.0 330 17.32 210.00
52 83 22.5 315 15.87 215.87 54 50 20.0 0 20.00 0.00
53 Vivid 47 60.8 0 60.78 0.00 55 50 20.0 30 17.32 10.00
54 49 51.0 45 36.06 36.06 56 50 20.0 60 10.00 17.32
55 51 38.0 90 0.00 38.00 57 50 20.0 90 0.00 20.00
56 53 54.3 135 238.38 38.38 58 50 20.0 120 210.00 17.32
57 47 35.2 180 235.24 0.00 59 50 20.0 150 217.32 10.00
58 49 37.5 225 226.49 226.49 60 50 20.0 180 220.00 0.00
59 51 47.9 270 0.00 247.87 61 50 20.0 210 217.32 210.00
60 53 51.1 315 36.15 236.15 62 50 20.0 240 210.00 217.32
61 Most saturated 67 27.1 0 27.12 0.00 63 50 20.0 270 0.00 220.00
62 69 29.3 45 20.75 20.75 64 50 20.0 300 10.00 217.32
63 71 31.2 90 0.00 31.18 65 50 20.0 330 17.32 210.00
64 73 33.3 135 223.56 23.56 66 80 20.0 0 20.00 0.00
65 67 27.1 180 227.12 0.00 67 80 20.0 30 17.32 10.00
66 69 29.3 225 220.75 220.75 68 80 20.0 60 10.00 17.32
67 71 31.2 270 0.00 231.18 69 80 20.0 90 0.00 20.00
68 73 33.3 315 23.56 223.56 70 80 20.0 120 210.00 17.32
71 80 20.0 150 217.32 10.00

Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010 37

TABLE I. (Continued) TABLE I. (Continued)
# J C h ac bc # J C h ac bc

72 80 20.0 180 220.00 0.00 3 51 10.1 60 5.05 8.75

73 80 20.0 210 217.32 210.00 4 53 11.3 90 0.00 11.30
74 80 20.0 240 210.00 217.32 5 47 11.9 120 25.95 10.31
75 80 20.0 270 0.00 220.00 6 49 12.4 150 210.70 6.18
76 80 20.0 300 10.00 217.32 7 51 12.8 180 212.75 0.00
77 80 20.0 330 17.32 210.00 8 53 13.1 210 211.34 26.55
78 70 27.1 0 27.12 0.00 9 47 13.1 240 26.55 211.34
79 70 27.1 30 23.49 13.56 10 49 13.1 270 0.00 213.10
80 70 27.1 60 13.56 23.49 11 51 13.1 300 6.55 211.34
81 70 27.1 90 0.00 27.12 12 53 13.1 330 11.34 26.55
82 70 27.1 120 213.56 23.49 13 47 17.7 0 17.70 0.00
83 70 27.1 150 223.49 13.56 14 49 18.2 30 15.80 9.12
84 70 27.1 180 227.12 0.00 15 51 18.9 60 9.45 16.37
85 70 27.1 210 223.49 213.56 16 53 19.3 90 0.00 19.25
86 70 27.1 240 213.56 223.49 17 47 20.2 120 210.08 17.45
87 70 27.1 270 0.00 227.12 18 49 21.2 150 218.36 10.60
88 70 27.1 300 13.56 223.49 19 51 22.0 180 221.95 0.00
89 70 27.1 330 23.49 213.56 20 53 22.5 210 219.44 211.23
90 50 60.8 0 60.78 0.00 21 53 22.5 240 211.23 219.44
91 50 60.8 30 52.64 30.39 22 53 22.5 270 0.00 222.45
92 50 47.0 60 23.50 40.70 23 53 22.5 300 11.23 219.44
93 50 39.0 90 0.00 39.00 24 53 22.5 330 19.44 211.23
94 50 47.0 120 223.50 40.70 25 47 60.8 0 60.78 0.00
95 50 53.0 150 245.90 26.50 26 49 51.0 30 44.17 25.50
96 50 40.0 180 240.00 0.00 27 51 38.0 60 19.00 32.91
97 50 41.0 210 235.51 220.50 28 53 39.0 90 0.00 39.00
98 50 53.0 240 226.50 245.90 29 47 35.2 120 217.62 30.52
99 50 69.0 270 0.00 269.00 30 49 37.5 150 232.44 18.73
100 50 75.0 300 37.50 264.95 31 51 38.0 180 238.00 0.00
101 50 72.0 330 62.35 236.00 32 53 40.0 210 234.64 220.00
(c) Trichromatic three-colour harmony experiment—Equal chroma 33 53 38.0 240 219.00 232.91
section 34 53 51.1 270 0.00 251.12
1 27 17.7 0 17.70 0.00 35 53 51.1 300 25.56 244.27
2 29 18.2 30 15.80 9.12 36 53 51.1 330 44.27 225.56
3 31 18.8 60 9.39 16.26
4 33 19.3 90 0.00 19.32
5 27 19.9 120 29.93 17.20
6 29 20.4 150 217.67 10.20
RESULTS
7 31 20.9 180 220.94 0.00
8 33 21.5 210 218.60 210.74
9 27 22.0 240 211.01 219.07
The consistency of observer answers was examined by
10 29 22.6 270 0.00 222.56 testing the interobserver variability and the intraobserver
11 31 23.1 300 11.55 220.01 variability of the harmony scores. Interobserver variability
12 33 23.6 330 20.47 211.82
13 47 17.7 0 17.70 0.00
(root mean squared) refers to the correspondence of the
14 49 18.2 30 15.80 9.12 nine observers, and intraobserver variability refers to the
15 51 18.8 60 9.39 16.26 repeatability of each observer’s judgments. The mean
16 53 19.3 90 0.00 19.32
17 47 19.9 120 29.93 17.20
value of interobserver variability for the whole experi-
18 49 20.4 150 217.67 10.20 mental dataset (measured on 2346 two-colour combina-
19 51 20.9 180 220.94 0.00 tions, 3322 monochromatic three-colour combinations,
20 53 21.5 210 218.60 210.74
21 47 22.0 240 211.01 219.07
and 2 3 2000 randomly chosen trichromatic three-colour
22 49 22.6 270 0.00 222.56 combinations) was 2.12, and the mean value of intraob-
23 51 23.1 300 11.55 220.01 server variability was 2.44.
24 53 23.6 330 20.47 211.82
25 77 17.7 0 17.70 0.00
The visual colour harmony results showed normal dis-
26 79 18.2 30 15.80 9.12 tributions. An ANOVA test was carried out to determine
27 81 18.8 60 9.39 16.26 those factors that possibly influence the visual colour har-
28 83 19.3 90 0.00 19.32
29 77 19.9 120 29.93 17.20
mony impression. For two-colour combinations lightness
30 79 20.4 150 217.67 10.20 difference, chroma difference, and hue difference were
31 81 20.9 180 220.94 0.00 identified as the most important factors. Hue itself also
32 83 21.5 210 218.60 210.74
33 77 22.0 240 211.01 219.07
influenced harmony: observers differentiated monochro-
34 79 22.6 270 0.00 222.56 matic colour combinations according to the hue of the
35 81 23.1 300 11.55 220.01 constituent colours.
36 83 23.6 330 20.47 211.82
If the constituent colours have the same hue (i.e.,
(d) Trichromatic three-colour harmony experiment—Equal lightness
section
monochrome colour combinations) then they are more
1 47 8.8 0 8.80 0.00 harmonious than the colour combinations of different
2 49 9.4 30 8.14 4.70 hues. To describe these harmonies more accurately, we

38 COLOR research and application

FIG. 3. Predicting perceived colour harmony for two-colour combinations as a function of (a) CIECAM02 hue [see Eq.
(1)], (b) absolute lightness difference [see Eq. (2)], (c) absolute chroma difference [see Eq. (3)], and (d) lightness sum [see
Eq. (4)]. Each dot represents the average of nine observers 3 two observations.
need separate mathematical models for monochrome har-
monies, see Sections ‘‘Colour harmony model for mono-
chrome two-colour combinations’’ and ‘‘Colour harmony
model for monochrome three-colour combinations.’’
Results indicated that small lightness differences had
low visual colour harmony scores, see Figs. 3(b) and 6(b).
As lightness difference increases, the harmony score also
increases. Colour pairs having higher average lightness
were proved to be more harmonious than pairs of lower av-
erage lightness, see Figs. 3(d) and 6(d). For chroma differ-
ences, a linear decrease of colour harmony can be observed
if chroma difference increases, see Figs. 3(c) and 6(c).
From these results, some general rules can be formu-
lated for colour harmony. By depicting these results in a
colour space, general patterns of colour harmony can be
observed. Attributes of colour combinations producing
harmony or disharmony can be defined. From the
perceptual attributes of the constituent colours, the extent
of perceived harmony can be predicted, see the next Sec-
tion.
NEW MODELS OF COLOUR HARMONY
Classical colour harmony theories most often formulate
general directives in terms of hue, chroma, and lightness
and their differences to make harmonious compositions.
Appendix has a comparative description of the present
visual results and classical colour harmony theories. As
can be seen from Table AI (Appendix), the present mean
Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010
visual colour harmony scores tend to increase if we con-
sider not only one perceptual attribute but also other per-
ceptual attributes or factors (e.g., the equal hue, nonequal
lightness group has higher visual harmony score than the
nonequal lightness group).
The following models hypothesize that the sums and
differences of the perceptual colour attributes (J, C, h) of
the constituting colours of the compositions influence the
impression of colour harmony additively. Our descriptor
formulae of harmony are assembled from the lightness
difference, chroma difference, hue difference, hue, and
the average lightness of the composition.
Our aim is the accurate modeling of colour harmony in
case of two- and three-colour combinations. To satisfy
this criteria, visual data were collected in case of the four
models separately, and—instead of averaging—four dif-
ferent (but similar) curves were fitted to visual results to
model the effect of the hues of the constituent colours in
case of the monochrome and dichrome two-colour combi-
nations (see Fig. 3) and monochrome and trichrome three-
colour combinations (see Fig. 4). The mathematical dif-
ference between these hue preference curves and the
modeled hue effect in9 can be seen immediately. At the
moment, we can present only colour harmony models that
are valid in case of Hungarian observers at the same age
(the similar facts can be concluded in,9 which model is
valid only for young Chinese observers). One kind of hue
preference effect in case of different ethnic groups of
observers can be studied only during a collaborative work,
39

FIG. 4. Predicting perceived colour harmony for nonmo-
nochromatic (‘‘dichromatic’’) two-colour combinations as a
function of (a) ‘‘hue preference’’ [see Eq. (12)], (b) sum of
chroma [see Eq. (10)].
and conclusions for hue preference can be made only af-
ter having the experimental results. The comparison of
the experimental results are planned to be published in a
future article, which could include an age/culture depend-
ent or age/culture independent model of colour harmony.
Colour Harmony Model for Monochromatic
Two-Colour Combinations
In case of monochromatic two-colour combinations, the
hues of the two constituent colours are equal or almost
equal (|h1 2 h2| \ 58), and that is why hue difference is
not a relevant factor affecting colour harmony. To investi-
gate the dependence of visual colour harmony from hue
angle, monochromatic two-colour combinations were
grouped into same property groups, according to hue
angle. In Fig. 3(a), colour harmony rankings are depicted
as a function of the hue angles of the constituent colours
(of equal hue angle: h). As can be seen on Fig. 3(a), the
hues of some colours produce higher perceived harmony
than others. This phenomenon is defined as hue preference
factor, and the best fitting formula is defined by Eq. (1).
CHF2M;HP ¼ 0:361 sinð1; 511hÞ
2:512 (1)
As can be seen from Fig. 3(b), combinations of equal
lightness have the lowest colour harmony scores. Light-
ness difference has a global maximum at about |DJ| ¼ 30
absolute lightness difference and combinations of extreme
40
lightness differences are in turn less harmonious. The best
fitting formula is defined by Eq. (2).
CHF2M;Jdiff ¼ 2:33  10
5 jDJj3
0:004jDJj2
þ 0:211jDJj þ 0:246 ð2Þ
In Fig. 3(c), colour harmony scores can be seen as a
function of |DC| (the absolute value of chroma differ-
ence). Maximum colour harmony can be realized if the
chroma difference is at its minimum. As the chroma dif-
ference increases the colour harmony score decreases line-
arly. The best fitting formula is defined by Eq. (3).
CHF2M;Cdiff ¼ 3:87
0:066jDCj (3)
In Fig. 3(d), colour harmony scores can be seen as a
function of the lightness sum (Jsum). Minimal colour har-
mony score can be observed in case of low lightness sum,
maximum is at high lightness sum. The best fitting for-
mula is defined by Eq. (4).
CHF2M;Jsum ¼ 0:0268 Jsum
0:656 (4)
Equations (1)–(4) are further transformed to obtain
CHF2M, the correlate of colour harmony, see Eq. (5).
CHF2M ¼ 0:283  3:275 CHF2M;Jdiff
0:643 CHF2M;Jsum



2:749 CHF2M;Cdiff
4:773 CHF2M;HP
5:305 ð5Þ
In Eqs. (1)–(5), |DJ| is the absolute value of lightness
difference between the two colours, Jsum is the lightness
sum of the samples, |DC| is the absolute value of chroma
difference, the subscript HP indicates hue preference, and
h is the hue of the composition. (Note that all correlates
of colour appearance are defined in CIECAM02.)
Colour Harmony Model for Dichromatic
Two-Colour Combinations
In case of dichromatic two-colour combinations, hue
difference was also found to be a relevant factor of colour
harmony impression. This can be seen in Fig. 4(a) show-
ing mean colour harmony score as a function of absolute
hue difference (|h12h2|).
The curve fitted to lightness difference [Fig. 3(b)] shows
similar tendencies to monochromatic harmonies. This curve
is defined by Eq. (7). Perceived harmony as a function of
lightness difference has a global maximum at the value
of |DJ| ¼ 60 and dichromatic two-colour combinations of
extreme lightness difference were found to be less harmoni-
ous. A further lightness-related effect is that those dichro-
matic two-colour combinations in which both constituent
colours have high lightness are perceived to be more harmo-
nious than those of low lightness. The mean perceived colour
harmony score shows a linear tendency with the Jsum value
of the two constituent colours, see Fig. 3(d) and Eq. (8).
In Fig. 3(c), the mean colour harmony score can be
seen as a function of |DC|, the absolute value of the
chroma difference between the constituent colours of the
dichromatic two-colour combination. Perceived colour
COLOR research and application
harmony is at its maximum if the chroma difference is
minimal. With increasing chroma difference, the colour
harmony score decreases linearly, see Eq. (9). Figure 4(b)
shows the dependence of colour harmony impression from
chroma sum.
On the basis of Figs. 3(a)–3(d) and 4(a) and (b) the fol-
lowing formulae were constructed to predict the visual
colour harmony for ‘‘dichromatic’’ (or ‘‘nonmonochro-
matic’’) two-colour combinations.
CHF2D ¼ 0:47  ð0:515 CHF2D;Jdiff þ 0:391 CHF2D;Jsum
þ 0:205 CHF2D;Cdiff þ 1:736 CHF2D;Csum
þ 2:187 CHF2D;hdiff þ 5:104 CHF2D;HP Þ
2:283
ð6Þ
where,
CHF2D;Jdiff ¼ 2:5  10
5 jDJj3 þ 3:10
3 jDJj2

2:2  10
2 jDJj þ 0:158
CHF2D;Jsum ¼ 0:027 Jsum
0:656
CHF2D;Cdiff ¼
0:053jDCj þ 1:172
CHF2D;Csum ¼
0:051 Csum þ 2:36
CHF2D;hdiff ¼ 8  10
5 ðjh1
h2 jÞ
0:0279jh1
h2 j þ 2:3428
2
1
5
CHF2D;HP ¼ 2
4  10 ðh1 Þ
0:0127 h1 þ 1:4035
2 
þ 4  10
5 ðh2 Þ2
0:0127 h2 þ 1:4035
Colour Harmony Models for Three-Colour Combinations
If the aim is to model colour harmony not only for
two-colour combinations but also for three-colour combi-
nations or even for four or five constituent colours then
the following very exciting question arises. Is it possible
to use the above mathematical models of two-colour har-
monies to describe three, four, or five-colour combina-
tions? A straightforward solution is resolving a three-col-
our combination into three two-colour combinations.
Before developing new mathematical models for three-
colour combinations, authors tried to model the present
three-colour combination experimental dataset with two-
colour harmony formulae. Latter two-colour combinations
can be described by the formulae introduced earlier, see
Eqs. (1)–(12). Each three-colour combination used in the
visual harmony experiments (see Section ‘‘Three-colour
harmony experiment’’ earlier) was divided into three two-
colour combinations and colour harmony prediction was
made by averaging the values of the two colour harmony
formulae. This method lead to a correlation coefficient of
r2 ¼ 0.32. Reweighting the weights in Eq. (6) improved
the method (r2 ¼ 0.49) and lead to Eqs. (13), (14) and to
the results depicted in Fig. 5.
Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010
FIG. 5. Result of the method of resolving three colour
ð7Þ combinations to two-colour combinations. Correlation
between visual colour harmony impression and predictions
(8) with the help of the optimized two colour harmony formula
[see Eqs. (13), (14)].
(9)
(10) CHF2Dð1
2Þ
CHF2Dð2
3Þ
CHF2Dð3
1Þ
CHF3T ¼ (13)
3
CHF2Dðn
mÞ ¼ 4:766  ð0:089 CHF2D;Jdiff
(11)
þ 0:196 CHF2D;Jsum þ 0:333 CHF2D;Cdiff
ð12Þ þ 1:217 CHF2D;Csum þ 5 CHF2D;hdiff
þ 0:595 CHF2D;HP Þ
2:522 ð14Þ
The meaning of the subscript (n-m) in Eq. (14) is num-
bering the constituent two-colour combinations i.e. (1-2),
(2-3), and (3-1).
As can be seen, only a small correlation coefficient of r2 ¼
0.49 was achieved by this method (by optimizing the weight-
ing factors of Eq. (6) to achieve maximum correlation). Fig-
ure 5 shows that a new model must be formulated for three-
colour combinations to predict perceived colour harmony.
Thus, authors constructed colour harmony models for three-
colour combinations. The principle was the same as in case of
two-colour combinations: descriptor models for monochro-
matic and tri-chromatic three-colour combinations were
developed.
Colour Harmony Model for Monochromatic
Three-Colour Combinations
In case of monochromatic three-colour combinations,
the hues of the three constituent colours are equal or
within the following limit: (|h1 2 h2| \ 58, |h1 2 h3| \ 58,
|h2 2 h3| \ 58). The lightness difference can be defined as
the sum of absolute lightness differences among any two of
the constituents:
41
 DJ ¼ j j1
J2 j þ j j1
J3 j þ j j2
J3 j (15)
Lightness sum can be defined as the sum of lightness
correlates:
Jsum ¼ J1
J2
J3 (16)
The chroma difference can be defined in the same way:
DC ¼ jC1
C2 j þ jC1
C3 j þ jC2
C3 j (17)
The above formulae of Eqs. (15)–(17) are used in Eqs.
(18)–(22) below intended to predict the colour harmony
impression of monochromatic three-colour combinations. The
‘‘Hue preference effect’’ can be defined in the same way as in
the model of monochromatic two-colour combinations; hence,
the hue of the three constituent colours is equal or similar.
CHF3M ¼ 2:523  ð
0:0325 CHF3M;Jdiff
þ 2:2659 CHF3M;Jsum þ 3:4194 CHF3M;Cdiff

1:355 CHF3M;Csum þ 0:721 CHF3M;HP Þ þ 1:318
ð18Þ
where:
CHF3M;Jdiff ¼
5:419  10
7 DJ 4 þ 1:173  10
4 DJ 3

8:008  103 DJ 2 þ 1:813  10
1 DJ þ 1:1 ð19Þ
CHF3M;Jsum ¼ 0:0121 Jsum þ 0:1222 (20)
CHF3M;Cdiff ¼
0:0342 DC þ 3:8324 (21)

7 3
5 2
CHF3M;HP ¼ 10 h
9  10 h þ 0:0172 h þ 0:4291
(22)
Colour Harmony Model for Trichromatic
Three-Colour Combinations
In case of trichromatic three-colour combinations, the
hues of the three constituent colours are not equal. To cal-
culate absolute hue difference for the h1, h2, h3 hue corre-
lates of the three constituent colours, they have to be
arranged to hmax, hmid, hmax values, where hmin refers to
the smallest hue angle among h1, h2, h3 starting from the
ac axis and heading counter-clockwise, hmid denotes the
medium hue angle and hmax means the maximum hue
angle among h1, h2, h3. After that, two hue differences
can be defined [Eqs. (23), (24)]:
Dh1 ¼ hmid
hmin (23)
Dh2 ¼ hmax
hmid (24)
The effect of these two hue difference values on colour
harmony can be seen with the help of a three dimensional
surface graph [see Fig. 7(a) and Eq. (32)], having the Dh1
and Dh2 values as independent variables.
To calculate the absolute lightness difference for the
three J1, J2, J3 lightness correlates of the three constituent
42
colours, they have to be arranged to Jmin, Jmid, Jmax val-
ues, where Jmin denotes the smallest lightness, Jmid
denotes the medium lightness and Jmax denotes the maxi-
mum lightness among J1, J2, J3. After that, absolute light-
ness difference can be defined as the sum of lightness dif-
ferences in the following way:
DJ ¼ jJmid
Jmin j þ jJmid
Jmax j (25)
The chroma difference can be defined in the same way,
similar to the lightness difference:
DC ¼ jCmid
Cmin j þ jCmid
Cmax j (26)
Based on the experimental results, the optimized DJ
equation is shown in Eq. (28) and the correlation with the
visual data in Fig. 6(b). Similarly, Eq. (30) and Fig. 6(c)
show the interrelationship between absolute chroma dif-
ference and visual harmony score data, and Eq. (29) and
Fig. 6(d) for lightness sum.
The ‘‘Hue preference effect’’ and the ‘‘lightness sum’’
can be defined for each constituent colour in the same
way, as in the model of monochromatic three-colour com-
binations. After that, the ‘‘hue preference effect’’ for the
three colour combinations can be evaluated as a sum of
these three hue preference values [see Eq. (31)].
CHF3T ¼ 2:187  ð0:967 CHF3T;Jdiff þ 1:9397 CHF3T;Jsum
þ 0:4399 CHF3T;Cdiff
0:1153 CHF3T;Chrdiff
þ 0:11 CHF3t;HP Þ þ 0:134 ð27Þ
where:
CHF3T;Jdiff ¼
5  10
5 DJ 3 þ 0:0042 DJ 2

0:0694 DJ
0:4898 ð28Þ
CHF3T;Jsum ¼ 0:0121 Jsum
0:1222 (29)
CHF3T;Cdiff ¼ 6  10
4 DC2
0:0647 DC þ 0:7711 (30)
CHF3T;HP ¼ ððsinðh1
4:836Þ 
0:151
7:378Þ  3:796
þ 3:97Þ þ ððsinðh2
4:836Þ 
0:151
7:378Þ
 3:796 þ 3:97Þ þ ððsinðh3
4:836Þ 
0:151
7:378Þ
 3:796 þ 3:97Þ ð31Þ
CHF3T;hdiff ¼
1:923 Dh21 Dh22 þ 3:781 Dh21
þ 3:781 Dh22 þ 5:793 Dh1 Dh2
7:605 Dh1

7:605 Dh2 þ 3:6766 ð32Þ
Coefficients of the hue difference matrix [see Fig. 7(a)]
were determined by three-dimensional regression.
Performance of the New Colour Harmony Models
The performance of the new colour harmony models
can be measured by computing the correlation between
the experimental dataset and the predicted colour har-
mony scores, see Figs. 8(a)–8(d).
COLOR research and application
FIG. 6. Predicting perceived colour harmony for three-colour combinations as a function of (a) CIECAM02 hue [see Eq.
(22)], (b) absolute lightness difference [see Eq. (19)], (c) absolute chroma difference [see Eq. (21)], and d) lightness sum
[see Eq. (20)]. Each dot represents the average of nine observers 3 two observations.

As can be seen from Figs. 8(a)–8(d), the present visual

dataset can be modeled with the present colour harmony
formulae. High correlation coefficients (r2 ¼ 0.759 and r2
¼ 0.768) were obtained in case of colour harmony models
for two-colour combinations. In case of three-colour com-
binations, slightly lower but still significant correlations
were found (r2 ¼ 0.671 and r2 ¼ 0.627).

Testing the Colour Harmony Models

Comparing CRT Simulation Results with Real Illumi-
nated Munsell Samples. In the above discussion, only the
correlation of the models was discussed, how well they
describe the visual dataset from which they were derived.
CRT simulation is an easy and comfortable way of doing
colour harmony experiments but it is important to verify
FIG. 7. Predicting perceived colour harmony for tri-chro-
these CRT simulation results with real reflecting test sam- matic three-colour combinations as a function of CIE-
ples drawn from an independent experiment. To do this CAM02 hue difference [see Eq. (32)]. Each dot represents
verification for hue difference, chroma difference, and the average of 9 observers 3 2 observations.
lightness difference, reflective test sample sets were
selected from the Munsell atlas. Four test samples were
selected as primary samples with the following Munsell standard observer. These XYZ values were then trans-
notations: 5PB 7/6, 5YR 7/6, 5RP 7/6, and 5G 7/6. Obser- formed into the CIECAM02 colour appearance space,
vations took place in a lighting booth under a B-category using the white point of the ‘‘B’’ category D65 simulator
D65 simulator, L ¼ 170 cd/m2, with the same observers as white point descriptor and other parameters of viewing
as in the CRT simulation experiments. Reflectance spectra situation was considered with the help of the correspond-
of the selected Munsell chips were also measured and ing CIECAM02 parameters (LA, Yb, F, c, Nc). After calcu-
tristimulus values were calculated using CIE 1931 28 lating CIECAM02 correlates, colour harmony predictions

Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010 43

FIG. 8. (a) Prediction of monochromatic two-colour combinations. (b) Prediction of dichromatic two-colour combinations.
(c) Prediction of monochromatic three-colour combinations. (d) Prediction of tri-chromatic three-colour combinations.
of these two-colour combinations (which were composed
from two Munsell chips) were made with the help of our
two-colour harmony formula. Viewing situation was con-
sidered as defining CIECAM02 parameters.
For hue difference investigation, nine other Munsell
chips were selected with the same chroma and medium
lightness difference as secondary samples, from 10 hues:
5PB 5/6, 5P 5/6, 5RP 5/6, 5R 5/6, 5YR 5/6, 5Y 5/6, 5GY
5/6, 5G 5/6, 5BG 5/6, and 5B 5/6. Observers had two
tasks. First, they had to choose for each of the four pri-
mary samples the other member of the combination from
the secondary set of nine chips to produce the most har-
monious and the most disharmonious two-colour composi-
tions. After that, they had to rank the other seven sam-
ples, and to order the nine two-colour combinations.
Notice that all of the 10 main Munsell hues were between
the choices and therefore, observers could compose
monochromatic harmonies, too.
By doing the investigation of hue difference, a second
part of observation was also carried out: in case of every
primary sample, the secondary sample of the same hue
44
was eliminated (at the time of the ranking secondary sam-
ples for the primary 5PB 7/6 sample, the 5PB 5/6 second-
ary sample was eliminated). So, observers were not
allowed to form monochromatic harmonies.
The investigation of Munsell Value differences was
done using two procedures: The four primary samples
were selected for investigation, and for each hue the Mun-
sell Value levels 2/, 4/, 6/, 8/, 10/ were tested. In the first
case the hue and chroma of the secondary samples (with
Munsell value levels 2/, 4/, 6/, 8/, 10/) were the same as
the primary samples, so observers composed monochro-
matic two-colour combinations. In the second case the
chroma of the test samples was the same, but the hue dif-
ference was chosen to be different but optimal (neigh-
boring hues with 368 of hue difference), so observers
were asked to compose dichromatic two-colour combina-
tions. Observers had the same task as in the case of the
hue difference tests.
The investigation of chroma difference was carried out
by the aid of Munsell chips having equal hue and light-
ness. Four hues were selected for investigation, and for
COLOR research and application

FIG. 9. Investigating hue difference. Ranking of colour
combinations having equal chroma, different lightness,
influence factor is: hue difference. Scale values show the
place of the colour combination in a scale from 9 (best
harmony) to 1 (worst harmony) after averaging the ratings
of observers.
each hue the Munsell Chroma levels /2, /4, /6, /8, /10
were tested. Observers had the same task, as in the case
of hue difference and lightness difference tests.
In our opinion, a verbal scale with elements: ‘‘best har-
mony, second best harmony, third best harmony. . .’’ is
much easier to use for the observer during this task as the
original scale from 25 to þ5. The expression ‘‘best har-
mony’’ was then transformed to maximum harmony score
(which was the number of secondary samples used in the
experiment) and so on the ‘‘worst harmony’’ was trans-
formed to minimum harmony score (þ1).
RESULTS
As can be seen in Fig. 9, by investigating hue differences,
the ‘‘similar hue’’ property was accentuated. Monochro-
matic harmonies or two-colour combinations with neighbor-
ing hues were found more harmonious than combinations
with large hue angle difference i.e., opposite hues.
Results showed that observers found the two-colour
combinations having different lightness more harmonious.
As can be seen from Fig. 10 if the hue angles are defined
to be the same and the two chroma levels are equal then
observers choose a sample with a medium lightness dif-
ference as the most harmonious. Samples with equal
lightness difference are the least harmonious.
The opposite result can be experienced in case of
chroma differences. If the hue is chosen to be the same,
and lightness difference is chosen to be optimal (three
Munsell Value Difference) then the most preferred two-
colour combination can be arranged by minimal chroma
differences [see section Models of Colour Harmony, Figs.
3(c) and 6(c)].
Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010
FIG. 10. (a) Investigating value difference. Ranking of col-
our combinations having equal hue and chroma, influence
factor: lightness difference. Scale values show the place of
the colour combination in a scale from 9 (best harmony) to
1 (worst harmony) after averaging the ratings of observers.
Results are shown with 95% confidence intervals.
From the figures mentioned earlier, the same tendencies
can be realized in case of two-colour combinations for
Munsell chroma, Munsell value and Munsell hue as the
fitted curves show in Figs. 3(a)–3(c).
Comparison of Classical and Modern Theories
of Colour Harmony
This section investigates and compares colour harmony
theories and models, in order to reveal the theory which
produces the most harmonious colour composition for the
observer. Beyond classical colour harmony theories,2,4,15
the predictive harmony model of Ou9 and our new
colour harmony formula for two-colour combinations are
compared.
To investigate colour harmony theories, a comparison
of the above mentioned colour harmony models and theo-
FIG. 11. Investigating chroma difference. Ranking of col-
our combinations having equal hue and different lightness,
influence factor is: chroma difference. Scale values show
the place of the colour combination in a scale from 9 (best
harmony) to 1 (worst harmony) after averaging the ratings
of observers. Results are shown with 95% confidence
intervals.
45
 1. Lightness difference must have an optimal value to
achieve high colour harmony scores [see Figs. 3(b) and
6(b)]. Small lightness differences produce lower colour
harmony scores. If the lightness difference increases then
the colour harmony score also increases.
2. In case of chroma differences, highest colour har-
mony scores are produced by colours having small
chroma differences [see Figs. 3(c) and 6(c)]. Colour com-
binations of a high chroma difference produce lower col-
our harmony scores.
3. Similar hues produce high colour harmony scores
(see Figs. 4(a) and 7(a)]. In case of tri-chromatic three-
colour combinations, a two-variable function has to be
used to predict colour harmony as a function of the hue
FIG. 12. Comparison of colour harmony theories for two- differences among the three test samples.
and three-colour harmony. Experimental images on the 4. The sum of lightness also influences colour harmony
CRT monitor. impression—a higher lightness sum resulting in a higher
harmony score.
ries were carried out in a visual experiment on a cali- Considering the earlier results, a mathematical model
brated CRT monitor. Forty colours were selected as of colour harmony was developed. The correlation with
anchor stimuli, and harmonious dichromatic colour com- the present visual results turned out to be satisfactory.
binations were arranged along with them from the Mun-
sell,2 Colouroid4 and RAL Design15 colour systems. The
most harmonious colour for each anchor stimulus was
also selected with the help of the ‘‘CH formula’’9 and our
own colour harmony model. Seven observers were pre-
sented these five types of two-colour combinations. All of
them contained the same colour as anchor colour and the
second colour has been selected based on the different
recommendations of the different theories and models
(see Fig. 12). The order of the presented models was ran-
domly generated. Observers had to assign a rank order
number, starting from 5 (for the most harmonious compo-
sition) to 1 (the least harmonious one). The observation
of the samples was repeated five times.
Results showed that two-colour harmony models based
on visual experiments gave more accurate predictions to
define colour harmony. As can be seen from Fig. 13(a),
there is a significant difference between the mean result of
the new predictive models and classical colour harmony
theories. The difference between the two experimental pre-
dictive models9,16 is not significant. In Fig. 13(b), the num-
ber of occasions can be seen when the models were
selected to be the less harmonious. As can be seen, colour
combinations according to the recently developed harmony
models were selected least harmonious the least.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this article, visual colour harmony experiments are

described to develop a new quantitative model. Four new
colour harmony formulae were developed to predict col-
our harmony based on CIECAM02 correlates of the mem-
ber colours of two and three colour compositions. Visual
colour harmony was measured on a 11 category scale FIG. 13. (a) Mean colour harmony scores for different col-
our harmony models. Mean rankings of seven observer’s
from 25 (meaning completely disharmonious) to þ5 five repetitions. Results are visualized with 95% confi-
(meaning completely harmonious). The following funda- dence intervals. (b) Number of occasions when the models
mental colour harmony rules were identified. selected to be the less harmonious.

46 COLOR research and application

 Comparing these findings with the previous colour har-
mony formula derived by Ou and Luo similar tendencies
can be realized except the so-called hue preference func-
tion, which may differ as a reason of cultural differences
between the two groups of observers. We recently agreed
to collaborate with constructors of the previous colour
harmony formula, to compare the differences and similar-
ities in details. As a result of this collaboration, a culture
dependent (or independent) model of colour harmony will
be constructed and published in a future article.
The present visual results were also compared with
classical colour harmony theories, see Appendix. Several
classical colour harmony principles and conditions were
investigated to compare classical theories and the present
visual results. The ‘‘equal hue’’ or the ‘‘equal chroma’’
properties of test colour samples produced high colour
harmony scores. If both properties are true at the same
time then the colour harmony score will be even higher
than in case of the ‘‘equal chroma’’ or ‘‘equal hue’’ prop-
erty alone. The ‘‘equal lightness’’ property produced
always lower colour harmony scores, and combinations
with nonequal lightness produced higher colour harmony
scores. The ‘‘complementary hue’’ property produced
lower harmony scores than the ‘‘equal’’ or ‘‘neighbouring
hues’’ property.
A second experiment with real Munsell colour samples
was also carried out with young and elderly observers to
investigate the main principles of colour harmony, and to
discover the difference between the colour harmony
impressions of young and elderly observers. By compar-
ing the present visual results and the formulae of a former
mathematical model of colour harmony,9 similar tenden-
cies were observed for lightness, chroma and hue differ-
ences in case of young observers. The present ‘‘hue pref-
erence’’ curves (the definition of ‘‘Hue Preference’’ can
be seen in Section Colour harmony model for monochro-
matic two-colour combinations) were different from a for-
mer study.9 Authors think that these deviations of the
‘‘hue preference’’ curves are responsible for the low cor-
relations between the predictions of this former model,
and the present model. We assume that the ‘‘hue prefer-
ence’’ of the observers of different ethnic origin can be
described by ‘‘hue preference’’ curves optimized for each
ethnic group separately. Then, these curves can be
adapted to different colour harmony models.
By comparing the colour harmony impression of young
and elderly observers, significant differences could be
observed. For elderly observers colour combinations with
small lightness difference resulted in higher perceived
harmony than for young observers. A significant differ-
ence was also found for the chroma difference functions.
Elderly observers chose a less harmonious sample as the
anchor sample to be the most harmonious, young observ-
ers found that the combination with equal chroma had
been the most harmonious. The results of young observers
for chroma and lightness differences are consistent with
our experiments carried out on a CRT monitor (see Sec-
tion First Experiment).
Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010
The present colour harmony formulae (CHF) proved to
be good descriptors of colour harmony in a validation
experiment (see section Comparing CRT simulation
results with real illuminated Munsell samples). It was also
proved that the different conditions of colour harmony
(monochromatic and dichromatic two-colour combina-
tions, as well as monochromatic and tri-chromatic three-
colour combinations) cannot be predicted by one single
formula. By analyzing the other affecting factors i.e., the
number of test samples, age, gender, and cultural origin
of observers, and by investigating the visual results of dif-
ferent groups of observers, different parameter sets can be
defined to derive different sets of colour harmony formu-
lae (CHF) for the different groups of observers, but this is
out of scope of the present article.
Five theories and models of colour harmony were com-
pared (see section Comparison of classical and modern
theories of colour harmony), including three classical col-
our harmony theories2,4,15 and two recently developed
mathematical models. This investigation was the first
comparison of the two recently developed colour harmony
models. A significant difference can be discovered
between the colour harmony impression in case of classi-
cal theories and newly developed models. Newly devel-
oped models gave a more accurate prediction for colour
combinations. From accurate mathematical modeling of
colour harmony, a new method can be developed, to
describe light source colour quality, with the extent of
distortion of colour harmony impression. This new Har-
mony Rendering Index16 can supplement the current Col-
our Rendering Index17 of the CIE.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank to Li-Chen Ou and M. Ronnier Luo for
the preceding work, upon which ‘‘Modeling colour har-
mony in case of two-colour combinations’’ section of this
article is based.
APPENDIX: COMPARING THE PRESENT
VISUAL RESULTS WITH CLASSICAL
COLOUR HARMONY PRINCIPLES
To find out the main differences between classical colour
harmony principles and the present visual experiments,
our experimental dataset was compared with the principles
of classical harmony theories. In our visual experiment, all
possible colour combinations were generated to each
anchor sample (See Section Method). This dataset contains
colour combinations which are predicted to be harmonious
according to the different classical colour harmony princi-
ples. From our visual dataset, different combinations can
be selected and categorized with the help of data filtering.
Visual colour harmony rankings were averaged for each
category separately. These visual averages of two and
three colour combinations can be seen in Table AI.
47
TABLE AI. Mean visual colour harmony scores of categorized visual rankings calculated for the classical
harmony principles.
Mean visual
Description with colour harmony
Nr. Name of principle CIECAM02 attributes score STD N

Two-colour combinations
1/a Equal hue h1 ¼ h2 2.517 1.51 273
1/b Equal hue, equal lightness h1 ¼ h2 20.02 1.276 40
J1 ¼ J2
1/c Equal hue, nonequal lightness h1 ¼ h2 2.952 1.052 233
J1 = J2
1/d Equal hue, equal chroma h1 ¼ h2 3.495 0.575 58
C1 ¼ C2
1/e Equal hue, nonequal chroma h1 ¼ h2 2.253 1.577 215
C1 = C 2
2/a Neighboring hues |h12h2| ¼ 458 1.174 1.782 512
2/b Neighboring hues, equal lightness |h12h2| ¼ 458 0.34 1.628 160
J1 ¼ J2
2/c Neighboring hues, nonequal lightness |h12h2| ¼ 458 1.949 1.41 352
J1 = J2
3 Complementary hue |h12h2| ¼ 1808 20.22 1.51 256
3/a Complementary hue, equal lightness |h12h2| ¼ 1808 20.886 1.55 72
J1 ¼ J2
4 Equal lightness J1 ¼ J2 20.476 1.54 528
5 Nonequal lightness J1 = J2 1.91 1.48 1264
6 Equal lightness distance from medium lightness |J1 2 50| ¼ |J2 250| 2.19 1.31 693
7 Equal chroma C1 ¼ C2 3.26 1.06 568
8 Nonequal chroma C1 = C2 0.595 1.31 1224
Monochromatic three-colour combinations
1 Equal lightness J1 ¼ J2 ¼ J3 1.055 1.05 36
2 Nonequal lightness J1 = J2 = J3 2.23 1.11 2206
3 Equal chroma C1 ¼ C2 ¼ C3 3.305 1.18 34
4 Nonequal chroma C1 = C2 = C3 1.465 1.27 1608
Trichromatic three-colour combinations
1/a Neighboring hues |h12h2| ¼ 308 1.36 1.16 852
|h22h3| ¼ 308
1/b Neighboring hues, equal lightness |h12h2| ¼ 308 1.17 0.99 660
|h22h3| ¼ 308
J1 ¼ J2 ¼ J3
1/c Neighboring hues, nonequal lightness |h12h2| ¼ 308 1.42 1.37 504
|h22h3| ¼ 308
J1 = J2 = J3
1/d Neighboring hues, equal chroma |h12h2| ¼ 308 1.45 0.67 664
|h22h3| ¼ 308
C1 ¼ C2 ¼ C3
1/e Neighboring hues, nonequal chroma |h12h2| ¼ 308 1.37 1.39 514
|h22h3| ¼ 308
C1 = C2 = C3
2 Equal hue differences |h12h2| ¼ 1208 21 1.03 216
|h12h3| ¼ 1208
|h22h3| ¼ 1208
3 Equal lightness J1 ¼ J2 ¼ J3 0.02 1.23 7800
4 Nonequal lightness J1 = J2 = J3 0.08 1.49 1728
5 Equal chroma C1 ¼ C2 ¼ C3 2.14 2.04 7876
6 Nonequal chroma C1 = C2 = C3 20.18 1.32 2164

Hue difference is one of the most important and most
referred factors in classical colour harmony theories.
In case of two-colour combinations, equal hue and
complementary hue are mentioned to be the most impor-
tant principles of creating harmony by many authors.2–8
The present visual results showed that observers found
the combination of two-colours harmonious if the member
colours of the combination shared the same hue. It can be
also seen that lightness and chroma differences [see Figs.
3(b) and 3(c)] also have a relevant effect even if they are
monochromatic harmonies. Some theorists and artists
believed that juxtapositions of complementary colours
produce a strong contrast or tension, because they com-
plement each other when mixed, and they complete the
colour sense; others thought that the juxtapositions of
complementary colours produce harmonious colour inter-
actions.18 According to the present dataset, there is a sig-
nificant contradiction between this principle and the pres-
ent visual results, see Table AI and section New Models
of Colour Harmony, Figs. 4(a) and 7(a).
The harmony of neighbouring hues is also frequently
used by artist or colour designers.2–4 They tend to pro-
duce a single-hued or a dominant colour experience.
These combinations produced also a pleasing effect in our

48 COLOR research and application

experiment except if there was a small lightness differ-
ence or a large chroma difference between the constituent
samples.
Lightness difference is also a factor often cited in litera-
ture.1–6 The equal lightness property of colours tends to
lower visual colour harmony scores. According to Mun-
sell’s theory,2 if the lightness of the two colour samples
crosses the middle lightness (Munsell Value ¼ 5) harmony
is produced. This type of harmony can also be imagined in
the CIECAM02 colour appearance model if the two con-
stituent colours are in equal distance from the J ¼ 50 light-
ness level. According to the present visual results, in this
case, good colour harmony impression was observed; see
Table AI and Section Models of Colour harmony.
Chroma difference is also an important factor2–8 - equal
chroma or similar chroma always generates high harmony
scores [see Figs. 3(c) and 6(c)]. By increasing chroma dif-
ference, the present visual dataset also showed a decrease
of colour harmony scores.
In case of three-colour combinations, the main harmony
principle was formulated to be the concept of triadic com-
binations.4 A triadic colour scheme adopts any three col-
ours approximately equidistant around the hue circle. The
present experiments seem to contradict to this princi-
ple4—these triadic colour schemes are not as harmonious
as expected in the light of this classic theory.4
1. Itten J. The Art of Colour. Translation by Ernst van Haagen from
German ‘‘Kunst der Farbe’’. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold;
1961.
2. Munsell AH. A Grammar of Color, From the original version of
1921. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1969.
3. Ostwald W. The Colour Primer. Edition by F. Birren from the German
‘‘Die Farbenfibel’’ of 1916. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1969.
4. Nemcsics A. Farbenlehre und Farbendynamik. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó; 1993.
Volume 35, Number 1, February 2010
5. Nemcsics A. Experimental determination of laws of color harmony.
Part 1: Harmony content of different scales with similar hues. Colour
Res Appl 2007;32:477–488.
6. Goethe JW. Theory of Colours. Translation by C. L. Eastlake (1840)
from the German‘‘Farbenlehre’’ of 1810. Reprinted in 1970, Massa-
chusetts: The MIT Press.
7. Chevreul ME. The Principles of Harmony and Contrast of Colors.
Translation by C. Martel (1854) from the French edition of 1839.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1981.
8. Moon P, Spencer DE. Geometric formulation of classical colour har-
mony. J Opt Soc Am 1944;34:46–59.
9. Li-Chen OU, Ming Ronnier LUO. A study of colour harmony for
two-colour combinations. Color Res Appl 2006;31:191–204.
10. Judd DB, Wyszecki G. Colour in Business. Science and Industry,
3rd edition. New York: Wiley; 1975.
11. Szabó F, Bodrogi P, Schanda J. Comparison of colour harmony
models: Visual experiment with reflecting samples simulated on a
colour CRT monitor. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Confer-
ence on Colour in Graphics, Imaging, and vision (CGIV), 2006.
12. Sik Lányi C. Multimedia Medical Informatics System in Healthcare.
In: Ichalkaranje N, Ichalkaranje A, Jain LC, editors. Intelligent Para-
digms for Assistive and Preventive Healthcare. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag; 2006. p 37–68. ISBN 3-540-31762-7.
13. Sik Lányi C, Mátrai R, Molnár G, Lányi Zs. User interface design
question of developing multimedia games and education programs
for visual impairment children, Special Issue of Elektrotechnik &
Informationstechnik (e&i) by Springer Wien/New York, ‘‘Technol-
ogy Enhanced Learning (TEL)’’, 2005 (12) pp.488–494. ISSN 0932-
383X.
14. Berns RS, Katoh N. Methods of characterizing displays. In: Green
P, MacDonald LW, editors. Colour Engineering: Achieving Device
Independent Colour. England: Wiley; 2002. p 127–164.
15. Web page of RAL Design System. Available at: http://www.ral.de/en/
ral_farben/farbkarten/ral_design.php. Accessed on September 20, 2009.
16. Szabó F, Bodrogi P, Schanda J. Visual experiments on colour har-
mony: A formula and a rendering index. In: Proceedings of the 26th
Session of the CIE, 2007.
17. CIE Publ 177: 2007 Colour rendering of white LED light sources.
Vienna: CIE Central Bureau; 2007.
18. Sully J. Harmony of colours. Mind 1879;14:172–191.
19. Szabó F, Schanda J, Bodrogi P. Experimental investigation of the
distortion of colour harmony. In: Proceedings of the AIC Interna-
tional Conference on Colour Harmony, 2007.
49