The one about green where it recommends shifting it blue or yellow made me recoil, like shut the article down as fast as I could because the one they suggested was a revolting bile color. Sure, I absolutely respect the power of color theory, but this article was kinda heavy handed and most of the examples just really rubbed me the wrong way, like why is virtually every example just desaturated and low contrast to make it a sickly gray, and why does some of their advice contradict later advice (especially regarding contrast)?

Yeah I immediately thought of the blorange hell of modern movies: https://priceonomics.com/why-every-movie-looks-sort-of-orang...

I first remember it from Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - not mentioned in the linked article.

It's wonderful that what used to be called a genteel amber & teal, is now known as blorange horror.

If you literally recoil from a colour choice you are probably far at some end of the bell curve and this article is not suitable for you, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Not typically. As the person I I responded to observed: I usually respond well to these sorts of articles and enjoy them.

They have the right idea with the theory, but there's some nuance in proper execution. If I learned anything from photography, it's that the best adjustments are barely on the edge of perception.

If you averaged the before and after examples (allowing that the "average" of colours is a complicated subject in itself), they would probably be pretty good.

And over here, I agreed with every one of the author’s “better”.

Maybe I’ve just adapted to the current zeitgeist and conventions of data vis I come across in e.g. Tableau or the Economist.