converse is also kind of true.  in my experience, the best way to see if you're accounting for most stuff is to try to reproduce some images.  if i can look at the photo, especially a raw photo, and try to match it, then i know i've got something.  the photo is a representation of reality, not the thing itself, but it's better than just relying on memory or imagination.  so you can take the math, render the result, compare it to a photo, and look at how it's different.   or even compare it to postworked photos or artwork, depending on the result you want. 

iirc, color theory was only invented in the 1800s by a French yarn or thread merchant who wanted to know why he got the feedback on colors he did.  some of the properties of colors and their complements were only discovered and mathematically mapped out in the last two centuries.  but there have been master artists for much longer than that.  

in my experience, it's a real tradeoff.  remember the number of hours bagginsbill talked about needing to become a master at anything?    now keep in mind that being a material room master is not being a master artist.  this whole past year, i've spent time learning more about the material room, light, digital sculpting, UV mapping, modeling, different renderers, and miscellaneous technical aspects.  as a result, i haven't focused on what i've been making the way i did in the previous year.  and it shows.  now i'm ready to put that first and put the technical second.  i don't know how well i'll do; that's actually much harder. 

math is a tool to describe reality, and so it can be used to generate reality.  so take time, and look at things through math for a while.  absorb it.  but don't let go of your artistic vision, or let realism change what you want the picture to look like.