Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,602   Posts: 1,622,450   Online: 862
      
Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 19232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 301
  1. #281

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    The other side in this claims that yellow is an additive or subtractive colour, the result of a combination of two other colours.
    And the first side says...?

  2. #282
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Who said that?

    But yes, all sensors also sense themselves.
    OMG, they're self-aware!



    Since when do photons have a wavelength or frequency?
    Well, since the Big Bang, at least.
    Oh, right. From the pedantic, narrow, apparently-unable-to descend-to-the-level-upon-which-the-rest-of-us-can-communicate point of view, no, they don't have those things.

    You could go down that road, and not be done talking for many years.
    You go ahead. We'll catch up later. Much later.

    You could also assume some relation between observation and the observed.
    Heisenberg would be so relieved to know you agree with him.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #283

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    What problem? You're the only one who has a problem with it, as far as I can tell.
    I am perhaps the only one taking issue with it. But the problem belongs to all of those who believe PE's explanation of colour.
    They are being lead into something worse than ignorance: false knowledge.


    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Irrelevant to what?
    Misleading, incorrect...how? Compared to what?
    You have read the discussion, have you not?

    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Very presumptive, you are.
    I of course do know that combining two frequencies does not result in reality in their annihilation and the production of a third frequency. But color is a sensation. What we perceive as color does not exist. Only EM radiation of various frequencies. In color photography, emulsions are filtered (frequencies removed) to control the frequency range to which the emulsion is sensitive, or to reduce sensitivity to a frequency or frequencies.
    Functionally, though, combining two colors will result in the perception of another color. Color photographs are for looking at. Color materials are manufactured using methods which work. They use those methods, and we get to look at the all the purty colors.
    Apparently not presumptuous, but acutely observative.


    Get rid of that red herring about perception and reality.
    Whether you call it colour, energy or frequency is irrelevant. Irrelevant, because it doesn't change anything about the error that is trying to explain everything about colour using an additive or subtractive tri-colour model.
    That's what you have missed.


    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Even more presumptive. Why would I talk about tri-color methods, otherwise? Do you think I don't know about multi-layer color materials?
    Why indeed. Why would anyone?
    That's the entire point. Tell PE.

    But have you noticed that multi-layer colour materials were pressed into service to explain something that has nothing to do with multi-layer colour materials?
    Have you managed to keep the two apart?

    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    PE said something like "Sorry guys, this is way off topic". I pointed out an inadvertent error; further discussion ensued. You participated and expanded the discussion. So what's your beef?

    That's how it usually is when you're involved.
    And that's why you always get involved in this sort of thing.

  4. #284

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    And the first side says...?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    one side would like to say that '600 nm light' = 'yellow light' [...]
    You do forget in a hurry!

  5. #285

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Heisenberg would be so relieved to know you agree with him.
    Uhm... Hate to break this news to you, but Heisenberg wasn't concerning himself with this.

  6. #286

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    You do forget in a hurry!
    No, I wanted you to write both sides down explicitly.

    Which leads me to my next question here. Is there someone in this discussion who actually thinks that pure 600nm light is not perceived as yellow?

  7. #287
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post

    Where is that red and green?
    The three filter layers cover a range of frequencies, not just precisely Red, Green and Blue. The filters overlap to an extent. Two of them overlap in the frequency range of pure yellow, allowing formation of colors which produce the sensation of yellow when viewed together. You can't figure that out?
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  8. #288
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,083
    Images
    65
    Kodak Portra film has both a Green and Red sensitivity of about 2.0 relative log E with a maximum speed of 2.5, so it is pretty sensitive in the region of the visible spectrum of Sodium lamps. That is how it works to give us a yellow in the final print.

    I know color reproduction well enough to design films and papers and to be the person responsible for color reproduction of 3 major products AAMOF.

    To paraphrase Klaatu in the original movie "I know the math well enough to navigate between planets!" I used this in answer to one of the 24 or so PMs today about this thread. I hope that the quote is not lost on you all and explains my growing exasperation.

    PE

  9. #289
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    I am perhaps the only one taking issue with it. But the problem belongs to all of those who believe PE's explanation of colour.
    They are being lead into something worse than ignorance: false knowledge.
    As I said earlier, PE was explaining one method by which colors are employed to allow our brains to create the perception of other colors from them. He never said his explanation was comprehensive of all ways of seeing color.


    Get rid of that red herring about perception and reality.
    Why? It is about perceiving a color, which only a sensation. You allow that that Magenta is non-spectral; no single wavelength will cause us to perceive it. Our minds create it from Red and Blue. It is only a sensation. There is no Magenta wavelength, so it is not a natural color. So what's the problem with saying that other colors can be formed (in our heads) from combining colors?
    BTW, are you sure that herring's red? You might just be perceiving it that way.

    Whether you call it colour, energy or frequency is irrelevant. Irrelevant, because it doesn't change anything about the error that is trying to explain everything about colour using an additive or subtractive tri-colour model.
    That's what you have missed.
    Get this, Q.G. Nobody has tried to explain everything about color using an additive or subtractive tri-color model.
    That is what you have missed.

    But have you noticed that multi-layer colour materials were pressed into service to explain something that has nothing to do with multi-layer colour materials?
    Exactly where?


    And that's why you always get involved in this sort of thing.
    Actually, I usually don't.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #290
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,971
    Images
    71
    If you're very scientific about a sucky photograph, it's still a sucky photograph...EC



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin