Steve - in one of my former lives I used to sell a lot of precision tools and specialty fasteners to auto dealers, and Renault was just one of
many. And you still do see those miserable things driving around here from time to time too, but at least they weren't as ugly as the Citroens. The French, esp Pugeot, would sabotage cars being exported to the US, so there would be all kind of problems. The dealers simply turned this to their own advantage. That must be a beautiful island you live on. Hope you don't have billboards and McDonalds franchises. Most of our
American exports are themselves abominations. But at least we can spell English correctly!
Unlike other posters, who have taken your question literally and desperately tried to substantiate photographic colour accuracy, I read your OP as an unintentional riddle about perception David. And you've clarified that with this paragraph.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
Was 'the man in charge', when he used the word 'conservancy' (is that like 'sustainability'?), talking about the subjects in the photographs or the photographic objects themselves? I'm still not clear on that, and maybe he wasn't himself. And your post suggests that you weren't and the replies, including mine, suggest we aren't clear either. The whole thing is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Which is fun.
But let's just assume that 'the man in charge' was simply an ignorant mouthpiece. Very likely.
I was miffed and disappointed with that rat's hasty 'arrogance'.
Both accuracy and aesthetics are illusions. Unfortunately, because the literal minded can't grasp aesthetics, they become preoccupied with accuracy, which has plenty of 'scientific' literature in photography. But... you can't help talking about realism in connection with photographic accuracy (as you have David), thus, it's really a question for philosophers. I used the term in another thread; digging for Australia.
But, now, with those factors seemingly contradicting one another (accuracy vs aesthetics) I really wonder if desertratt was really both prompt and prescient.
Last edited by batwister; 05-24-2013 at 02:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde
Well, here is a point to consider. Drew brought it to mind with his excellent comments on lighting.
Dyes are quite sensitive to different parts of the spectrum. The 500 fc that Fuji uses assumes office or foyer lighting using fluorescent lights (IIRC) but Kodak's 200 fc uses both daylight and artificial light with a continuous spectrum. This is another divergence as follows.
There is a property called Metamerism in dyes in which they change hue depending on the illuminant. The chromogenic dyes are low in this property but the inkjet and POD inks and pigments tend to be high in this property. Thus, you may have a perfect print under fluorescent illumination only to find it sadly magenta or cyan under home lighting of a different type or even under daylight.
This is not to be taken lightly (pun intended), as it can totally ruin the accuracy and balance of an otherwise good photo.
When I was actually once bored enough to read thru a lot of inkjet patents, the complexity of ingredients made me absolutely shudder on the
metamerism issues. But that same complexity makes realistically predicting the lifespan of component inks equally complicated. The adolescent
stage of where these neo-bulbs are right now is a bit hard to decipher, as some of the mfg and retailers promoting alleged full-spectrum results
aren't exactly known for their business integrity. Things will gradually improve, but at what pace, and at what effect. The damn things ruin my eyes,
and I don't much care for what they do for print colors either. But I keep testing new varieties from time to time, because that is where things are headed.
batwister: The man was talking about the buildings as objects and not as subjects making a photograph. At least it seemed so to me: the buildings were discrete entities and recorded as such. Subjectivity did not seem (!) to enter into the equation.
From beginning to end of the conversation in the Italian Market I felt that that man's focus was not upon a subjective aesthetic (geared towards naked appeal), but, instead, accurate, objective representation of what had to be recorded. But, true, he WAS in the business of 'selling' to the public at large, the hoi polloi, and not to an esoteric group well versed on what was 'proper' in a technical sense. Thus, I wonder about his underlying reasons for this focus upon only 'accuracy'.
You say, batwister: "Both accuracy and aesthetics are illusions. Unfortunately, because the literal minded can't grasp aesthetics, they become preoccupied with accuracy..."
Well, you can argue this philosophically, but, at least ostensibly, accuracy can be measured, batwister, but, again, maybe even impartial measurement turns out to be an illusion, just like two plus two equaling four just might be illusion; and life itself, more of the same. This can get very deep. But what I am trying to impart here is the difference between subjective beauty (aesthetics) and rigorous, repeatable, measurement (ie, hues attaining a precise color temperature). But, then, again, with PE's comment about metamerism, those very hues have to be viewed in a 'perfect' (again, measurable) lighting situation (right?), in order to be accurately perceived and cannot merely stand by themselves without that complementary 'lighting paradigm'. Your comments are very interesting, batwister.
And as far as a 'riddle wrapped in a mystery': you mean that there are other such causes for becoming flummoxed other than due to Churchill's assessment of Russia? - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 05-26-2013 at 01:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)