Is color completely subjective?
Dec 7, 2013 11:59:03 #
Dec 7, 2013 12:27:20 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Nature's color is not subjective.
Nature color's can be changed by your eye (color blindness by example). This is not subjective either.
Interpretation of what colors means is subjective.
Nature color's can be changed by your eye (color blindness by example). This is not subjective either.
Interpretation of what colors means is subjective.
Colour blindness has always fascinated me... What do they actually *see*? I know the commonest form leaves people unable to distinguish between red and green - this was why traffic lights have the amber too. So, do they see both as 'green', or both as 'red', or perhaps as 'grey'? I have never asked anyone who actually suffers from this, but in any case, how could they describe it?
I mean, I see that tree as 'green', but how can I describe that colour to you without referencing some other green item? If you happen to see my green as purple, then you would think that *that* was green...
Just the ramblings of an insane mind...
Dec 7, 2013 12:38:33 #
Bloke wrote:
Colour blindness has always fascinated me... What... (show quote)
My dad was red-green color blind. The only thing I remember him saying was that he couldn't tell the difference between the two colors, they both looked the same to him.
Dec 7, 2013 14:00:10 #
jackm1943 wrote:
I don't think "color" exists in nature, it exists only in our minds. Objects just reflect or absorb certain light wavelengths and our brains have evolved to recognize a tiny sliver of wavelengths as "color". It's a little analogous to "does a falling tree make a sound if no one hears it" question. A falling tree creates compression waves, our ears and brains translate those to "sound".
Hmm a very interesting thought. We are "taught" that the sky is blue and the rose is red. So, we associate things with a similar hue as that color. However, do we all see the same blue?
Dec 7, 2013 15:14:55 #
Another way to look at the issue is should a photographer change the color. If the photo is being used to document something the color should not be changed. Maybe not even enhanced. For example if it is of a bird for identification the colors need to be very accurate. However if that same photo is to be hung in a gallery, almost anything goes if it reprents art rather than reality.
Dec 7, 2013 15:33:13 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
thephotoman wrote:
Another way to look at the issue is should a photographer change the color. If the photo is being used to document something the color should not be changed. Maybe not even enhanced. For example if it is of a bird for identification the colors need to be very accurate. However if that same photo is to be hung in a gallery, almost anything goes if it reprents art rather than reality.
Of course this assumes that the software in the camera got it right in the first place. There are times depending on the lighting that the auto WB setting just isn't going to get it right so one goes in and changes the WB setting which of course changes the color temperature and look of the resulting photo. These changes are made in accordance to what the photographer thinks is the correct look and there's where the subjectiveness (is that a word?) comes into play. I can't see any difference in whether the photo is altered before or after it's still being altered in accordance to one's perception of the scene or subject. Even if you have everything set to auto your still getting someones opinion as to what the end result should be, in the case of auto it's up to the writer of the software.
Dec 7, 2013 15:57:04 #
Aunorman wrote:
In both the film and digital world, one can easily... (show quote)
It's subjective if you want it to be. You can also carry around a neutral gray card and include in a part of every image where you will crop it out then correct in PP or use it for a custom white balance for each shot. Of course this is the wrong thing to do if you are out door when the sun is low and you don't want neutral.
Dec 7, 2013 21:22:20 #
All this begs the question:
What's the difference between an artist and a photographer?
Not all photography is intended as a work of art and the ethics of taking creative liberties with an image is buried in those distinctions.
Apples and oranges.
What's the difference between an artist and a photographer?
Not all photography is intended as a work of art and the ethics of taking creative liberties with an image is buried in those distinctions.
Apples and oranges.
Dec 7, 2013 22:00:57 #
Mtn_Dog wrote:
All this begs the question:
What's the difference between an artist and a photographer?
Oh Please. Let's not beat that horse to death again. we did that two weeks ago.
Not all photography is intended as a work of art and the ethics of taking creative liberties with an image is buried in those distinctions.
Apples and oranges.
What's the difference between an artist and a photographer?
Oh Please. Let's not beat that horse to death again. we did that two weeks ago.
Not all photography is intended as a work of art and the ethics of taking creative liberties with an image is buried in those distinctions.
Apples and oranges.
Dec 8, 2013 01:13:53 #
My problem is that what the camera records as "real" is not the same as what I felt when I saw it. I then feel a need to alter the photo in order to restore the qualities the camera seemed to lose in the recording process. A sunset loses its intensity, you feel you have to increase the yellow for example.
tramsey wrote:
When I photograph something I like to get it as close to what I see and enhance the little nuances.
Dec 8, 2013 01:21:42 #
That brings up an interesting point I just thought of: use of post process changes to achieve a more "realistic" look. I used to like to make blatant special effects photography and still do, but thanks to superior equipment and software what I have been trying to do lately is apply changes to restore a purely realistic look, so that you may not even know it has been altered. You may take a photo of a night scene for instance but the camera's weakness in low light situations does not really record what you saw. By careful manipulations you can create a phenomenal "realistic" image that has no real apparent "exaggerations" per se.
Pepper wrote:
Of course this assumes that the software in the ca... (show quote)
Dec 9, 2013 10:26:13 #
Aunorman wrote:
In both the film and digital world, one can easily... (show quote)
Some like pictures to be archival - to record a scene for prosperity. I doubt whether many would like a picture of their children solorized or otherwise changed. Others may want a picture to be art and changed in a way that makes it unique from other pictures of the same scene.
Personally I like a mixture and will change a picture if I want to.
Possibly - because colours can be changed so easily - some will believe that everyone should do it whether they like it of not!
Dec 9, 2013 13:33:09 #
Photography is formed by a lens and a substrate, to me that is not necessarily art, it can be, but not necessarily. Changing colors to represent a difference perspective is art.
Art to me, is the Artist idea of what one sees. To enter or omit something within a scene. Not just framing to omit a particular object. Photography is a art form and was develop by those who were artist, but I look at it, as not a art form, because the artist can include or remove things in a scene or just be in there head and paint what they see. It is very subjective. The idea is subjective. The question is
The word Art is to create. Given that definition it is art and doing anything with your Photographs is clearly art.
Art to me, is the Artist idea of what one sees. To enter or omit something within a scene. Not just framing to omit a particular object. Photography is a art form and was develop by those who were artist, but I look at it, as not a art form, because the artist can include or remove things in a scene or just be in there head and paint what they see. It is very subjective. The idea is subjective. The question is
The word Art is to create. Given that definition it is art and doing anything with your Photographs is clearly art.
Dec 9, 2013 13:36:27 #
An interesting view, with validity. Would you say that Ansel Adams was an artist because he did dodging an burning and other darkroom techniques to enhance his photographs?
nivek340 wrote:
Photography is formed by a lens and a substrate, t... (show quote)
Dec 9, 2013 14:03:53 #
To me most art is made with the formation by using ones hands, where error can be introduced, not a automated process. In the definition of Art. Photography is a Art. Do I think Ansel Adams create Art? No it's a great Photograph Corrected to the best he could, given the tools of his time. I'm sure others would say given the fact he alter the imagine made him a artist. That would be correct. This is just my opinion.
georgevedwards wrote:
An interesting view, with validity. Would you say that Ansel Adams was an artist because he did dodging an burning and other darkroom techniques to enhance his photographs?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.