buckwheat wrote:
"Color does not exist!" I reminded him that color can be measured by wavelengths and projected onto the rods and cones in our eyes. He claimed that color is only a perception defined by us and learned.
There are several different events going on here, and this author while explaining some of the physics, muddles up whether colors "exist" by not clearly distinguishing different events.
By events I mean:
a) The event of the emission or reflection of light by an object;
b) the event of the absorption of that light by film, a detector, or the eye.
c) the event of perception by the brain.
These are entirely different events. And apparently some people get wound around the axle because perception is involved in SOME of it.
I would define "colors" by the wavelength of light. The "color" of an object typically being the peak amplitude of wavelengths of light given off (emitted or reflected) by the object.
Now how that is perceived is where that article gets itself lost.
How people (or animals) perceive those colors is up to the eye and the brain. Obviously some people have "color blindness" if they don't have all the different types of cones.
Quote:
You can create an objective definition for green, but thats not really what you mean by green.
Its what I would mean by green (a wavelength definition), even if some people can't see it!
Then the whole discussion about the difficulty of making film reproduce what the eye see's is a whole different discussion, more appropriately related to "false color" images.
Finally, I certainly dispute that this human capability is "learned", and I didn't see that stated in the article.