Physics is important in understanding light, but photographic materials are a small subset of that entire field. For example, we do not need to include optics in designing a photomaterial but do need to just include a "flare factor" for the average lens. This narrows the field enough that we need only consider R/G/B/C/M/Y to do the job correctly. It is like an approximation. We don't need PI to many decimals to get a good value for the area of a circle for example.
We do need to know what the effects are when a dye is changed even by a tiny fraction, and we need to know it for all possible colors. And so, this tiny subset of C/M/Y dyes, can reproduce the colors seen in Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Agfachrome, Ciba/Ilfochrome, Fujichrome and all of the negative films and papers as well. One tiny error will upset the entire thing.
And so I think that post 100 is right to the point!
PE
Do you think photographically,
Haze can sometimes be confused with (or look like) Fog?
Do you think photographically,
Haze can sometimes be confused with (or look like) Fog?
Fog and mist are... white light reflected off water.
Aerial haze however is blueish...
Sunset is a figment of your imagination. If you were standing somewhere else on a sufficiently large scale, you wouldn't even see it. :confused:Keith;
Are you sure that the color at sunset and sunrise isnt Magenta?
PE
Actually, it is a pigment of my imagination.
PE
As I think I mentioned some time back in the thread....
Please stop that, I'm dyeing here...
Yes, but what color did the haze start out as?
Haze isn't part of the spectrum, right?
Haze can sometimes be confused with (or look like) Fog?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?