In low light we see only black and white.

Berkeley Mike said:

I've heard you say that before and will not argue the point. That said, do these same expressed color events occur when we look at a B&W image?

Click to expand...

You're moving the goalposts to accommodate a goal that doesn't exist. It's one thing to claim an organ in an eye is perceptive of relative brightness, quite another to extend that to blackness (which doesn't exist).

jtk said:

Sounds like you envision (seems impossible) "motion pictures"! Where's Thomas Edison when we need him?

Click to expand...

But in movies, that is where it is expected...the magic is doing it with a still image. I'm enjoiying working with Mike's hypothesis -- thinking outside my own box, considering other possibilities, holding two conflicting ideas together and seeing how they both work...trying to, anyway. But in the end, helpful when considering how and why some people respond to certain of ones prints more than others.

A slight warmth in the color of a B&W print seems to give an image more luminosity than an equally printed neutral-toned print. Just does...have no idea why. Perhaps the warmth lights up a few extra cones compared to a neutral tone. At the same lighting level, perhaps the eye can utilize a little bit more of the light bouncing back through the warmer emulsion of the print. Just an oddball thought generated by this discussion.

Vaughn said:

A slight warmth in the color of a B&W print seems to give an image more luminosity than an equally printed neutral-toned print. Just does...have no idea why.

Click to expand...

Vaughn:
Could this have something to do with how much time you spend amongst the redwoods?
This slightly tongue-in-cheek observation might be more generally seen as an observation about the effect of personal environments.
A photograph as an appropriate illustration:

I was in the redwoods during a rain in October -- I was looking out across the creek, tall Big-leaf maples were in full color. The air itself was vibrant yellow.

But, yeah...something like that (Two Redwoods, 5x7 neg, platinum/palladium print):

Vaughn said:

Internalizing (evolutionarily-speaking) the concept of the compound eye, perhaps? The dragonfly catches movement as light shifts in the visual mosaic imposed on its brain by the 30,000 facets (ommatidia). Great for movement, but not detail -- but details will be sorted out once the prey is caught.

So a photograph that gives the viewer a sense on motion -- that keeps the viewer's eyes moving around the print from the moment the viewer sees the print -- could be addressing the more primitive/deep-seated rod-reaction tied to movement. This could be intensified by a B&W print without the 'what' reaction of the cones to interfere.

How does that sound?

Click to expand...

This seems in the ballpark. Scanning about is constantly and involuntarily going on, independent of what we are looking at. It takes effort to restrict scanning and concentrate. That said I would suggest (not in any final terms) that as our peripheral vision is sensitive and rod-based, scanning could be directed to objects of potential or immediate import. At the same time, compositions that seem to direct movement might or might not determine the amount of scanning or concentration.

At least one participant has suggested that color was a distraction to seeing and photographic vision.

That "scanning" idea was probably addressed (incidentally) in the Sixties when Cinema Beauleu cameras were used by perception research physical psychologists to document eye movement. Just FYI.

jtk said:

That "scanning" idea was probably addressed (incidentally) in the Sixties when Cinema Beauleu cameras were used by perception research physical psychologists to document eye movement. Just FYI.

Click to expand...

Good knowledge!

Berkeley Mike said:

Good knowledge!

Click to expand...

Optical nystagmus is another knowledge thang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus

wiki and other sites consider nystagmus to be a problem...but that quivering is constant even in the best of peepers.

As for detection of movement by interpretation of input from a sequence of rods.... in frogs and (perhaps) cats there are gizmos (rods? cones?) that by themselves, without the delay inherent in interpretation, identify movement. That's arguably why they're so good at catching things.

"Black" silver is only arguably black. Same reality for coal and india ink.

jtk said:

You're moving the goalposts to accommodate a goal that doesn't exist. It's one thing to claim an organ in an eye is perceptive of relative brightness, quite another to extend that to blackness (which doesn't exist).

Click to expand...

Perhaps it might be better to refer to the view as monochrome rather than Black & White; a lay term for how we see below the color receptor level.

It is not a matter of moving the goalposts. We are exploring an idea. The discussion is defining the understanding of an issue that is being discovered.

Berkeley Mike said:

Perhaps it might be better to refer to the view as monochrome rather than Black & White; a lay term for how we see below the color receptor level.

It is not a matter of moving the goalposts. We are exploring an idea. The discussion is defining the understanding of an issue that is being discovered.

Click to expand...

Heard an interview with an architect who as an adult had lost 100% of her sight but now uses sound in order to illustrate interior spaces.