Rochester news about Kodak

[Q.G.]

So it's how 'color sensitive thingies' (which I shortened to 'detectors') and photon energy interact.

Why, yes.

Um, no? Photon energy, frequency, and wavelength are all essentially the same quantity, expressed in different ways. It's not anything goes.

Anything goes talk is that

they just have an energy/wavelength/frequency, depending on how you want to think about it.

Energy, frequency and wavelength are indeed three different aspects of an entity.
They're not the same "quantity" expressed in different ways.

 

[Q.G.]

I assume you are talking about B/W emulsion w/o presumed sensitivity in that region...

"Ordinary" (meaning blue sensitive, non-spectrally sensitized) emulsions
are also sensitive to red!

I know one possible explanation,
but I suspect your POV might related here as an additional explanation.

I guess its probably too complicated for you (Q. G.) to show us how it works?

Migh, migh... Ray!

 

[Tim Gray]

Energy, frequency and wavelength are indeed three different aspects of an entity.
They're not the same "quantity" expressed in different ways.

Sorry, I should have been pedantically precise in my language. The energy of a photon is related to it's frequency by the expression E = h nu, where h is Planck's constant and nu is the frequency. Frequency and wavelength are related through another expression nu = c / lambda, where c is a constant (speed of light) and lambda is the wavelength.

A photon with a given energy has a frequency and wavelength that are dependent only on the energy. While they have different physical meanings (obviously - one is an energy, one is a length, and one is frequency), they are not independent quantities; set one and the others are fixed.

As to the first part - so photons don't have colors. They have energies, and color is how the detector 'interprets' that energy.

 

[Q.G.]

Sorry, I should have been pedantically precise in my language. [...]

If you think it's about language, the optics 1.0.1. explanation i snipped away would be rather empty and redundant.

As to the first part - so photons don't have colors. They have energies, and color is how the detector 'interprets' that energy.

How many times do you want to have that repeated? How many times do you want to repeat that yourself?

Photons also have wavelengths (well... they don't. Waves have wavelengths), and colour is how the detector 'interprets' that wavelength.

Photons also have [etc.]

 

[Photo Engineer]

Actually, a film exposed to pure sodium vapor lamp light sees a stream of photons with the energy level that causes the appearance of "yellow" light with a frequency of 600 nm (Red + Green). These photons excite two layers of a color film, the Red and Green layers, thus producing a "Yellow" record which is minus Blue. If anyone has another opinion, they can post it in detail. I have given the two applicable references, the Sodium vapor wavelength and the Kodak film sensitivity curves.

I await another explanation that that stream of 600 nm photons.

PE

 

[Q.G.]

Actually, a film exposed to pure sodium vapor lamp light sees a stream of photons with the energy level that causes the appearance of "yellow" light with a frequency of 600 nm (Red + Green). These photons excite two layers of a color film, the Red and Green layers, thus producing a "Yellow" record which is minus Blue. If anyone has another opinion, they can post it in detail. I have given the two applicable references, the Sodium vapor wavelength and the Kodak film sensitivity curves.

I await another explanation that that stream of 600 nm photons.

Why, you have already given one!


You also revert to a multi-emulsion, filtered colour film to explain why an emulsion can respond to yellow light.

And still that really nonsensical idea that 600 nm is "(Red + Green)"...
Here is the light produced by a sodium lamp.

Where is that red and green?

It must be clear to you too, PE, that this tri-colour talk is all good and well, in a tri-colour context. And that your continued insistance on using it all the time is, plain and simple, wrong.
If not, i believe you will never see the light.

So back to Big Yellow as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Tim Gray]

Can a wavelengh have more than one energy level?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'energy level' in this context. If you mean a photon's energy, then no. A photon with a given wavelength has a given energy and vice versa. And a photon with a given wavelength has a given frequency and vice versa.

If you don't mean that, you'll have to clarify it.

And veering incredibly far off course (from news about Kodak to quantum mechanics, wow!), to say that photons don't have wavelengths isn't quite correct. I'm tapping out on that though. If someone wants to know more about quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, let me know. I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.

 

[Q.G.]

[...] And veering incredibly far off course (from news about Kodak to quantum mechanics, wow!), to say that photons don't have wavelengths isn't quite correct. I'm tapping out on that though. If someone wants to know more about quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, let me know. I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.

You feel wrong. And Q.G. already knows about it.
So yes, it would be a waste of time as far as i am concerned.

 

[Tim Gray]

I feel wrong about what exactly? Pretty sure that photons (even a single photon) can exhibit wave-like behavior.

 

[Q.G.]

I feel wrong about what exactly?

You wrote this

[...] I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.

5 minutes ago, two posts up.
You forget fast, don't you?

 

[Tim Gray]

Oh, I said I don't particularly think you care about learning about quantum mechanics. It's clear at this point you are just trolling about so it's not really worth going into an in depth discussion about that. If you do have actual knowledge of it, it certainly doesn't appear that way by the manner you are expressing yourself.

Sorry if your sentence was a bit hard to parse.

 

[Ray Rogers]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'energy level' in this context. If you mean a photon's energy, then no. A photon with a given wavelength has a given energy and vice versa. And a photon with a given wavelength has a given frequency and vice versa.

If you don't mean that, you'll have to clarify it.

And veering incredibly far off course (from news about Kodak to quantum mechanics, wow!), to say that photons don't have wavelengths isn't quite correct. I'm tapping out on that though. If someone wants to know more about quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, let me know. I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.

When I enquired about red light exposing unsensitized emulsions, one of the possible explanations was that practically any wavelength could make the grains developable, if it had sufficient energy.

Not being coherent in physics,
I just assumed that it was just something else I did not understand about light.

The other explanations were logical enough to satisify me and
I never solved the mystery of what that explanation was really all about.

Thinking about now,
I wonder if the "energy" of a wavelength is somehow concentrated by increasing it's coherency?

 

[Q.G.]

Oh, I said I don't particularly think you care about learning about quantum mechanics. It's clear at this point you are just trolling about so it's not really worth going into an in depth discussion about that. If you do have actual knowledge of it, it certainly doesn't appear that way by the manner you are expressing yourself.

Sorry if your sentence was a bit hard to parse.

No, Tim.
Talk like that is "just trolling about".

I have kept to the matter in hand in each and every single post i have made.
If you want to discuss quantum mechanics, that's fine with me. Let's!
If you think that i don't care about it, suggest that i don't know, and don't want to know, about it, you're being incredibly presumptuous. And very wrong to boot.
And passing your inability to understand off as someone else's inability to make something clear to you? Well... Don't.

 

[Diapositivo]

If one, like me, wanted to learn something from this soon-to-become-a-row discussion, I think he would distill its essence more or less this way:

- Correct me if I am wrong in substance (I know I am wrong in form) -

Q.G. is probably telling us that the spectrum of light visible to human beings is composed of many more colours than the three, RGB, fundamental colours of additive synthesis. Something like yellow light exists, or orange light for that matter.

The way photographic technology renders colours (we limit ourselves here to additive synthesis, and we imagine coloured light as projected by a transparency) is to use only three basic colours, RGB. In fact, if the white light of a projector is filtered through the red and green layers of a slide, and no blue light is allowed to pass by the slide, then the two flows of red and green superimposed will create in our eyes the effect of yellow.

If I get it right, Q.G. is saying that even if it is technologically feasible to make yellow light as a superimposition of red light and green light, "yellow" light exists in nature independently from red and green. Or to put it in another way, the three colour theory is something that works in practice, but it is not the way things are "in nature". "In nature" there is a certain portion of the white spectrum that we humans perceive as yellow because it is of a certain wavelength and not because it is the result of the superimposition of blue and green light.

On the other hand, magenta is a colour that the human eye cannot perceive as a portion of the white light spectrum. We can find a way to reproduce magenta using the three colour theory, but that is not a colour that we "find" anywhere in the way the human light perceives the light. Is it that?

So the three colour theory is a way to reproduce colour but it is not, so to speak, the intimate deep physics nature of colours, it is just a technology that works. Other technological means would be conceivable (regardless of whether they have been realised) to reproduce colours and colours are explainable regardless of the technology devised to reproduce them.

It is this the question over which this debate revolves?

Or please do clarify which exactly your differences are, so that we can take part in the row as well

Fabrizio

 

[Q.G.]

If one, like me, wanted to learn something from this soon-to-become-a-row discussion, I think he would distill its essence more or less this way: [...]

On the other hand, magenta is a colour that the human eye cannot perceive as a portion of the white light spectrum. We can find a way to reproduce magenta using the three colour theory, but that is not a colour that we "find" anywhere in the way the human light perceives the light. Is it that?

Pretty accurate, Fabrizio.

Except for the bit about magenta. Not that you are wrong, but it could perhaps do with a clarification.
Magenta is a colour that doesn't exist as a single portion of the spectrum, but still something we can see as a combination of portions of the spectrum. I.e. it too is a colour that exists, and we find, in nature.

Magenta, by the way, became topic of discussion, because in a thread about orthochromatic film, or rather how that could be emulated filtering out the red portion of the spectrum, this confused additive and subtractive tri-colour talk emerged, and resulted in the suggestion that you could record magenta, even though all the red was taken out of the equation.
The simple truth that there is no magenta when there is no red, that magenta is not a spectral colour, apparently has confused some easily confusable and gullible souls so much that they still think that jibing about "magenta is not a colour" is fun. Which it is. Especially since they still don't see that the joke is on them.

 

[Tim Gray]

I have kept to the matter in hand in each and every single post i have made.

That's not how I've read quite a few post of yours to me and others. I'm sorry if I've presumed anything about you.

If I understand this whole argument over color and light, it would seem as if one side would like to say that '600 nm light' = 'yellow light', i.e. yellow is an intrinsic property of that light. It seems like the other side would like to say that we perceive 600 nm light as yellow, i.e. 'yellow' is not an intrinsic property of light, it's wavelength is.

If you take those two sides to the next step, the first says magenta isn't a real color because you can't make magenta with one single wavelength of light. The other side would say that's not true because color is 'all in our heads'. I think they would agree with the statement that magenta does not correspond to a single wavelength of light, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a color.

 

[lxdude]

And there's the problem.

You would think so. But... That's what this is all (the different threads this has surfaced in) about.

What problem? You're the only one who has a problem with it, as far as I can tell.

Completely irrelevant it is here too.
And when pushed despite of that, misleading and incorrect also.

Irrelevant to what?
Misleading, incorrect...how? Compared to what?

Duh...

So you do not see what's going on.

You don't see how yellow is not a mix of whatever two colours, but the colour a photon can have. A photon an emulsion shows a response to, despite it not being a tri-colour emulsion.

Very presumptive, you are.
I of course do know that combining two frequencies does not result in reality in their annihilation and the production of a third frequency. But color is a sensation. What we perceive as color does not exist. Only EM radiation of various frequencies. In color photography, emulsions are filtered (frequencies removed) to control the frequency range to which the emulsion is sensitive, or to reduce sensitivity to a frequency or frequencies.
Functionally, though, combining two colors will result in the perception of another color. Color photographs are for looking at. Color materials are manufactured using methods which work. They use those methods, and we get to look at the all the purty colors.

You don't see that the tri-colour trickery has to be employed to differentiate between the colours, so you can use panchromatic B&W emulsions to create something you can perceive as separate colours.

Even more presumptive. Why would I talk about tri-color methods, otherwise? Do you think I don't know about multi-layer color materials?

You don't see that it is all irrelevant, because we were not talking about anything like this. Until someone brought it up to give some 'relevance' to completely irrelevant comments.

PE said something like "Sorry guys, this is way off topic". I pointed out an inadvertent error; further discussion ensued. You participated and expanded the discussion. So what's your beef?

Round and round and round and round and...
The going is remarkably tough on APUG today.

That's how it usually is when you're involved.

 

[Q.G.]

That's not how I've read quite a few post of yours to me and others. I'm sorry if I've presumed anything about you.

If I understand this whole argument over color and light, it would seem as if one side would like to say that '600 nm light' = 'yellow light', i.e. yellow is an intrinsic property of that light. It seems like the other side would like to say that we perceive 600 nm light as yellow, i.e. 'yellow' is not an intrinsic property of light, it's wavelength is.

Those could be two sides. But they are not the two sides in this ongoing thingy.

The other side in this claims that yellow is an additive or subtractive colour, the result of a combination of two other colours.

The point about real or perceived (though interesting) is irrelevant here.

If you take those two sides to the next step, the first says magenta isn't a real color because you can't make magenta with one single wavelength of light. The other side would say that's not true because color is 'all in our heads'. I think they would agree with the statement that magenta does not correspond to a single wavelength of light, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a color.

Indeed.
But as said, not what this is about.

 

[JBrunner]

Ultimately it boils down to wether you are a Goethe person or a Newton person. Sort of like Elvis and the Beatles. You can like both, but you can't like them the same.

 

[Tim Gray]

The other side in this claims that yellow is an additive or subtractive colour, the result of a combination of two other colours.

And the first side says...?

 

[lxdude]

Who said that?

But yes, all sensors also sense themselves.

OMG, they're self-aware!

Since when do photons have a wavelength or frequency?

Well, since the Big Bang, at least.
Oh, right. From the pedantic, narrow, apparently-unable-to descend-to-the-level-upon-which-the-rest-of-us-can-communicate point of view, no, they don't have those things.

You could go down that road, and not be done talking for many years.

You go ahead. We'll catch up later. Much later.

You could also assume some relation between observation and the observed.

Heisenberg would be so relieved to know you agree with him.

 

[Q.G.]

What problem? You're the only one who has a problem with it, as far as I can tell.

I am perhaps the only one taking issue with it. But the problem belongs to all of those who believe PE's explanation of colour.
They are being lead into something worse than ignorance: false knowledge.

Irrelevant to what?
Misleading, incorrect...how? Compared to what?

You have read the discussion, have you not?

Very presumptive, you are.
I of course do know that combining two frequencies does not result in reality in their annihilation and the production of a third frequency. But color is a sensation. What we perceive as color does not exist. Only EM radiation of various frequencies. In color photography, emulsions are filtered (frequencies removed) to control the frequency range to which the emulsion is sensitive, or to reduce sensitivity to a frequency or frequencies.
Functionally, though, combining two colors will result in the perception of another color. Color photographs are for looking at. Color materials are manufactured using methods which work. They use those methods, and we get to look at the all the purty colors.

Apparently not presumptuous, but acutely observative.


Get rid of that red herring about perception and reality.
Whether you call it colour, energy or frequency is irrelevant. Irrelevant, because it doesn't change anything about the error that is trying to explain everything about colour using an additive or subtractive tri-colour model.
That's what you have missed.

Even more presumptive. Why would I talk about tri-color methods, otherwise? Do you think I don't know about multi-layer color materials?

Why indeed. Why would anyone?
That's the entire point. Tell PE.

But have you noticed that multi-layer colour materials were pressed into service to explain something that has nothing to do with multi-layer colour materials?
Have you managed to keep the two apart?

PE said something like "Sorry guys, this is way off topic". I pointed out an inadvertent error; further discussion ensued. You participated and expanded the discussion. So what's your beef?

That's how it usually is when you're involved.

And that's why you always get involved in this sort of thing.

 

[Q.G.]

And the first side says...?

one side would like to say that '600 nm light' = 'yellow light' [...]

You do forget in a hurry!

 

[Q.G.]

Heisenberg would be so relieved to know you agree with him.

Uhm... Hate to break this news to you, but Heisenberg wasn't concerning himself with this.

 

[Tim Gray]

You do forget in a hurry!

No, I wanted you to write both sides down explicitly.

Which leads me to my next question here. Is there someone in this discussion who actually thinks that pure 600nm light is not perceived as yellow?