Rochester news about Kodak

[Q.G.]

I believe somebody's colour photographs says a lot.
Absence of such tells a lot.. as well

Q.G., I believe You can be a bit more kind to fellow APUG members

I can indeed.
So can quite a few other APUG members, George.


I would love to hear your explanation why someone making colour photos equates to understanding the 'underlying mechanism'.
But let us turn this thread back to that other colour, Big Yellow.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I would love to hear your explanation why someone making colour photos equates to understanding the 'underlying mechanism'.
But let us turn this thread back to that other colour, Big Yellow.

Because showing you can apply whatever understanding you think you may have to a real-world photographic situation gives some degree of insight into the thought processes and motivations of the individual.

Tom

 

[lxdude]

And what you and PE are not understanding is that an emulsion doesn't care about how you might see colour when it responds to a stimulus produced by being hit by a photon from the 'yellow' region of the spectrum.

But the person who designed that emulsion does.

The tri-colour colour theory is all well and fine. If and when it is relevant and appropriate.
Insisting on explaining all colour-phenomena by reverting to some tri-colour mumbo jumbo is silly and a show of real ignorance.

As I've said, PE was explaining it as it relates to color photography. Where has he said it explains all color phenomena?
"Tri-colour mumbo-jumbo"? First, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's very easy to understand. Second, look at the spec. sheet for any color film and you will see the tri-color method applied. As you know, I'm sure.

If you want it to make a difference between the different colours, you will have to devise a way to make that emulsion or sensor "sense" only those colours you want it to.

Well, yeah. Hence tri-color filtration.

See also why insisting on talking about tri-colour when a B&W emulsion is concerned is nonsense?

Eh?

 

[Q.G.]

Because showing you can apply whatever understanding you think you may have to a real-world photographic situation gives some degree of insight into the thought processes and motivations of the individual.

Tom

So if Boticelli chooses two colour to go together, it shows that he understands tri-colour theory?
If Rafaël has a different palette, that shows his understanding of the physics of colour is different too?
Can you spot the problem with such a believe? I know i can.

 

[Steve Smith]

When will you begin to truly get a grasp of this thing called colour?

Never. We can't even agree on a way to spell it!


Steve.

 

[georg16nik]

So if Boticelli chooses two colour to go together, it shows that he understands tri-colour theory?
If Rafaël has a different palette, that shows his understanding of the physics of colour is different too?
Can you spot the problem with such a believe? I know i can.

Q.G, there is a color aesthetics or if You like harmony of colors that is a confirmation.
Boticelli, Rafaël and other folks possessed the knowing how to do it. They weren't pulling it out of empty air...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I was writing in the generality, but my comment stands as a "hot air-o-meter". Even if someone fancies himself as some kind of research scientist it is still helpful to give examples, and properly worked through logic etc. However the purpose of photographic technology is somewhat limited without a practical or artistic expression.

Tom

 

[Q.G.]

But the person who designed that emulsion does.

And there's the problem.

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

As I've said, PE was explaining it as it relates to color photography. Where has he said it explains all color phenomena? "Tri-colour mumbo-jumbo"? First, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's very easy to understand. Second, look at the spec. sheet for any color film and you will see the tri-color method applied. As you know, I'm sure.

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

Well, yeah. Hence tri-color filtration.

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.
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.
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.

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

 

[Tim Gray]

Photons can have colors?

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G, there is a color aesthetics or if You like harmony of colors that is a confirmation.
Boticelli, Rafaël and other folks possessed the knowing how to do it. They weren't pulling it out of empty air...

Yes. They understood perfectly well how to use colour.
So if you show me how to use colour, i don't have to study physics books to know what colour is?

 

[Q.G.]

Photons can have colors?

Quarks can have tastes?

Yes, Tim, photons can have colour.
It's that correlation between their energy and how colour sensitive thingies treat them again.

 

[Steve Smith]

You don't see how yellow is not a mix of whatever two colours, but the colour a photon can have.

This is something I was deliberating over when I was setting up my tri-colour LED light source.

I was trying to work out if the light output when I use the red and green LEDs is actually yellow or if it is still red and green (separately) but our eyes perceive them as a single yellow source.


Steve.

 

[MattKing]

True.

But so what?
Pain too is just product of our minds. Yet you sure know what will happen if you hit your thumb with a ten pound sledgehammer. Even though pain is not being hit on your thumb with a ten pound sledgehammer, but entirely a product of our minds.

We can play this realist vs idealist game all day, and it doesn't make one iota of a difference.

There is a correlation between our perception of colour and wavelengths of light.
Just as there is between that hammer landing on your thumb and the pain your mind produces.

Hmmm...

Q.G. posting about pain.

 

[Tim Gray]

Oh, so the color of a photon depends on the detector sensing it?

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

 

[Q.G.]

This is something I was deliberating over when I was setting up my tri-colour LED light source.

I was trying to work out if the light output when I use the red and green LEDs is actually yellow or if it is still red and green (separately) but our eyes perceive them as a single yellow source.

That's a perfect illustration. Thanks!

People are talking about emulsions as if they are our eyes.

The emulsion is exposed to red and green light. Not yellow.
So if it is sensitive to either red or green, or both, but not to yellow, it will be fogged when you use your 'safe' light. No matter what a tri-colour theory would suggest yellow is.

 

[Toffle]

Moderators... please, this has become abusive.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Go away a few minutes and see what happens?

Actually, yellow in film capture consists of 2 photons with a Green energy level and a Red energy level, or one photon with an intermediate energy level between Red and Green captured in 2 layers. No photons with the Blue energy level are allowed. They are filtered out.

The same is pretty much true with the eye and in nature.

PE

 

[Q.G.]

Oh, so the color of a photon depends on the detector sensing it?

Who said that?

But yes, all sensors also sense themselves. They also determine the quality of the 'sensee' thyat is to be sensed by the sensor.
What do you want to make of it, i wonder.

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

That's 'anything goes' talk.
What's energy then, apart from whatever you want it to be?

Since when do photons have a wavelength or frequency?
But ignoring that, what is wavelength, frequency, apart from whatever you want it to be?

You could go down that road, and not be done talking for many years.
You could also assume some relation between observation and the observed.

 

[Q.G.]

Go away a few minutes and see what happens?

Actually, yellow in film capture consists of 2 photons with a Green energy level and a Red energy level, or one photon with an intermediate energy level between Red and Green captured in 2 layers. No photons with the Blue energy level are allowed. They are filtered out.

The same is pretty much true with the eye and in nature.

Then let me present you with that same question i have put to you a number of times before. The question you have avoided answering:
How do you explain the fact that emulsions are not blind to sodium light?

Blatant nonsense, your two photon/tri-colour theory.

 

[Alan Johnson]

It does appear the new Adox film is being coated on the former Agfa coating line. Presumeably this would be a big machine.
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/film_darkroom_gear/0109photokina_r/index1.html

 

[Tim Gray]

Who said that?

You did. I was referring to:

It's that correlation between their energy and how colour sensitive thingies treat them again.

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

That's 'anything goes' talk.
What's energy then, apart from whatever you want it to be?

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

 

[MaximusM3]

Then let me present you with that same question i have put to you a number of times before. The question you have avoided answering:
How do you explain the fact that emulsions are not blind to sodium light?

Blatant nonsense, your two photon/tri-colour theory.

You and Ron should do a video debate. Should be very entertaining

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp you see the spectrum of Sodium vapor at 600 nm. If you look at Kodak's web site here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf you will see that film typically has sensitivity at 600 nm. That is how a film can see the light of a Sodium lamp.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Then let me present you with that same question i have put to you a number of times before. The question you have avoided answering:
How do you explain the fact that emulsions are not blind to sodium light?

Blatant nonsense, your two photon/tri-colour theory.

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.

Q. G., Is it too complicated to show us how it works?

 

[Q.G.]

If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp you see the spectrum of Sodium vapor at 600 nm. If you look at Kodak's web site here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf you will see that film typically has sensitivity at 600 nm. That is how a film can see the light of a Sodium lamp.

PE

But is it:

"2 photons with a Green energy level and a Red energy level,"

or

"one photon with an intermediate energy level between Red and Green captured in 2 layers"

?

It's, of course, neither.