a.RodriguezPix wrote:
im colorblind sadlyish im the deutro something?
Don't worry, we'll help you out. White balance on your avatar looks good, great skin tones
I know a fair number of colour blind people, actually, even some who do photography, and do well with it. I have always wondered what the world looks like with different eyes. The Himba video is fascinating. That they could instantly see the difference between two close shades of green, but have trouble between green and blue is just mind-blowing.
Edgars, that test is great! It turns out I have a small hole in my cyan-blue-green perception, and got a score of 4, all clustered together there (0 is perfect).
Actually I think I did it right and the test had a bug
^I think I did that test several times in the past and scored 4 every time I think. Made two mistakes in the yellow-orange range this time. The difficulty is that I can only see that there a square is out of order if I deliberately put it next to a wrong one, but if one of the adjacent ones was already out of order then you can be fooled (comparing with the wrong square).
carstenw wrote:
Impressionist?
Impressionist he isn't - he has gone through various stages and I don't even know where he is now . Here a sample of work recently finished (to get the bread on the table). Realism?:
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Impressionist he isn't - he has gone through various stages and I don't even know where he is now . Here a sample of work recently finished (to get the bread on the table). Realism?
Thank you! Jokes aside I have never thought about DR in oil paintings - I want to think you can get better DR in painting than in photography but I am not sure.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Thank you! Jokes aside I have never thought about DR in oil paintings - I want to think you can get better DR in painting than in photography but I am not sure.
You do your own tone mapping - anythig is possible!
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Thank you! Jokes aside I have never thought about DR in oil paintings - I want to think you can get better DR in painting than in photography but I am not sure.
The DR (static contrast) of reflective media such as paint on canvas is probably lower than any computer screen. You can compress or stretch the DR of any scene as much as you want though. Like jotdeh says, you do your own tonemapping.
What this means is... there is only so much you can do improving the sensor... Beyond that it will be all in camera/post processing. Human eye/brain are the pinnacle where the camera systems can reach
The plasticity of human color perception can never be isolated in angular parts of our sphere of conscience.
Even the outer parts of our vision, that are mainly handled by our reptilian brains via either the ventral stream or direct connection, have a profound effect on how we perceive the more detailed central parts of your visual impression. Things and color schemes or patches that don't correlate can have a very disturbing effect, and will also (until a habitual resistance has had the chance to build).
The type of color vision tests like the x-rite link above (and also Ishihara tests) are mainly a test of your limbic/neocortex detail discrimination. The isolate your angle of interest to a smaller central part of your normal vision impression.
This is good for detail studies and more "single item" inspections.
It's not so good when the isolated item (or detail) has to be considered in the CONTEXT of a surrounding area.
One problem with inspecting pictures for sharpening issues on a webpage like this is that you have a direct peripheral impression of very high contrast in high spatial frequencies (high contrast small text, lines and graphics) right next to it. This increases the need for "apparent sharpness" in the image.
Viewed in isolation - as a print on a blank wall or as a singe image in a full-screen mode on a computer - your "need" for sharpness diminishes. All the contrast are "higher than the ones surrounding it", so you adapt your visual impression to that.
The same goes for color. Unless you're REALLY sure about your monitor calibration and whitepoint, you should never work in a dark environment. If you do, always check your results "by the number" also.
Skintones have a certain range of "in context" acceptable values. Magenta never bigger than cyan in CMYK, a channel equal or smaller than b channel in Lab and so on (both has to be whitepoint transposed to work correctly). There are lots of good guidelines out there. Find one that works for you.
Neutrality also has a range of "in context" acceptable values. We generally accept 30-50 Mired differences as "just a slight tone shift", but anything larger than this will force your brain to take the image "out of context" and view it in isolation to get a correct color impression.
AhamB wrote:
The DR (static contrast) of reflective media such as paint on canvas is probably lower than any computer screen. You can compress or stretch the DR of any scene as much as you want though. Like jotdeh says, you do your own tonemapping.
Static contrast on print can be estimated by the density values (if you have DMax and DMin values for your paper/ink combination).
It's usually between 1:80 (6Ev, matte paper average quality ink) and 1:250 (8Ev, gloss paper, high density inks).
If you see a print in GOOD light (500Lux and up) that means that a very good print will have about 1.5Ev less of DR than a good screen viewed in dimmed surroundings. But DR is not important in this case, since your perceived tonal resolution on the substrate is way larger than needed anyway. The amount of tones you can discriminate between in a print is only very slightly smaller than the ones on a screen - and they vary with illumination.
DR is not equal to tone resolution, though it has an impact on one end of the tonal resolution (mainly in the shadow range).
A good LARGE print, viewed from a distance when well illuminated, has a tonal resolution way larger than what your eye can resolve. As long as the DR of the print is reasonably well contained (not to much smaller, not to much just in one end of the range) of the surrounding DR you'll never find the print as a limiting factor.
The reason we have backlit commercial signs is that they have to dominate the surrounding area's DR in as many use cases as possible (to maximize visual impact and readability) and the only way to do that is to kill the surrounds with sh*tloads of light energy. In sunlight - no difference, the reflectance makes the sign equal to the surrounds. In weaker lights, the back-illumination makes sure that surrounding artificial lights don't kill your contrast perception on the sign.
Remember how bright and intense the colours looked when we were kids? That is because they were...to our sensory system that degenerates with age...and also...with neglect. After time if a particular set of colour receptors are not regularly stimulated they become less efficient.
The opposite it true......eskimos have been shown to be able to discriminate something like 25 (that sort of number) shades of white snow...each with a different name and characteristic.
Of course we all know that colour of an object changes as the ambient light changes..and the climate....and the seasons.....which is why the quest for the perfectly calibrated colour setup is futile in my opinion. And who wants it anyway? Since the photographic image is only a representation of what faced the camera when the shutter was released.....we (like countless painters throughout history) have the option to define how the image comes out...and that means choosing what colours are pleasing to us.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Googling I found this test for Color Acuity http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?pageid=77&lang=en. I suppose the result will depend on the quality of your monitor to some degree. To my surprise I got excellent result!
I get a perfect score. About 20 or 30 people took that here about 2 years back. I got perfect scores then too. I think there were on;y like 2 or 3 others out of those 20 or 30 folks who did. But almost everyone scored very high.
im the deutro something?
