civilized ku # 2092 ~ seeing red / or any color for that matter

Fire hydrant in the snow ~ Ray Brook, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOn the entry, civilized ku # 2085, Colin Griffiths made the somewhat odd (to my way of thinking) statement:

I really suspect that there is something different about the way you and I see the colour red. To my eyes (an on my carefully calibrated Spectraview screen), your reds usually look closer to orange than I would expect given the subject matter. I'm really not criticizing, just observing!

My response: First, let me state that I am not criticizing his statement. If he is seeing closer-to-orange reds on his well calibrated monitor, I believe him. IMO, there is absolutely no disputing his statement. Although, it is worth noting that the ice rink stairs picture accompanying civilized ku # 2085, on which he made his comment, contains no real red - the EXIT sign is backlit by a tungsten light which I did not correct for in converting / processing the picture. Therefore, it does appear to have an orange-ish color cast.

However, on my well calibrated monitor (gretagmacbeth - Eye-One), after checking quite a number of my pictures with red referents, I see reds with considerable variations in shade/hue. Some have significant yellow content - taking them closer to the orange-ish (but still red) - while others have little yellow content - taking them closer to a more "pure" red. And, the red and green content vary considerably, as well*.

I checked the red color numbers in a number of my pictures to verify what I already knew - the color red has a considerable number of variations / hues. FYI, the so-called "pure red" as indicated in the PS Swatches Palette reads by the numbers* as 204R / 34G / 41B, which, in the CMYK world of inkjet color printers, reads as 1%C / 99%M / 97%Y / 0%K** (nearly equal parts M and Y). Whereas, the fire hydrant in the picture accompanying this entry reads as (depending upon where you place the cursor) 127R / 31G / 47B, Although, in different parts of the hydrant the numbers can vary quite a bit.

Numbers aside, there are several reasons why I consider Colin's statement to be "somewhat odd" (but, let me emphasize, in no way "wrong")...

When viewing pictures on the web, there are too many variables which make judging color to be a somewhat risky business. Some, but not all, of those variables include: different monitors and how each displays color; different monitor calibrations / settings (as an example, D50, D65, or D70 standards) and how those effect how colors are displayed; different browsers and how each displays colors; sRGB versus AdobeRGB settings (both monitor and jpeg settings); and, viewing environment lighting conditions and variables.

Even when viewing prints, lighting conditions matter, re: the perception of color. The only tried and true method of viewing color is under the printing industry standard of 5000K (daylight) illumination. And that is how I judge color in my pictures. While I trust how my monitor displays color, to my eye and sensibilities, the proof is in the print-based pudding because, for me, the print is the thing. All of my color RAW conversion / processing is performed with the print in mind and the web be damned.

So, all of that said, I don't put a whole lot of stock in what I see (color wise) on the web. IMO, those pictures are mere simulacra of the real thing, aka: the print. Which of course, is also a mere simulacra of the the real thing, aka: the real world,

But then, according to Baudrillard, in postmodern culture our society has become so reliant on models and maps (pictures are both maps and models) that we have lost all contact with the real world that preceded the map. Reality itself has begun merely to imitate the model, which now precedes and determines the real world.

So, why get hung up on red?

*color content is measured by the numbers using the PS Info window - the single most important PS color tool. Numbers don't lie.

**current inkjet printers have expanded upon the CMYK color world to include additional inks such as (but not limited to), light/vivid magenta, light cyan, orange, green and multiple shades of black (K).

Comments

[Colin Griffiths]

I don't think I explained myself very well, please excuse me! It's not a matter of the technical nature of the colour red in the way you have described in such a logical fashion (and I have no doubt that your analysis is 100% correct). Rather, that you have an ability to notice and capture red objects in such a manner that makes them appear ( -to my eyes at least- )almost incongruous within the image. Don't get me wrong, I really like what you do but I don't think that I personally ever see red within a scene like you do. Consequently, when I look at your images, it's as if you are pointing something out to me that I'd never noticed before.

Here are some examples:
The cone in the fourth image of http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2012/2/11/fyi-race-results.html

And again:
http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2012/1/3/civilized-ku-2034-40-all-of-a-piece.html

http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2011/12/5/civilized-ku-2009-the-life-of-objects.html

Rear vehicle lights
http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2011/12/5/civilized-ku-2008-rentless-fidelity.html

I could go on, but I'm now starting to convince myself that I must have deficient vision! :) I've wondered a few times whether it's a particular type of object and whether in the US they are more florescent and orange-red than in the UK. I also know how careful you are to portray objects "as they are" so I know that its not a case of you editing in order to make something stand out more. So in the end, I come back to my original "odd" statement that I still think I see reds different to the way you do!