On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 13:41, Jeff Spirer wrote: > At 01:34 AM 8/24/2004, wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >Real life is all about muted colours: it's flat. Traditional > >film spent too long chasing accuracy - we don't want that. We want spice! > > This is odd, many people have complained that film has been heading towards > an overly saturated look for the last fifteen years or so since Velvia was > introduced. Other than the need for low contrast, low saturation portrait > films, it's been all about the "spice." It's not new with digital. > > However, I'd argue that "accuracy" is irrelevant outside of scientific work > - for years, photography was black and white, hardly representative of the > real world, and much of photography has been seen as an "impression" of > things rather than the things themselves. This is an interesting point, I sometimes change colors in my digital pictures, just use the levels in gimp. I would move the colors do until I feel it is right. Sure the colors are not like they were in the moment I took the picture, but what exactly is precision? Different lights affect the colors in the picture, different light balances also do the trick. In the traditional pictures, each film has a different color curve, if you work with negative you end up doing a calibration in the moment you have to print the pictures. So my guess is since the eye adapts it self to diverse light conditions, so that what is white does seem white no matter where you are. Pictures don't have this advantage, if your light is to much distorted (like lights in a nocturne setting, illuminated by outdoors for instance), the colors you would get on the film would be one and the colors you experienced were others. Well, all this to say that I guess that perfection is what the photographer wants and not what is more precise.
