Hmm, being addicted to photography, we're of course tempted to assume that the eye was primarily created for us to produce and appreciate art. But, seen from a scientific point of view,isn't an eye just an organ developed to grant its possessor an evolutionary advantage? Even plants can detect the direction from which light falls on them and adjust accordingly. For just about any organism, the most important function of any eye would be to find food and avoid becoming food for others, I assume, followed by the need to find a mate and to communicate. Consequently, our eyes are quite sensitive for green as this happens to be the colour of plants using chlorophyll to convert sunlight into usable energy. Maybe, if they used a slightly different molecule, our eyes would be optimised for a slightly different spectrum? I assume that any "alien" would be adapted to his/her/its/? environment, depending on the light spectrum emitted by the local star(s), the availability of chemical elements and the course of the evolution on their world. Perhaps, those aliens would find beauty in a certain balance of colours and a geometry relevant to their species and find it difficult to relate to our concepts. Just a thought, Laurenz http://www.travelphoto.net/ 2009/11/9, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > DDB, > > That poses an interesting problem. What kind of pigments would a > non-human use? I'm think something in UV range made from fluorescing > minerals or something like that. There are some artist pigments that > change colors depending on angle of light. Looks way-cool in gallery. > Move your head a bit and what was one color changes to another. I'll see > if I can find example from a gallery show we had last spring. > > AZ > > LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 > GET FREE COPY > Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! > The Lookaround E-Book 5ed. > http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Imaginary colors Speculation >> From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> >> Date: Sun, November 08, 2009 12:39 pm >> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students >> <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote: >> > In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, >> > dd-b@xxxxxxxx writes:Your first two sentences may be tautologically >> > true (if you're asserting >> > that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless. >> > >> > >> > Now I titled my email "Imaginary colors Speculation" What I am saying >> > is that there is no colors that we don't see (as a group). That there >> > is no new color you can get by other means. When bats view sound waves >> > if they see this as color it is of our spectrum but I suspect there >> > brain senses sound waves as some sort of pattern. >> > There is no point in searching for other colors. >> At least short of brain modification, surgically or through genetic >> engineering. >> Not that I'm volunteering to be a test subject!!!! >> There was an interesting bit in a very fine SF novel not mostly about >> sight (this was just a side detail), where it became relevant dealing >> with an alien species that they used different pigments in their visual >> receptors than we did. Hence blended colors, which is to say nearly all >> reproduced images and even original paintings, looked different to them >> than they did to us. Their artists were talking about trying to figure >> out how to paint for a human audience. >> -- >> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ >> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ >> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ >> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info > >
