Re: Characterize Digital Camera Color

[Ruey <tmi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Trevor Cunningham wrote:
> I'm sorry if my original mention of tri-color gum wasn't as scientific 
> as required by your expertise. After going back and reading your 
> original post, I found a host of other reasons that would clearly show 
> gum as a distraction avoiding your purpose of an in-camera solution. 
> While I was crass, though accurate, with the alchemy reference, I 
> prefer to think of it as a defensive blade.
>
> Ruey wrote:
> > > > Color processes like gum bichromate seem to color as pictorialism 
> > > > was to the potential of photography to render subjects accurately - 
> > > > I have heard these called "a way for folks who have trouble holding 
> > > > a brush steady to imagine they are painters." Paintings that 
> > > > attempt to be photographs seem to disappoint as much as photographs 
> > > > that attempt to emulate painting. There is probably a value in 
> > > > both, but there is also a value in creating images that very 
> > > > accurately record color as was once done with dye transfers.
> >  Rather than abuse my interest in obtaining accurate reproduction of 
> > color why not just keep silent if the posting does not interest you?
> >
> > Ed Scott
Can I ask you a question? How is it that what I said caused you to 
despise me so vehemently? Do you find yourself disliking anyone who 
______? You fill in the blank for me so I can learn something from you. 
What is your profession and what are your interests? Do you teach? I 
really, honestly have nothing against gum and have done it in the past. 
It is just that I am intrigued by images that very accurately record the 
color of the subjects they photograph. I am especially interested in 
Prokudin-Gorsky's photos because he was so far ahead of his time and 
because he could master what was then emerging science and art. Do his 
words in the Leo Tolstoy portrait web topic offend you too? I am really 
curious.

Ed