Hi
This is a very interesting and enlightning thread posing a very
essential problem.
As far as I know (not very much by the way) The tricolour process is
using the limitatrions of the human eye to try to reproduce the same
stimulus to the brain.
From what I learned in my engeneering courses the most accurate method
to register colour is the Lippmann process but as far as I know it is
too difficult to use and requires absolute dimentional sability of the
emultion before and after development.
In theory it is able to register and reproduce any specific wavelength
even non visible ones provided a suitable detecting product.
Mr. Lippmann even received a nobel prize for this accomplishment.
Here are some quick links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippmann_plate
http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/1_early_photography_-_processes_-_lippmann.htm
A more in depth analisys:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1908ApJ....27..325I
And here is a derivative work for even reproducing 3d colour images.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5449597.html
Alberto
photoroy6@xxxxxxx escribió:
The eye does not see the whole scene at once. If you are looking at
the darker part of the forest your eye opens up and you see more
detail and more subtle contrast. When you look at a bright area of the
scene your eye closes down to see the highlights. What Ed is saying is
to make a photograph that has both areas rendered as the eye see them
which is some sense a heighten reality that the eye can not comprehend
in one look in the real world.
I have seen a detail photograph that have a tremendous depth of field
feeling that was created using 13 different exposures. It literally
seemed to have more depth than the real scene.
Roy
In a message dated 12/18/2009 5:39:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Ed, it is my understanding that all humans see colours very
differently. I'm not
sure then how you intend to 'accurately reproduce' what the human
eye sees?
Whose eyes? Yours? A panel of judges?
Is it then real art?
