> > > ... No doubt there are drawbacks to this technique, but it seems > > like a > > reasonably good way of getting an objective answer to your question, > > and a more balanced approach than applying a quick fix filter. ... > > Yes, setting color values by number actually does work well, > presuming you understand the scene characteristics. The drawback to
> this kind of technique moves beyond the science of accuracy and > measurement, where it works very well, to the realm of aesthetic > values ... the goal in making color adjustments is to obtain a > pleasing rendering, which are often not "accurate" in a > technical sense. > Yes, I'm sure you're right. The problem for colourblind people, though, is that something that looks ok to us can look absurd to other people. "Why is the sky yellow, Bob?". When the intention is to show something as realistically as possible then colourblind people have few options. Incidentally, I don't necessarily agree that the goal is to obtain a pleasing rendering, but then one can easily get into a long discussion about realism versus aesthetics. That's for some other time and some other thread. > For instance, most photographers find a small percentage > extra yellow > or red in a portrait makes a much more pleasing photo than > accurately > portraying the cool tones of a blue sky's reflection in highlights > and skin tones. > The photographer Terence Donovan (or perhaps it was David Bailey) has been quoted as justifying their overuse of warm filters by saying "whoever heard of a f-cking client complaining because their picture was too warm?", so clearly you have something there. But the technique Margulis describes appears to work for all kinds of skin tones too. Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
