More Panasonic P&S perfection

Douglas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>>> NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
>>> approximations of reality.
>>
>> p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
>> perception.
>
> Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
> about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
> colours are "seen" differently by different people.

Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly believe
it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that it's a graduated
scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild' color vision deficiancy
or as you put it everyone sees colors a little differently.

On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they look
and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people became
used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".

jue
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Nov 17, 12:45 pm, John Navas <spamfilt... RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:44:13 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilt... RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in
> <3qhsj39ke88qgh85rm89sjpkd5bhh9e... RemoveThis @4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:17:04 -0800 (PST), Noons <wizofo... RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au>
> >wrote in
> ><9a08024d-37df-4026-bc9d-d5610d676... RemoveThis @s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>On Nov 15, 9:14 pm, "Sosumi" <sos... RemoveThis @home.nl> wrote:
>
> >>> > Now, what were you saying about red and yellow and panasonic?
>
> >>> > I can offer you a solution to your problem. It's commonly refered to
> >>> > as... RTFM. Custom functions, mate... That's what they are there for!
>
> >>> So? Where are the red and yellow bright flower close ups??
> >>> I do see the washed out skin tones and the washed out whites and skies. You
> >>> just end up proofing my point. Thanks!
>
> >>ah well:
> >>http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/John/Red.jpg
> >>for some true reds and about to be washed out skies!
> >>
> >>then again, it's film: it's got correct colours, without
> >>the need for filtering or PS adjustments...
>
> >NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
> >approximations of reality.
>
> p.s. That's true of the human eye as well,
> not to mention vision perception.
>

you mean the colours associated with
the voices are not reality?
awwwww...........




<g,d&r>
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

In rec.photo.digital "Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Douglas wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>>>> NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
>>>> approximations of reality.
>>>
>>> p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
>>> perception.
>>
>> Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
>> about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
>> colours are "seen" differently by different people.

> Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly believe
> it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that it's a graduated
> scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild' color vision deficiancy
> or as you put it everyone sees colors a little differently.

> On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
> magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they look
> and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people became
> used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".

Many people have eyes which see colours slightly differently. My left
eye is better with red, and my right with blue. My brain automatically
combines the best of both. Of course it's not accurate

--
Chris Malcolm cam.TakeThisOut@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On 2007-11-17 05:18:39 -0700, Chris Malcolm <cam.DeleteThis@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> said:

> In rec.photo.digital "Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Douglas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>>>>> NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
>>>>> approximations of reality.
>>>>
>>>> p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
>>>> perception.
>>>
>>> Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
>>> about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
>>> colours are "seen" differently by different people.
>
>> Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly
>> believe it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that
>> it's a graduated scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild'
>> color vision deficiancy or as you put it everyone sees colors a little
>> differently.
>
>> On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
>> magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they
>> look and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people
>> became used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".
>
> Many people have eyes which see colours slightly differently. My left
> eye is better with red, and my right with blue. My brain automatically
> combines the best of both. Of course it's not accurate

yes, but I'll bet you can enjoy #D movies without the glasses
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Nov 17, 10:18 pm, Chris Malcolm <c....DeleteThis@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital "Jurgen Exner" <jurge....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Douglas wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:45:05 +0000, John Navas wrote:
> >>>> NO image has "correct" colors -- ALL images are only rough
> >>>> approximations of reality.
>
> >>> p.s. That's true of the human eye as well, not to mention vision
> >>> perception.
>
> >> Curious you mention that John... There is a discussion on aus.photo
> >> about colours and density. It's nice to hear someone else mention
> >> colours are "seen" differently by different people.
> > Well, just consider the different forms of color-blindness. I firmly believe
> > it's not a black-and-white issue (no pun intended) but that it's a graduated
> > scale and virtually everyone has some sort of 'mild' color vision deficiancy
> > or as you put it everyone sees colors a little differently.
> > On top of that you have social conditioning from e.g. news papers and
> > magazines, where color prints have been oversatured for decades (they look
> > and sell better than those faded photos, don't they?) that people became
> > used to exaggerated colors and think they are "normal".
>
> Many people have eyes which see colours slightly differently. My left
> eye is better with red, and my right with blue. My brain automatically
> combines the best of both. Of course it's not accurate
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c....DeleteThis@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

All the more reason that we adopt the ICC industry standard that can
be physically calibrated, thus minimising the "perceptual" issues.
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:47:05 -0800 (PST), jockscottie.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>At least we DSLR owners don't have foul mouths like you. I own a Canon
>EOS 400D & use the Canon MP-E65 for my macro shots - works a treat.
>You stick to your primitive gear peasant and let we more wealthy,
>intelligent photographers use our DSLR's.

Now that's funny. Someone who is using technology that was invented over a
century ago (an 1884 camera design) that has been in production for over half a
century (1948-49), using a last-century light path and noisy, mechanical,
image-jarring, speed limited focal-plane shutter technology, having the
ignorance stupidity and gall to call 100% digital as primitive. LOL

You might want to look up what the word "primitive" means. Every time you pick
up your DSLR you're holding a perfect example of it.

Why would anyone expect any DSLR owner to be intelligent enough to know this.
They prove their lack of intelligence in their chosen camera, and again in any
comments they post online. (see above for yet another perfect example of their
ignorance and stupidity)
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection