Re: [photo-3d] Accuracy Debate

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian Reynolds wrote:

> Pictures taken with filters (such as UV) that block light that is
> outside the human visual band could be said to be more "accurate" than
> those taken without.  After all the film is sensitive to wavelengths
> that human vision is not.
> 
> It all depends on your definition of "accuracy".  If you mean
> "corresponds with human visual limits", then using the blocking
> filters would be more "accurate".  If you mean "corresponds with the
> physical world" then everything is accurate when you take into account
> the response of the materials involved.

A stronger example along this line is a classic
one.  When using daylight film indoors with incandescent lamps,
photos will look very very yellow, much more than they seem to in
person. Using the same film, the colors seem much more
accurate in daylight.  Has the film's accuracy changed?
Of course, as everybody knows, it's our brain that has changed
perception of the color spectrum the eyes saw indoors, and the
light there "really" is much more yellow/orange, but our brain
"compensates" for that shift (partially).

Now to apply the questions to this statement of the classic
example:  when we use the standard filter to "correct" the
daylight film, is it really "correcting"?  In terms of human
perception, yes.  In terms of actual light spectra, it's
no.  But (question was coming...) when we speak of accuracy,
is it accuracy of the eye, of the brain, or of the actual spectra
(there are *three* choices)? I'd guess the eye probably "sees" the orange
version, so in terms of brainless  eye-accuracy, it'd be more accurate with
no filter, and an orange slide/print.  This seem right?

You think "ask Mike", he's brainless, he'll know the answer by just
looking"?  

Sigh....

Mike K.