Date   

Re: The terminology thread 3: Photoshopped and Doctored

Henry Davis
 

Alice found herself in quite a world . . .

The alarming thing about this kind of mass deception is that the mere possibility of something is now enough to give it credibility. A number of times I’ve heard this, or something similar, as a response when a news source has been caught: “it could have happened”. Possibility has itself achieved an ontological status. This is a new low for truth lovers. Photoshop along with other technical advances has helped to bring us to this point.

“It could have happened”, “it’s possible that this may be the case”, “it has been said”. That's all garbage. If something is only a possibility that should be said in the frist place. As for unnamed sources - expect more and more anonymous people and entities influencing our decisions.

Is the number of people persuaded by this kind prevarication on the increase? Is that why photoshopping and the like are on the increase? Is it because it works? Of course it works and because of an assumed honesty photography has gained a broader influence. Like any tool, Photoshop can find itself in the hands of deceptive people.

Humpty Dumpty’s exchange with Alice brings to mind this saying: “it isn’t pretty being easy”. One might expand that from the individual to say that a society is pretty or ugly and that's tied directly to how easily it is decieved.

Who can be trusted to assign Pinocchios for news photos? Is trust even possible?

Deception can’t be stopped, it can only be pointed out.

Henry Davis

On Mar 1, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Dan Margulis via Groups.Io <dmargulis=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
<Snip>

Recently a right-wing U.S. congressman put out some advertising supporting Trump’s tougher line on Iran and accusing Obama of having been too soft on that country. He illustrated it with a photo of a smiling Obama shaking hands with a smiling president of Iran.
. . .
The handshake never took place. The Iranian had been pasted into a real photo of Obama shaking hands with somebody else.
. . .
Certainly there is no dispute that the Obama picture was not just falsified but was intended to deceive.
. . .
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Dan Margulis


The terminology thread 3: Photoshopped and Doctored

Dan Margulis
 

Recently a right-wing U.S. congressman put out some advertising supporting Trump’s tougher line on Iran and accusing Obama of having been too soft on that country. He illustrated it with a photo of a smiling Obama shaking hands with a smiling president of Iran.

The handshake never took place. The Iranian had been pasted into a real photo of Obama shaking hands with somebody else. Confronted with the proof, the politician would not apologize. “Nobody said it wasn’t Photoshopped,” he retorted.

The quaint idea that campaign photos should be considered falsified unless explicitly stated otherwise prompted a newspaper to investigate the entire topic. They apparently did not wish to use the word Photoshopped so they substituted doctored. I personally understand these two terms to mean the same thing, but as the article demonstrates, they are used in vague ways in the real world.

Certainly there is no dispute that the Obama picture was not just falsified but was intended to deceive. The article cited a similar example, this time of a Republican; her opponents altered an image to have her extending her middle finger at, presumably, all of us.

These two were clumsily done and wouldn’t have fooled any of us, I don’t think. They might fool a less sophisticated audience, which is why everyone condemns them and calls them doctored or Photoshopped.

Unfortunately, these terms get thrown around too loosely, which the newspaper was guilty of. One topic that did not come up, but which has come up several times on this list, is the amount of retouching and sharpening applied to the faces of politicians. This was particularly controversial in the presidential campaign of 2008, where each side alleged that certain magazine reproductions of the candidates’ faces were made to look particularly good or bad by choice of retouching technique. 

In one case the allegation was true. A photographer admitted that she had deliberately lit a cover portrait of the late John McCain to make him look unappealing and had followed it up with retouching to emphasize it. The magazine used the shot but refused to pay for it when they found out. Is that a doctored image? Hard to say. But in all the other cases the magazines retorted that they were just applying the normal kinds of retouching that they would to any face. Unless we can read minds, it’s hard to argue with them—but people called them doctored and Photoshopped just the same.

Then there are the following categories, campaign trickery that has been around far longer than computers have.
*Running cartoons or other caricatures of the opponent.
*If a photograph of the opponent must appear, choosing the most unflattering one possible.
*Taking something the opponent said out of context, so as to attribute a belief to him that he doesn’t actually hold.

I don’t take any of these to be doctoring or Photoshopping even if there’s some peripheral involvement with a computer. The article seems to disagree. It shows two disagreeable images of Nancy Pelosi, a frequent target of the right wing—but nobody would ever believe that these images were real, the way they might with the Obama shot. No, there was no attempt to deceive. These are political cartoons that happen be based on photographs, not, as the article would have it, doctored images.

I don’t want to trash the article further but note that politicians themselves can be just as sloppy. A couple of weeks ago one Democratic candidate for president attacked another for, he said, having circulated a “doctored video” attacking him. My ears pricked up at this, because I thought he was talking about something along the lines of a video circulated by the White House last year, altered subtly to suggest that a reporter was behaving aggressively at a news conference. But no, this one merely was a snip taken out of context to falsely suggest that the candidate took a certain position.

I can tell the candidate that this happens to color authors, too. But the video snippet itself, though used unethically, had not been altered, not doctored.

To sum up my three posts on terminology in our field, accurate use is a worthy goal, but… 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Dan Margulis


List Rules and Objectives

Dan Margulis
 

Applied Color Theory list
General Description and Rules
(This document is posted monthly)

THE MOVE TO GROUPS.IO
In November 2019, this list moved from yahoogroups to groups.io. The yahoo group will remain open due to the large number of links to it. All message and file archives have been moved to the new group.

The main changes that we have noted so far:
*A member now has the ability to “mute” a thread or hashtag so that additions to it will no longer be received. Also, a member who uses Digest mode or does not normally receive e-mails can override the setting and receive a certain thread or hashtag.
*Attachments of images etc. within posts are now allowed.
*Although the archive of messages from yahoogroups has been transferred, the numbering system is no longer the same. Therefore, searching for a message based on a number found in another yahoogroups message won’t work. Search for an appropriate text stream, if there is one, instead.
*A more flexible suite of moderation tools enables us to allow many messages to get to the list immediately, without moderator intervention.
*Hashtags are now supported although we haven’t done anything to implement them.
*We are now an open group. The general public can read our messages. This was not the case at yahoogroups.
*Due to it becoming overcrowded, I have reorganized the Files section. All content from 2015 and previous is now in a subfolder. Furthermore, the many Actions that were uploaded in that timeframe have been put in their own sub-subfolder.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this list is to exchange information that may benefit those who have taken or are considering taking my Applied Color Theory courses, or who are interested in techniques covered in my books, plus related topics. This roughly comprises color correction and other methods that aim at creating satisfactory images, normally for print purposes, occasionally elsewhere.

ANONYMOUS POSTS PROHIBITED
Our tradition is that all messages to this group must be signed with the member's full name. First names only or "handles" are not acceptable, nor is quoting an anonymous third party. We request that you configure groups.io to include your full name automatically as the sender of any message. That will insure that each post will have your name at the top and make it unnecessary for you to sign the post. If you don’t do this, you risk having your posts rejected or having your moderation status changed if you forget to add your signature.

To implement this, find whatever your current name is in the upper right of the groups.io site, click/hold and choose your Account settings. Then, on the left side, click Identity. On the resulting screen choose Account Profile: Edit. On the next screen change Display Name to your own full name, followed by Update Account Profile.

Alternatively, if you are using other groups.io groups, you can create a group-specific signature line that will apply to everything you post.

There are certain valid reasons why a list member might wish to avoid signing his name. For example, the late Ralph Adam Fine was an appeals court judge. He had to be exceedingly cautious about anything he posted, therefore he normally went through me. Others have been granted anonymity because what they posted reflected badly on a boss or a client. 

In such cases, please forward the message to me and I will post it if appropriate with a note of explanation and I will, if appropriate, post it the name deleted. If a person has been granted anonymity, I always use “he” on second reference, regardless of the poster’s actual gender. Persons who have been granted anonymity will not be permitted to attack other list members by name. 

PLEASE SNIP YOUR QUOTES
Many e-mail programs by default append a complete copy of the message being replied to. Unless that message is a short one, the practice is inappropriate for our group. It becomes a particular problem when the appended message itself appends another. Please be sure that the length of any message being appended is appropriate compared to your own original content.

CROSS-POSTINGS TO OTHER GROUPS
It is a breach of etiquette for list members to post the same question to multiple on-line groups simultaneously. People who answer questions on these lists are often experts in the field who are donating generous amounts of their time to assisting those who need guidance. Nobody wants to waste time responding to a question that's already been satisfactorily answered elsewhere.

Instead, please post the question here or to whatever other group you think is most likely to be helpful. If you haven't gotten an answer you can live with in, say, 48 hours, by all means try a different list. In such a case, it's only courteous to say something like "I have tried the XXX list, and got no reply" or "I asked this on the YYY list, and was told ZZZ, I'm not sure I accept this, would anyone here care to comment?" 

POSTING OF IMAGES and FILES
If you need to refer us to an image, and do not wish to link to some other site, please put it (JPEG only, can be CMYK) into the Photos section of the group, setting up a folder if need be. NOTE: As of this writing we have not yet activated user access to these sections.

If you need to post a PDF, an action, or any other type of file that is not an image, use the Files section. Unlike yahoogroups, groups.io will not permit you to post a JPEG or anything else that it identifies as an image there. In the event that you have to post some form of image in the Files section, you’ll need to zip it first.

If you only have one or two images to post, and they don’t belong in a specific folder, please put them into the Miscellaneous folder within the Photos section.

Some folders set up by the moderators are locked, i.e. you can look at, download, and comment on pictures, but not add or delete any. Other folders are open and anyone can post pictures to them.

The direct link to our Photos section is
The direct link to our Files section is

In the transfer process from yahoogroups, all the dates associated with the Photos archive were lost, but they have now been reinstated manually.

AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP
English is not the first language for many subscribers. If you are using acronyms, please be sure that everyone understands what they mean. Also, the preferred format for dates is 5 March; if you write 3/5/12 this means March 5 in the United States, but it means May 3 in most of the rest of the world.

ADVERTISING and COMMERCIAL POSTS
Nobody wants this to become an advertising list, but in practice it is difficult to draw a fine line between a comment and a product plug. Members are requested to use restraint and to ask themselves whether what they are posting is something that a significant number of readers would be interested in. That said, brief plugs are permitted. Similarly, new product announcements are permitted, but the preferred form is to announce briefly and indicate to the list members where further information is available.

Repeated commercial posts are prohibited. Also, there will be little to no tolerance for commercial posts from persons who are not otherwise participating in the list. This includes "public service announcements" or posts promoting private websites.

Unnecessarily lengthy signature blocks that advertise services are discouraged.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Members are entitled to know if posters have commercial affiliations that might affect their views as to the products and topics they post about. If you have such an affiliation, you are expected to disclose it. This doesn't mean in every post, but often enough so that the readers will be in no doubt as to what your biases might be. For the purpose of this list, if you're writing about a certain product, and you've accepted more than $300 from that company within the last five years, that's something that should be disclosed. Similarly, if you have received freebies worth more than $300 during that time, it should be disclosed.

Furthermore, if you in the last five years have been a developer of or otherwise represented a certain product, and you are writing about a product that might reasonably said to compete with it, you are expected to disclose this.

These rules are not intended to stop you from posting on whatever you like, nor are they intended to force you to give any details at all about the payment. If your signature or company identification (e.g. an adobe.com address) makes your affiliation obvious, there's no need for anything more. Otherwise, a "DISCLOSURE: I have received payments/freebies from this company in the recent past" will suffice.

DIGEST MODE
Members who do not want a high volume of single messages may sign up for this list in digest mode. groups.io offers three choices:
1) Full-featured: you get a full copy of all messages sent, including links and attachments, once a day or after 12 new messages have been posted, whichever comes first.
2) Plain digest: same as above, no links or attachments.
3) Daily summary: once a day, shows topics being discussed only, no text.

You are not permitted to reply directly to a Digest file, because groups.io doesn’t want you to append the whole digest to your reply. Your own e-mail client may seem to allow it, but your attempt will be directed to a dead mailbox at groups.io. Instead, within the Digest, click Reply below the specific message that you wish to reply to.

MODERATION AND INAPPROPRIATE POSTS
This list is moderated, currently by five persons. Traditionally, all posts had to be approved by one of us (Gerald Bakker, Darren Bernaerdt, Sterling Ledet, Dan Margulis, Stephen Marsh), before they were distributed to the group.  With groups.io we implement a more liberal policy: the first post from any member requires moderator approval (otherwise we might be subjected to spam) but once one message has been approved the user may post directly to the list without our intervention.

That said, we anticipate that certain users will remain subject to moderation due to having crossed the line on one of the items listed below. Additionally, certain threads will become subject to moderation if they threaten to get out of control.

If you are subject to moderation we will reject the following types of message without prior warning. If you are not currently subject to moderation, posting one of these is a good way to change that status. NOTE: If we reject a post, we send a message to the sender indicating why. If your post hasn't appeared, and you haven't gotten a rejection message, probably the message got lost in cyberspace.

1) Spam; press releases, product announcements or "classified advertising" from people who haven't participated in the list in at least six months or who are recent signups; form letters; posts from people who don't otherwise participate in the list referring us to private websites; and posts from anyone referring us to links without a reasonably full explanation of what is to be found there.

2) Messages in which a full name does not appear.

3) Messages that do not have an informative title, e.g. "No Subject" or "Digest #1234"

4) Messages responding to messages that are extremely dated or that the rest of the list has not seen at all. Typically, this occurs when Party B replies to Party A offline, and Party A responds to the list.

5) Messages that would subject the group to an unreasonable amount of quoted material, such as reposting lengthy, unedited material from other sources, the attachment of a complete message which itself attached additional messages, or simply appending an entire lengthy message rather than snipping the specific material that is of interest.

6) Technical questions that the moderator is aware are simultaneously crossposted to other group(s). The moderator will generally not approve other types of simultaneous crossposts but may use discretion in exceptional cases.

7) Messages that contain a copyright notice or may present legal problems if posted to the group. 

8) Messages that may be hoaxes.

9) Messages containing attempts at ethnic or sexual humor, whether or not there is other relevant content.

10) Other attempts at humor that the moderator doesn't think are funny and that contain no content relevant to an existing thread.

11) Messages that are derisive or dismissive of another member’s skills in photography or color correction. Constructive criticism is welcome but must be framed in a respectful fashion, even if the person being criticized is a beginner.

12) "Repeats" of recent posts hoping to get responses that the first ones did not.

13) Messages from persons who have been list members for less than six months or who have not posted to the list in the past six months, and which in the judgment of the moderator show a lack of understanding of what the list is about or which duplicate something that has been covered recently. Examples: questions like "how do I calibrate my monitor?"; messages of introduction to the list; questions on topics in which the list does not specialize, and questions on a topic about which a thread has just ended.

14) Messages that do not respond to an existing thread and have nothing to do with color or the purposes of this group, e.g. corrections of people's grammar, needless quibbling over terminology or political correctness, statements in support of some political cause, attempts to unsubscribe, virus warnings, or change of address notifications.

15) Today's web etiquette countenances certain acronyms (e.g. POS, FUBAR, SOL, BFD) where an off-color word is implied. As long as these words are not spelled out there is no objection. In the interest of decorum, however, we ask members to refrain from undisguised use of locutions found on the commonly available "Seven Filthy Words" list.

MODERATION AND CENSORSHIP
We do not wish to censor posts based on their content or to cause people to pull their punches in what they write. We are willing to have reasonably brief threads on almost any color-related topic. Intervention by a moderator to restrict discussion is rare. It will become even rarer in groups.io, since now members have the option of muting a thread that doesn’t interest them. However, it may take place under the following circumstances.

1. If in the judgment of the moderators, a thread is going on too long, we will post publicly to the list and to all participants a request to bring it to a close. Our criteria in doing this may include: limited interest of the thread to the vast majority of the group; repetition of the same points over and over; participation only by a few members; or that there was a closely similar recent thread. Unless the list is being deluged, the moderators try to consult with one another before locking a thread. Ordinarily we give the list 24 hours notice that a thread will be ending so that those interested may post their final thoughts on the subject. In the interim, all posts to the thread will require moderator approval. Afterward, the thread will be locked so that no further posts can be accepted. 

2. Occasionally a thread has become so acid that a moderator posts a warning about civility, or about bringing in irrelevancies such as discussion of political events. In such cases the thread continues, but all additions to the thread will require moderator approval, and the list is on notice that offending posts are subject to rejection at the discretion of the moderators.

3. We reserve the right to limit the sheer volume of posting allowed by any list member or by any interest group that is posting substantially the same type of material.

ARCHIVING
This group has existed since 2/99, but in late 12/00 it shifted servers to egroups, later yahoogroups. In 11/19, it moved to groups,io. All yahoogroups messages, files, and photos are accessible at colortheory.groups.io. Note, however, that the yahoogroups message numbering scheme did not carry over to groups.io. Therefore, any archived message that refers to a different one by number will not link to the correct message. Search by text instead.

From time to time, we have post edited full threads, at
There are currently around 300 such threads available. The most recent update was August, 2013. 

THE MODERNCOLORWORKFLOW SITE
My book Modern Photoshop Color Workflow was released in March, 2013. In conjunction with it, we opened http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com, which has a variety of materials that might supplement the discussions of this list.

RE-USE OF POSTED MATERIAL
In today's information age, the assumption must be that comments posted to groups like this one are for public consumption, and may be freely quoted by others without further permission. Images referred to in group messages, whether posted to this group's photo section or posted on the web sites of others, are a different story. Such images are assumed to be copyrighted material, and no reuse is permissible without the consent of the owner.

AUTO-REPLIES
If you auto-reply to e-mail (typically to inform people that you are on vacation), be sure that the list is excluded. Among other ways, you can do this by setting your auto-reply to ignore either messages containing [colortheory] in the title, or "Precedence: bulk" in the header. If you auto-reply more than once to list messages, your posting privileges will be suspended so that moderators will not have to delete each auto-reply manually. If you subsequently wish to post to the list and receive an automated reply that you are not permitted to post, please contact a moderator.

QUESTIONS AS TO APPROPRIATENESS
If you have doubts as to the propriety of posting something, please feel free to contact me or another moderator directly.

UNSUBSCRIBING and POSTING DIFFICULTIES
Every list message contains an Unsubscribe link at the bottom. If you have any difficulty in either unsubscribing or in posting to the group, consider the possibility that you are no longer posting or receiving under the exact address with which you subscribed. 

If you attempt to post and receive a message stating that, although you are a member, you are not permitted to post, it means that a moderator has manually disallowed your posting privileges. We do this to members who have sent spam (often the result of a virus) or who have set their mailbox to auto-reply to the group explaining that they are out of the office. If you get this message and wish your rights restored, contact a moderator offline.

To change your email address, log into Groups.io. Then look for the dropdown in the top right corner of the page, which will be either your name or email address. Click that and then click Account.

On the edit profile page, you can change your email address. Once you do so, you will receive a new confirmation email. Once you reply to that, you will be all set.

If the email address you wish to change to is already registered with Groups.io, a page will come up explaining the account merge process and verifying that you would like to merge your accounts.


LEDET GRAPHICS TRAINING
This list is sponsored by Ledet Graphics Training, which offers a variety of Internet and graphic arts courses, with company-owned facilities in the Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington, DC areas. For further information, visit www.ledet.com or call 877-819-2665 (+1 770-414-5007 from outside U.S.)


Dan Margulis
Last revised 20 February 2020
Suggestions for revising this document are welcome.


Re: Question on Chevreul item #76

Rex Waygood
 

Oh, I saw that and thought I could not be first………… :-)
Rex

On 29 Feb 2020, at 21:06, Dan Margulis via Groups.Io <dmargulis@...> wrote:


On Feb 27, 2020, at 9:00 PM, lisanh1@... wrote:

I just got my book delivered today and read through Chapter One.  Maybe I'll find the answer further along, but I thought that I would ask anyway:  I am confused by a sentence in Chevreul's #76 in chapter one, on p. 12  second column first full paragraph where he states: "I will assume that orange is composed of red and yellow and that blue is composed of green and yellow,...."  I can't think of any additive or subtractive color or RGB, CMYK, or Lab color spaces that makes blue from green and yellow.  I know that any preschooler given finger paints makes green from blue and yellow.  Is Chevreul's statement an error or is there something to making blue from green and yellow from a different way of understanding?  Thanks.  

Chevreul did not get it wrong, but I did. Somehow I inverted the words. It should read “that green is composed of blue and yellow.”

Congratulations, you get the first notation in the errata page we keep at 

Thanks very much for catching it!

Dan Margulis



Re: Question on Chevreul item #76

Dan Margulis
 


On Feb 27, 2020, at 9:00 PM, lisanh1@... wrote:

I just got my book delivered today and read through Chapter One.  Maybe I'll find the answer further along, but I thought that I would ask anyway:  I am confused by a sentence in Chevreul's #76 in chapter one, on p. 12  second column first full paragraph where he states: "I will assume that orange is composed of red and yellow and that blue is composed of green and yellow,...."  I can't think of any additive or subtractive color or RGB, CMYK, or Lab color spaces that makes blue from green and yellow.  I know that any preschooler given finger paints makes green from blue and yellow.  Is Chevreul's statement an error or is there something to making blue from green and yellow from a different way of understanding?  Thanks.  

Chevreul did not get it wrong, but I did. Somehow I inverted the words. It should read “that green is composed of blue and yellow.”

Congratulations, you get the first notation in the errata page we keep at 

Thanks very much for catching it!

Dan Margulis


The terminology thread 2: the words we used

Dan Margulis
 

My original question was aimed at showing that we shouldn’t rely on strict definitions of terms because we can’t know whether others, particularly nonprofessionals, will understand what we mean by them. I’ll confess to being pleasantly surprised by the relative precision of what people were saying.

Describing one version as cooler and the other as warmer, as most of us did, is understandable to anybody. The opposite would be Rick’s description of what he was seeing in terms of A and B channels. We understand it, but it would be gibberish to the average layperson.

Sometimes we just have to be more careful when speaking to a lay audience. When we were discussing the images here several people with respect to the face and one with respect to the Bible said that they were preferable in one version as opposed to the other. We know that the face and the Bible are identical in both versions but are made to seem different by their surroundings. We would need to state this explicitly to a client, who is likely to believe that they are different in fact.

The word lurid, used to describe part of the cooler version, means different things to different people; it’s like trying to assign a meaning to a poem. Another person described the cooler version as darker. That’s the kind of word we need to be careful of, because it has at least four potential meanings:  1) substantially all of one image has a different L value than the other; 2) certain smaller parts of one image have a lower L value than the other, causing the perception that the whole image is darker. 3) although both images have identical L values everywhere, something about the color distribution causes a viewer to perceive one as darker than the other. 4) the word has no relation to L values but is being used figuratively, to mean more somber or not as cheerful.

In the next thread, I’ll venture into our political system to show how people use terms even less precise than these.

Dan Margulis


The terminology thread 1: Chevreul was right

Dan Margulis
 

Responding to the comments in the MIchelangelo/terminology thread, I see three separate topics and so will post separate message on each.

First, anyone who doubted Chevreul’s assertion that clothing and/or background could be used to improve the appearance of a fleshtone should now be convinced. When I posted the originals I stated that the people and the Bible were identical in both versions. Yet we have three people asserting that the skin, and one person the Bible, look better in Michelangelo’s own version. (Yes, I understand that all these comments took for granted that we were talking about perception, not reality).

Tom’s effort reinforces the concept. By playing around with the background he was able to create interesting effects in the subject’s face, even though the face itself never changed. And this adds to a basic retouching principle: any artificial moves within an image are likely to be detectable if a skilled viewer looks hard enough. They’re likely to be looking hard at the face, not so hard at the background. Therefore, we are more likely to get away with funky color moves there.

I also point out that the early part of Chapter 12 of the Chevreul book shows more of this trick. One of my favorite graphics is there, Pissarro using a cyan background to make a seated laundress look healthy, and Picasso a red one to make a bar patron look sickly, followed by the same two paintings with the background colors reversed.

The next thread will discuss the specific terms used by the group in describing the results.

Dan Margulis


Question on Chevreul item #76

lisanh1@...
 

I just got my book delivered today and read through Chapter One.  Maybe I'll find the answer further along, but I thought that I would ask anyway:  I am confused by a sentence in Chevreul's #76 in chapter one, on p. 12  second column first full paragraph where he states: "I will assume that orange is composed of red and yellow and that blue is composed of green and yellow,...."  I can't think of any additive or subtractive color or RGB, CMYK, or Lab color spaces that makes blue from green and yellow.  I know that any preschooler given finger paints makes green from blue and yellow.  Is Chevreul's statement an error or is there something to making blue from green and yellow from a different way of understanding?  Thanks.  
--
Lisa Schofield


Goethe's theory and Turner

John Gillespie
 

It might be of interest to note that JMW Turner was an avid student of Goethe's theories, to the extent that he referenced him directly in this 1843 painting which is in Tate Britain (although currently on loan in Nashville) :
"Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory) – The Morning after the Deluge – Moses Writing the Book of Genesis"
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-light-and-colour-goethes-theory-the-morning-after-the-deluge-moses-writing-the-book-n00532


 


Re: On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors

Paco
 

Hi! Amazon states it will be available starting on the 2nd of March.

Paco Marquez


Re: How simultaneous contrast tricks even experts

Thomas Hurd,MD
 

I prefer the original. I first thought the bluer background made the faces appear more yellow.

So first, I tried to make the faces more magenta, by replacing the background (above the clothing) with the inverse of the magenta reading (M 42) at the prophet’s left faced below the cheekbone. That gave value of  C 51 Y 37. I filled in the background with that color blended with HUE layer blending at 90%

I thought that looked better with a little more rosiness to the cheek of both prophet and cherub.

Then I tried to use then green in the swath between their faces, again filling in the background and HUE layer blending at 90%. That color was C40 M17 Y57. Again better face color so that the inverted clothing colors didn’t offend as much. I thought the original green was a more pleasant background color than the artificially constructed inverse of M 42.

And of course inverting the original green gives the purplish color in the swath of Isaiah 2. So that means that the original green will be simultaneously enhancing that purplish color in the face? Well actually yes that purplish color is C27 M 33, which happens to blend very nicely with the yellow in the skin. And when you enhance the opposite of the purple in Isaiah 2 you get the enhanced green which doesn't look good in many faces.

For completeness, I just masked the inverse above the clothing and left the original colors, which looked pretty good even with then inverse clothes.

I know there is something clever to be said about whether the clothes make then man despite his background, but I did learn a lot about that painting. And I used a similar trick on a photo of my brother and niece at his 60th birthday. I thought his face looked too yellow but I had wiggled the colors around all I could stand to balance the two of their skin tones. But they were standing in front of a framed picture that was mostly green. So I just increased the green saturation in that framed work, and I was happy with his rosier outlook at his seventh decade.


Actually, Michaelangelo didn’t even need to use the whole background to enhance the face, he just used the green swath.


Tom Hurd



On Feb 25, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Quality Control <qualitycontrol@...> wrote:

As to which version I prefer, the warm painting is more pleasing, but there is something to be said for the bluer, darker version. The expression of the prophet in the original is attentive, but in the cool version he is irritated. The face of the child is unsettling in both versions, but in the cool version it is positively creepy. The purple surrounding the weird spinning hair curls serves to emphasize his bizarre nature. The cooler darker colors throughout have a powerful, if unwanted, effect on the personalities of the subjects.

Jonathan Clymer


Re: Look at your color correcting progress in a mirror

Kirk Thibault
 

If one shoots raw+JPEG, especially if using a mirrorless camera, it is definitely a worthwhile experiment to set the JPEG “picture style” or “film simulation” to black and white every once in a while and use that as a guide to composition and lighting in the field. Especially with mirrorless cameras (or DSLRs in Live View) you can get a live feed of the tonal range and relationships in your scene without the distraction of color. On some systems, you can select various black and white modes, including those that emulate the effect of a specific color filter, further giving you the ability to emphasize things like skin tones or the sky while studying the tonal relationships in the scene, under the prevailing continuous lighting. Most cameras also have the ability to change the contrast or the highlight and shadow density - pushing these settings to extremes to deliver a very high contrast mono rendering in the EVF or LCD helps really separate tone and see things like form and negative space.

Some cameras with an EVF have offset eyecups that make it easy to view the EVF with the dominant eye and view the scene directly with the other eye - you can get a read on the scene with the abstract EVF image and read the color from the scene simultaneously with the other eye, bouncing back and forth between the two views. Not only does this process help me perceive the scene in a more abstract way, it also encourages me to focus on my pre-visualization of the final image.

Of course, with the raw file simultaneously recorded, you capture the full color data that you can convert, however you see fit, in post.

Kirk Thibault

On Feb 25, 2020, at 4:42 PM, Henry Davis <davishr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I think you're on it, George. Dan's example in this exercise seems to
be exactly like the mirror - only different.

In the past, especially when I was unsure, I would make a copy and
convert it to greyscale and study that for a while. I think I'll
revisit that, maybe keep a greyscale handy as a reference for a color
project.

Dan said a long time ago that people ought to focus on learning how to
produce good greyscale images. There was more to it than that but
that was the advice in a nutshell. Without color you're forced into a
more careful analysis of light, dark and in between.

Henry Davis

On Feb 25, 2020, at 1:32 PM, George Machen wrote:
TRIMMED



Re: Look at your color correcting progress in a mirror

Henry Davis
 

I think you're on it, George. Dan's example in this exercise seems to be exactly like the mirror - only different.

In the past, especially when I was unsure, I would make a copy and convert it to greyscale and study that for a while. I think I'll revisit that, maybe keep a greyscale handy as a reference for a color project.

Dan said a long time ago that people ought to focus on learning how to produce good greyscale images. There was more to it than that but that was the advice in a nutshell. Without color you're forced into a more careful analysis of light, dark and in between.

Henry Davis

On Feb 25, 2020, at 1:32 PM, George Machen wrote:
<Snip>
"So, the main purpose of the mirror is to refresh your perspective," Kelleher said. "And we generally use it because over the process of the three hours that we normally work for, the eye becomes tired. And so you stop seeing your mistakes.

"By seeing it with a fresh eye, it's the same effect it would be if I came back to work in three or four days. I'm seeing it afresh, it's brand new to me, and I can immediately spot the mistakes."

"A mirror is so important," said Cecil. "We all make the same mistakes, and that's what is comforting. Because the human eye stumbles in the same way."

Dan has admonished that it's important to step away from our work and come back to it hours or even days later, lest we become too desensitized to our screens shining light in our eyes, resulting in overly-saturated colors, more contrast than we intended in areas, etc. Maybe even the law of simultaneous contrast could work against us when we stare at our efforts too long. (Never mind confirmation bias.)

But maybe turning around and inspecting our work in a mirror could accomplish seeing it with a sufficiently blunt perspective on-the- spot, and not having to wait all that time — providing a boon to our productivity.

– George Machen


Re: On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors

Sterling Ledet
 

While I can confirm that Amazon did receive 120 copies of the book in their NC warehouse today, depending on where you are physically located in the US, Amazon  may or may not show the books as currently available. For fulfilled by Amazon inventory (like this is), Amazon shows different status’s for different areas so depending on your location, it might show arriving soon.

Amazon does definitely have inventoryin their hands right now  though, so if you do place an order for the book on Amazon (even if your location says backorder),  it should not take as long as they are quoting to actually receive it.

 

Internally, I can see they are splitting that 120 books across 3 different warehouses.

 

From: colortheory@groups.io <colortheory@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tanya Metaksa via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:57 PM
To: colortheory@groups.io
Subject: [colortheory] On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors

 

If anyone is interested On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors is back in stock at Amazon.

 


On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors

Tanya Metaksa
 

If anyone is interested On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors is back in stock at Amazon.

Tanya Metaksa



On Feb 25, 2020, at 1:32 PM, George Machen <gmachen@...> wrote:

This past Sunday I was watching a story about the "sight-size" method of portraiture developed during the Renaissance on CBS Sunday Morning:
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/keeping-a-classic-technique-of-painting-alive-in-florence/>
...and while I don't know what the method per se might bring to color correction, one incidental technique briefly mentioned in the story seems eminently applicable to what we do:

...Francis Kelleher, a 30-year-old who is four-and-a-half years into his studies, was working on perfecting the technique of chiaroscuro (Italian for "light and shadow"). He used the most technologically-advanced implement they employ: a mirror.

"So, the main purpose of the mirror is to refresh your perspective," Kelleher said. "And we generally use it because over the process of the three hours that we normally work for, the eye becomes tired. And so you stop seeing your mistakes.

"By seeing it with a fresh eye, it's the same effect it would be if I came back to work in three or four days. I'm seeing it afresh, it's brand new to me, and I can immediately spot the mistakes."

"A mirror is so important," said Cecil. "We all make the same mistakes, and that's what is comforting. Because the human eye stumbles in the same way."

Dan has admonished that it's important to step away from our work and come back to it hours or even days later, lest we become too desensitized to our screens shining light in our eyes, resulting in overly-saturated colors, more contrast than we intended in areas, etc. Maybe even the law of simultaneous contrast could work against us when we stare at our efforts too long. (Never mind confirmation bias.)

But maybe turning around and inspecting our work in a mirror could accomplish seeing it with a sufficiently blunt perspective on-the-spot, and not having to wait all that time — providing a boon to our productivity.

– George Machen


Re: How simultaneous contrast tricks even experts

Quality Control
 

As to which version I prefer, the warm painting is more pleasing, but there is something to be said for the bluer, darker version. The expression of the prophet in the original is attentive, but in the cool version he is irritated. The face of the child is unsettling in both versions, but in the cool version it is positively creepy. The purple surrounding the weird spinning hair curls serves to emphasize his bizarre nature. The cooler darker colors throughout have a powerful, if unwanted, effect on the personalities of the subjects.

Jonathan Clymer


Look at your color correcting progress in a mirror

George Machen
 

This past Sunday I was watching a story about the "sight-size" method of portraiture developed during the Renaissance on CBS Sunday Morning:
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/keeping-a-classic-technique-of-painting-alive-in-florence/>
...and while I don't know what the method per se might bring to color correction, one incidental technique briefly mentioned in the story seems eminently applicable to what we do:

...Francis Kelleher, a 30-year-old who is four-and-a-half years into his studies, was working on perfecting the technique of chiaroscuro (Italian for "light and shadow"). He used the most technologically-advanced implement they employ: a mirror.

"So, the main purpose of the mirror is to refresh your perspective," Kelleher said. "And we generally use it because over the process of the three hours that we normally work for, the eye becomes tired. And so you stop seeing your mistakes.

"By seeing it with a fresh eye, it's the same effect it would be if I came back to work in three or four days. I'm seeing it afresh, it's brand new to me, and I can immediately spot the mistakes."

"A mirror is so important," said Cecil. "We all make the same mistakes, and that's what is comforting. Because the human eye stumbles in the same way."

Dan has admonished that it's important to step away from our work and come back to it hours or even days later, lest we become too desensitized to our screens shining light in our eyes, resulting in overly-saturated colors, more contrast than we intended in areas, etc. Maybe even the law of simultaneous contrast could work against us when we stare at our efforts too long. (Never mind confirmation bias.)

But maybe turning around and inspecting our work in a mirror could accomplish seeing it with a sufficiently blunt perspective on-the-spot, and not having to wait all that time — providing a boon to our productivity.

– George Machen


Re: How simultaneous contrast tricks even experts

Quality Control
 

If you didn't know which is the original, the bible would give it away. In the cool version the bible is dull and listless. Its contrast doesn't seem to match the surrounding tones. In the warm version, the bible has more vibrance, and fits much better into the whole.

Jonathan Clymer


Re: How simultaneous contrast tricks even experts

Rick Gordon
 

I consider the original version much more natural and pleasing, as others have said.

To add:
  • I find that the hue variances in the blue tones of the garment seem nonsensical, and suggest that the inversion of the b channel makes even less sense than the inversion of the a channel. We need an increase in b value to simulate the effect of light.

  • In the manipulated image, the figures seem isolated from their environment. Also the intense purple draws too much attention to non-primary objects. (I've got nothing against purple per se, and assume that a low-saturation purple could signify recession into the distance, as it does in hazy landscapes.)
 ___________________________________________
RICK GORDON
EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING
___________________________________________
WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com


Re: How simultaneous contrast tricks even experts

Frederick Yocum
 

A very difficult challenge to take up because the painting is so iconic. It is difficult to get over my recollection of the actual conventions of the painting. If you had used a little known northern Italian painter I might have had an easier time being  objective.

The skin colour is edging toward a more neutral colour within both paintings but the original seems warmer and less pasty. There is also more brightness or visual activity going on between the triangle of face, green of inside of cloak and reddish girdle. At least to me. 

> The challenge: please explain in understandable terms, which version you prefer, AND WHY.

regards,

Frederick Yocum
frederick@...

Mobile: +1 717 341 2226
Skype: frederickyocum
Twitter: @frederickyocum
Website:frederickyocum.com

1461 - 1480 of 33112