We been lied to about color!

[StoneHeartFarm]

Patrick,

Is that why different color films produce different results? It's been several years since I've fired up the old 35, but as I recall, different films produce very different results. Kodak is vibrant and produces better color than the original object. ie, my perception of the films, is that I can take a picture of say a yellow wall, hold the picture up beside the wall, and the picture will be brighter and have a more appealing color than the original object. Agfa, I found was the opposite, and the yellow wall might wind up looking beige. I can't think of the name of the Japanese film right now. All I can remember is it comes in a green box. That one seemed to reproduce most closely, although certain colors still resulted in problems. Frankly, since I got my digital, I haven't worried about it. I just figure whatever I get is the best I can hope for and leave it alone. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

SHF

 

[Bird]

[bluecan't think of the name of the Japanese film right now</font color=blue>

Fuji, maybe?

Bird

 

[patrickg]

SHF, That is color balance, really an entirely different phenomenon. Color film has three layers of light sensitive material, one for each color (as per the color myth). Diff films are balanced differently. You can buy film balanced for daylight, incandescent, even fluorescent light. When flash bulbs were popular, film was available balanced for that color of light. Filters to allow one film to be exposed successfully in another type of light were popular. Then came flashbulbs with a blue filter on them to raise the color temp. Strobes are essentially equivalent to daylight so flash and daylight pix will both work with the same film these days.

F U J I named after the Japanese advertising blimp, same blimp they named the pretty mountain after in Japan.

Patrick

 

[StoneHeartFarm]

patrickg

FUJI is it. Couldn't remember anything but the green box. I guess that's why they make em green.

Oaky, as long as we have a discussion of light going on here. let me ask another question, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong.

As I understand it, what I percieve as light is actually a stream of small particles (photons) traveling from the source, through the various layers of my eyeball and striking the sensitive portion at the rear. These particles are infinitesimally small, but do possess some small amount of mass. They travel in a zig-zag (waveform) pattern. Color is produced by the difference in the size of the zig-zag (length of wave). But, despite the zig-zag, the photons are all moving from point A to point B, leaving and arriving at the same time.

If this is correct, does this not violate the speed of light? If the zig-zag pattern is different, isn't one photon traveling farther than another only to end at the same spot at the same time? Or, do different colors of light have different speeds? If one color is faster, does that not effect the mass of the photon? In other words, does light have weight, and if so, do different colors have different weights?

I had a teacher once that told me there were only 100,000 people in the whole world and everyone else was mere illusion. Its been close to 30 years and I'm still trying to figure out if I'm illusion or real. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif Now, I'm gonna worry about the weight of light for the next 30 years. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

SHF