[Bromid]

What are screen colors good for?

To the eye, luminiscens do not work as reflected colors do. They may be regarded as superficial colors, but that is only half the truth. Such colors can be seen in natural rainbows, where colors do not exhibit distal differencies, like the color blue beeing farther away. It's only luminiscens, not reflected nearby colors.

And that makes digital photography somewhat crazy, is it all to be viewed as close to the rainbow?

Comparing "Under cover"



with "The blue cover",



taken with the same lens and similar settings, they show no visible differences neither in color vividness nor in temperature. This despite the absence of the complemetary, then supposedly warm, yellow-red-orange that is dominating the foreground of the second picture.

This is supporting my definit notion that screen colors lacks the qualities ordinainly ascribed to as the carachteristics of complementary colors. They do not enhance each other, do not interact, proving that they are not really complementary anymore.
At least not more then to the denomination, having merely a decorativ function.

[nozoom]

Colors do not interact on a screen? Take a look at: Color Illusions

[Bromid]

Interesting, thank you!

The illusions concerning contrast values of lightness, the greyscale, is what the luminiscens of the screen is really good for!

But the "Grey vs Blue Stripes" and "Lilac Chase" illusions obviuosly produces complementary colors. I like that argument.

Though a bit difficult to sort it out at first glance, that effect is due to the effect of movement and color aftereffect. Receptor areas stimulated by a color, reverts when understimulated by grey in the next instant, or inte case of the Lilac Chase the green dot completely ereases the lilac dots aagainst the neutral grey.

That works fine with luminiscens, I agree. But it is not the complementary qualities that I was referring to. Colors do not interact complementary in the naturally luminiscent rainbow, not inducing enhancement, not having distal properties, and simply does not create a clang of the combined colors.

And personally I can only understand the screen or the rainbow colors as beeing either warm or cold, because I know they should be.
Like the opposit to looking at an impressionist painting, or other masters of complementary colors and temperature. I do not have to know what the colors are supposed to induce.

[Nicolas06]

And personally I can only understand the screen or the rainbow colors as beeing either warm or cold, because I know they should be.
Like the opposit to looking at an impressionist painting, or other masters of complementary colors and temperature. I do not have to know what the colors are supposed to induce.

If you look at the painting through a scrren you loose the effect of the painting?

[Bromid]

Exactly!
It is not stranger then quite clearly seeing the difference between the screen and objects around it.

So besides beeing sort of mute in their uniformity, screen colors are deceptive if intended for print.
Digital color management is not enough.

---------- Post added 12-19-14 at 09:14 AM ----------

Some 20 years ago I had the opportunity to examin a question of my own. Inspired by the rainbow, I had the idea that the human eye could be sensitive to polarized light.

Well, I did only find support from two sientific reports, one from Canada and one from Russia. But, it was emperically proven that the human eye actually is sensitive to the plane of polarization. What I did was to examine a formcolor-aftereffect (the McCollough effect) using polarized light. The subject was to be sensitized with pattern of simple gratings, but through a polarization filter. I could then show how the plane of polarization could swop direction of the formcolor-aftereffect produced by color-adaption of edge detectors.
The McCollough experiment was used to examine visual acuity of edge detection, adapting to a grating and when then afterwards looking at a black-and-white grating of the same bar-width, the horizontal and vertical gratings would respectively appear colored of a lighter hue of the complementary color.

Now, that does not say much more about complementary colors as such, rather about directionality. But it can still be understood that since the human eye is sensitiv to the plane of polarization, reflected light is percived differently from colors of a rainbow.

There is something else is going on in the eye. That's the reason why I raised the question here. Maybe some clue will pop up, like with the flickering complementary color illusions.

And that experiment was some 20 nyears ago, so I must suppose there are much more knowledge by now.
Else I'm patiently awaiting the 3-D screen producing real polarized planes of light from the surfaces of objects depicted, instead of the one uniform polarizing filter covering the whole of my LCD-screen.

[Nicolas06]

On the other side, a screen as much more dynamic range than paper common screen offer 9-10EV of dynamic range and oled give lot of dynamic range, more in the 15-20EV range.

I remember reviews saying that despite all the oled and 4K stuff.. A 2K oled render much better than anything 4K that is not oled.

Photos look differently on screens and on paper. Painting give a different feelling and the materials in general are important. That's for sure. But it is not always for the better you need to adapt to the medium intended for use... or choose the medium to use depending of what you want to express.

[Flugelbinder]

This conversations brings to memory the 'Holographic Universe Theory'...

[Bromid]

I do not know of holographic screens, but it seems that reproducing polarized light may not be completely far out.

There has been developed a medical scanner capable of reproducing the mantissa shrimp eye polarized light vision. The scanner is used for detecting cancer cells.
Mantis shrimp's eyes inspire new cancer-detecting camera

And so there exists a sensor for polarized light: the complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) polarization imager
IEEE Xplore Abstract - Bioinspired Polarization Imaging Sensors: From Circuits and Optics to Signal Processing Algorithms a...

How is that for a Pentax camera sensor? Could become true the day when the images also can be viewed on a coresponding screen.

Naturally I agree to that one has to adapt to the medium used, there is not much choise given. And polairized images will not be for the better when it comes to printing. That seems impossible to reproduce. But what a tool for digital photography! Maybe I can wait.

[nozoom]

Now, here is an image that clearely shows that colors interact on a screen. A, B and C are the exact same colors. For your convenience, I have copied the B from the side of the cube and laid it beside the A on the top of the cube. Do you, or do you not see any differences between B and B?

[Nicolas06]

Now, here is an image that clearely shows that colors interact on a screen. A, B and C are the exact same colors. For your convenience, I have copied the B from the side of the cube and laid it beside the A on the top of the cube. Do you, or do you not see any differences between B and B?

Yes we are sensitive to local contrast rather than global light levels !

But this would show the same on paper!

[Bromid]

Yes, I see the difference.
And as it works the same in greyscale, is it then colors interacting?

[nozoom]

But this would show the same on paper!

Yes, exactely.

And as it works the same in greyscale, is it then colors interacting?

There is no "greyscale" on your screen. There is only light with tree colors: red, green and blue.

(but you would of course see the same on a monochrome screen or a printed paper with a pure grayscale)

[Bromid]

Well, neither does the eye have greyscale receptors, but is a RGB system mimicked by screen technology. Red an green receptors packed at the center (the fovea) of the retina for the best acuity (that equally excited produces yellow), with blue receptors around the fovea.

Since night vision uses the peripherical blue receptors, there are two parallell systems in vision. This may be the cause of the experience of warm and cold, but as far as I know it has not been proved.
So, that is only a guess of mine, and why the sense of temperature is diminished by a diffused or uniform plane of polarization, like in rainbows, on screens or water reflections, I really don't know. Maybe it is dependent on some combined effect.

The first flat screens, the TFT screens, gave the impression of a near surface. They worked with a polarized laser turning liquid cristals in different directions in wich they produced the RGB colors. Somehow the eye recorded directionality, but wether that also comprised the differnt planes of polarization from the laser or only the corse cristal resolution, I cannot tell. And I do not recall them rendering any extra sense of warm and cold.

Maybe only the Mantissa shrimp may know for sure.

[nozoom]

and why the sense of temperature is diminished by a diffused or uniform plane of polarization, like in rainbows, on screens or water reflections

You are presuming that your statement above is true. I cannot even slightely agree to it. Even in your images in the original post I perceive the red and yellow colors as being warm colors (even if you have selected a white balance that tends towards the blue which makes them colder (not cold, but colder)). Maybe you have calibration issues whith your CMS. And have you calibrated both the screen and the printer for the same visual conditions so you can compare your given images to a printout of the same? Usually they are not, and therefore colors will be different. Prints are most commonly calibrated to be looked on in a much more dim and yellow light that a LCD screen. An uncalibrated LCD screen is really bad for colors, since it has far to much blue in it and therefore tend to show colors colder than they shpould be. Do you have an uncalibrated LCD screen?

Btw: Warthness is not a physical property of a color. It is a pshycological property.

Final post from me.

Cheers