clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 01.12.2010 02:32, schrieb Stephen Klebs:
> >>
> >> No, it's your eye playing tricks on you.
> >>
> >> Our eyes are highly calibratible optical measurement tools - they work
> >> as well at a brightness of 10% as at 1,000% (and then some), and get
> >> object colors right regardless of lighting conditions.
> >
> > This is not correct. You only understand the physics of the optical system, but
> > not the physiology nor the psychology. This is not how we see. You are talking
> > as if you could see yourself seeing and you can not. What you are seeing is a
> > model of how you think things appear. This is a very subtle and complex mystery.
>
> I'm well aware that I'm simplifying here, but I'm not holding a lecture
> in physiology nor psychology here - I'm merely making a point that
> visual perception of brightness does not match physical brightness when
> it comes to gradients.

Wow! this is really a tough one. Like a political standoff between
picture-making as art or as science. There seems some kind of blinders on our
perspectives. Like "you just don't get it!" "No you don't get it!". But I think
we get a feeling for each others approach. So yes, "visual perception of
brightness does not match physical brightness". You seem to somehow to be
wanting to "correct" the visual representation of gradients to more realistic
reflect the real visual world. And I'm saying this can't be done and doesn't
need to be done. You seem to be saying the gradient that looks to me perfectly
smooth and convincing is really a deception. Whereas, the one that looks skewed
and unbalanced is really how the physics of things really is. Like this picture
may look flat and washed out but it's fine because that's how the optics of the
situation really is. Like we both think the other is deceiving themselves. One
viewers reality, the others illusion

Post a reply to this message