Chuck, This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact". You simply presented a premise I disagree with, and presented plenty of evidence to back up my claims. I don't get the confusion on manufacturing color and experiencing it in life. Your clearly talking about how the brain assigns color values, and I have been talking about how we "experience" it the entire time, that experience via photography. So yes, I have been clearly talking about how we "experience" it. The two subjects have everything in common. The brain assigns very similar color values from person to person, and photography reproduces that. I don't see a conflict there. Again, I'm not sure which theorem or "fact" your referring to here. My debate was never about the fact that colors are manufactured in the brain. I understand that clearly. I've made my case that if our eyes were as effective as cameras, then what we see in photos would be what we would see with our eyes, very clearly. Thus, in my opinion, saturated colors in astrophotography are anything but fake. I'm not sure why your so apologetic, I have enjoyed the discussion a lot and hardly think it was a waste of time. I do agree, it's over at this point lol. Cheers, David Chuck Hards wrote:
Hi David, sorry I'm so late getting back to this. I only check this email address very sporadically. I guess it's been nearly a week.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:55 PM, David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> wrote:
I see you talking about how the brain manufactures color, and I'm talking about how we experience it, and reproduce it. All the same stuff in the end.
Yes, that is what I was talking about. But no, I don't recall you
specifically talking about how we "experience" it in the same context as I. Clearly you think you did, so we don't have enough common ground to continue. I still see us as talking about 2 different subjects, with some things in common, but not 2 discussions that should be held together.
But PLEASE DONT reply in-depth because I can't stay as involved in the discussion as you deserve. It might be weeks before I check this address again. As it is, there are nearly 30 list messages from the last couple of weeks I don't currently have time to read.
What I apparently didn't describe adequately is that it's not Chuck's Theorum, it's accepted fact. As I said, I don't care one way or the other who understands and who doesn't, I just thought I'd raise an admittedly very esoteric point. The techies among us are probably prone to dismiss it as a distraction since it's really a discussion of the psychology of perception, not physics, astronomy, or engineering. I've already spent way more time than I should have trying to explain something I have no stake in.
My sincere apologies, I'm sure I disappoint many of you as someone to hold a discussion with.
Merry Christmas! _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com