From time to time, I’ll snap a color pic. But I primarily live in the grayscale. Sometimes the image contrast is moved further from our visual reality when only the wavelengths in the infrared region of the optical spectrum are recorded. With the latter restriction, blue skies are close to black and green leaves, due to the high reflectivity of chlorophyll, are white.
We have relegated color to a somewhat secondary role when it comes to appreciation of the essence of an image. Black and white, or more properly, monochrome grayscale images, extract and separate elements of a scene from the full in-color context. The graphical essence, the shapes and their relationships are more easily visualized without the distracting reality of color. It is as though a message arrives in two languages simultaneously. The nuances in each are equally valid, but to be appreciated, they must be disentangled and heard separately.
We realize though that both in monochrome and color, we are hostage to and rewarded by our human condition, our visual sensing tools. Hostage to the limited range of intensities and frequencies of light to which our retinal receptors can respond. Rewarded by our psychological interpretation of the physiological response. There is a long and circuitous path from the elements of the scene itself that send transmitted and reflected light toward and through the lens of our camera to be recorded by a film strip or a CCD* chip, and then finally, after processing of the latent image and display in print or on a computer’s screen, to our retinal sensors that are “read” by the visual cortex of our brain. After all of that, we react to an image, emotionally or critically as the case may be. In an earlier post (“If a tree falls…” 8 April 2024), we devoted many words to the difference between objective and subjective reality. Here we have another perfect example of that difference. Intentionally limiting or distorting the light that reaches our retinas might be forgiven as artistic license or castigated as misinformation, but how our brains process what has been received wades deeply into the subjective where additional limitations and distortions certainly occur.
Manipulation
Although neither monochrome nor color as we see them are true to the object itself, we posit that the grayscale brings us closer to it. That is, there is less translation interposed. Only the dynamic range – how dim and how blindingly bright – defines the outer limits of perception. Only the spectral sensitivity of the detection system determines what shades of gray lie between. How fine the gradation of gray determines how subtle a distinction can be seen. We use the technology of sensors, such as film and CCDs, to detect beyond retinal limits. We use artificial means, such as contrast filters on lenses and in the darkroom, and electronic amplifiers behind our screens, to compress the physical reality into our comparatively narrow visual range. An image so produced and viewed is truly a one-dimensional delusion.
Color’s due
If color does not inform the graphical essence, then what does it bring? Think of the hues selected by nature. Somewhere buried in the evolution of the blossom, for example, is its relationship to its environment, to the entire surrounding ecosystem including insect species. Butterflies, peacocks, and so forth, all have their own reasons for the patterns of colors displayed. But surely these evolutionary decisions are not influenced by what the human eye perceives, by where a human's visible spectrum lies between the unseen cool ultraviolet and warm infrared. The ultimate question becomes, "How much of the message we get from a color image is of the object and how much is a reflection of our own makeup?" Roses are red and violets are blue, but have colors led you somewhere truer than could be read from a monochrome view?
Add color and add infinitely more dimensions. Piled upon translation of intensity is translation of frequency, not merely to a shade of gray, but to what we label with their very own names – red, blue, green, cyan, magenta, yellow – points around the wheel of color with such as mauve, chartreuse, and burgundy in between. Is there an inherent meaning attributable to those 'frequencies, the physical feature of the electromagnetic wave we call light that our retina’s cones can distinguish one from the other from the bluest blue to the reddest red? Perhaps if the light incident on and reflected by an object were of a single pure frequency, we could assign a simple meaning to each slice of the spectrum. Say 475 nanometers is Winter Cold and 625 is Summer Hot. But no source or object is so accommodating.
An object's actual and perceived colors tell us what it refuses to reflect.[1] It tells us what slice from the white spectrum of the sun or an electronic flash that impinges on it would rather be absorbed than reflected. A red rose “eats” the blue and green light. What then is the true character of the rose? Perhaps it is its hunger for the shorter (blueish) wavelengths and rejection of the longer (reddish) that defines it. Then, Roses are Red takes on a whole new meaning.
Summing up and paring down
The long and the short of it is that our perception of an image taken by a camera, processed and displayed, or ahead of time through the camera’s viewfinder, through a lens of possible distorting focal length with or without polarizing or color filters, or for that matter, seen live with our own eyes, is subject to our gray matter’s palette, influenced not only by present tense sensing but by memory and familiarity with the subject. That’s a lot. So, the notion that the monochrome version lets the graphical essence shine through is really just a way of saying that it simplifies the input so we can focus on and appreciate one aspect of the image and have an easier time sorting which are contours and shadows of the objects in a scene versus their chromatic personalities.
___________________________________________
*Charge Coupled Device
[1] Referring to the prior post, “If a tree falls” (8 April 2024), we could ask the question analogous to “sound.” I.e., If an object emits or reflects light in the wavelength window where a human eye would see it, but there is no one present, does the object still have a “color,” even when not perceived?
Nota Bene: Others may ruminate differently. But be warned: In my case, seeing or hearing something quite trivial -- a saying, a store clerk’s mannerisms, or bad grammar on a food product’s label – triggers a stream-of-consciousness extrapolation toward grander notions and generalizations. That is what often happens in these posts. ADDENDUM: Those subscribers who have been here for a while will have noticed that at times ruminations have veered into diatribes. I make no apology. I just want my readers to know that it’s quite intentional. When events come close to making the ‘blood boil,’ that discontent bubbles up here.
Disclaimer: Any and all opinions expressed here are my own at the time of writing with no expectation that they will hold beyond my next review of this article. Opinions are like a river, winding hither and yon, encountering obstacles and rapids, and suffering turbulent mixing of silts from its depths and detritus from its banks. But just as a river has its clear headwaters and a fertile delta, so do opinions, notwithstanding any intervening missteps and uncertainties.
Reminder: You can visit the Cycloid Fathom Technical Publishing website at cycloid-fathom.com and the gallery at cycloid-fathom.com/gallery.
Forthcoming posts (unless life intervenes)
Repetitive Objects Found
…curiosity runs amok
Sched 4/29/2024
Conflict Zones
…Sticks and stones…
Sched 5/6/2024
Quantify me
…metiri, aestimare, iudicare aliquid* (…measure, estimate, judge something)
Sched 5/13/2024
The Last Resort
…Still searching for the magic nostrum
Sched 5/20/2024