--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
> We see in color, so color is obliged to be 'realistic' to a large
> degree. We don't see in black and white
With all due respect, I think these statements are simply not true, at
least from a physiological standpoint. Although it's likely I'm
misunderstanding you, a matter of terminology and semantics.
You probably mean that we understand the world in color. (Although,
where does that leave the variously colorblind, btw?) But it's
interesting to note that, as far as how we see (as I understand it),
the human eye indeed has both black and white receptors (rods) and
color receptors (cones). Furthermore, not only do the rods greatly
outnumber the cones, they dominate, or exclusively sense, our
peripheral and low-light vision; the color receptors, on the other
hand, are fewer, concentrated at the center of our vision and are far
more dependent on illumination. One could argue that, in a sense (no
pun intended), black and white dominates our visual experience, even
though our perception of that experience is colored.
As for the notion that color is obliged to be "realistic", that's a
very slippery one. As I am sure you are well aware, our perception of
color is very dependent on expectations, color interactions, and
aesthetics, to name three random factors off the top of my head. Our
brains constantly play fast and loose with the colors we see to make
them "right". So "realistic" color is rather psychological and
subjective, and our idea of it is easily fooled; I'd say it's even a
bit of an oxymoron. It should be pretty obvious to anyone surveying
digital cameras (or film) that different people have rather different
ideas of what's "right" or "realistic" re color. Etc., etc.--I'm sure
you can think of many more examples.
And I don't think I buy that our expectation of "realistic" luminance,
or tonal value is any less demanding (or any less subjective) than our
expectations for colors. I have no doubt that it's more of a challenge
to meet/fool those expectations through artifice where color is
concerned, as opposed to mere tonality, but it does not follow that
because there are technical inequities, our expectations are unequal.
I don't think it's going too far to say that our expectations of color
in photographs or artwork are no more exacting or rigid than are our
expectations of tonal values in such situations.
Having said all this, I have an inkling that we consider black and
white more artistic and less representational (no argument there), not
just because of novelty or abstraction, but also because it resonates
with our peripheral, subliminal, and darker visual experience--the
world seen by the rods--the mysterious world seen in the corner of
your eye, in the shadows, in the darkness. By its nature, much good
still photography intrigues us by, among other things, showing us a
world we see but can't or won't notice or contemplate outside of
temporal experience. I think black and white goes a bit further, by
allowing our focused, conscious vision to see the world as it might be
seen by our peripheral, unconscious, and more primal vision.
Bob L
P.S. A nice overview of the human eye and how it works:
http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/eyeret.html