Re: Imaginary colors Speculation

[PhotoRoy6]

There are no other colors except for the ones we see. The other part of electromagnetic spectrum are just wave lengths. Any other animal that can sense the other parts of the spectrum can only see them in colors we know to exist but most probably sense them in different way altogether. When we develop x-ray film it is black and white(i.e. clear) and fuzzy.

Roy

 

 

In a message dated 11/6/2009 3:52:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, info@... writes:

On the other hand, what we see is just a tiny part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Other species "see" other parts of it - for
example, we're missing out on beautiful ultraviolet colours of many
flowers!
Medical images routinely map normal colours to structures visible only
at wavelengths we could not interpret otherwise.
Does it make sense to invent words for hues that we can't actually see
and share with others?

 

[David Dyer-Bennet]

PhotoRoy6@... wrote:
> There are no other colors except for the ones we see. The other part
> of electromagnetic spectrum are just wave lengths. Any other animal
> that can sense the other parts of the spectrum can only see them in
> colors we know to exist but most probably sense them in different way
> altogether. When we develop x-ray film it is black and white(i.e.
> clear) and fuzzy.

Your first two sentences may be tautologically true (if you're asserting
that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.

The third sentence is a matter of opinion, not fact; you can't know very
much about the subjective experience of other species, and what we might
know is fairly speculative.  I do like the tests that show that pigeons,
at least, see light frequency the way we hear notes (that is, ratios of
frequencies mean something to them), though, and that would certainly
qualify as "in different ways altogether".

I don't think the point about x-ray film really establishes anything
either.  Remember, ordinary color film is really just B&W too, we use
filters and dyes to make it look colored to us.  And the "fuzzy" bit
implies that x-rays are somehow fuzzy, whereas actually they're more
precise than visible light (which is why they use UV and higher
frequencies for lithography in chip fabs these days).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[PhotoRoy6]

In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dd-b@... writes:Your first two sentences may be tautologically true (if you're asserting
that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.

 

 

Now I titled my email "Imaginary colors Speculation"  What I am saying is that there is no colors that we don't see (as a group). That there is no new color you can get by other means. When bats view sound waves if they see this as color it is of our spectrum but I suspect there brain senses sound waves as some sort of pattern.

There is no point in searching for other colors.

 

 

In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dd-b@... writesAnd the "fuzzy" bit  implies that x-rays are somehow fuzzy, whereas actually they're more
precise than visible light 

 

As to regard to X-rays; that is my point, they appear fuzzy to us visually but are more precise in the scientific study than we see. Animal may sense x-rays better than us but it in no way creates new color. But as you point out there is no proof since we can't go into the animal brains and see what it sees. It just the speculation I believe and there is no use in looking for more colors.

Roy

 

 

[Chris-723]

Hi

X-rays are fuzzy because they are shadow graphs as x-rays cannot be
focussed. I believe astronomers have x-ray telescopes that do focus the rays
in a reflection mirror using grazing angle incidence. The x-ray tomography
which I played a part in developing is a multiple exposure from different
angles and the resulting shadow graphs are integrated to give a 3D image
with a computer that takes the density of the image at various places and
works out with the ray path and sums the contributions from different rays
to map the hidden object as a synthesised 3-d image.

I worked with a radiographer and a doctor in the medical school of St
Bartholomew's hospital, London back in 1973. I worked out the general idea
based on existing practise and worked out the mathematics which we put on a
computer and then we did another computer algorithm that was able to change
the number of cells and angles.

The first ones were made by Marconi but they sold out to the American giant
General Electric as the machine was very expensive who later sold out to a
Japanese electronics company who improved it and it became now cheap enough
for nearly all western hospitals.

We later worked on Atomic magnetic resonance imaging that used a magnetic
gradient and radio frequency resonance. With this the cell only resonates if
the magnetic field and the radio frequency are exactly right for the atoms
concerned and then only if the atomic microenvironment is correct.

The system acts on electrons in a magnetic field where the resonant
frequency depends on the local magnetic field. This is the result of the
external field and the local field generated by the chemical environment.
The system can show a map of chemical species in the body.

Another system uses neutron magnetic resonance NMR, another uses proton
magnetic resonance and that maps water. Since the body is nearly all water
this magnetic resonance imaging method shows a map of all the tissue in the
body as shades a grey (can be given false colours) except blood because
blood is moving so blood vessels show black as empty.

Not photography (Painting with light) but the general case of imaging. I
don't think any one has done any artistic work with magnetic resonance.

These are unseen colours....

Chris
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-photoforum@...
[mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet
Sent: 07 November 2009 16:40
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: Imaginary colors Speculation

PhotoRoy6@... wrote:
> There are no other colors except for the ones we see. The other part
> of electromagnetic spectrum are just wave lengths. Any other animal
> that can sense the other parts of the spectrum can only see them in
> colors we know to exist but most probably sense them in different way
> altogether. When we develop x-ray film it is black and white(i.e.
> clear) and fuzzy.

Your first two sentences may be tautologically true (if you're asserting
that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.

The third sentence is a matter of opinion, not fact; you can't know very
much about the subjective experience of other species, and what we might
know is fairly speculative.  I do like the tests that show that pigeons,
at least, see light frequency the way we hear notes (that is, ratios of
frequencies mean something to them), though, and that would certainly
qualify as "in different ways altogether".

I don't think the point about x-ray film really establishes anything
either.  Remember, ordinary color film is really just B&W too, we use
filters and dyes to make it look colored to us.  And the "fuzzy" bit
implies that x-rays are somehow fuzzy, whereas actually they're more
precise than visible light (which is why they use UV and higher
frequencies for lithography in chip fabs these days).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Chris-723]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Hi

 

The imaging nerve system of the eye is the same as the imaging system of the skin and the skin can see patterns. Hearing is again the same. So my guess is that Bats see images as we do but made of sound. I doubt if it is in colour unless the bats chirp their sound emissions to give different densities at different sound frequencies. In fact they probably do.

 

We see colour via the three separate imaging sets of sensors in our eyes. I do not have a clue what happens in the brain. Music is colour in sound and some sound patterns hurt us, others give pleasure like colour and touch.

 

By the way I could hear bats chirping when I was young and I could hear ultrasonic sound emitted by a tweeter and signal generator in a test. It was at about 100,000 Hz where I had an island of sound.

 

I sometimes chirp by sucking air into my mouth through my tongue held against the roof of my mouth to get the echo. I did this as a child. I have seen and heard other children do this. Now I have dentures I cannot do it.

 

Chris

 

---

From: owner-photoforum@... [mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of PhotoRoy6@...
Sent: 07 November 2009 17:26
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: Imaginary colors Speculation

 

In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dd-b@... writes:Your first two sentences may be tautologically true (if you're asserting
that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.

 

 

Now I titled my email "Imaginary colors Speculation"  What I am saying is that there is no colors that we don't see (as a group). That there is no new color you can get by other means. When bats view sound waves if they see this as color it is of our spectrum but I suspect there brain senses sound waves as some sort of pattern.

There is no point in searching for other colors.

 

 

In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dd-b@... writesAnd the "fuzzy" bit  implies that x-rays are somehow fuzzy, whereas actually they're more
precise than visible light 

 

As to regard to X-rays; that is my point, they appear fuzzy to us visually but are more precise in the scientific study than we see. Animal may sense x-rays better than us but it in no way creates new color. But as you point out there is no proof since we can't go into the animal brains and see what it sees. It just the speculation I believe and there is no use in looking for more colors.

Roy

 

 

[karl shah-jenner]

X-ray images are made from a diffused source, in a way similar to the
lithograms we make in the darkroom (laying the subject over the sensitive
material) - but since the source is diffused, and diffused further by the
subject body, the image is fuzzy.


Human senses, we are taught are: touch, hearing, taste, smell and sight.
But there are more - motion, sense of time, heat and one dealing with
knowing where parts of our bodies are (there's a particularly disturbing
condition occurring when the latter sense is confused and people feel a
limb does not belong to them..) and possibly others.


The heat one is most interesting - because aside from the sense of warmth,
we also have some specialised thermal sensors located in our forehead and
upper lip.  What's interesting about these is that they're the same highly
specialized type as you'd find in a pit viper - the snake that when
blindfolded can still 'see' with those pits and sensors.  More interesting
again is that our human ones are even MORE sensitive.  but the problem is
they're buried too deep on most people (think skinned?) - however some
people do become aware of these and can use them in the sense of being able
to determine where they are spatially.

Eyesight is generally thought of as the one that determines our spatial
position, as well as visual perception.

This is most interestingly demonstrated in some clinically blind people who
have functional eyes, the parts of the brain are functional and observed to
be reacting to visual stimuli, but who do not 'see' due to the brains
inability or decision not to pass on processed information as 'visual
perception'.. ie, they cannot judge colour.


And there are physiologically blind people with lensless or damaged eyes
who can not just see, but see well.

We also have those sufferers of synisthesia who's sensors can trigger the
wrong parts of the brain such that a colour viewed by the eye can prompt a
'smell' in the brain, or a sound can trigger a taste.

And recent studies have shown happier people to be less perceptive of the
world around them than angry or sad people!

Hearing can also be used by us in our spatial perception of the world
around us, often described by deaf people, but that isn't the same as
'seeing' in the way we think of it (ie, they cannot determine the letters
on an eye chart by 'hearing' them - same (*) as above with our IR sensors -
nor can they differentiate what we call colour - the different wavelengths
of the visible spectrum)

However animals with IR sensors like those of the pit viper should be able
to 'see' letters on an eyechart with their pits attenuating the IR such
that absorbent and reflective areas would appear as dark or light .. but
while this would be vision, it would be limited to a monochromatic view - a
red and a cyan tone of the same reflectance would appear to be the same, or
monochromatically identical.

Vision is interesting too in that we can interpret a 2D representation of a
scene and interpret spatial relationships within that scene.  I am unaware
of many people being capable of interpreting any spatial relationship
recorded in music.  Some music can evoke (memory) experiences similar to a
spatial awareness, such as echoing steps in a hallway, but to build a
spatial image of the length or breadth of the hall is a different matter
(some people however CAN actually determine such things :)

and then we have colour blindness..

ooh!  Interesting!  have a peek here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness .. particularly at the test
for Tritanopia and Deuteranopia down the right hand side toward the bottom.
I'm always curious how many photographers are colour blind or have impaired
vision.  If the numbers don't show up too well don't be concerned though if
you're using an LCD monitor - if you have a CRT monitor around to view them
on you may find the colours more readily revealed .. and that could leads
one to make an observation about just how good or poor LCD's are at
rendering colour accurately (as opposed to vividly ;)

[James B. Davis]

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:28:51 +0800, karl shah-jenner <shahjen@...>
wrote/replied to:

>More interesting
>again is that our human ones are even MORE sensitive.  but the problem is
>they're buried too deep on most people (think skinned?) - however some
>people do become aware of these and can use them in the sense of being able
>to determine where they are spatially.

The thing is our brain turns down the volume automatically.

Ever have one ear plugged with wax for awhile then get the wax out? (I did) Turn
on the tap and it sounds like Niagara Falls. I'm not kidding. After about 10
minutes the brain programs the volume back down to normal. Pity would couldn't
turn it off and on at will, or could we???

Might as well tell the whole story here, I had an ear so badly plugged the
doctor couldn't get it cleared. I got a Murine earwax removal kit and went at it
every night for a week. I syringed and syringed warm water each night for like
15 minutes, after soaking with the removal stuff of course. The last couple days
large plugs came out, and finally, wow, Niagara Falls!

There ya go, true story about hearing.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ - Motorcycle Electrics
Check out my incredible fuse panel - the PC-8 is a hit!
1990 Honda VFR750, 1988 Honda Africa Twin 650

[karl shah-jenner]

 James B. Davis

karl shah-jenner :
>More interesting
>again is that our human ones are even MORE sensitive.  but the problem is
>they're buried too deep on most people (think skinned?) - however some
>people do become aware of these and can use them in the sense of being
able
>to determine where they are spatially.

The thing is our brain turns down the volume automatically.

Ever have one ear plugged with wax for awhile then get the wax out? (I did)
Turn
on the tap and it sounds like Niagara Falls. I'm not kidding. After about
10
minutes the brain programs the volume back down to normal. Pity would
couldn't
turn it off and on at will, or could we???

Might as well tell the whole story here, I had an ear so badly plugged the
doctor couldn't get it cleared. I got a Murine earwax removal kit and went
at it
every night for a week. I syringed and syringed warm water each night for
like
15 minutes, after soaking with the removal stuff of course. The last couple
days
large plugs came out, and finally, wow, Niagara Falls!

There ya go, true story about hearing.



not nice!

and that fact about muting leads to another interesting observation they
came up with recently - can't recall who, but some group theorised sound
levels in the head might actually be louder than we think, so the set about
measuring the sound levels in out heads (sound passes faster and with less
loss through water an solids like bone) and they found sound levels vastly
in excess of a jumbo jet!  somehow the brain muted this, but more
interesting again - somehow we are protected from deafness .. we should by
rights be deaf within the first few weeks of birth based on the sound
levels hitting our ears

k

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Chris wrote:

> Not photography (Painting with light) but the general case of imaging. I
> don't think any one has done any artistic work with magnetic resonance.
>  

I haven't seen any (the machines may be too expensive for that still).

However, I've seen some very nice artistic X-ray work, done with that
intention. Ah, here we go -- Steven N. Meyers,
<http://www.xray-art.com/>.  I think many of his images are really
beautiful.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

PhotoRoy6@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> dd-b@... writes:Your first two sentences may be tautologically
> true (if you're asserting
> that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.
>  
>  
> Now I titled my email "Imaginary colors Speculation"  What I am saying
> is that there is no colors that we don't see (as a group). That there
> is no new color you can get by other means. When bats view sound waves
> if they see this as color it is of our spectrum but I suspect there
> brain senses sound waves as some sort of pattern.
> There is no point in searching for other colors.

At least short of brain modification, surgically or through genetic
engineering.


Not that I'm volunteering to be a test subject!!!!


There was an interesting bit in a very fine SF novel not mostly about
sight (this was just a side detail), where it became relevant dealing
with an alien species that they used different pigments in their visual
receptors than we did.  Hence blended colors, which is to say nearly all
reproduced images and even original paintings, looked different to them
than they did to us.  Their artists were talking about trying to figure
out how to paint for a human audience.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[jonathan turner-2]

Which SF novel was that? And by who? I'm a bit of an SF addict...quite like
to read that.

Jonathan.


On 8/11/09 17:39, "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@...> wrote:

> PhotoRoy6@... wrote:
>> In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> dd-b@... writes:Your first two sentences may be tautologically
>> true (if you're asserting
>> that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.
>>  
>>  
>> Now I titled my email "Imaginary colors Speculation"  What I am saying
>> is that there is no colors that we don't see (as a group). That there
>> is no new color you can get by other means. When bats view sound waves
>> if they see this as color it is of our spectrum but I suspect there
>> brain senses sound waves as some sort of pattern.
>> There is no point in searching for other colors.
>
>
> At least short of brain modification, surgically or through genetic
> engineering.
>
>
> Not that I'm volunteering to be a test subject!!!!
>
>
> There was an interesting bit in a very fine SF novel not mostly about
> sight (this was just a side detail), where it became relevant dealing
> with an alien species that they used different pigments in their visual
> receptors than we did.  Hence blended colors, which is to say nearly all
> reproduced images and even original paintings, looked different to them
> than they did to us.  Their artists were talking about trying to figure
> out how to paint for a human audience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Jonathan Turner
Photographer

e: pictures@...
t: 0113 217 1275
m:07796 470573

7 Scott Hall Walk, Leeds, LS7 3JQ

http://www.jonathan-turner.com

[karl shah-jenner]

Which SF novel was that? And by who? I'm a bit of an SF addict...quite like
to read that.

Jonathan.


not one I know, the only I know of that refers to synisthesia is "Tiger,
Tiger" (or The Stars My Destination) - Alfred Bester


damn, that guy could write good sci-fi :)

k

[jonathan turner-2]

Not yet read any of his books, though keep running across his name so will
make a point of finding him out next.

Er, I guess this counts as 'off topic'? Oops. Has anyone read any books
recently (SF or otherwise) specifically about photography? I'm trying to
read 'The Photograph as Contemporary Art' by Charlotte Cotton, though if I'm
completely honest, it's a touch dry. Give me Phillip K Dick any day.

Jonathan.


On 9/11/09 12:10, "karl shah-jenner" <shahjen@...> wrote:

> Which SF novel was that? And by who? I'm a bit of an SF addict...quite like
> to read that.
>
> Jonathan.
>
>
> not one I know, the only I know of that refers to synisthesia is "Tiger,
> Tiger" (or The Stars My Destination) - Alfred Bester
>
>
> damn, that guy could write good sci-fi :)
>
> k
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Jonathan Turner
Photographer

e: pictures@...
t: 0113 217 1275
m:07796 470573

7 Scott Hall Walk, Leeds, LS7 3JQ

http://www.jonathan-turner.com

[David Dyer-Bennet]

On Mon, November 9, 2009 05:29, jonathan turner wrote:
> Which SF novel was that? And by who? I'm a bit of an SF addict...quite
> like
> to read that.

The bit I talked about was from _The Mote In God's Eye_ by Larry Niven and
Jerry Pournelle.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[jonathan turner-2]

Thanks, will investigate.


On 9/11/09 14:12, "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@...> wrote:

>
> On Mon, November 9, 2009 05:29, jonathan turner wrote:
>> Which SF novel was that? And by who? I'm a bit of an SF addict...quite
>> like
>> to read that.
>
> The bit I talked about was from _The Mote In God's Eye_ by Larry Niven and
> Jerry Pournelle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Jonathan Turner
Photographer

e: pictures@...
t: 0113 217 1275
m:07796 470573

7 Scott Hall Walk, Leeds, LS7 3JQ

http://www.jonathan-turner.com

[lookaround360]

DDB,

That poses an interesting problem.  What kind of pigments would a
non-human use? I'm think something in UV range made from fluorescing
minerals or something like that. There are some artist pigments that
change colors depending on angle of light. Looks way-cool in gallery.
Move your head a bit and what was one color changes to another. I'll see
if I can find example from a gallery show we had last spring.

AZ

LOOKAROUND - Since 1978
GET FREE COPY
Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
The Lookaround E-Book 5ed.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Imaginary colors Speculation
> From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@...>
> Date: Sun, November 08, 2009 12:39 pm
> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
> <photoforum@...>
> PhotoRoy6@... wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:46:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > dd-b@... writes:Your first two sentences may be tautologically
> > true (if you're asserting
> > that "color" is a human construct), but it's also useless.
> >
> >
> > Now I titled my email "Imaginary colors Speculation"  What I am saying
> > is that there is no colors that we don't see (as a group). That there
> > is no new color you can get by other means. When bats view sound waves
> > if they see this as color it is of our spectrum but I suspect there
> > brain senses sound waves as some sort of pattern.
> > There is no point in searching for other colors.
> At least short of brain modification, surgically or through genetic
> engineering.
> Not that I'm volunteering to be a test subject!!!!
> There was an interesting bit in a very fine SF novel not mostly about
> sight (this was just a side detail), where it became relevant dealing
> with an alien species that they used different pigments in their visual
> receptors than we did.  Hence blended colors, which is to say nearly all
> reproduced images and even original paintings, looked different to them
> than they did to us.  Their artists were talking about trying to figure
> out how to paint for a human audience.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

On Mon, November 9, 2009 09:42, lookaround360@... wrote:

> That poses an interesting problem.  What kind of pigments would a
> non-human use?

Presumably they would choose pigments that worked well to convey colors to
their visual system, while being compatible with the rest of the process
(easier for brush-applied pigments, somewhat harder for chromagenic color
film).  Which is to say each species would make different choices.

Well, it's possible there are limited numbers of "good" choices for
retinal pigments, easily produced biologically and so forth, maybe.  If
so, the range of what various species use would be smaller.  Our
experience on earth is narrow since the species all seem to be pretty
closely related.

> I'm think something in UV range made from fluorescing
> minerals or something like that. There are some artist pigments that
> change colors depending on angle of light. Looks way-cool in gallery.
> Move your head a bit and what was one color changes to another. I'll see
> if I can find example from a gallery show we had last spring.

Oooh, deliberate  metamerism!  That'll really annoy some people.  But
yeah, if used cleverly it might make for very interesting visual effects.
Maybe people would want to light the paintings with two lights at
different angles with different types of bulbs, to emphasize the effect.
In fact, maybe the lighting setup should be part of the work, so the
artist can plan things to do what he wants with the lighting setup.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[karl shah-jenner]

Alan:

That poses an interesting problem.  What kind of pigments would a
non-human use? I'm think something in UV range made from fluorescing
minerals or something like that. There are some artist pigments that
change colors depending on angle of light. Looks way-cool in gallery.
Move your head a bit and what was one color changes to another. I'll see
if I can find example from a gallery show we had last spring.



here's a car I photographed painted in one such style of paint
http://members.iinet.net.au/~shahjen/images/small.jpg

[lookaround360]

Karl,

Was the trucks paint some sort of nano pigment?  That's something Ford
used to offer. Cars looked kind of pinkish, kind of blueish... . Kind of
gorpy!

The paintings I saw were displayed kind of like you suggest with more
than one color temp light. That was not on-purpose! Can't find the pics
I took of them with our gallery manager holding them at different angles
- darn!

Now the question is - where can I get some for my ink jet printer?
I could make my own from crushed butterfly wings, Windex, glycerin,...

AZ

LOOKAROUND - Since 1978
Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
The Lookaround E-Book 5ed.
GET FREE COPY
http://www.panoramacamera.us

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Imaginary colors Speculation
> From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@...>
> Date: Mon, November 09, 2009 11:28 am
> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
> <photoforum@...>
> Alan:
> That poses an interesting problem.  What kind of pigments would a
> non-human use? I'm think something in UV range made from fluorescing
> minerals or something like that. There are some artist pigments that
> change colors depending on angle of light. Looks way-cool in gallery.
> Move your head a bit and what was one color changes to another. I'll see
> if I can find example from a gallery show we had last spring.
> here's a car I photographed painted in one such style of paint
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~shahjen/images/small.jpg

[Roger Eichhorn]

You want imaginary colors?  Check out any male hummingbird.  The  
colors are vibrant viewed from the correct angle.

Roger

On 9 Nov 2009, at 10:49 AM, lookaround360@... wrote:

>
> Karl,
>
> Was the trucks paint some sort of nano pigment?  That's something Ford
> used to offer. Cars looked kind of pinkish, kind of blueish... .  
> Kind of
> gorpy!
>
> The paintings I saw were displayed kind of like you suggest with more
> than one color temp light. That was not on-purpose! Can't find the  
> pics
> I took of them with our gallery manager holding them at different  
> angles
> - darn!
>
> Now the question is - where can I get some for my ink jet printer?
> I could make my own from crushed butterfly wings, Windex, glycerin,...
>
> AZ
>
> LOOKAROUND - Since 1978
> Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
> The Lookaround E-Book 5ed.
> GET FREE COPY
> http://www.panoramacamera.us
>
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Imaginary colors Speculation
>> From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@...>
>> Date: Mon, November 09, 2009 11:28 am
>> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
>> <photoforum@...>
>> Alan:
>> That poses an interesting problem.  What kind of pigments would a
>> non-human use? I'm think something in UV range made from fluorescing
>> minerals or something like that. There are some artist pigments that
>> change colors depending on angle of light. Looks way-cool in gallery.
>> Move your head a bit and what was one color changes to another.  
>> I'll see
>> if I can find example from a gallery show we had last spring.
>> here's a car I photographed painted in one such style of paint
>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~shahjen/images/small.jpg
>