Chuck et. al.:
From my first days of serious telescopic observing I've been interested in stellar colors and the descriptions of them given by early observers, such as those cited previously. (My favorite description is "pale lilac" but I don't recall the observer who coined that color for a binary companion star.) Color theory, as you know, is very different for direct light sources than for reflected (pigmented) color sources. Theatrical lighting, for example, requires a different skill and color understanding than the traditional skills taught in art (and in my case, architecture) schools. I learned a lot about color descriptions from stamp collecting, and I'm still looking for a star colored "carmine" or "vermillion". I think, though, that I've seen "periwinkle" and "indigo".
I've concluded that color descriptions by others are very subjective and unreliable. The main thing is to trust your own observations - and enjoy. Interesting thread. Thanks. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 8:15 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] A snack in Gemini before bedtime I don't think the "color illiteracy" theory holds in my case, at least. I trained as an artist for years in school and made my living at it for a few years. My descriptive color pallate is easily up to the task. As I alluded, I'm pretty sure the differences I see personally are due to biology. At my place of employment, color is very important to our customers. They specify certain colors as key to their branding and use calibrated Pantone numbers to help their vendors get it right. Even then, some of us see their supplied samples as a match to different shades in the Pantone book- not always the specific color they say it is. Color perception as a function of biology is clearly at work here- and even when one discounts the obvious, textbook examples of "colorblindness". I also think that some of the differences may be due to those 19th-century observers using refractors that were optimized for different wavelengths than modern refractors. Too, in my observing heyday I used reflectors exclusively. There is also the possibility that atmospheric composition (from man-made pollutants) is absorbing certain wavelengths in a subtle way that is different from 100+ years ago. Tough call. Color, tint... it's such a fleetingly subtle thing with astronomical targets, to begin with. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date: 12/31/2008 8:44 AM