Re: [Utah-astronomy] A snack in Gemini before bedtime
Chuck wrote:
I see colors through the eyepiece differently, depending on which eye is doing the looking. . . . .It's rare that the colors I perceive are what I've read in descriptive texts.
IMHO, some of the inability to perceive colors can be attributed to color illiteracy. Haas's descriptions are often attributed quotes from an 1844 celestial guide by Smyth and a 1917 guide by Webb. Mullaney's descriptions are unattributed quotes that he garned from Pickering, Barnard, Smyth, Flammarion, the Herschels and others. All of these color descriptions come from 19th century or early 20th century authors and pre-date color film. I suspect that those historical times required a basic educated person to be able to mix paints and have a good color vocabulary. In the era of color film, unless you take art classes, a basic school education does require much beyond naming the primary colors. Most people would be hard pressed to name the secondary colors off the top of their head, much less tertiary colors. Now you can just show the thing to someone in a cell phone picture instead of having to describe it. With cell phone camera's, there's no reall need to verbally describe colors beyond your basic red-blooded American male color set of green, camouflage green, brown, camouflage brown, black, flat (camouflage) black, gun metal black and gun metal gray. My own terse descriptions are due in part to my lack of color vocabulary. This reminds me that I bought and stored a color wheel in one of my astronomy gear boxes for use in describing star colors. I'll have to pull that out and start using it. At least I can expand my color vocabulary from the primary colors into tertiary colors modifed by the basic descriptors of tint (add white), tone (add grey) and shade (add black). Clear skies - Kurt
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. On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck wrote:
I see colors through the eyepiece differently, depending on which eye is doing the looking. . . . .It's rare that the colors I perceive are what I've read in descriptive texts.
IMHO, some of the inability to perceive colors can be attributed to color illiteracy. Haas's descriptions are often attributed quotes from an 1844 celestial guide by Smyth and a 1917 guide by Webb. Mullaney's descriptions are unattributed quotes that he garned from Pickering, Barnard, Smyth, Flammarion, the Herschels and others. All of these color descriptions come from 19th century or early 20th century authors and pre-date color film. I suspect that those historical times required a basic educated person to be able to mix paints and have a good color vocabulary. In the era of color film, unless you take art classes, a basic school education does require much beyond naming the primary colors. Most people would be hard pressed to name the secondary colors off the top of their head, much less tertiary colors. Now you can just show the thing to someone in a cell phone picture instead of having to describe it.
With cell phone camera's, there's no reall need to verbally describe colors beyond your basic red-blooded American male color set of green, camouflage green, brown, camouflage brown, black, flat (camouflage) black, gun metal black and gun metal gray.
My own terse descriptions are due in part to my lack of color vocabulary. This reminds me that I bought and stored a color wheel in one of my astronomy gear boxes for use in describing star colors. I'll have to pull that out and start using it. At least I can expand my color vocabulary from the primary colors into tertiary colors modifed by the basic descriptors of tint (add white), tone (add grey) and shade (add black).
Clear skies - Kurt
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
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
participants (3)
-
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
Kim