I've stopped quibbling! But additive and subtractive colors are two different worlds. I'm seeing these pictures on a monitor. It's a vast topic anyway - we won't get anywhere in the duration of this challenge.
-k2
No worries guys - Kiki and I just look at the world of color, or lack of color, :-) a little differently and our backgrounds and experiences are different. We will just have to agree to disagree on the use of black in color photography! :-) Anyway, this is just for fun. Are we all having fun with this challenge now, I know I am! :-D CJ
Avant Garde? You're ahead of us in the "high contrast" stakes here, Carole. It's contrasty in so many dimensions that is it downright difficult to comprehend. The three trees do give it some stark focus amidst the harshly rendered elements. -tv
Kiki, I know black is not a "color" in theory, but I think we're talking about two different things - you're talking about black as in the light spectrum and I'm talking about black being used in materials, like paint, or ink, which doesn't reflect light, like a black poster board background. We often use black as a "color" and play bright colors off of it for effect in art, and even in our everyday life with our clothing (at least we gals do! ) :-). Besides, I don't think I saw a rule anyplace where black could not be used for contrast in color images, only black and white photography!
Rod - this is all just an experiment to create controversy - you can't be the only one to stir things up! :-D CJ
Perhaps. Depends on luminosity. But I didn't discard any colors. Black is not a color.
Black is total absence of luminance and the greyscale is all about luminance and not about colors. But colors are also about luminance.
This picture here is high contrast because of how the luminance values relate, not the colors.
If luminance is high contrast, colors don't matter.
It's first when the luminance value of two colors get close, that the colors need to be very different, to still be perceived as contrasty.
But if two very dark OR two very pale colors (each containing very much black OR white, in other words) are set up against eachother, it might be problematic to label the pic as high contrast even if they are complimentary.
The more "content" they mutually share of black or white, the more they will resemble eachother, rather than contrast. 99% black and 1% red is very similar to 99% black and 1% blue.
I'm don't think disregarding the color of the background is a good test of whether a color image is high contrast or not. A bright red ball thrown up against a bright blue sky would be high contrast as it would be against a bright yellow or even black or white background. It might not make for a very interesting picture, but it would still be high contrast depending on the colors and processing. ;-) CJ
hmmmmmmm - CJ, well, I guess I mistook something you quoted from. But kiki I think I understand your explanation, and thanks. I've been too afraid to try color contrast, but we'll see. Penny Street
I see what it is, but technically it works like a gradient.
In the same way as the coloring and shading of the onion is one.. and that is the problem with the onion picture.
Replace the background in each of these two pictures with a blurred checkerboard pattern. What remains?
Here, you would still have a high contrast picture.
But in the onion pic, you are basically left with a well lit onion. Nothing anymore indicates it is a high contrast picture.
So..
-A black blackground alone is not enough to label a picture high contrast.
-A smooth gradient is not high contrast.
Not I Penny - I believe that was stated on one of the web sites we were directed to, but I think many colors can be high contrast if processed in a certain way. :-) CJ
ERROR: 500
NOTES: [hset] LOADING Redis is loading the dataset in memory, at /usr/local/share/perl5/Redis.pm line 268. ,
PBASE_ENV: production
Try Again:Go Home