[LRflex] Re: leicareflex Digest V13 #18

  • From: Neil <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:46:04 -0500



On 1/19/2016 1:12 AM, David Young wrote:

From:     David Young<dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 21:29:58 -0800
Subject: [LRflex] Re: The Sign - more research.

George offered:

>>My question remains ... why?
>
>idiosyncrasies of  day glow paints
Thanks, George.

That may be, but it does not explain the change in the BLACK lettering, which 
is not a day-glow paint.

My bam remains boozled.

David.
Although the idea of "black" is that it is a particular color, it usually isn't. For reflective materials, "black" is the presence of all colors, and in print and paint is typically a mixture that is not completely balanced, thus one can have blacks with a redish hue, a blue-black, etc., that can be emphasized with intense lighting. For transmissive media (such as for photo sensors and screens), "black" is the absence of all colors, a problem that pretty much guarantees that the result is almost never "pure" black.

So, when you exposed your scene for the shaded area, the combination of these factors, along with the radiated qualities of the day-glow background could explain result. I don't know enough about the particular construction of day-glow paints to predict the outcome, but, if the lettering is blue-black, the red reflection in the snow may explain why the lettering looks purple to the camera.

Neil


------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
  http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
   //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. leicareflex
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2016