Photographic colors and distortion

[Tarique Beg]

I wonder why people say that photographic colours are never right, and distortion is a problem.

Regarding colours: sure papers, chemicals, exposure timing, etc. effect the result. However, I've seen some experts produce photographs that come very, very close to natural colours. If there is a slight variance from natural colours, in a good professional colour photograph, don't all of us see colours slightly differently in any case? What appears excessively bluish to one person may be greenish to another. So there are variances in our very eyes. No two people see identically. The cones and rods at the back our retinas are light sensitive cells that are effectively an extension of our brain that interprets visual stimuli subjectively. Furthermore, the colour of surrounding objects may influence skin colour and we are constantly looking at one another in different light sources such as morning or evening sunlight, incandescent, flourescent (excuse the spellings). So do we really know EXACTLY what colour another person is?? Nowadays, I've found Digital photography gives me better colour than film, with a lot of detail in the shadows and colours that are really quite close to natural colours. I can even see a lot of subtle reflected colours in a Digital photograph that film doesn't seem to pick up (unless your exposure and processing is prefect).

Next, about distortion: It's known that you can minimize photographic distortion by a few simple rules. That is, photograph the face from a distance with a telephoto lense. Of course, close ups of a face with a normal lens (50 mm) or less will produce gross distortion - the pelican nose effect. A portrait lense is usually an 80mm to 105mm telephoto. The only problem with telephoto lenses is that they can produce foreshortening if say the subject extends an arm towards the camera. Foreshortening can be avoided by posing the subject so that no limbs are pointing towards the camera. Or, if they are, then a normal or slight wide angle lens can be used for the body - that is, you could use a normal lense for the body and a portrait lense for the face etc. Another thing about distortion and 2D. If you look at even the most correctly drawn picture from a slight angle, you are already viewing a distorted image. In order not to see distortion when viewing a painting, both your eyes have to be exactly the same distance from the center of the canvas and parallel to it. The fact that we don't seem to notice the distortion as we casually saunter through an art gallery, is that our brains make adjustments. It's like when you can't get a proper central seat at an ultra-wide screen movie, the first few minutes feel awful, but as the movie progresses, you forget that you are in the far corner seat and everything seems OK.

I've always wondered about this need for exact colour and zero distortion. My subjective opinion is that by using a Digital camera, correct exposure, and minimizing on distortion with the correct lenses and model posturing, we can come close enough to the real thing, that our brains automatically fill in for any hardly noticeable imperfections. Of course, I may be all wrong about this. Comments please.

[Michael Georges]

Tarique:

We are in absolute agreement you and I. It is easy to see where you have distortion in most photographic reference. If you can see it, you quickly learn what to look for when positioning your subject.

As for colors, most digitals come pretty close to the eye when viewing the pics on the computer screen, but can vary depending on what you print them on - printer and paper make a huge difference. I always try to schedule several live visits with my subject to allow me an opportunity to compare my reference to the actual colors of their clothing, skin tones, etc.

[Mike McCarty]

I agree. Especially about the brains ability to adjust to the context of the situation.

To me it seems that value is more important than color anyway. The camera may get the color off a few degrees but it usally is off consistently as it relates to the overall value scheme. With film my challenge has always been with the developer. I am always having to direct their efforts to get the image that I want. It's just inherent in the process I guess, but I do test their patience.

It's an interesting subject. I believe that the brain, when veiwing a photo, will accept certain conditions more readily because it sees the photo as a recording of fact(mostly, save the most recent photoshop adjustments). However this same brain will scrutinize a painting much more because it understands that it is basically a contrivance. But alas, I am again practicing without a license.