Why can my eye pick up more color than a camera sensor at depth?
- Thread starter nippurmagnum
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
tarponchik
Contributor
Strobes, of course, illuminate the shades and improve colors.
scubaozy
Contributor
Right, I should have checked before writing a statement ;-).
ScubaJCBS
Live to dive! Dive to live!
God is Awesome!
scubaozy
Contributor
My understanding was OP was a shooting video with natural light and sample image was just one frame, I think artificial light is out of equation. It would be interesting to know what camera & lens combination was used and also some metadata. BTW there is also the aspect of 140fsw in the equation, most of us are a little narced at that depth, that might enhance the colors as well.
OP
nippurmagnum
Contributor
Yes — I was shooting video and did an image capture. No, I was not using strobes or video lights — they wouldn’t have helped at the distance the school of hammerheads was at. And yes, I was at 140 feet, but I don’t think I was narced. The main point of saying that I was at 140 feet is that at that depth, there is very little or not red spectrum light getting through, yet the sharks I observed (and the divers, for that matter) definitely did not appear as blue as in my images, camera white balance notwithstanding.
I think many of the people who responded understood my question as I intended it: why is it that we are able to perceive colors underwater with more apparent fidelity than a camera sensor? Some interesting answers have been offered, a few of which seem complementary (no pun intended), a few of which seem at odds with each other, but lots of food for thought.
scubaozy
Contributor
Thank you for starting the conversation, indeed, it stimulated a colorful discussion. "why is it that we are able to perceive colors underwater with more apparent fidelity than a camera sensor?" contains a statement that needs to be tested first. Do we see more colors than a camera? thus the questions, what camera, what settings, what resolution, what aperture, what shutter, what lens, what frame rate, interpolation?.. Aren't there some cameras that see better than human vision? Perhaps the reason is you need a better camera, different lens different settings/technique and you would no longer make that statement. For me, Laymans terms for photography is to get enough light into the film/sensor. If you achieve that, you can throttle back iso and you will have a lot of headroom for altering other settings for desired outcome. It is fair to expect same results with your current camera as your vision?
BTW I notice NN at 150fsw clearly, depending on the day, if I get euphoric, colors and pronounced, if I get paranoid everything looks green and gloomy.
Bora_Horza
Contributor
Then there was the internet viral image of 'the dress' which was percived as different colours by different people - some insight into how our brains white balance images 
: The dress - Wikipedia
: The dress - Wikipedia
klausi
Contributor
Eric Sedletzky
Contributor
Humans can see thousands (or at least hundreds) more color nuances than any camera lens and processor can see. And another factor is that the human eye and brain can “see” many different colors and nuances all at the same time whereas machinery can only see a very limited range at one time. I try to take a picture of a sunset and always seem disappointed with the results. Film even used to be better in some situations, provided you picked the right film for the colors you were planning to shoot.
Then there is even more breakdown of that information when the photo gets put up on a screen, then printed. What about the quality of the printing process, inks, etc.
In my world as an artist, I understand that the best way to truly depict proper color, color relationships and values, is to work directly from life with paint Working from photographs does not provide enough color information about all the components of a scene at the same time since sensors will favor one part of a color scheme over another.
Then there is the emotional response which influences perception that humans are capable of. Cameras can’t do that.
That is why art will never die and humans will never be replaced in that respect.
Then there is even more breakdown of that information when the photo gets put up on a screen, then printed. What about the quality of the printing process, inks, etc.
In my world as an artist, I understand that the best way to truly depict proper color, color relationships and values, is to work directly from life with paint Working from photographs does not provide enough color information about all the components of a scene at the same time since sensors will favor one part of a color scheme over another.
Then there is the emotional response which influences perception that humans are capable of. Cameras can’t do that.
That is why art will never die and humans will never be replaced in that respect.
Similar threads
