Russia in color, a century ago

I might certainly buy that claim. I don't think that most people here were concerned with the artistic intent so much as the documentation of a past reality.

As to information content, your claim is that there is more information content in these reconstructed images than would have been received at Proudin-Gorsky's eyes while he was taking the photographs? I find that a bit hard to believe. Though I suppose sharpening via some sort of deconvolution might amount to that. Also, we don't need anything so "esoteric" as either night vision goggles or Photoshop to get more information onto a piece of photographic paper than would have been seen with the naked eye. A long exposure or a polarizing filter on the camera can do that.

The fact is, the images were made in the color space of nature. The limitation was precisely the latitude of the plates when exposed to light which had been band-pass filtered to allow red, green and blue light to pass. What the precise details of those filters and the respective sensitivity of the plates to those spectra are, I can't say. Obviously it was panchromatic or we wouldn't have a red channel.

Here's an image which shows how snugly the sRGB color space fits within the real of visual perception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colorspace.png

It sure is cozy in there.

What we have in front of us is still an approximation of the colors of nature and that we can perceive.

Here's some samples of fluorescent paint

http://www.goldenpaints.com/products/color/fluorescent/fluor...

Now I don't know anything the history of fluorescent paint and whether it was around in Prokudin-Gorksy's lifetime. But I know for certain he could have seen it if it had and noticed its intensity.

I hope you notice that the photographs of the paint on the website are not themselves fluorescent. This is because we can perceive colors that the screen can't show, even if you have the latest Cinema Display.

Also, go online and look up some gold or copper. Then look at the real thing. Good luck getting the computer to produce that color.

Fact is, producing these colors is hard, and done with spot color when printing. That doesn't make it outside the realm of perception.

What you're basically arguing is that the film couldn't have possibly captured the colors we see here, and that they were invented by the restoration process.

So, I'll ask again for quantification. This is the digital realm we're discussing. What I'm not asking for is the quantification of taste or feeling, or even of perception, in spite of this discussion. There are so hard numbers underneath all of this. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the same image with the pixels that are impossible in this alleged early 20th century color space highlighted.

However, I think you've successfully moved the goalposts past what we are capable of knowing directly. By alleging that these 16-bit TIFF grayscale images created in the scanning process are themselves heavily manipulated, we have come to a stopping point. There's no way I can get my hands on the originals in order to ascertain whether you are correct. (However note that the images were scanned is grayscale, perhaps using sGray as the color model, is it the fact that you also assert that sGray contains more colors than Prokudin-Gorksy could have perceived or captured on his plates?)

Aside from your clever dismissal of the "original" as far as we are able to obtain it, the 16-bit color-separated TIFFs, is it possible at all to bring these images into a computer and respect their original "limited" nature and bring that presentation to a computer screen? Because if it is not, then what is the point?

Your assertion that we are in love with Photoshop, not the work itself is basically moot. What you are offering up as an explanation of the compelling content of the work is in fact so commonplace as to encompass all of digital media. The powers granted Photoshop in this discussion to smudge the original color working space into realms impossible in the original are in fact so pervasive that to draw them out in this discussion is merely an excuse to talk about your pet theories about digital media and have nothing whatever to do with this work under discussion.

[Troll]

[I simply asked for an objective demonstration...] Of differential perception. Nice straw-man. If you want this, you a/b test. no unicorns will be forthcoming.

[made the color space of nature] Note: color space is a sub-set of EMR by definition.

[The limitation was precisely the latitude of the plates] The plates have two limitations you fail to appreciate: they are positive images and they are monochrome.

[Here's some samples of fluorescent paint] - WTF, no need thanks.

[What you're basically arguing is that the film couldn't have possibly captured the colors we see here] - film wasn't used, this is a straw-man, and irrelevant.

[So, I'll ask again for quantification. ] As a general concept, you quantify data with numbers. If I tell you [x,y] pixel N of 12.1 million went from [221,112,216] to [221,112,217] what then?. The impact on perception is non-linear and context deponent, to adjacent values (color in particular). This has as much relevance as reading Binary computer code.

[It would be interesting to see ... the pixels that are impossible] -- non-sensical formulation. That said, in a literal sense, each pixel that is tonal mapped was not visible in the original. because of the scanning process, there are no original tones. but even assuming that away, the www jpegs are tonally altered independent of color. You can difference these in photoshop. Heres how: take the scan 3-layer monochrome>flatten, align, crop and resize to match the online web jpeg. put both layers in a new file. confirm alignment. add BW layer the color Jpeg image. and difference. the "scan" from the "www". and there you go. a BW difference layer. all color is PS of course. But this yields no information, because of the non-linear impact of tonal variation deltas on image perception.

[I hope you notice that the photographs of the paint on the website are not themselves fluorescent.] I think this shows output gamut is a sub-set of visible light. see above.

[So, I'll ask again for quantification. This is the digital realm we're discussing. What I'm not asking for is the quantification of taste or feeling, or even of perception, in spite of this discussion. ] Again, this dishonest. You areasking for a quantification on the impact of perception. Or you're just fishing for something, so then you can say "this data you gave me is worthless"! All other meanings of the data are worthless. We've established this above, [x,y,z] deltas are like [0.1] binary information. But, that's so obvious I only mention it here for humor. =D

[I think you've successfully moved the goalposts past what we are capable of knowing directly. By alleging that these 16-bit TIFF grayscale images created in the scanning process are themselves heavily manipulated] Nobody moved the goal-post. You just don't know what game you are playing. All digital scans alter the image, nothing you can do. the scanner has a gamut. and the digital data and the perceptual data are non-linear. so there needs to be math added. That math has control parameters, set by the artist using PS.

[There's no way I can get my hands on the originals in order to ascertain whether you are correct.] You can get your hands on the plates. But, then you cannot make even the most basic adjustments, because the tones are fixed on glass. So the output image quality is limited like slide film. The blown out sky highlights are a classic example of non-recoverable detail for the viewer using a one-step process.

[Aside from your clever dismissal of the "original" as far as we are able to obtain it, the 16-bit color-separated TIFFs] No. you can obtain the plates. But you can never make any adjustments to this data, because there is no secondary image development. So, the limits of the emulsion are the limits of perception. The sky detail is nearly invisible on the glass (all 3 layers) plate and prominent in the www image. This single counter-example is definitive.

[Is it possible at all to bring these images into a computer and respect their original "limited" nature and bring that presentation to a computer screen?] The world press photo winner is editorial, so it meets your test of respecting its subject. But again -- it is very, powerfully modified -- another counter example to your basic premise. Dichotomy between trivial originality or unfaithful distortion is false.

[Your assertion that we are in love with Photoshop, not the work itself is basically moot.] Nice straw-man. you are looking at photoshops, not glass plates. The other straw man is the notion of [work itself]. There is as much art in the secondary process as the capture, in particular with these images.

[You are offering up ... an explanation ...to encompass all of digital media.] All the omitted words were yours. Its nothing special, digital media. It is powerful in the right hands. But then again, so was oil based paint for Da Vinci. It is a medium. And you need to appreciate and understand it. Dichotomy between trivial originality or unfaithful distortion is false in painting too.

[The powers granted Photoshop ... are in fact so pervasive that to draw them out in this discussion is merely an excuse to talk about your pet theories about digital media] You continue to think there is a level playing field. You may like It or not, my expertise in these matters need not be questioned. See opp cit Michael Fried for Academic background, if you must rely on the others too.

Rejecting a false assertion might be clever if it were not falsely asserted [in the first place]. But anyone can play this game. Its almost as good as the false [false dichotomy] that follows. This is pure [classic] trolling. And as HN readers will see...it continues in this thread ad infinitum from here.

If anyone here is a troll, it is you. Only you haven't been coherent enough to be trolling in the traditional fashion. It seems perhaps that you have invented a new style of trolling: State things with an affected air of authority, but never make it exactly clear just what your thesis is. Instead, just kind of ramble on, juxtaposing incontrovertible facts -- such as, "The images are monochromes, set with chemistry. 100yrs ago" -- with enigmatic and dismissive assertions such as "Its "cool". Its just different than what you think it is." Then when anyone tries to pin you down by providing a paraphrasing of what they think your claims are, start whining about straw men and false dichotomies and how your expertise should not be questioned.

Very clever! I think we've discovered your true genius.

Or maybe you are just bipolar [fnord]. I cannot say.