Different perception of monochrome and colour

[gaffer]

I have written a short piece on the different perception of monochrome and colour:

http://www.tug.com/blog/2010/20100310_Black_and_White/

It talks about the different ways that the rods and cones in your retina perceive colour and texture in the context of monochrome photography.

Has anyone else written about this? Is there anything I can read about it?

Andrew

 

[Voyager]

I have written a short piece on the different perception of monochrome and colour:

http://www.tug.com/blog/2010/20100310_Black_and_White/

It talks about the different ways that the rods and cones in your retina perceive colour and texture in the context of monochrome photography.

Has anyone else written about this? Is there anything I can read about it?

I believe that you are right about rods and cones - there are way more rods (contrast) than cones (colour) in our eyes.

I'd never though of it as a physical thing though, the difference between colour and black and white to me is the difference between what you see and what you feel.

I tend to consider the image differently when composing it. It is not often a matter of just print in black and white or colour. Light tends to play a more important role in B/W than colour - for me.

 

[The Matt]

I don't buy that, sorry.
Reason 1: My cone cells are still working just as well when viewing the black and white image as the colour, else my peripheral vision would go a bit monochrome.
Reason 2: Sight with rod cells is is considerably poorer than with cones. They are not packed in as tightly so the resolution is much lower. Hence finding it harder to read in the dark, even when you can see to move around. If I were viewing a b&w image with only rods there'd be a noticable softness compared to the colour.

 

[gaffer]

I don't buy that, sorry.
Reason 1: My cone cells are still working just as well when viewing the black and white image as the colour, else my peripheral vision would go a bit monochrome.
Reason 2: Sight with rod cells is is considerably poorer than with cones. They are not packed in as tightly so the resolution is much lower. Hence finding it harder to read in the dark, even when you can see to move around. If I were viewing a b&w image with only rods there'd be a noticable softness compared to the colour.

My understanding is that there is a big disconnect between what your eyes can physically see and what you perceive after processing by the visual cortex.

What your eyes detect has the following features:

- It is upside down
- It has blind spots
- It is colour in the middle, monochrome round the outside.
- It is high res in the middle, low res round the outside
- Colour cell mix is uneven (red 64%, green 32%, blue 2%)
- Colour senseitivity is different at different light levels (the rods don't see red)

Yet the perception is that the image is the right way up, complete, entirely in colour and all in high resolution.

So I am suggesting that changing the input image (by desaturating the colour out of it), you may fundamentally change the perception of things such as texture.

Andrew

 

[petersmart]

I remember hearing of an experiment years ago where subjects were fitted with special glasses which inverted what they normally saw - they turned everything upside down.

After a few days they began to see everything the correct way up when weaing the glasses - the brain had corrected for the upside down images.

When they took the glasses off everything was upside down again - until after a few days the brain inverted the images again and everthing appeared the right way up.

Physically perhaps the reason we have more rods lies way way back in our past when we needed to see better at night in order to avoid becoming a meal for a marauding predator.

So Darwin's law of naural selection would apply - only those who could see better at night survived to pass on this genetic trait.

And I've no doubt that the same applies to the distribution of colour sensitivity within the cones - though it needs someone with more knowledge of the subject to explain it.

 

[mrtoad]

what we see and what we interiorise is emotive
black to white or colour cannot add really to an images real purpose
to tell a story

 

[HoppyUK]

I have written a short piece on the different perception of monochrome and colour:

http://www.tug.com/blog/2010/20100310_Black_and_White/

It talks about the different ways that the rods and cones in your retina perceive colour and texture in the context of monochrome photography.

Has anyone else written about this? Is there anything I can read about it?

Andrew

Not sure that I agree with you.

Turning an image into monochrome removes visual information, simplifies it. It's nothing to do with rods and cones.

By removing the colour contrast, it tends to emphasise more simple shapes and forms, as these are the things that stand out in a purely graphical sense. Certain textures might stand out more in this way; more subtle or complex textures would stand out less in mono as you need more image data to interpret them.

I agree that the process of seeing has far more to do with the brain than the eyes. For example, a black & white image will often assume a certain 'reportage' look to it, as that is what we sometimes associate with newspaper photography. Then again, if it is turned sepia it immediately looks very old. Neither of these things have anything to do with our eyes.

Did you take those photographs? They're very good!

 

[Jayst84]

I think how you react to an image in monochrome or full colour, has far more to do with environmental conditioning, your experience as a person exposed to images your whole life, and especially as one interested in photography (and presumably somewhat in its history).

Now go and show some IR photographs to those aboriginal families in the Northern Territories and Queensland who have evolved near infra-red vision.

 

[StewartR]

I'm not competent to comment on your rods/cones theory, Andrew.

But here's an interesting thing. At camera club on Tuesday I got absolutely sick of the presenters saying again and again that "this photo just wouldn't work at all in colour". As a scientist I call that assertion without proof. I want to see the evidence. Now on your blog post you have 7 pairs of (yes, very good) photos. That could be the evidence. But, to my mind, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them looks better in colour.....

 

[dylan36]

I don't have any idea about the rods and cones theory, black and white is just better for expressing an idea. But did you have to use such an annoying series of images to stress your point? All that shiny American teeth and chat show smiling just made me think of plastic surgery and porno implants. Black and white is stripped down concept, no colour distractions, and allowing you to absorb the image. It's no anatomical mystery.

 

[Jayst84]

I don't have any idea about the rods and cones theory, black and white is just better for expressing an idea. But did you have to use such an annoying series of images to stress your point? All that shiny American teeth and chat show smiling just made me think of plastic surgery and porno implants. Black and white is stripped down concept, no colour distractions, and allowing you to absorb the image. It's no anatomical mystery.

What if your idea, or what if your concept, is based on colour? What if the structure of the image is built around the colours?

 

[gaffer]

But, to my mind, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them looks better in colour.....

*grin*

But "looks better" is a subjective test.

I am thinking of an objective test. Do you perceive more contrast, more texture in the monochrome images?

To my eye, the contrast in colour images is about right but I think that I perceive slightly more contrast in the monochrome. Despite this, I want to process the monochrome further to add even more contrast. Why is this? Why is my perception and appreciation of contrast different in monochrome? Is the difference in perception learned or is it physiological?

Andrew

 

[gaffer]

But did you have to use such an annoying series of images to stress your point? All that shiny American teeth

Sorry if you don't like the images. It is just a handful of images that I have taken in the last month that I thought might help to do side by side colour/desaturated comparison.

For the record, there is One American, One English, Two Kuwaiti and Four French (one person appears twice). They are all friends, having a good time. The puppy is a stray.

Andrew

 

[StewartR]

To my eye, the contrast in colour images is about right but I think that I perceive slightly more contrast in the monochrome. Despite this, I want to process the monochrome further to add even more contrast. Why is this? Why is my perception and appreciation of contrast different in monochrome? Is the difference in perception learned or is it physiological?

That's an interesting observation. I would say that many monochrome images that we see have more contrast than they would if the photographer had presented the image in colour. I think this is because, with monochrome, contrast is all there is. The only way to make an image interesting or arresting is to push up the contrast levels to a point which is completely artificial. But we don't notice this, because monochrome is, of itself, completely artificial. You can't say "that doesn't look right", because in monochrome nothing looks right.

 

[dylan36]

Sorry Gaffer, i did'nt mean to be so strong, and offensive. That post was written at 3.30 in the morning after I came in from the pub. I logged on while eating my kebab, and well, I acknowledge my judgement and reaction was unfair and out of order. I hate it when people are rude online, and now I've done it. Your photos are fine, and your observation/arguement is a very worthy and interesting one. Apologies again
Dylan