Do you paint representational images?
Would be nice to have these effects used for CAPTCHAs that humans can read, but robots can’t. At least until the robots are reprogrammed.
1 Like
I’m not whom you were replying to, but I do, having recently gotten back into it after twenty years or so. Might be an amateur’s perspective, but trying to correct for perceptual color biases, as it happens, is one of the most challenging and interesting parts of it for me.
1 Like
No, I mean, I have no problem with people that use human visual artifacts truly as artistic elements.
I’m more bitching about the less interesting “hey! some people thing this color is X, but other people think it’s Y”, because, yeah, we already know that humans perceive color based on situational cues.
If you’re doing art, good on you. But these trivial optical illusions are getting boring.
It’s not a stunt when you are painting, though. It’s central to the endeavor. So it remains interesting to people who are trying to paint in a realist style.
That thing about the hair color around the 5:15 mark is interesting, I think.
5 Likes
Ah, Ciaphas Cain; what a guy.
1 Like
Good definition of Alternative Facts, this. See: the size of the Drumpf inauguration crowd debate.
1 Like
That was indeed a great description of it. The cool thing about it is the way your brain automatically subtracts the lighting context of an overall scene from all the objects in it and you will perceive the “real” colors of them independent of the lighting. Then, reciprocally, having items in the scene such that you already know what color they should be (skin tones, red stop signs, green leaves) helps you decide what color the lighting is, and then informs you more about the color of more ambiguous surfaces.
And this all happens so unconsciously and automatically that when you take up some sort of art you find you need to learn to see what colors you’re actually looking at in a subject. I’m a little jealous of that dude working digitally, because low-opacity filters will work like he describes there, but putting a wash over a physical painting won’t. Typically the hues will go in roughly the right direction, but the saturation won’t (because pigments are additive where light is subtractive), so you’ve got to work out the final colors the hard way.
A picture like the Infamous Dress works because the picture does not provide enough of any of the needed visual cues to decide confidently what the lighting context is, and hence what colors the dress is. An illusion like the one in this post provides a very simplified scenario that intentionally misleads that same visual system.
3 Likes
But . . . those aren’t skulls, they’re hippos!
2 Likes
ehm, yes, thats what I thought…
…and thats why I used the original pic from the PS-article for the crop. thought this would be obvious.
It’s even harder to apply that process in real paint because he’s working neither additively, nor “subtractively,” but he’s using the color blend mode, which keeps the values the same but makes the hues be the hue of the upper layer ‘wash.’ The best thing you can do when working with real pigments is to develop all parts of the painting roughly at the same time so that you develop a context in which to judge everything, and to be willing to scrape away or paint over parts you judge as needing to be changed.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
