What decides the colour of light?

In summary: Our brains have evolved to use this method but it is far from perfect. In summary, when light passes through different media, its speed and wavelength may change, but its frequency remains the same. This means that the color of light does not change, as color is dependent on frequency rather than wavelength. The human eye is not a precise instrument for measuring wavelength, but rather categorizes color based on the output of three types of cells with different spectral responses. This is known as the Retinex Theory of Color Vision, which suggests that color is a code for a three-part report from the retina and cortex. However, this theory
  • #1
Rishi Gangadhar
14
2
Consider a beam of light passing through a slab of some refractive index.
We know that the speed and wavelength of the light changes, but its frequency remains the same.
Since the wavelength of the light changes, does its colour change, or does it remain the same as its frequency remains the same.
 
  • Like
Likes Apoorv3012 and Aryan Hussain
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Color only has meaning when the light reaches the eye. All that counts is the frequency.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Aryan Hussain and PWiz
  • #3
Although people tend to talk in terms of the wavelength of light, that quantity keeps changing as it passes through different media (in particular, it is different whilst it is actually in the eye). Frequency is not changed (as Dr Claude pointed out). But pretty well all the light we see consists of a mixture of frequencies. We seldom come across monochromatic light in nature. Apart from lasers and some electric discharge lamps, the light is far from pure.
It is vital to distinguish between colour and wavelength at all times.
 
  • Like
Likes Aryan Hussain
  • #4
Correct me if I'm wrong, but colour is, essentially, the minds way of detecting frequencies. Instead of X Hz or Y Hz, our brain recognizes different frequencies as different colors.
 
  • Like
Likes Aryan Hussain and Ravyan Asro
  • #5
UncertaintyAjay said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but colour is, essentially, the minds way of detecting frequencies. Instead of X Hz or Y Hz, our brain recognizes different frequencies as different colors.
A partial correction. There is a combination of frequencies involved with most colours.( the ones that are not "spectral" colours). Think in terms of musical chords rather than just tones.
 
  • Like
Likes Aryan Hussain, Aditya Kumar, Pythagorean and 1 other person
  • #6
Rishi Gangadhar said:
...
We know that the speed and wavelength of the light changes, but its frequency remains the same ...

sophiecentaur said:
... the wavelength of light, that quantity keeps changing as it passes through different media (in particular, it is different whilst it is actually in the eye). Frequency is not changed ...
HUH? Frequency and wavelength are inverse properties. How can one change and not the other?
 
  • Like
Likes Stephanus, Aryan Hussain and puf_the_majic_dragon
  • #7
UncertaintyAjay said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but colour is, essentially, the minds way of detecting frequencies. Instead of X Hz or Y Hz, our brain recognizes different frequencies as different colors.
I think it's probably more correct to say that color is how the brain categorizes the electrical signal sent to it by the optical nerve rather than that the brain "detects frequencies" directly.
 
  • Like
Likes Stephanus, Aryan Hussain and YanWo
  • #8
sophiecentaur said:
Think in terms of musical chords rather than just tones.
Love the analogy . Thanks.

phinds said:
Frequency and wavelength are inverse properties. How can one change and not the other?
Because velocity decreases. Sophiecentaur was referring to light traveling through different media.
 
  • Like
Likes Aryan Hussain
  • #9
phinds said:
HUH? Frequency and wavelength are inverse properties. How can one change and not the other?
The proportionality constant (speed of light) changes so that the frequency stays the same.
The wavelength changes due to the changes in speed of light in various media.
 
  • Like
Likes Aryan Hussain, Don Jusko and puf_the_majic_dragon
  • #10
nasu said:
The proportionality constant (speed of light) changes so that the frequency stays the same.
The wavelength changes due to the changes in speed of light in various media.
Got it. Thanks. I'm slow today. Well, OK, I"m slow every day, but ...
 
  • Like
Likes Stephanus and Aryan Hussain
  • #11
phinds said:
I think it's probably more correct to say that color is how the brain categorizes the electrical signal sent to it by the optical nerve rather than that the brain "detects frequencies" directly.
I always say that human colour perception is a really poor spectrometer. It is sooo easy to fool. And it doesn't matter at all.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #12
sophiecentaur said:
I always say that human colour perception is a really poor spectrometer. It is sooo easy to fool. And it doesn't matter at all.
I disagree that it doesn't matter. There are situations where subtleties in color do matter.
 
  • #13
phinds said:
I disagree that it doesn't matter. There are situations where subtleties in color do matter.
Of course - but the eye is still a lousy spectrometer. That is what doesn't matter because it is never called on to do that job. Colour is not wavelength, is it?
The eye is very good at resolving small differences in perceived colour (when it matters) but that doesn't involve measuring wavelength but combinations of the outputs of just three groups of sensors.
 
  • #14
sophiecentaur said:
Of course - but the eye is still a lousy spectrometer. That is what doesn't matter because it is never called on to do that job. Colour is not wavelength, is it?
The eye is very good at resolving small differences in perceived colour (when it matters) but that doesn't involve measuring wavelength but combinations of the outputs of just three groups of sensors.

This seems similar to Edwin Land's Retinex theory:

"The Retinex Theory of Color Vision

Λ retina-and-cortex system (retinex) may treat a color as a code for a three-part report from the retina, independent of the flux of radiant energy but correlated with the reflectance of objects "

The Retinex Theory of Color Vision SCIENTIFIC - CiteSeer
 
  • #15
sophiecentaur said:
Of course - but the eye is still a lousy spectrometer. That is what doesn't matter because it is never called on to do that job. Colour is not wavelength, is it? The eye is very good at resolving small differences in perceived colour (when it matters) but that doesn't involve measuring wavelength but combinations of the outputs of just three groups of sensors.
Ah. That I agree with. There are people who can reliably discern very subtle differences in color (which is what I mean that mattered) but if they were to look at one of those colors one day and one close to it the next day I doubt they could tell the difference.
 
  • Like
Likes Aditya Kumar
  • #16
artyb said:
This seems similar to Edwin Land's Retinex theory:

"The Retinex Theory of Color Vision

Λ retina-and-cortex system (retinex) may treat a color as a code for a three-part report from the retina, independent of the flux of radiant energy but correlated with the reflectance of objects "

The Retinex Theory of Color Vision SCIENTIFIC - CiteSeer
I remember reading that paper a long time ago when I was involved in colour TV. The well known tristimulus theory of colour vision seems to overlap the Retinex Theory. Reflectance is not the only thing that counts for a lot of our visual input these days (TV displays and projected film) and it is altogether a very complicated business. The eye manages to process out things like the illumination in assessing the colour of an object. That is truly amazing and the description of the process - 'integrating to grey' is a bit of an oversimplification. It's about all that your automatic digital camera colour correction can manage. The eye seems to extract information at a far deeper level, based on context and memory. Brilliant and the Land paper makes a good effort at describing what goes on.
 
  • Like
Likes artyb
  • #17
sophiecentaur said:
... combinations of the outputs of just three groups of sensors.
Or four, in some rare cases...
:smile:
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
Or four, in some rare cases...
:smile:
Tetrachromacy is one extreme of colour vision, I guess. Colour vision is a very personal thing and those tristimulus response curves (look em up folks) are the result of a lot of statistics, conducted on a lot of subjective results with a lot of people (probably a limited racial spread, though), I believe. There is much more spread in the responses between different people than your average conversation acknowledges. The system was aimed mostly at getting a good enough display and printing method to satisfy enough people with the 'accuracy' of copied colours. The proof of the pudding seems to suggest that RGB and CMY depiction of colours is 'near enough'.
One of these days, perhaps, someone will come up with a TV system that uses more than three analyses and more than three basic phosphors. That could be really impressive and we would then start to realize the limitations of what we have at the moment. Colour printing just can't get away with three colours when the colours really count.
There are parallels with Stereoscopic displays, which are impressive but very limited, in fact and multi channel surround sound systems which do better than bog standard stereo sound.
Our brains are definitely on the side of the manufacturers, though. They desperately try to get sense out of these artificially presented sensations, despite the imperfections in the reproduction system.
 
  • #19
sophiecentaur said:
I always say that human colour perception is a really poor spectrometer. It is sooo easy to fool. And it doesn't matter at all.

Its still pretty damn impressive for all that. And as a spectrometer it serves us very well.
 
  • #20
UncertaintyAjay said:
Its still pretty damn impressive for all that. And as a spectrometer it serves us very well.
Of course, our colour vision serves us very well - in terms of our survival, and we should not expect anything more than that. (Evolution / Nature never does more than necessary). As a spectrometer, the eye is actually totally inadequate. It cannot even tell the difference between spectral Yellow and a combination of two monochromatic Red and Green lights. If I bought a spectrum analyser that could be fooled as easily as that then I would send it back to the shop.
I don't understand why people get all defensive about their bodily system when someone points out its inadequacies. Our vision is what it is. It has no evolutionary advantage in being a spectrometer - so it never developed to be one.
"It doesn't mean you're a bad person." :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Merlin3189
  • #21
The cones in the retina of the eye are stimulated this way, 64% react to red light of frequency centred about 650 nanometers about 33 % react to green light centred on 540/550 nanometers and just 2 % react to blue light centred on 450nanometers. SO if you look at a banana for example, all but the frequencies between 570 and 580 are absorbed and the 570/580nanometer light is reflected to your eyes. The cones respond as indicated and the signals in terms of amplitudes from the cones are transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The brain interprets these amplitudes/ decodes them if you will, and responds with the result that you are looking at something with a colour we call yellow.
 
  • #22
A very nearly monochromatic bannana skin? Hardly likely. It's surface colour, under white illuminant will probably sit around half way between white and spectral yellow on the CIE chart. The pigment will probably be a mix of several natural dyes - at least it could well be. It sure ain't spectral.
If I'm being picky, it's to raise a bit more awareness about the nature of colour.
 
  • Like
Likes artyb and Merlin3189
  • #23
Some people actually study reflection spectra of bananas. :)
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-953.pdf
The graph in figure 3 tells it all.
For a well ripened banana, the reflection coefficient (for visible light) is maximum in the range 550-680 nm. And is at least 20% for the rest of the visible range.
One of the pigments is chlorophyll but obviously, not the only one.
 
  • #24
nasu said:
Some people actually study reflection spectra of bananas. :)
And probably the curvature, too. :smile: (I just watched the Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall programme on Cosmetic vegetables; we are so very fussy about curvature in veg)

That spectrograph is interesting as it shows a peak that is 'identifiable' as 'a yellow' (as expected). We would all agree that bannana colour could be described as a bright or strong yellow. However, looking at the total area of the rest of the curve, in the visible range, it is nearly the same as the area of the portion that you could describe as yellows. So, it's fairly desaturated and far from spectral.
I was looking in my massive photo library for a convincing picture of a bannana so that I could look at the RGB components of its yellow colour. I haven't found a picture yet but I may take the trouble to photograph one later today. If it's anything like the other bright coloured objects I have on file, there will be very significant B contributions, along with the G and R (which produce the recognisable yellow). Looking at a brightly clothed audience at an outdoor sport event on a sunny day, it is hard to find objects that are actually 'saturated' colours. Of course, your TV display will never give you spectral colours because they lie outside the gamut, encompassed by the phosphors.
 
  • #25
Are you saying that it's more proper to note that we are seeing
red at 400–484 THz rather than seeing at 620–750 nm. I know these are equivalent, but in terms of perceived color we are responding to frequency?
 
  • #26
ToddSformo said:
Are you saying that it's more proper to note that we are seeing
red at 400–484 THz rather than seeing at 620–750 nm. I know these are equivalent, but in terms of perceived color we are responding to frequency?
Your optical nerves respond to how often they are hit by the peak/trough of a wave. Why would they care how far apart the peaks are as they travel towards your eye?
 
  • #27
As long as is understood that the wavelengths are in air there will be no confusion. The practice of using wavelengths is already well established and the numbers (wavelengths) are easier to remember, I think.

Of course, these wavelengths do not apply to the light actually reaching the retina. It is not in air, I suppose. But it does not matter.
 
  • #28
ToddSformo said:
Are you saying that it's more proper to note that we are seeing
red at 400–484 THz rather than seeing at 620–750 nm. I know these are equivalent, but in terms of perceived color we are responding to frequency?
When light was first studied, they couldn't measure the frequency (or even be sure what c was, exactly). However, any Tom, Dick or Isaak could measure the wavelength of the light he was using to a high degree of accuracy, starting from scratch. So wavelength was, and still is, the common currency. But chemicals, sensors and other systems of microscopic charges, work on Energy, which is best quantified in terms of frequency. So both your alternatives are fine. It is the Photon energy that your receptors work on - but you could say that the 'optics' (lens etc) are basically wavelength orientated.
 
  • Like
Likes Merlin3189 and nasu
  • #29
phinds said:
Got it. Thanks. I'm slow today. Well, OK, I"m slow every day, but ...
Me too, I've got to get this physics down. This topic was up my ally, it's not a street yet, so this is what I started with.
Science Advisor said a spectrometer could tell the difference between making yellow from two lights, red and green, and the spectrum pigment color.
That being said, I would like to know the difference between the printed yellow photographed and actual pigment yellow, and, the difference between the two yellows examined with a spectrograph. If there is any difference at all I think it is the fault of the electrical receptors in the camera and spectrometer, the cadmium element making spectra yellow can't be wrong but the photo mechanical electrical results can be. I wish I had a spectrometer to compare all three yellow's.
http://www.realcolorwheel.com/final.htm
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-11-16_10-55-6.png
    upload_2015-11-16_10-55-6.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 390
  • upload_2015-11-16_10-58-4.png
    upload_2015-11-16_10-58-4.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 397
  • upload_2015-11-16_10-59-4.png
    upload_2015-11-16_10-59-4.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 379
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
I can't read your attachments, I'm afraid.
There are a million and one ways of synthesing any particular colour (i.e. producing a match). Your "actual pigment" can be a mixture of natural substances but even a single substance will not reflect only spectral yellow. If it only reflected a very narrow band of colour then it would, unfortunately, look very dark so it can be a very difficult job. This is one reason that they use 'spot colours' in colour printing, because they can end up brighter ( and a better match - say to the coca cola red) than when made with the basic palette of inks)
Cine film was a nightmare to get right and for the reels of different stock to be made near enough so that the audience couldn't spot the reel change. But it was found that people are not as fussy about colourimetry in a dark cinema than they are in their own homes, watching TV, with familiar colours all round them in their living rooms.
 
  • #31
sophiecentaur said:
If it only reflected a very narrow band of colour then it would, unfortunately, look very dark so it can be a very difficult job.
That's not so unfortunate, it would be yellow's dark without the black (that's the way computers work, subtract light to make a darker color).
If you want a lighter color just add it's opposite color, blue light.
I'm a little curious as to just how dark of a yellow pure spectral yellow from a light source would be.
transyellowtobrownwaterratio7x3.jpg

PY100 pigment from 1 light yellow to 9 dark brown.
Red to yellow darken to brown in the Real Color Wheel and element crystals.
Here is a link to show how dark spectral yellow is in pigment, plus the story.
http://www.realcolorwheel.com/colorwheel.htm
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-11-17_12-37-13.png
    upload_2015-11-17_12-37-13.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 358
  • #32
sophiecentaur said:
I always say that human colour perception is a really poor spectrometer. It is sooo easy to fool. And it doesn't matter at all.
Hi Sophie I don't think the operation of the human eye can be described as a spectrometer as such ( even a poor one) as the action of a spectrometer is to measure the intensity at a given wavelength whereas the brain ( not the eye) is inferring a color from the differential responses of three sets of chromo-receptors which each respond to different frequency/wavelength ranges which have some degree of overlap in the optical spectrum.
 
  • #33
DaveC49 said:
Hi Sophie I don't think the operation of the human eye can be described as a spectrometer as such ( even a poor one) as the action of a spectrometer is to measure the intensity at a given wavelength whereas the brain ( not the eye) is inferring a color from the differential responses of three sets of chromo-receptors which each respond to different frequency/wavelength ranges which have some degree of overlap in the optical spectrum.
As with all things 'evolutionary', the brain expends just enough effort on a problem to get by satisfactorily. A three filter analysis is good enough to distinguish between the spectra we see, reflected from most of the important objects in out lives. Skin can take on may different hues, depending on emotion, health and where we've come from. The tristimulus system does a great job there. Also, the range of colours from greenery / brownery is relevant to us and we do a great job there, too. No animal really cares about wavelength so we can't 'see' it. It was only when they started teaching kids about wavelength that this idea that 'wavelength = colour' and vice versa that any confusion arose.
 
  • #34
Don Jusko said:
If you want a lighter color just add it's opposite color, blue light.
You cannot "add blue light" in a subtractive colour mixing process (pigments or filters). If you want a more saturated colour with pigments, all you can do is subtract more light, making the surface darker. RGB colour synthesis is a lot easier to follow because the phosphors are fairly pure and bright. With CMY mixing, you can go more and more saturated but at the expense of brightness. The only way to produce a proper spectral yellow (i.e. a narrow band of wavelengths around the sodium yellow) is with a dielectric (interference) filter. A pigment can't do it - and it's particularly hard with a reflective surface. Insects and birds can have very saturated / bright colkours but not with pigments.
Those pictures of beakers of coloured water do not show spectral colours. How can they?
Printers and artists are pragmatic practitioners. They do the best they can to produce the colours they want. They do not claim to (or want to) produce spectral colours. I think there is an overlap in terminology which suggests some Physics that isn't really there in colour work.That doesn't matter at all - unless you try to equate the two fields of study.
That paper by Land, in an earlier post, is well worth reading in detail as it explains a lot about our perception of the colours of illuminated objects.
 
  • #35
Sophiecentaur I will have to read that paper when I get a moment - I find the whole matter of colour intriguing, in particular that it is an entirely internal property or quality. Something I never realized before and which illustrates how little I actually know about this. So, a question from ignorance.

As I understand what's been said, the colour perceived is generated by the summing of responses from the cone cells which respond to the frequencies of incoming light. So I understand that colour is not a real physical property, rather light has frequency and wavelength and our brains work with frequency to generate a representational quality.

But I'm not clear about the matter of the shades or hues of colours. For example, the mention of say spectral yellow. I assume this term means 'pure' yellow? How have we derived (or more exactly, agreed upon) the values for those spectral colours? I would have thought that the frequencies of light at any particular point on the spectrum don't all necessarily sum exactly the same in all brains, so how do we know which specific frequencies are spectral yellow? Or does that not matter, it's just the statistically averaged perception of that colour?

Or am I just missing the point entirely?
 
<h2>1. What is the primary factor that determines the color of light?</h2><p>The primary factor that determines the color of light is its wavelength. Different wavelengths of light correspond to different colors in the visible spectrum.</p><h2>2. How does the color of an object affect the color of the light it reflects?</h2><p>The color of an object is determined by the wavelengths of light it reflects. For example, a red apple appears red because it reflects red light and absorbs other wavelengths of light.</p><h2>3. Can the color of light be changed?</h2><p>Yes, the color of light can be changed by altering its wavelength. This can be done through various methods such as passing it through a prism or using filters.</p><h2>4. What causes the perception of different colors in the same wavelength of light?</h2><p>The perception of different colors in the same wavelength of light is caused by the way our eyes and brain interpret the information. Our eyes have specialized cells called cones that are sensitive to different wavelengths of light, and our brain processes this information to create the perception of color.</p><h2>5. Can the color of light affect human behavior?</h2><p>Research has shown that different colors of light can affect human behavior and emotions. For example, blue light has been found to increase alertness and productivity, while red light can evoke feelings of anger or passion.</p>

1. What is the primary factor that determines the color of light?

The primary factor that determines the color of light is its wavelength. Different wavelengths of light correspond to different colors in the visible spectrum.

2. How does the color of an object affect the color of the light it reflects?

The color of an object is determined by the wavelengths of light it reflects. For example, a red apple appears red because it reflects red light and absorbs other wavelengths of light.

3. Can the color of light be changed?

Yes, the color of light can be changed by altering its wavelength. This can be done through various methods such as passing it through a prism or using filters.

4. What causes the perception of different colors in the same wavelength of light?

The perception of different colors in the same wavelength of light is caused by the way our eyes and brain interpret the information. Our eyes have specialized cells called cones that are sensitive to different wavelengths of light, and our brain processes this information to create the perception of color.

5. Can the color of light affect human behavior?

Research has shown that different colors of light can affect human behavior and emotions. For example, blue light has been found to increase alertness and productivity, while red light can evoke feelings of anger or passion.

Similar threads

Replies
81
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
753
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
984
Replies
3
Views
719
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
387
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
302
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
630
Back
Top