*Where* does sunlight scattering occur?

  • #26
468
0
Evidence of what? It just shows the same effect that is visible in the setting sun - just much less evident because of the few km of atmosphere in between, compared with what you get when the sun is at the horizon.
It says that the sun's temperature is about 6kK - no surprises there.

No surprises there? THATS THE REASON IT LOOKS WHITE FROM SPACE! BECAUSE IT'S 6000 Kelvin.

Look at image 7) I this was taken by astronomers working at kitt peak.

http://www.science20.com/solar_fun_of_the_heliochromologist/the_color_of_the_sun_revelation
 
Last edited:
  • #27
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,166
5,373
No surprises there? THATS THE REASON IT LOOKS WHITE FROM SPACE! BECAUSE IT'S 6000 Kelvin.

Look at image 7) I suppose you know better than astronomers working at kitt peak.

http://www.science20.com/solar_fun_of_the_heliochromologist/the_color_of_the_sun_revelation

You seem to be angry about something and I don't know what. Which is "image 7" and what are you getting at?
What has all this to do with the OP and the subtle effects of atmospheric colouring?
I don't see how I am arguing with the "Astronomers at Kitt Peak" but I know that there will be things about which I know more than some of them - the ad hominem argument is pointless.

Your average photo of the Sun just doesn't tell the truth. Fact. That's all I have been saying. What have you introduced into the thread that takes us anywhere?
 
  • #28
468
0
You seem to be angry about something and I don't know what. Which is "image 7" and what are you getting at?
What has all this to do with the OP and the subtle effects of atmospheric colouring?
I don't see how I am arguing with the "Astronomers at Kitt Peak" but I know that there will be things about which I know more than some of them - the ad hominem argument is pointless.

Your average photo of the Sun just doesn't tell the truth. Fact. That's all I have been saying. What have you introduced into the thread that takes us anywhere?

I'm not angry, from your previous post you seemed angry to me. What is the point of rejecting evidence? Of course you can say there is something else going on but all you have offered is speculation about filters being used.

What does this have to do with the original post? Everything! I'm sorry you don't see that. Color perception is the key here and color temperature scales are important to the perception of color. Holding on to the colloquial idea that the sun is yellow is not a good idea when contrary evidence is presented.:smile:

Just scroll down the page and you will find 7)

I edited post # 26 to eliminate personal attack perception. That was not my intent, so i fixed it.:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #29
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,777
3,027
Are you saying all colors in photographs and videos are not to be trusted? Dave...? :smile:
That is exactly what I am saying, yes.

They auto correct colour to make for a good picture, based on what camera manufacturers deem "a good picture" under average circumstances for average users. (Having studied it in college and 10+ years in the photo industry, I could go on at length about white balances and neutral greys. De-correcting for auto-colour correction was a large part of my work.)

My little point-n-shoot has at least six settings to correct for colour temp. of lighting. It's default state is auto-correct. More sophisticated cameras have more sophisticated algorithms for correcting.

Unfortunately, what you want is exactly the opposite. You want a system that does no correction at all.

Without calibration, cameras cannot be used to compare colours like you are trying to do.
 
  • #30
468
0
That is exactly what I am saying, yes.

They auto correct colour to make for a good picture, based on what camera manufacturers deem "a good picture" under average circumstances for average users.

My little point-n-shoot has at least six settings to correct for colour temp. of lighting. It's default state is auto-correct. More sophisticated cameras have have sophisticated algorithms for correcting.

Unfortunately, what you want is exactly the opposite. You want a system that does no correction at all.

Without calibration, cameras cannot be used to compare colours like you are trying to do.

Have you ever made a pinhole camera?
I have, and i have looked through it.:smile:
Do your own eyes have correcting algorithms?

I am not a professional photographer. However, i have taken many pictures, i never mistrusted colors in photographs before. I have also used video recording machines and never noticed discrepansies between colors so i must 'chew' on your statement that colors are misrepresented, Dave.

By the way, i was on your side on this one...:smile:
 
  • #31
468
0
I guess the only way to settle this is to ask an astronaut. Are there any astronauts out there? What color is the sun from space?

:biggrin:
 
  • #32
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,166
5,373
That is exactly what I am saying, yes.

They auto correct colour to make for a good picture, based on what camera manufacturers deem "a good picture" under average circumstances for average users. (Having studied it in college and 10+ years in the photo industry, I could go on at length about white balances and neutral greys. De-correcting for auto-colour correction was a large part of my work.)

My little point-n-shoot has at least six settings to correct for colour temp. of lighting. It's default state is auto-correct. More sophisticated cameras have more sophisticated algorithms for correcting.

Unfortunately, what you want is exactly the opposite. You want a system that does no correction at all.

Without calibration, cameras cannot be used to compare colours like you are trying to do.
Your next range of cameras can shoot in RAW, which produces larger files but allows you to get the colour balance better by picking on a portion of the picture, or in the batch, with a reliable grey.

But we are verging on the subject of what colour 'actually is'. I have to insist it's totally in the mind of the viewer but that we can measure spectrum and equivalent 'black body' temperature very accurately. Colourimetry is based solely on a consensus of subjective opinions about colour matching of different combinations of differently produced primaries.

I was thinking that the thread was simply about the relative amounts of scattering of light from different directions and with the sun in different positions. Even though the measurements are a bit flawed, the results from my camera do show what I am getting at- and that is that there are places in the sky where you might expect R, G and B signals to be much closer to equal than in other places and that nowhere will the colours you see be very pure.
Get those tickets booked and tell us about it.
 
  • #33
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,166
5,373
Have you ever made a pinhole camera?
I have, and i have looked through it.:smile:
Do your own eyes have correcting algorithms?

Yes they do. They are constantly correcting for the effects of the lighting on the colours of objects. If they didn't, you would see the same object at midday and at sunset and think it was a different object, because it would appear to be to different colours. The agenda they are following is not one of scientific measurement but of making the best sense of what they see of the world around.
Why should a pinhole camera make any difference to what colours you see, compared with just looking directly at a scene?

btw I saw that picture of the sun ("7)") - not sure what it was supposed to prove, though. The three 'representative' coloured objects were obviously there for some sort of reference. However, because the chromaticity values for those references weren't quoted (or even the values for the sun's surface, then the picture is no accurate evidence of anything.

The fact that the atmosphere makes a difference to the spectrum of the sun's light is very obvious, no?
 
  • #34
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,777
3,027
Have you ever made a pinhole camera?
I have, and i have looked through it.:smile:
Do your own eyes have correcting algorithms?
As sophie pointed out, absolutely. (Your brain that is.) In fact, our personal perception is far more heavy-handed at auto-correction than cameras.

Look around you right now. What lighting condition are you in? Tungsten? Fluorescent? Daylight? Did you actually have to think about it? Regardless of what it is, you will see it as white.

A camera (even with its auto-correcting feature) sees the difference between daylight and fluorescent so powerfully that you'll think your pix are ruined.
 
  • #35
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,166
5,373
As sophie pointed out, absolutely. (Your brain that is.) In fact, our personal perception is far more heavy-handed at auto-correction than cameras.

Look around you right now. What lighting condition are you in? Tungsten? Fluorescent? Daylight? Did you actually have to think about it? Regardless of what it is, you will see it as white.

A camera (even with its auto-correcting feature) sees the difference between daylight and fluorescent so powerfully that you'll think your pix are ruined.

One man's "heavy handed" is another man's survival fitness. Homo sapiens, way back, was far more interested in recognising, consistently, the reflected colours of meat, mates and foliage than in assessing the colour of the Sun. We still have to take the jumper outside into the street to see just how near it matches the socks, though, when we're in Marks'.
 
  • #36
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,777
3,027
One man's "heavy handed" is another man's survival fitness. Homo sapiens, way back, was far more interested in recognising, consistently, the reflected colours of meat, mates and foliage than in assessing the colour of the Sun. We still have to take the jumper outside into the street to see just how near it matches the socks, though, when we're in Marks'.

Absolutely. Which is why I was originally talking about average use of average users. For most pedestrian intents and purposes, it's not a problem. It is heavy-handed because it's meant to be contextual. Trying to spot a tiger in the grass should not be confounded by the red of sunset versus the white of noon.


But now we're into comparing colours of things in lighting conditions that are nowhere near average, and trying to pretend there's some calibration of absolute colour. No way.
 

Related Threads on *Where* does sunlight scattering occur?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
655
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top