[pluteoid]

...for this particular satellite imagery. It's a rather limited overview of color correction in general.

> On top of this, what we see with our eyes is very different from the raw data captured by a scientific instrument or digital camera.

Yes, this is why photographers who avoid postprocessing because they're "purists" who like "unenhanced, natural images" sometimes deliver unnaturally bland images. The visual system phenomena at play are high dynamic range, simultaneous contrast, chromatic adaptation, and perceptual uniformity. Correcting for these things effectively often requires a separate treatment of each (but software lets you do that quickly). The article shows a rather crude approach – there are techniques available that give better results in the same time.

See for example Dan Margulis's well-regarded "Modern Photoshop Color Workflow".

[vvanders]

Yup, I'm also a huge fan of "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace" by the same author. For photos LAB colorspace provides a great way to get images closer to how we actually perceive them.

[clumsysmurf]

Margulis updated that book (2e) recently: http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-LAB-Color-Adventures-Colorsp...

i also found this pretty good too http://www.amazon.com/Color-Management-Quality-Output-Workin...

Too bad focal press Kindle books are just as expensive as the softcovers, and are usually done quite poorly.

[rbritton]

If you want a really good example, the northern lights are a good one. The majority of the color is something you cannot see with your eye because it's too dim for the cones to pick up. A camera doesn't have this limitation.

See: http://www.space.com/23707-only-photos-reveal-aurora-true-co...

[wcameron]

I don't think the aurora is a good example for reason you cited. The idea that we only see the aurora in shades of gray is false. I've sometimes been surprised by some extra color that the camera picks up but at least at upper latitudes the aurora's colors are bight enough to be easily distinguishable by the eye.

The tricky part with photographing auroras is getting the white balance right, as the unusual light source often confuses automatic color correction.

[jakub_h]

> Yes, this is why photographers who avoid postprocessing because they're "purists" who like "unenhanced, natural images" sometimes deliver unnaturally bland images. The visual system phenomena at play are high dynamic range, simultaneous contrast, chromatic adaptation, and perceptual uniformity.

I know next to nothing about photo processing but I would assume that because watching a photo print in a random environment is not the same thing as being immersed by the scenery and lighting in the photo, the perception is influenced by that very fact and reproducing photographer's own impression of the scene purely by means of physically correct measurements and their reproduction in form of a picture is impossible; ergo, alterations are necessary.

[cheeseicles]

That's exactly what he's saying.

[logicrook]

I don't even understand why this means to be said. Anybody who has ever tried to take a photo must have seen what a difference it makes with the direct impression. You see your black friend with your own eyes, but then in the picture he's just a flying smile; is it really cheating to modify the values?

Its not even "unnaturally bland images". It's just unnatural images, because nobody sees like a camera lens.