"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Not so. They ARE wrong. The relative densities of the individual film
layers will be quite innacurate when exposed with the wrong light.

You conveniently snipped the part about video.

Substitute CCD/CMOS sensor levels for cameras balanced to the wrong color
temperature then. The problem is usually more acute for film however.

But you do admit problems with film color are not just imagined then?

The monitor you're reading this on is unlikely to match
*exactly* another one in colour temperature but will look ok to the
individual. The eye compensates, as I said, as it must do given that
daylight changes. Unless it has a reference to match to.

Which is everything else within your field of view. Only if *everything*
changes will the *brain* correctly compensate.

Not so - do you change the colour temperature of your TV or monitor
according to the ambient light?

For critical work, yes. There are even devices to do it for you
automatically. Why do you think they exist?

So a couple of minutes readjustment is abhorent to you?
Doesn't bother me too much.

Fine - but you're in a minority if you like cold domestic lighting.

Never said otherwise.

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten for domestic lighting?

No, as I already stated it was simply conditioning from fires, candles,
oil lamps and tungsten filament globes.

Fluorescent lights have been around for a long, long time. And early ones
were all cold compared to tungsten. People could easily have got used to
them for domestic light, but very few chose to.

They chose not to, exactly what I said.

MrT.