How is this SD1m portrait photo shot ?

Scottelly wrote:

After that, I think people should see this too (your blog):

http://sodium.nyc/blog/

Some nice pictures, but he has some crazy ideas about the evolution of colour vision.

Most mammals have blue<-->yellow colour vision. The B/Y opponent signal goes from the retina to the brain. This signal did not evolve last, as the author guesses.

Higher primates such as humans are also evolving red<-->green opponent colour vision. This is "work in progress" and individuals vary greatly.

The problems with reproducing skin and hair colours are mostly failures of metamerism, caused by the use of a crude system of three highly saturated primaries in photography. It is in theory possible to mix any of the subtle colours found in skin from RGB or CMYK, but the mixtures are very unstable and the slightest unbalance is very obvious.

If you want to see good reproduction of skin colours, look at original paintings (not reproductions) by Rembrandt, Velasquez, Van Dyke, etc. They used iron oxide pigments such as Raw Sienna, Venetian Red, or Raw Umber, and they built up the colour in layers so that the white pigment gives a Tyndall effect as in real skin. They would not use the same pigments for brightly coloured clothes.

Haemoglobin is likewise an iron based pigment and has a similar spectrum.

Personally, I think portrait photos are best in B&W. But you can reduce the bad effects of colour photography by reducing the vibrance -- perhaps in the skin areas only if the person is wearing brightly coloured clothes.

Skin colours from Foveon sensors may not be as bad as from some other cameras. The Color Checker does have two squares that use iron oxide pigments to simulate skin colours, so making a profile with the Color Checker can help.

Don