My macaw was more than a little perturbed to be told that he really is not blue. (How glad i am that I have not taught him to read.) To set him at ease I had to put Cecil’s column to the test. I have long been aware of the iridescent qualities of Arthur’s feathers, but merely ascribed them to oil, and the "hook and eye"s that hold the tendrils together.
The feathers are not particularly dark over most of his body, and darkest on the major wing and tail feathers, where the blue appears darkest. The darkness of the pigment apparently affects the shade of the blue that is perceived.
A similar experiment was performed with the assistance of a parakeet.
The best way to see a bird’s “real” color is to get them soaking wet. Straight out of the bath, Arthur is a muddy brown color over his blue and green topside.
So there you have it. Exerimental proof that the blue on a blue and gold macaw is due to refraction, and not pigment.
Arthur was most disturbed. All his life he has been told he is a pretty blue bird. I reassured him that he was still a pretty, er, mud-colored bird. He still needed a few walnuts and a good yell to reassert his place at the center of the cosmos.
(links and coding fixed by Arnold Winkelried - please read the vB code page)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 08-01-2000 at 04:34 PM]
Hi there! It’s been a while, hasn’t it? Ever since the changeover to vB, there’s a Preview Reply feature, which you can use to make sure your links make.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000728.html
You dunked your macaw in the bathtub in the interest of science? Wow, now that’s dedicated to Fighting Ignorance! All the macaws I ever saw had beaks that looked like you could use them as can openers, no problem. I’ve got a blue and green parakeet named Buddy, but I wouldn’t dream of dunking him just to see if he was really blue. I trust Cecil. [cast eyes heavenward with look of extreme piety]
Oh, he doesn’t like tubs. I take him in the shower with me.
Arthur’s a real sweetheart. (I wouldn’t try it otherwise.)
This was more an instance of scientific curiosity, more of a “wow, really?”. I wouldn’t doubt Cecil-- honest! Put down that spatula!
As for the VB- <headsmack> DOH. </headsmack>
Then why does the camera see them as blue. Cameras work similar to the eye but not exactly!
Confirmed Polaroid User nitpicking here:
Of course a camera would see them as blue. Why wouldn’t it? What do you mean, “cameras don’t work the same way the human eye does”? Of course they do. They pick up light rays and focus them the same way the eye does.
Are you saying you took a picture of a blue parrot (or something blue) and it didn’t come out looking blue?
If you mean “the picture you saw through the lens isn’t what came back from the developer”, yeah, you’re right. That’s because you have a brain that selects what it wants to focus on and filters out all the extraneous material, so YOU may have seen a cow moose 'way over there in the middle of the river, but all the camera saw was a dot in the middle of a big shiny flat thing.
Or if you mean “the pictures of the blue parrot came back from the developer and it wasn’t the same shade of blue as real life”, well, then you have to blame either the film that wasn’t up to the challenge (that Dollar Store film is really terrible stuff), or the photographer who didn’t photograph the blue parrot with the proper lighting, so as to bring out the blue color, or the developing process itself (if you send them to Wal-Mart, sometimes that’s what happens.)
I have yet to see a Polaroid that could take a good picture of a blue parrot and have it come out perfect. But that’s not the camera’s fault, it’s the film.
There is one other factor that can affect the shade of blue that one will see. The fact that the brain corrects colors in a relative fashion. (if all colors are in shadow, they will all seem brighter. if one is in shadow, it will seem duller)
Details here:
http://www.beyond2000.com/news/Aug_00/story_721.html
In regards to photographing blue parrots and having them come out blue:
Look here for the bird and here and here for the feathers.
The feather shots are completely uncorrected digital shots.
Yes, they are the same color that they are on the bird. Note the small amount of “greening” near the tips. The blue is an iridescent effect.
The blue does indeed appear the same to the camera as it does to the eye. If you photograph abilone shells, they will also appear the same in the photo as they do to your eyes.
Of course if you want to put this down simply to my skill as a photographer I won’t be offended. :eek:
Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and a thread about a blue parrot shall sit on the SDMB for more than a week and the obvious Monty Python reference shall not be posted thereon.
Aw, DANG!! [smacks self heavily upside the head]
…Lovely plumage…
(Sorry, I got here late. Oh damn.)
