Something I’ve long wondered about, but haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer for despite googling for the last 20 minutes:
There are certain photos of marine life that seem “hyper-spectral” for lack of a better word. The colors are very intense, and diverse, and seem almost supersaturated or something.
Something I’d like to understand from people in the know, is what is going on with these photos? What specific types of filtering or mapping or tweaking is going on to produce “hyper-spectral” pictures like this?
So if the animals are just really that bright and awesome, in the numerousmoremundaneexamples of thesameanimals, what’s going on then? Bad lighting? Bad photographers?
In the mantis shrimp examples, I don’t think those are all the same species as the Peacock Mantis Shrimps in some of your original link. And two of the three photos of the octopus look pretty bright to me. In any case octopuses are well known for their ability to change color. The less brightly colored individual might just be having a bad day.
In most animals, there’s going to be variation in coloration with age, sex, mood, and sometimes time of day. Just because you may find a few photos of duller individuals doesn’t mean the bright ones have been manipulated.
I’ve seen some of these animals alive. I promise that’s what they look like.
Though not the issue on the various linked photos, one factor that can greatly influence underwater photography is the light source.
Underwater photos taken without a flash will suffer from a lack of certain wavelengths of sunlight that have been absorbed by the water. As you go deeper the red part of the spectrum is absorbed first, with the blue/violet end of the spectrum penetrating deeper.
For more vibrant underwater photographs with truer colors a flash needs to be used. And it helps if the light source can be as close as possible to the subject to minimize the amount of water between the camera and the subject.
Or perhaps they look even gaudier in real life! After all, neither RGB displays nor CMYK printing can reproduce the full gamut of human vision, let alone effects like iridescence.
Since most animals can see a wider range of colors than we can, (most vertebrates have four kinds of photoreceptors to our three), they may appear even gaudier to each other. Mantis shrimp have the most complex visual system known, with 12 to 16 different photoreceptors.
In other education news, TIL that the plural “nudibranchs” is spelled that way because the singular is pronounced “nudie BRANK”, not “nudie BRANCH”. I had been saying the word “nudibranches” in my head and wondering why the hell nobody could spell it correctly. Ignorance fought.
Did you read his post completely? What exactly are you nitpicking? The issue isn’t natural or artificial light, it’s the depth of the water where the photo is being taken. Even if artificial, a flash will give a closer approximation to the wavelengths reflected by the animal under sunlight without water intervening.
What is the true color of a deep sea fish where natural light never penetrates? Is this fish red, or is it black, the “color” it would be in its native lightless habitat?
Not sure the source of the photos shown, but I know aquarium lighting that accentuates the colors is a big industry. Many marine fish and corals have colors/“skin” that react to Blue or Actinic lighting and actually appear to glow. The appearance of these can be definitely affected by the lighting of the aquarium. It might be real, but artificially augmented.
I would not call something “true color” when the color balance has been changed by artificial lighting. It’s no different than adjusting the color balance computationally. There’s nothing wrong with doing that, but it’s not true color anymore, it’s enhanced color. Specifically, color enhanced to match the surface environment.
If the light level is low you either need a more sensitive camera or longer exposure. If there’s literally no light, then the true color is black. After all, a person looking into the abyssal depths is only going to see black. (Although there’s enough bioluminescence that I doubt there’s ever no photons at all.)
So you think the “true color” of a rose blooming in the middle of the night is black? And if flash photography reveals it to be a red rose, that’s false color?
I don’t think this is a very common interpretation of the phrase “true color.” Most people would say the true color of the rose is red, not black.
