about light and color, primary colors

[Andrew]

How does this relate to B&W? Read up on contrast filters and find out.

How do you "see" if you don't know what the camera is capable of recording, or your monitor of displaying or your printer of printing? If you don't know, at best it's a pious hope or blind luck. I prefer to create based on a greater level of certainty than that.

And, no, not all digital cameras record in colour.

But the whole point of 'learning how to use your kit thoroughly' is to learn what it is capable of.

Yesterday it was a science lesson needed to understand how to use the 'fabonacci crop' in Lightroom, today its the science of colour so I can understand how to truly use my kit.
Should I get my protractor, set square and trigonommetery kit out and put in my camera bag for future shoots 

TBH - I don't actually care about the science.

With regards to the B&W statement - if defining primary colours can be the subject of soooo much science, I'm just wondering how much science can be thrown at the correct definition of B&W - if that is the technicially correct term?

I happiest when I learn by trial and error.
This taught me that the old Canon A1 was capable of shooting with an ASA/ISO of 12800 long before digital caught up - and the resulting shots could then be pushed to 25600 if needed.
Yes, the shots had some noise or grain - but at least I have the shots - not the formulae for the correct exposure if I had all the correct gear

Occasionally have payed some one to show what the various buttons and menus do on a digital camera or how you work out what settings to use on strobe or speedlight.
It explained to me how the AF points work on Canon cameras and how to set up speedlites through the in camera menu 

If photography is not something you are 'forced' to undertake - it should be fun - and fun means experimenting and doing the stupid things just to see what happens.
That's my take on it - and that's how you should go about learning as well - have fun, make mistakes - ask for help if you can't solve it yourself.
At least with digital you don't have film and development costs like film days 

I appreciate that your take on the subject may be some what more scientific and serious - but mine is not, and that is how my comments are based.
It's my hobby - I've done the 'with all this kit and science i can get good shots' for a few years.
I wasn't happy - I sold the whole lot and got a single body and lens - now I'm happy 

[Oldboy]

What's to explain? It seems self explanatory, and completely irrelevant to anything I wrote, although I wouldn't have phrased parts of it in the way given. Or did you mean that whoever wrote it refers to the subjective sensation of "colour" without using the word subjective? Most people do this - very few people for example would refer to the "subjective pain" of toothache, and just use the word "pain".

If you want to get technical (and I don't) there's a very simple relationship between energy and frequency. Energy = frequency multiplied by Planck's constant, from which you can calculate one given the other.

It is relevant to what you said. A spectroscope measures emission frequencies (colours) so, that shows colours are real and not produced in the mind. 

[StephenBatey]

You're measuring frequencies, for goodness sake, not colours. The word "colour" is only added by way of explanation. Or do you think that if a person is colour blind, there are no colours in the scene in front of them - rather than a lack of sensation of colour? Sorry, but we'll never agree on this. To me, it's perfectly obvious that colour is subjective, as shown by numerous tests on how people actually see.

Andrew: yes, you can learn anything by trial and error; but most people find it faster and easier not to reinvent the wheel every time. Is it possible that you didn't get on with more equipment because the variables were too great to learn by trial and error, and that a systematic understanding of all the parts and how they interrelate would actually have made it easier? Don't bother answering - it's a rhetorical question.

You're correct, it does depend how seriously you take photography. I prefer to know what the results will be before I press the shutter; and to know exactly what is possible beforehand so that I can select from a myriad of possibilities the one that I want to use to convey what I want through an image. You can learn this purely by trial and error - and you do need experience, yes. But with a small amount of experience and a sound theoretical understanding, you can accurately predict what will happen in cases you haven't encountered before. And I prefer to not have to rely on trial and error when faced with a once in a lifetime opportunity.

I can accept that you aren't interested in the theory - but don't rubbish or dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to you.

[Beaux Reflets]

This is certainly an interesting thread 

I have always thought that the colours of the spectrum remain a constant occuring within the breadth of their frequencies; and colour blindness is a genetic aspect, where the eyes are unable to tune into particular colour/fregencies (ie. perhaps detecting only some of the Red wave band nearer to say the Greens)  and the mind then fills in any missing information based on the information the eyes are able to detect.

[jinky]

But there is the equal danger of over-theorising and just as the cone photoreceptors in anyone`s eyes may perceive colour differently so each of us has a different learning method that suits. Seems to me Stephen that your way might lead to you battling to understand the nature of colour before feeling confident enough to know the results you are going to be getting and then someone else sees your colours all differently anyway. It`s a bit like us all having our own monitor calliibration built in working on different waves. I too like to think I know what the finished result will be before I hit the shutter button but equally know that I might be editing it in a particular way anyway to change that look.

Me I am happy enough to accept that most of see colours in roughly similar ways and trust my own perceptions and judgements for my hobby and work shots and trust people will let me know if my perceptions have left realty / theory behind without aiming for it.

Why stop at colour? You just get to the point of thinking you know what shapes countries are when....http://flowingdata.com/2014/01/13/map-projections-illustrated-with-a-face/

Too much theorising  in the world I think

[ABERS]

I'm not particularly interested in what is or what generates colours, they are there to use and manipulate either in a colour print or by filtering for a B+W image.

It seems a bit trite to say I know what the results will be before I hit the button, however experience let's us know what will be suitable for a colour print or better in monochrome and the button is pressed with that in mind. When working with film and solely in B+W I used to be in the darkroom when looking through the viewfinder mentally noting where some manipulation would be needed to produce a print that would pass muster for me.

Since returning to photography in the digital age the same method applies when shooting an image that I feel will transform into a better picture in mono, but colour is a different kettle of fish. I enjoy learning, by trial and error, what and how different techniques can be applied to the digital image to make it satisfying for me. I then mentally apply what I've learned when I view certain scenes/situations that will be suited by certain techniques and manipulations.

How it all happens and what goes on both physically and mentally doesn't cause me any bother, just that it does is enough for me.

[jinky]

I`m with you there Abers.

Surely this is as much theory / planning as you need:
http://clickittycat.tumblr.com/image/71502720981

[Markulous]

I can accept that you aren't interested in the theory - but don't rubbish or dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to you.

 

I'll use anything that helps me along the path

[Andrew]

I can accept that you aren't interested in the theory - but don't rubbish or dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to you.

 

I'll use anything that helps me along the path

And there i think is the sensible answer - horses for courses.

My way suits me, Stephens way suits him, Abers way suits him and so on.
I'm just enjoying not having all the kit like i had for several years, and having what i had when i started out on my tog journey in '86.
The only difference this time is, no film and development costs, and no need for a dark room needed to dodge and burn etc.

Colour or B&W - it's all subjective, just like photography or any other forms of art.

Now for some real herasy - I'm not a great fan of Ansel Adams work    - though I do appreciate the effort needed with the kit he had at his disposal