How We Look at Photographs Indicated by Contrast Preferences

How We Look at Photographs as Indicated by Contrast
Discrimination Performance Versus Contrast Preference1
S. Gershoni and H. Kobayashi
Department of Information Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Chiba University,
1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan
E-mail: sharon_gershoni@hotmail.com
Abstract. Considering luminance contrast to comprise the building
blocks of the photographic language, we aimed to study the connec-
tion between viewer’s contrast discrimination performance in black-
and-white photographs with various contrast reproductions, and
their aesthetic appeal. In a previous study we examined the viewer’s
ability to discriminate contrast increments, applied to discrete re-
gions of the characteristic curves of gray scales versus photographs
of Ansel Adams. The photographs belonged to three conceptual cat-
egories: portrait, landscape, and architecture. Whereas, contrast
discrimination performance in gray scales was very poor in repro-
ductions with altered contrast in the shadows, a significant improve-
ment in performance was observed in the photographs. In the
present study subjects performed a contrast preference evaluation
task, in which, the reproductions of the photographs were rated for
their aesthetic appeal on a five-point scale. The photographs were
presented in random order, without indication as to which is the
original photograph. Nevertheless, the viewers showed a general
preference for photographs with contrast reproductions similar to the
original. The results suggest a match between the viewers’ and the
photographer’s preferences. Moreover, the preference decreased
systematically with the contrast increment for all reproductions. This
tendency seems to be independent of variations in category or spa-
tial configuration. The results are in line with the observed contrast
discrimination performance, and also consistent with the anchoring
theory and recent propositions of biologically based rules for art
creation and appreciation as manifestations of the function of the
brain. © 2006 Society for Imaging Science and Technology.
͓DOI: 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.͑2006͒50:4͑320͔͒
INTRODUCTION
The investigation of art as a means to understand the orga-
nization of the visual brain was recently proposed by Zeki1
who drew the outlines of “a theory of aesthetics that is bio-
logically based.” Ramachandran and Hirstein2
proposed uni-
versal laws for artistic experience in relation to phenomena
such as the peak shift effect and gestalt grouping principles.
Considering such suggestions led us to examine black-and-
white photography as a case of art. We chose the photo-
graphs of Ansel Adams,3
the founder of the “Zone System”4
for tone control. Assuming luminance contrast to comprise
the building blocks of the photographic language, we exam-
ined the connection between the viewers’ ability to discrimi-
nate luminance contrast in black-and-white photographs,
and their aesthetic appeal.
Early experimental studies in aesthetics used simple and
artificial stimuli. After the pioneering work by Fechner in
1876,5
measurements of the viewers moods for different
patches of color were conducted by Wexner in 1954,6
and
later repeated by Eysenck7,8
using polygons, etc. Cross-
cultural and cross-gender aesthetic studies originated with
Jahoda9
in 1956 and followed by many others. One of the
advantages of using simple displays was the accuracy of ma-
nipulation it allowed, compared to the difficulty in achieving
pictorial sameness between the reproduced stimuli and an
artwork. The conditions of pictorial sameness, under which
a reproduction is aesthetically valuable as the original, were
proposed in the transferability thesis.10
But an opposing ar-
gument stated that even pictorial sameness of a reproduction
does not necessarily grant sameness in aesthetic value.11
Thus the weakness of the early studies is that the aesthetic
response to simple artificial stimuli is likely to be weak, as
the viewers generally do not regard simple displays as pretty,
especially in the context of being participants in an experi-
ment. Moreover, most people do, in fact, experience art
through reproductions, through art books and other media.
Photography, a reproduction system in its essence, offers
more control over reproduction, and better sameness than
any other medium of art. Black-and-white photographs in
particular are a good source for faithful reproduction. They
represent subject properties as a relationship between the
correlating values of luminance (not color), with only one-
dimensional luminance gray scale. Therefore, while black-
and-white photographs still carry the conceptual attributes
as any other medium of art, they are less complex to ma-
nipulate in a controlled process.
In a previous paper12
we reported the roles and inter-
ferences of local and global visual processes in lightness per-
ception of photographs with meaningful contents; we exam-
ined whether contrast discrimination is a response to spatial
configuration properties of photographs, or a function of
conceptual contents. In three experiments we compared
contrast discrimination performances of observers, when
presented with contrast increments applied to discrete tonal
regions in gray scales versus several categories of black-and-
white photographs of natural scenes. In the first experiment
observers performed contrast discrimination in gray scales
using rank-order tasks. In the following two experiments
observers performed contrast discrimination of photographs
using sorting tasks. We found substantial differences in re-
1
Presented in part at IST’s NIP XXI, Baltimore, MD, September 2005.
Received Jun. 3, 2005; accepted for publication Oct. 30, 2005.
1062-3701/2006/50͑4͒/320/7/$20.00.
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology® 50(4): 320–326, 2006.
© Society for Imaging Science and Technology 2006
320

sponse to contrast increments, depending on where in the
characteristic curve (i.e., shadow, highlight, or midtones)
they were applied. On the other hand, we reported no sig-
nificant effect of category (portrait, landscape, and architec-
ture). In addition we found that low performances in the
shadow region of gray scales significantly improved in pho-
tograph which we related to the differences in configuration
complexity. We also reported differences in performance be-
tween photographs of light and night scenes. These results
raised an assumption that the differences in spatial configu-
ration complexity, and not the conceptual content of the
photographs, improved contrast detection performance.
A possible explanation is provided by the “anchoring
theory of lightness perception.”13
Photographs depicting
natural objects contain much more complex and articulated
information than gray scales, thus local frameworks weigh
more than global frameworks, which results in improved
lightness constancy and better performance in contrast dis-
crimination tasks. These findings are also in line with recent
psychophysical measurements of threshold versus contrast
for images of natural scenes where image whitening yielded
lower contrast discrimination threshold than high contrast
images.14
Since looking at photographs is a visual task involving
an aesthetic experience, a question of interest is: What is the
relationship between the contrast discrimination, reported
above, and the aesthetically preferred contrast reproduction
of photographs. Recent studies claimed similar to the results
reported above that there is no effect of context such as pose
and shape of objects on processes such as lightness
constancy.15
Opposing suggestions are that contextual infor-
mation does affects processes such as global form
perception.16
According to this view, one could expect contrast to
influence the content of photographs and their aesthetic ap-
peal. Therefore, the question asked in the present study was
about the relationship between the conceptual content of
photographs and their contrast preference.
Moreover, should there indeed be a common rule for
both execution of art and its appreciation, then one could
expect similarity in the preferences of viewers and
photographers,17,18
(see also: Discussion). Therefore, this
study examines the relationship between the preferred con-
trast reproduction and the “original” (unaltered) reproduc-
tion, which may reflect on the photographer’s preference
versus the viewer preference.
EXPERIMENT
Stimuli
Eight black-and-white photographs from the “Photographs
of the Southwest” book by Ansel Adams19
were used as
stimuli for the present study:
1. “Spanish Peaks, Colorado,” 1951, p. 18;
2. “Canyon de Chelly, National Monument, Arizona,”
1947, p. 30;
3. “Moonrise, Hernandez, New-Mexico,” 1944, p. 55;
4. “Navajo Woman, Wide Ruin, Arizona,” 1948, p. 39;
5. “Maynard Dixon, Painter, Tucson, Arizona,” 1944, p.
16;
6. “Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman, Ordeville, Utah,”
1961, p. 81;
7. “Adobe Dwellings, Northern New-Mexico,” 1958, p.
49; and
8. “Arches, North Court, Mission San Xavier del Bac,
Tucson, Arizona,” 1968, p. 94.
The photographs selected belong to three major themes in
photography: Landscape (photographs Nos. 1, 2, and 3), Por-
trait (Nos. 4, 5, and 6), and Architecture (Nos. 7, 8, and 9).
These themes represent Ansel Adams’ work in general, and
the selected photographs are among his well-known and re-
produced works. It is important to note that photographs
selected as stimuli were of various configuration complexi-
ties, articulation, depth, and tonal relationships, etc.
Stimuli Reproduction Process
The goal of the reproduction process was to alter the shadow
(SH), highlight (HI), and midtone (MT) contrasts of the
eight selected images. An Epson GT-9700 flatbed scanner
was used to scan the book pages. The scanning pixels-per-
inch (ppi) was 400. The ppi was chosen to match the print-
ing system output resolution (Lambda printing system, see
explanation below). For calibration of the reproduction sys-
tem, the density of a Kodak standard gray-scale and its re-
production were measured using a Sakura PDA 8112 reflec-
tion densitometer and plotted against each other to assure a
linear relationship between the reflection densities.
Image files for the various highlight, midtone and
shadow contrasts were generated using Adobe Photoshop®
Curve function in the Adjustments menu. The horizontal
axis of the curve graph represents the original brightness
values of the pixels (input levels); the vertical axis represents
the new brightness levels (output levels). The curve displays
either brightness values from 0 to 255, with the shadows on
the left, or values from 0% to 100% with shadows on the
right. The default diagonal line shows that all pixels have the
same input and output values.
In order to alter contrast, two anchor/drag points were
established on the diagonal line:
1. to alter shadow contrasts: ͑XSH=75% ,YSH=75%͒;
2. to alter highlight contrasts: ͑XHI=25% ,YHI=25%͒;
and
3. to alter midtone contrasts both highlight and shadow
anchor points were established: ͑XHI=25% ,YHI
=25%͒,͑XSH=75% ,YSH=75%͒.
A 2% contrast increment, for each of the reproduction sets,
was achieved by pulling the anchoring point in one of the
following directions:
1. shadow: ͑XSH+2=XSH+2% ,YSH+2=YSH−2%͒;
2. highlight: ͑XHI+2=XHI−2% ,YHI+2=YHI+2%͒; and
3. midtone: ͑XHI+2=XHI+2% ,YHI+2=YHI−2%͒,
͑XSH+2=XSH−2% ,YSH+2=YSH+2%͒.
Gershoni and Kobayashi: How we look at photographs as indicated by contrast discrimination performance
J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 50͑4͒/Jul.-Aug. 2006 321

For each of the three sets of reproductions (“HI,” “SH,”
and “MT”) contrast increment ranged between 2% and 10%
in steps of 2%, named sample Nos. 2–10 accordingly.
The densities of the photographs are represented by
Kodak standard gray scale reproduction sets, which were
measured using a reﬂection densitometer, and plotted
against the original gray scale, as shown in Figs. 1(a) (HI and
SH) and 1(b) (MT).
A total of 128 photographic prints were produced by
Lambda system using a conventional black-and-white silver
process. Lambda prints are made on a Durst Lambda
printer, which uses three colored lasers to expose traditional
photographic media. These prints have the advantage of us-
ing the same rich red-green-blue (RGB) color space em-
ployed by computer monitors. In addition, these prints are
free of dots since unlike inkjet printers, the laser outputs are
continuously modulated rather than switched on and off.
Their 400 dpi resolution is comparable to 1200 dpi screened
output.
Participants
Thirty subjects male and female (in 3:1 ratio) aged between
20 and 30 participated in the experiment. 46% of the par-
ticipants were either familiar with the photographer or re-
ported to have previously seen the photographs used as
stimuli.
Illumination Source
The light source was a Toshiba natural color evaluation
lamp, 5000 K, 700 lux. Light source was overhead with re-
spect to the viewing area. Observation distance and angle:
not designated.
Procedure
Each photograph and its reproductions composed a set of 16
stimuli. The stimuli were presented on a table in a rectan-
gular arrangement of a random order of contrasts, as shown
in Fig. 2 with no indication of the unaltered original photo-
graph (OR), or any other standard.
Participants were requested to evaluate the aesthetic ap-
Figure 1. a. Characteristic curves for stimuli with 2–10% contrast increment in regions HI and SH. b.
Characteristic curve for stimuli with 2–10% contrast increment in region MT.
322 J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 50͑4͒/Jul.-Aug. 2006

peal of each sample according to a one-dimensional prefer-
ence scale between 1 and 5, in which 1 is the lowest
evaluation—“most dislike,” 2—“dislike,” 3—“neither like
nor dislike,” 4—“like,” and 5 is the highest evaluation—“like
best.”
Results
Evaluation ratios, on the 1–5 preference scale, for the pho-
tographs of each category (portraits, landscape, and archi-
tecture), were separately calculated, as a function of the tone
regions (HI, SH, and MT). Within each region five contrast
increments of 2% were indicated as sample Nos. 2–10 as
shown in Fig. 3. The graph shows that preference was high-
est for OR, and decreased systematically with contrast incre-
ment in all regions (HI, SH, and MT) and all categories.
This pattern of decreasing preference showed some varia-
tions, which could be dependent on either category variance
or the tone regions. In order to investigate which of these
variables accounted for the observed differences, mean aver-
age preferences were calculated for the categories and for the
regions.
The mean average preferences for categories were: 2.90
for portraits, 2.88 for landscapes, and 2.88 for architecture as
shown in Fig. 4(a). These results indicated that contrast pref-
erence was similar across the different categories. In order to
confirm these observations, a two way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), with categories (portrait versus landscape versus
architecture) and contrast increments (OR vs 2% vs 4%…vs
10%) as variables, was conducted. In this and all other sta-
tistical tests, ␣=0.05 and the 95% confidence interval were
used for significance. The effect of category was not signifi-
cant ͓F͑2,58͒=0.05͔,p=0.89. This reflects that there was no
differential effect of category over preference of contrast.
Moreover, comparison between photographs within category
did not show significant difference either ͓F͑2,58͒=1.78͔,
p=0.065. Mean average preferences for regions were: 2.6 for
HI, 2.7 for MT, and 3.1 for SH as shown in Fig. 4(b). A two
way ANOVA, with regions (HI vs SH vs MT) and contrast
increments (OR vs 2% vs 4%…vs 10%) as variables, re-
vealed that although the effect of regions over preference was
not substantial, it was significant ͓F͑2,58͒=11.94͔ with p
Ͻ0.0001.
These results are in line with previous experiments in
which the ability to perform contrast discrimination was
measured for the same stimuli (see: Introduction). There,
contrast discrimination was not affected by category, but de-
termined by the discrete tonal regions in which contrast al-
teration occurred. In fact, the present results show that the
preference pattern is an inversion of the contrast discrimi-
nation pattern, the higher the contrast discrimination ratio,
the lower the preference.
It is important to note that although contrast discrimi-
nation ratio for MT was found to be significantly higher
than that for the other regions, preference for MT was not
the lowest one could expect, as shown in Fig. 5. The figure
shows the effect of tonal region (HI vs SH vs MT vs OR)
over mean contrast preference.
Paired comparisons of contrasts revealed that contrast
preference did not differ much between MT and HI regions
͓F͑1,58͒=2.14͔, pϽ0.0001. On the other hand, preference
evaluation significantly increased in SH region ͓F͑1,58͒
=21.74͔, pϽ0.0001. In addition, the mean average prefer-
ence of SH was above “3” in the evaluation scale, where
evaluation tends towards “like,” while MT and HI were be-
low the 3, where evaluation is already “dislike.” This finding
Figure 3. Average preference for stimuli 2–10%, across the three categories and three regions.
Figure 2. The arrangement of stimuli in the preference evaluation task.

implies a greater degree of tolerance towards contrast incre-
ments in the shadow regions of the photographs. In such
contrast reproductions the overall impression of the lighten-
ing of the image. For an image which seems to become
darker there is a lower degree of tolerance. Figure 6 shows
the differential effect of contrast increment (2%, 6%, and
10%) over regions. For 2% contrast increment, preferences
at regions HI, SH, and MT are: 3.59, 3.60, and 3.55 respec-
tively, for 6% the preference of SH over the other regions is
already substantial: 2.52, 3.3, and 2.8, and the difference is
even greater for 10% increment: 1.58, 2.67, and 1.97.
Preference for the OR was substantially higher than all
other stimuli, independent of category or tonal region. That
is, although stimuli were displayed in a random order, with
no reference to the original photographs, observers’ prefer-
ence matched the preference of the photographer, for all
stimuli, as shown in Fig. 5, where mean average preference
for OR is 3.9, and for SH, MT, and HI: 3.1, 2.74, and 2.6,
respectively. Paired comparisons of contrasts confirmed that
preference for OR was significantly higher than all other
stimuli ͓F͑1,58͒=77.19͔, pϽ0.0001.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the aesthetic
appeal of contrast reproductions in black-and-white photo-
graphs, and the connection between contrast preference and
contrast discrimination performance.
Results revealed an inverse and linear relationship be-
tween contrast increment and contrast preference, where
preference decreased systematically with increment. Also,
contrast preference seems to be independent of conceptual
content, but apparently also from spatial configuration char-
acteristics. Based on contrast discrimination results, we ex-
pected to find a connection between preference and regions.
Nevertheless, a uniform preference pattern was observed for
Figure 5. A comparison between average preference of the unaltered
photograph OR and regions HI vs SH vs MT.
Figure 4. a. Average preference across categories reveals no significant difference. b. Average preference
across regions HI vs SH vs MT reveals significant difference.

all photographs tested. Results also revealed a match be-
tween the photographer’s contrast preference, manifested in
his choice of contrasts in the photographs tested, and that of
the viewer.
One way of explaining these results is with the anchor-
ing theory of lightness perception.20–22
In mapping lumi-
nance into a lightness scale, the highest luminance is an-
chored (assigned) to white, and the rest of the values are
scaled relative to it. Other factors influencing anchoring are
the area rule and configural attributes of the image, such as
articulation and insulation. The compromise between the
anchoring rules determines whether anchoring occurs in the
local framework or the global framework. While strong an-
choring to local framework increases lightness constancy,
when the global framework is stronger, lightness constancy
decreases and assignment to white is enhanced. Perhaps, as
the contrast in the shadow region increases, insulation de-
creases and the white areas grow bigger, thus the photograph
is perceived as being lighter. Therefore, the decrease in light-
ness constancy might be the reason for what seems to be
greater tolerance to contrast increments in shadow regions
than in highlights or midtones.
In both experiments, i.e., contrast discrimination per-
formance and preference evaluation of photographs, results
reflected no influence of high vision processes, such as the
perceived depth of stimulus21
to influence perception of the
brightness of the pattern, or the context effect,23
also labeled
“object-superiority effect,” suggesting that the context of
overall structure and form influences early processing such
as features extraction.
Moreover, the argument that viewers prefer shapes and
arrangements, which are most “effectively” processed by our
visual system24,25
must also be reexamined in light of the
present results. This argument derived from a work that ex-
amined the effect of orientation on the aesthetic appeal of
Mondrian’s paintings. The results in that work reflected a
match in the preferred orientation between the artist and the
viewers. This is in line with the match in contrast preference
reported in the present paper, and also early experiments
with other mediums of art including also poetry and prose,
where sentences from well known classical writers were
modified to impair the literary effect26–28
music, where well
known pieces were modified to major mode and minor
mode,29
orientation in abstract paintings,30
and other pic-
ture alterations.31
The explanation for the tendency to prefer certain
shapes or arrangements (Mondrian), which are effectively
processed, was claimed to lie in the biological need to main-
tain a certain level of stimulation of the visual system. Like
other adaptive mechanisms, the visual system is encouraged
to function most effectively; thus it prefers the more extreme
stimuli over the weaker ones (peak shift effect32
).
According to this argument, artists should prefer to cre-
ate line art or solid-color rectangular arrangements, such as
Mondrians, and photographers should prefer high contrast
film. But, in reality it is not so. In fact even Mondrian is but
one example out of the general art creation. Even if Mon-
drian was indeed gifted in the capability to intentionally cre-
ate a faithful expression of the visual system, does that make
his art, therefore, weigh more than other art works as a
manifestation of the visual mechanisms? If so, that would be
in contradiction with the above argument itself, denying its
universal neurobiological ground, according to which all art
works are manifestations of the brain’s mechanisms and
constraints.33
If we all prefer the same shapes and orienta-
tions then we should all have been making Mondrians, with
no variance throughout art history and no effect of cultural,
geographical, and historical conditions.
If indeed the most extreme stimuli is the preferred one
by the visual system and has the highest appeal to us all, then
the results of the present experiment should have been that
the greater the contrast increment, the higher the preference
evaluation. In fact, the results reflect that both photographer
and viewer prefer the contrast of reproductions similar to
original, and not the extremes.
This leads to the suggestion that the match between
artist and viewers in constrast reproduction preference or
orientation preference are valid only within the context of
the specific artworks, and cannot be translated to other art
works.
CONCLUSION
Further investigation, using eye movement tracker, can an-
swer questions relating to the effect of contrast alteration
over meaningful details in photographs and the consequent
effect over fixation centers drifts and attention, following
earlier studies.34–37
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to M. Tsukada,
Horiuchi Color, Tokyo for printing and laminating the entire
stimuli and supporting the research, and to Professor
Masako Jitsumori, Chiba University, for his extensive assis-
tance in the data analysis.
REFERENCES
1
S. Zeki, Art and the Brain (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2000).
2
V. S. Ramachandran and W. Hirstein, “The science of art—A
neurological theory of aesthetic experience”, J. Conscious. Stud. 6, 15–51
Figure 6. A comparison between average preferences at regions HI vs
SH vs MT for stimuli 2%, 6%, and 10% contrast increment.

(1999).
3
A. Hammond, “Ansel Adams and the objectivism—Making a
photograph with group f/64”, History of Photography 22, 169–178
(1998).
4
I. H. Latour, “Ansel Adams, The zone system and the California School
of Fine Arts,” History of Photography 22, 147–154 (1998).
5
G. T. Fechner, Vorschule der Asthetik (Breitkopf & Hartels, Leipzig,
1876).
6
L. B. Wexner, “The degree to which colors (hues) are associated with
mood tones”, J. Appl. Psychol. 38, 432–435 (1954).
7
H. J. Eysenck, “An experimental study of aesthetic preference for
polygonal ﬁgures”, J. Gen. Psychol. 79, 3–17 (1968).
8
H. J. Eysenck and M. Castle, “Training in art as a factor in the
determination of preference judgments for polygons”, Br. J. Psychol. 61,
65–81 (1970).
9
G. Jahoda, “Sex differences in preferences for shapes: A cross-cultural
replication,” Br. J. Psychol. 47, 126–132 (1956).
10
G. Currie, “The authentic and the aesthetic”, Am. Philosophical Q. 22,
153–160 (1985).
11
J. Elkins, “What are we seeing exactly?”, Art Bull. 79, 191–198 (1997).
12
S. Gershoni and H. Kobayashi, “How we look at photographs—As
indicated by contrast discrimination performance”, J. Soc. Information
Sci. Technol. Japan, accepted.
13
A. Gilchrist and C. Kossyﬁdis, “An anchoring theory of lightness
perception”, Psychol. Rev. 106(4), 795–834 (1999).
14
C. A. Olman, K. Ugurbil, and D. Kersten, “Effects of image structure on
perceived contrast and cortical activity in early visual areas”, J. Vision
3(9), 47a (2003).
15
C. Ripamonti, M. Bloj, R. E. Hauck, K. Mitha, and D. H. Brainard,
“Object lightness constancy: Effects of object pose and shape”, J. Vision
3(9), 295a (2003).
16
C. Habak, F. Wilkinson, Z. Bernadette, and H. R. Wilson, “Contextual
effects in form perception”, J. Vision 3(9), 354a (2003).
17
See Ref. 1.
18
R. Latto, D. Brain, and B. Kelly, “An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage
to Mondrian”, Perception 29, 981–987 (2000).
19
A. Adams, Photographs of the Southwest (New York Graphic Society,
Boston, MA, 1976).
20
A. L. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial
arrangement”, Science 195, 185–187 (1977).
21
A. L. Gilchrist, “When does perceived lightness depend on perceived
spatial arrangement?”, Percept. Psychophys. 28(6), 527–538 (1980).
22
See Ref. 13.
23
N. Weisstein and C. S. Harris, “Visual detection of line segments: An
object superiority effect”, Science 186, 752–755 (1974).
24
See Ref. 18.
25
R. Latto, “The brain of the beholder”, in Artful Eye, edited by R. L. J.
Gregory, P. Harris, and D. R. Heard (Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1995), pp. 66–94.
26
C. Burt, in How the Mind Works, cited by I. Gordon and C. Gardner
(Allen & Unwin, London, 1933); “Responses to altered pictures”, Br. J.
Psychol. 65, 243–251 (1974).
27
E. D. Williams, L. Winter, and J. M. Woods, “Test of literary
appreciation”, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 8, 265–284 (1938).
28
C. V. Valentine, The Experimental Psychology of Beauty (Metheun,
London, 1962).
29
K. Havner, “The affective character of major and minor modes in music,
Am. Psychol. 47, 103–118 (1935).
30
M. S. Lindauer, “The orientation of form in abstract art”, Proc. Am.
Psychological Assoc. 4, 475–476 (1969).
31
N. C. Meier, The Meier Art Tests 2. Aesthetic Perception (University of
Iowa, Bureau of Educational Research and Service, Iowa City, IA, 1963).
32
See Ref. 2.
33
See Ref. 1.
34
A. L. Yarbus, Eye Movements and Vision, edited by L. A. Riggs (Plenum
Press, New York, 1967) edited by R. L. Solso, Cognition and the Visual
Arts (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994), p. 145.
35
C. F. Nodine, P. J. Locher, and E. A. Krupinski, “The role of formal art
training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions”,
Leonardo 26, 219–227 (1993).
36
C. F. Nodine and H. L. Kundel, “Perception and display in diagnostic
imaging”, Radio Graphs 7, 1241–1250 (1987).
37
C. F. Nodine, “Searching for NINA, 1987”, in R. L. Solso, Cognition and
the Visual Arts (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994), pp. 143–147.

How We Look at Photographs Indicated by Contrast Preferences

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a How We Look at Photographs Indicated by Contrast Preferences

Semelhante a How We Look at Photographs Indicated by Contrast Preferences (14)

Mais de Sharon Gershoni

Mais de Sharon Gershoni (7)

How We Look at Photographs Indicated by Contrast Preferences