Here's an interesting question:

I take a picture indoors using daylight film and available light, which happens to be from the florencent tubes from the ceiling. The print ("Print A") comes back with a greensh tinge, because the color was not rebalanced in the printing process.

I scan the print into a computer, and then use Photoshop to adjust the color balance until the skin tones look natural to my eye (I'm no graphics pro, but I have tweaked photos to make them look better). I print "Print B" on an inkjet photo printer.

So which image shows the actual colors, and which "covers-up" the true colors, the image that shows the actual colors recorded on a medium design for sunlight, or the image altered with computer software to a subjective standard of my own color perception?

Another thought: is all black & white photography guilty of "hiding actual colors"?

That's why this whole "Mars color conspiracy" makes no sense to me. An image matching the appearance of Mars to a naked human eye on the surface of Mars may not necessarily hold the most scientific value, or even be the most aesthetic. People who work with images in news, advertizing and art alter the color of images all the time. My must the Mars images be different?

Dancar