[argyllcms] Re: "Enhance"
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:49:48 -0700
On Dec 4, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Nick Dunmur <nickdunmur@xxxxxx> wrote:
she must have seen something that's altered her expectation/perception of
what the image looks like on a screen…?
Her imagination.
She’s not comparing the original and the display side-by-side to verify that
they match.
She’s looking at the image on the display, seeing the accurate rendition of the
watercolor but simultaneously seeing an entire palette of icons and widgets and
text and everything else on the display. When she painted the original, there
are, for example, areas that she would have used the darkest color she could
get to create the maximum possible contrast. That might only be L* = 30, maybe
even lighter (I’d have to measure it). So she sees that, interprets it as
“should be maximum black,” sees it instead (as is accurately rendered) as dark
grey (compared to the monitor’s maximum black), and interprets that as “washed
out.”
Or, another way to look at it…imagine soft proofing on something with a very
limited gamut, such as newsprint. It’s going to look “washed out” on screen —
but that’s because the newsprint itself is washed out. Now, imagine you created
the original in newsprint…when you move the newsprint to the display, would you
as an artist prefer to keep it as washed out as the original, or would you
rather use the full dynamic range of the screen?
b&
Other related posts:
