4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: − + − + + + + +
→Colors that can't be reproduced
::And a computer screen has a much larger gamut of color than a page printed with ink.
::And a computer screen has a much larger gamut of color than a page printed with ink.
::Color photographs look good, but if you have a chance to hold them up next to the actual thing that was photographed, anyone can see big differences from the real thing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Color photographs look good, but if you have a chance to hold them up next to the actual thing that was photographed, anyone can see big differences from the real thing.
::In other words... it's physics (and colorimetry and visual physiology),... not poetry or ideology. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::For another example, just try to photograph brightly-colored flowers in sunlight, especially those that have colors in the magenta-pink-violet-purple range. If you have a digital camera, take a picture, run inside, print it, and then bring it out to compare with the real thing. ''Not even close.''
::In other words... it's physics (and colorimetry and visual physiology),... not poetry or ideology.
::Another problem, at least with ordinary printed pictures, is that halftone processes are at their ''very worst'' trying to produce a nice, smooth, even gradation of tone or color. A phenonemon called "banding" almost always occurs to some degree, in which tones that should grade evenly separate out into bands that have noticeable edges. So something like a spectrum, or a rainbow, or for that matter the gradual shading in any blue sky, are a severe test of printing quality. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)