/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3320268
>hanging digital prints
>digital anything more than concept art

>>3320268
The only thing I liked, but was also at a high enough resolution to make a poster of is this Imperial Boy image: https://imgur.com/gallery/1ym5Xxf

>>3320329
Shut the fuck up gramps

>>3320268
literally everyone in the world since 85 has framed graphic design artwork on their wall

>>3320471
But there's some others that I like enough to print posters of, only I can't find a high enough rez file.. however I did print them in a booklet, collected with other works.

>>3320478

>>3320479

>>3320480

>>3320481

>>3320483

>>3320485

>>3320486

>>3320489

>>3320490

>>3320491

>>3320492

>>3320494

>>3320496
Who's the artist on this one?

None.
The whole point of digital is the additive color system, as in, colors more luminant than sunlight reflecting off a pigment.

To print it out, you'd have to convert to CYMK, at which point it stops being "digital".

>>3320505
Andrew Shek

>>3320519
How are the methods for deriving color the "point" of print vs digital? Not trying to shittalk or anything, I'm genuinely interested.
I always thought the whole RGB thing with its bit depth and whatnot was just means to an end of trying to recreate real life color - similar to the whole analog vs digital thing in audio.

Anything that Krenz Cushart draws

>>3320583
Your monitor is a light source. The color coming off of it can have the maximum luminance in the local gamma of your eyes.

A painting is a surface off of which light reflects. No color on a painting is ever going to have the maximum luminance in the room, since you need a brighter light to reflect off the painting for you to see it in the first place.

At the same time, 99% of digital display devices can't actually display any blacks, the backlight will shine through, making 0.0.0 RGB appear dark gray, compared to a patch of black fabric hanging next to the monitor. (Put a full screen black image on your monitor and turn off the lights, or hang a black t shirt in front of it, you'll see what I mean)

In practical terms it means that a digital image can't display the range of colors from a physical painting, and vise versa. As in, you can't have FF0000 on a print, since the print would have to be the source of its own light for that to be the case.

Not to mention that the RGB color space is completely relative, as in FF0000 is going to display a different intensity of red on different devices.

>>3321817
Ah I see, thanks for elaborating.
Although this luminance thing doesn't seem to be an core aspect of "digital medium", it seems. To me, the luminance is more or less a byproduct of convenience - you simply see the pixel matrix better with it being backlit. Not everything digital automatically implies luminance though, think of simple LCD displays. A gameboy screen still seems pretty digital to me, don't know about you.

But still following your line of thought; looking at an image on the screen, its color- and gamma-range (?) is interpreted within its own boundaries. That dark grey-blue glow of 0.0.0 RGB is interpreted to be "real dark black" when you see it relative to the brightest 255.255.255 RGB part of the screen.
A similar process happens when you view a print. Even though the image may be printed on some ivory colored paper with no "true" white, you still do the same approximation.

>>3321838
Well yeah, without a target, color data is just numbers. Without the spec sheet that specifies that a certain RGB color should emit a certain wavelength at a certain luminance, it's just a chunk of digital data with no context. You can map it to anything, even claim that FFFFFF is the brightness of the sun or whatever.

But still, digital is the only medium that can store/display colors that are emitted light rather than reflective light. And I wouldn't say that backlight is only a matter of convenience, after all, luminance is also a dimension of color, I'd say a backlit and non-backlit pixel on a matrix display are fundamentally different colors, since you see them differently. You could say that the backlight expands the range of the color space by adding a new dimension of brightness. Or shifts it up in the luma range.

You can't really transfer the entirety of the RGB color space into pigment. And there are even wider color spaces that regular monitors can't display either.

As well as certain traditional media effects (craquelure, multi layer color bleeding, impasto) that a flat digital screen can't convey.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that if you make digital art with the explicit purpose of printing it, you will have to work in a different color space with a certain maximum brightness range, but if you work within the full RGB color space and decide to print a work, you might lose colors and completely rebalance your color composition, and it won't look like the original work anymore.