Why do traditional colors look so much more real than digital colors?
>>7970542Because trad creates hue via substractive light and digital via additive light. Digital has hues that can't exist via pigment. That isn't to say that those colors don't exist in the real world, it's that trad has a limited gamut and your brain associates that gamut with "real"
>>7970546Was going to say more or less this. Trad is limited by actual physical pigments so it forces particular color choices, whereas digital is unlimited, so you can choose any colors you like regardless of how common they are in the physical world.
>>7970542Perhaps because... They are real?
>>7970546>>7970583So how to learn this power? Just do trad for a long time until you subconsciously learn which color sets are “traditional”?
>>7970542Trad art is full of tiny little imperfections which makes look more interesting and natural.Digital is usually sterile and "perfect" so it looks artificial and repulsive.There are some programs which can emulate trad better but usually making digital look less sterile always requires workarounds.
>>7970546>>7970583>this is what digitalfags actually tell themselvesDigital literally tries to emulate trad. It doesn't have any advantage over it. It's just trying to emulate it.
>>7970546Serious question. Is there a way to limit digital gamut so that it appears close to what's "real"?
>>7970583>>7970887
Too bad I probably need very expensive brands like schimink or something like that. And my brush should be handpicked from a horse stable to achieve this.
>>7970583Why don't we develop an art software that emulates trad? Every watercolor brush on digital doesn't act like true watercolor.
>>7970891>schiminkYou mean Schmincke? Those are usually on the cheaper side.
>>7970892I think Krita has some interesting watercolor brushes. Not sure if it's really the same as real colors but they at least look interesting with water effects and very grainy
>>7970892We do. But they are not popular for the same reason why movies shot in digital don’t add film grains and effects to emulate film. Or why modern digital anime and cgi avoid traditional look even though they can.Because “muh genuine”, “artistic integrity”, and stuff like that. They don’t want to be fake.
>>7970897If they cared about artistic integrity they wouldn't use digital in the first place.Digital artists constantly use grain filters. Anime maybe doesn't do it because that would tell the viewer that cel animation actually was better.
Digital will win in the end anyway, because the colors still look good enough while being much much faster to apply.Being able to just click on a bucket icon to fill out a whole area is pretty neat.
>>7970542>>7970546there's also the fact that almost all images on computers use sRGB color space, or 256 values each for red, green, blue, and transparent.the human eye can see roughly double that number, but non-sRGB colorspaces have been known to brick samsung phones and i'd have to doublecheck to see if you'd need a special monitor.sRGB is widely used because it's pretty decent for regular images and file size is still a relevant factor nowadays. just because you can have thousands of 25 MB PNG files on your phone or computer doesn't mean you can host it online to billions of users.some people have orange color receptors too, but it's rare in men
>7970940What a pile of retarded nonsense. sRGB defines primaries, whitepoint and gamma. Bit depth is completely separate from that. The need for higher bit depths actually arises from high resolutions causing brightness banding, which eye is much more capable of discerning.
>>7970879Ik krita has a gamut mask, ive never used it, but they do have it.Photoshop doesn't have it, but I use coloorus 2.5 and it has gamut masking built into its color wheel.This is a video about gamut masking in general and how you can use it to emulate trad color spaces:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imT_QupoFQEAnd I've never used this but apparently its a free tool for gamut masking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2qAgYf5Tn4>>7970884Holy shit you're actually retarded or trolling>>7970881once again more elitist tradbabble that pretends like adding the texture that trad artists get for free isn't a thing you can doWhy does digital make trad artists seethe so much? Why do they always feel the need to attack digital artists? It's never the other way around. Funny thing is whenever trad artists do move to digital they struggle. Because it turns out that it's a different medium and has techniques that they take for granted or can't even conceptualize in trad.
>>7971560I aam not shitting on digital artists. I use it myself. But trad looks objectively better if done right. Digital is just more convenient and faster.
>>7970546holy dunning kruger
>>7970546>>7970583You retards know lots of pigments are outside of srgb and you see more colors irl than on a screen, right? You have gone outside, right? You have seen paint?
>>7970546it's this but also because of how light interacts with materials when you scan or shoot it, it's like scanning animation cels, the result is impossible to recreate digitally
>>7971666>the result is impossible to recreate digitallyno it isn't, you goddamn retard, there's literally nothing magical happening when "scanning" (they aren't scanned) cels to create an impossible configuration of pixels, are you a fucking mongoloid?
this is all normal pigments btw, not even getting into fluorescentswith srgb I could run around the wheel, shit can't even display prussian blue lmao
also, if these look similar it's because they're capped, they're wildly different colors irl
post to make a digital artist seethe
>>7971678I hate how PTSAI doesn't even have a real smudge tool. It's probably the main reason why I will always prefer trad over it.
>>7970542 Same reason why a wacom 16in costs 3k, digital is missing a shit ton of colorsNo idea why we are not able to emulate mixing colors, guess it's more important to add useless AI bloat features to photoshop than actual tools and settings.
>>7971662If you're looking at trad work on a screen that wouldn't matter much
>>7971768>t. never set foot into a museum
>>7971768it matters a lot, >20% of available trad colors literally cannot be displayed by srgb and around 10% cannot be displayed by p3
>>7971768further, saying it doesn't matter that trad has a wider gamut when the statement is made in response to retards proclaiming>trad has a limited gamut and your brain associates that gamut with "real"and >Trad is limited by actual physical pigments so it forces particular color choices, whereas digital is unlimitedis abysmally retardedtrad limits the gamut the exact same way digital does, consciously and purposely by the artist
>>7970542traditional will always win. Digital tries so hard to be like trad
although it bears mentioning that color space is three dimensional, so the above isn't totally representative eg srgb cannot display prussian blue masstone as mentioned earlier because it cannot show that much chroma at that value, but can display tints
>>7971784It really depends on your goal. Digital is definitely better for speed. Being able to zoom in a lot is also really helpful to draw detailed.
This thread really hammers home how clueless people are about the things they talk about here
>>7971678This shit is retarded and is only ever used by atelier larpers. No animator/mangaka ever holds their pencil like this when drawing trad.
>>7971839Yeah, some of the concept artists I know, we sometimes hang out to fish for cool images to slot in visual folders or nab art books/free courses but we rarely read any of the posts. it’s all worthless dreck written by people who are trying to one up each other by playing pretend. The real tell is most threads cross 100 posts with maybe a dozen drawings/paintings posted and very, very few finished pieces. And over half of the stuff posted itt is completely useless in a professional setting anyway, if you start faffing about with gamuts to emulate traditional art your AD will sit down with you and kindly ask you what the fuck it is you’re doing and to promptly go back to sRGB like a normal person hahaha. No one working on this stuff for a living over complicates like that, the simpler the better.
>>7971874Go ask your """AD""" what the terms sRGB and gamut mean, then go look at actual concept art by actual concept artists.
>>7971898That isn’t concept art though and man, I missed how agressive this place is at all times. Oh and in case you expect me to get dragged down in your bucket, spare your efforts for someone else.
>>7970542Maybe it's because there is natural noise?I remember an anon posting a simple digital painting, and the the same digital paiting with the noise added, and it was quite different.
>>7971901>promotional concept art isn't concept artSure showed you work in the industry lol
>>7971908Again, that isn’t concept art, it’s splash art, it’s an illustration, anon. You’re proving my point. There’s no such thing as “promotional concept art” and most concept art shown in art books is touched up and beautified. You could’ve browsed ArtStation for literally 30 seconds and found something to post here but because you’re clueless you picked something from the most popular video game franchise in the industry and used it as a gotcha. If you want actual concept art look up igor blanc chevalier for a start. I doubt this conversation will be productive and I expect that at this stage were gonna enter the semantics stage so I will bid you adieu and perform a French exit.
>>7971651FAIR 'NOUGH
>>7971662Retard weighing on on things that would be clearly implied if they understood what they are talking about. Of course real life contains more visible colors within its spectrum, it's real fucking life you absolute mouth breather. PIGMENTS can't capture the full spectrum of hue that ADDITIVE light can, likewise ADDITIVE light can't capture SOME of the spectrum that SUBTRACTIVE mediums like pigments can, FOR EXAMPLE. Very deep carbon nanotube blacks. Which is why it was such a big deal when OLED came out because it was "true black" since they got pixels to turn off. Holy fuck. The state of this board.
>>7971901Pitch concept art is absolutely concept art, as is mood concept art, which you'd know if you actually worked as a concept artist.
>>7971920these >>7971781>>7971782are literally pigments, retardcaps lock doesn't make you sound less retarded btw
>>7971933You’re so adorable, literally called it with the semantics stage of this sterile argument. Keep adding words next to concept art if it entertains you, have a good one!
>>7971937>P3You're actually retarded and don't understand how monitors go about displaying their colors and this isn't the gotcha you think it is considering all you spammed were jewel tones. I'm done wasting my time with you.
>>7971920...that's not what additive and subtractive mean at all. Like what the fuck does it mean that "ADDITIVE light can't capture SOME of the spectrum that SUBTRACTIVE mediums like pigments can"? Nigger, all light is additive and it's literally how you see. Like there's no perception of "subtractive pigments" outside of "additive light", are you retarded? You're conflating subtractive mixing with some retarded notion of "subtractive mediums", which is all the more retarded because pigments irl rarely if ever actually mix subtractively.
>>7971945wtf is a jewel tone lmao, I literally posted phthalo and cobalt kek the most ubiquitous fucking pigments
>>7971947Semantic. Yes, your eye only processes photons hitting your retina (which is an additive biological mechanism). But the entire art and manufacturing world uses the term "subtractive medium" as a universally understood shorthand for "materials that generate color by absorbing light rather than emitting it." Calling me out for using the phrase "subtractive medium" to describe paint is just pretentious pedantry. You can't just throw away the widely accepted usage of that term to win an argument with a semantic gotcha.
>>7971943I accept your shiteating larping concession :^)
>>7971949Nigger, you're retarded.
>>7971951Actual dunning kruger.
>>7971950Maybe that guy is wrong or whatever but you’re a fucking head case yourself getting this mad over something this stupid, both of you are larders. Sadge. And back to fucking /beg/
>>7971952He sure is, you can tell by how he cries about "semantics" while getting BTFO.
>SadgeYikes.
Yup. It really is like talking to retards. I'm out.
>>7971673what website is this? i wanna check my monitor's color range im curious if a wacom has these
>>7971920Retard, you don't paint in additive light, you paint in whatever the actual monitor can reproduce, which is a fraction of the visible spectrum. SRGB is to light what a Zorn palette is to paint.
>>7971957See you again in 10 minutes. >>7971956Fuck off summerfag
>>7971961it was actually 3 minutes. i want to know what website you used to check your monitors color gamut
>>7971945still waiting to hear what a jewel tone is lol
>>7971965sRGB monitors can't display shit dumbass. It's like pointing to a prius and going hurr durr your car can't get past a top speed of 112
>>7971964Not anon but Google is free, or you can just buy a calibration tool online if you want really precise measurement, maybe come in handy for you idk>>7971965It’s when you stick a big diamond in your windpipe to sound more refined and rich like when you address the peasants
>>7971966>srgb can't>p3 can'tpost your monitor>>7971967please stop referring to my cock that way
Hey niggers,What's the sRGB equivalent of radium paint?You fucking cocksuckers.
>>7971974CMYK color model
>>7971979holy retard
>>7971974one picture of mom's pussy displayed on an srgb monitor
>>7971972it about time i upgrade though. have been thinking about giving this one away on here by doing some kind of contest but idk how id go about doing it
>>7971982Well thats just unnecessary, I thought that was a clever joke :(
>>7971985>adobe rgb Fossil gamut, who actually still uses that lol, it’s fucking annoying to work with, you HAVE to work in 16 bit or risk banding or whatever else and if you want to print out your work good fucking luck converting it proper sRGB for printing, why the fuck is that used as some kind of marketing boon?Also anon, just sell it, no one here deserves anything.
>>7971985>export image>gets cucked by default>nobody sees it either waywew lad
>>7971985Send it to arbiter wolf
>>7971991you actually just swap your color space profiles in accordance to what you're making. I think it has like 5 different profiles? I forget. whenever u make things in digital u work in srgb as that's what most ppl would be viewing media with and is the most universally compatible. then you swap to adobergb for print media or high end work where your audience will be using monitors with much more robust color spaces. Also, yes but also, maybe theres some turdie on here that has a lot of skill and real big dreams. Anyways, I really just wanted to flex my cintiq on you poors. hahaha. >:-D
Not all of the pigments used in LCDs are available in artist paints, but if you do any amount of trad then you should know what to do with a list like this.https://www.dic-global.com/en/products/digital_pigments/Even if you're some kind of turbo retard who thought that displays are magic, it should now be obvious to you that displays have to use pigments to make colors. The display manufacturer selects three of them, and generally you can just buy the same shit in a paint tube.
>>7971998Nothing I do requires more than sRGB so the whole gamut conversion biz is a mystery to me and I’m probably wrong here but isn’t converting sRGB to adobe RGB a bit more involved than what you described? The values in adobe seem a whole lot more in depth and I’ve read that to really leverage the gamut you need to work in 16bit from scratch which would prevent useful features like filters etc because wrong conversion can easily cause shitty print quality and banding and whatever else (also why the fuck are filters still not available above 8 bit photoshop I will kill you)I don’t like cintiqs, they kill my back, also calibrating them seems tedious over normal screens that offer more options, intuos pro large ftw! But I have an iPad to move around and it’s very nice
>>7971998What the fuck nigger? You should do the exact opposite of this.Nobody should ever do any kind of color math in sRGB.
>>7972007Good news, no one’s doing it because it’s stupid. And useless.
>>7971780Calm down you retard lol. If you're looking at a photo of traditional art online, which is OP's case most likely, none of this matters 99% of the time.
>>7972004The monitor can display the full gamut of adobergb which contains the srgb spectrum within in it. So you swap the color profile on the monitor via an interface it has, and it artificially constrains the color space to srgb. The reason you'd care about this, is because coloring within adobeRGB which is developed for print media, would display colors that an sRGB monitor can't. So colors that look good within one color space physically can't exist within another. Most devices use sRGB displays, so you'd want to color within an sRGB color space, so that the colors you see on your monitor are what most devices will be able to produce.
>>7972035Also as for how P3 compares to adobeRGB, they're both pretty robust color spaces but each were designed with different purposes in mind. adobeRGB for print media or things that will exist in the real world, and P3 for cinema/movies. As a result of this, both monitors can display colors that the others can't. If I remember correctly, P3 can display more blues and greens and adobeRGB. Whatever the case though, sRGB is the most limited gamut by far, but also the most universal, so if you're working to produce assets that will exist digitally, you work with sRGB, unless you know for a fact that your client or audience has the means of seeing wider color spaces.
>>7972039It's actually the other way around. Adobe can display greens and cyans, P3 reds and yellows
>>7972035Fair enough, that’s a useful feature if you’re working for printing. I just have two ProArt screens so I don’t really try to get how different gamuts work, it’s also confusing because color space and gamut seem to mean the same thing, but they sometimes get used to mean different things by some people, a bit tedious to follow all that shit when you don’t need it for work.
>>7972042They're used pretty interchangeably, but if you want the exact way they're used. The color gamut is the full spectrum of what your monitor is physically capable of producing. The color space, are the rules for how it displays those colors. So when you click a button to swap from the full gamut, to sRGB, you're changing the color space to a narrower space within that gamut. So gamut = hardware, color space = software based rules for the hardware.
>>7972024Yeah if we're scanning and printing shit then obviously the pigments will be different, but he shit in your screen is basically three basic transparent watercolors in a glossy medium. You'd cream your retard diaper if you could see a display that had a full range of pigments to color pixels with.>>7972035This is total fucking bullshit. If your monitor is in Adobe and you want to look at sRGB content, you slap on a view transform on the content, and if you're on an sRGB monitor and painting in Adobe, you slap a view transform on your painting.The problem with sRGB is that it has 256 stops in a gradient. In sRGB, 256 minimum transparency layers are opaque together. If you have an object that is color (int.MAX, 0, 1) and 300 lights with color (2, 0, 1), in sRGB your object will render as purple even though it should be 255 times more red than blue. In digital you have to do math with your colors, the color space is not just for display.
>>7972039Alright nice, and yeah we just use sRGB since most stuff stays on screens, if it’s printed it’s usually just to be put up on a board but isn’t meant to be good looking or whatever. Not sure if art book material gets converted by whoever is tasked with making it and honestly I kind of don’t give a shit
>>7972048Well holy fuck this is probably the first time someone’s explained the difference in one paragraph, well done. Alright yeah so gamut’s really niche I don’t think anyone would push a pro Art screen this far especially in photoshop.
>>7972052It really is shit you don't need to give af about unless you're working with clients that specifically need it. By then though, hopefully you'll have already learned about it since it'd be a bad look if they requested it and you had no idea wtf they were talking about. sRGB is good for about 90% of cases
>>7972049Alright that’s interesting and you obviously know a lot more than I do about colorimetry than I do, but I can’t help but feel like this is mostly unnecessary to do in most cases right? Most artists I know have sRGB monitors, I genuinely don’t know anyone with an adobe monitor (aren’t they a lot more expensive too?) so view transform would make no sense, it’s just simpler to have one of each and use whichever you need for the task (plus two monitors is just more comfortable if you’ve got a few pureref folders open) And why would anyone paint in adobe anyway, afaik it’s used for photographic and printing work, you would just use sRGB for digital art like the other anon said
>>7972049I think you're conflating a lot of things. I'm not some expert on gamuts and color spaces but I do know the first part of what you said is wrong. sRGB is just a set of color coordinates (color space). You can work in an sRGB color space at 16 bit or 32 bit float if you want to. Working in Adobe RGB at 8 bit still only gives you 256 steps per channel. Adobe RGB doesn't magically grant you more math precision that's what bit depth does.
>>7972057More like 99%, I will never use P3 since I don’t work with video, but I might have to use adobe sometime if stuff needs to be shat out irl and stuck on a wall to look good. This is really something I’ve neglected but at least I know how to use bit depths correctly, something I don’t think 99% of photoshop users understand, some people I know worked for years in 32 bit because they thought bigger number means gooder and their computer would fucking die every time a brush stroke got registered kekAlso a huger number of people still get confused with dpi, something that genuinely doesn’t matter at all.
>>7971855many comic artists/cartoonists/mangakas do it.
>>7972075name 80
>>7972075I have watched countless trad process videos and never seen a single one do it. If you have a counterexample then please show me. But either way the overhand grip would be a minority
>>7970542Reality is rough and heterogeneous, and that's more difficult to imitate with a digital "brush" than with a physical one.
>>7972109>I have watched countless trad process videosand drawn too, right? right?
>>7971855literally every western animator uses it, you just watch chinks who draw small and use mechanical pencil.
>>7970900grain filters/overylays also just look cool. they help to break up areas of solid color to make them more interesting to look at
>>7971662>>7971672>>7971673>>7971675>>7971676the posts you’re replying to are overstating it, but “some pigments exceed srgb” doesn’t really kill the point. digital isn’t unlimited; it’s limited by color space/export/display gamut. trad also isn’t just “smaller gamut”; real pigments can do things a normal screen can’t reproduce. but once a painting is scanned/photographed and posted online, it gets reduced to the capture/export/display pipeline anyway. people are seeing a gamut-mapped screen version, not the actual pigment. the real difference is the constraints: pigment availability, subtractive mixing, opacity, layering, texture, gloss, lighting, etc.
>>7972165Genuinely insane it took this long for someone to say this and I was amused reading the squabble over it, it’s all converted to sRGB anyway and they’re having a fit over semantics. At least some anons got some good answers to their questions? That’s a win for them I guess
>ctrl f>rec 2020>0 resultsyeah, clearly you're all getting your info off sucking on frogs
>>7972213It’s a real format, but it’s really recent, and everyone still uses rec 709 because of inertia, I’m not even sure there’s that many screens that support it yet Also it’s for editing and this is /ic/ so who gives a damn
>>7972049Boy are you a whiny pedantic little faggot
>>7972283This is 4chan after all. Why do you think no one who actually draws hangs out here? They just fetch what they need and immediately fuck back off to reality in order to avoid the schizo waves from melting their cortex
This “I just get the books/courses from /ic/ and fuck off” line gets repeated so many times that I have to assume it’s all one guy who’s doing it.Which is ironic, because that would mean that he’s actually spending a lot of time here and he’s not fucking off at all.
>>7972378That’s why I wrote “they” instead of “I”, anon.
>>7972378Why do you think no one who actually draws hangs out here? They just fetch what they need and immediately fuck back off to reality in order to avoid the schizo waves from melting their cortex
