"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>
> assumed_gamma is not meant to be used as an artistic tool, if you really
> want such an effect then just do some post-processing in Photoshop the same
> way you would with a real photo - it's much more flexible.

I don't think you appreciate how much "artistic effect" goes into just seeing
things realistically in the first place. It's not an "effect". It's a necessary
part of the visual process. The brain pre-processes everything which then, in a
sense, has to reciprocally post-processed to make it look right. All the concern
about calibrating monitors precisely and adjusting for gamma seems to overlook
this ultimate "monitor" which works nothing like raytracing or photography.

Painters have discovered this, even naturalistic painters like Vermeer, long
before Ansel Adams or digitized photographers. The eye is not a camera. It works
by different rules than physics, rules discovered mainly by artists, and which
science is now just beginning to understand.

Post a reply to this message