What we see on a computer

[ntl]

I just bought a set of compression socks that. in the ad on the computer, two pairs of which bright and "lively" look dull and washed out IRL. Which got me wondering about what we see when we look at any photos (of our works here, for instance,) of anything other than blacks or grays... It's still good, I'd rather this than nothing.
I'm sending that package back, it was that disappointing.

 

[Hermes2020]

I can assure you that my stuff may look drab on screen, but it looks even more drab in the flesh.

 

[Aspenman]

I just bought a set of compression socks that. in the ad on the computer, two pairs of which bright and "lively" look dull and washed out IRL. Which got me wondering about what we see when we look at any photos (of our works here, for instance,) of anything other than blacks or grays... It's still good, I'd rather this than nothing.
I'm sending that package back, it was that disappointing.

People buy those a lot to try and see if they help. Most often they get returned!

 

[Artyczar]

I wore them after surgery and that was the only time I really truly needed them.

 

[Bartc]

Other than your socks, I have posted on WC a few times lamenting the appearance on a monitor screen that distorts the reality of objects. Three problems, not just the one you mentioned: different color calibrations, the impact of backlit vs. frontlit viewing, and the short viewing distance on a monitor vs. stepping back to view art in real life.
All of these contribute to an unreal experience. And that's assuming someone didn't deliberately (not necessarily nefariously) "enhance" the color or contrast in the digital form.
Most recently I posted here about disappointment with the actual color of a set of expensive pastels, due to their representation on the screen.

 

[ntl]

My question has to do with what I was seeing in the ad on the computer--bright, lively colors, then to get them and in real life those colors are NOT what I wanted at all.
And if that's so with this item, what happens to OTHER items--paintings for instance--that we see on a monitor? When I see your bright happy painting on a monitor, then see it IRL, will it be less bright, as was this item?
I don't usually buy clothing on line--these sox are about the first. I ordered that pack BECAUSE of those two pairs.
Bartc, thanks. I remember your thread. These 8 pairs were all photographed together, as a set. The other colors are as expected. One of the "lively" pair was first so backlighting might account, the other was in the middle.

 

[Bartc]

I buy some stuff online, NTL. Not usually clothing or other items that require choosing a color, though. When I do I have to be sure of the purveyor's color honesty. It ain't easy!!!! Otherwise, it's based on their return policy, another headache.

 

[Artyczar]

Bartc: Do not abbreviate WetCanvas with "WC" if that is in fact what you are talking about??? Please follow the rules of the site.

By the way, do you have a calibrated monitor?

 

[Bartc]

Sorry, Arty. Didn't catch that one. I don't even know about my monitor's calibration.

 

[classic]

I guess they always try to make things more attractive on screen. Most of the times I can find a note in small letters "Items on photo can differ from the actual items" or something similar. In other cases photos are so tiny that one can't observe fine details.
As for the monitors, it is true that we don't have to trust a cheap non calibrated monitor. Nevertheless, I think that most modern monitors aren't so bad, at least for some first few years (older CRT monitors can be very bad). I think that the photos are "optimized" rather than distorted by the monitors.

 

[ntl]

Thanks, All. This package is going back...
I'll find something different.

 

[stlukesguild]

Do not abbreviate WetCanvas with "WC" if that is in fact what you are talking about???

Oh damn! I'll have to watch that myself. I have been using the abbreviation WC for years... beginning at Wetcanvas.

I had to explain WIP (work(s) in progress) to one of my school administrators who was unfamiliar with the term... which is quite common when talking about art.

 

[AES]

My question has to do with what I was seeing in the ad on the computer--bright, lively colors, then to get them and in real life those colors are NOT what I wanted at all.
And if that's so with this item, what happens to OTHER items--paintings for instance--that we see on a monitor? When I see your bright happy painting on a monitor, then see it IRL, will it be less bright, as was this item?
I don't usually buy clothing on line--these sox are about the first. I ordered that pack BECAUSE of those two pairs.
Bartc, thanks. I remember your thread. These 8 pairs were all photographed together, as a set. The other colors are as expected. One of the "lively" pair was first so backlighting might account, the other was in the middle.

I'd suspect a misleading ad over a monitor color difference, especially if you don't have that problem with anything else. If anything, a low quality monitor would make it look worse on screen than in real life.

Artwise, I think my stuff does look better in pics, but only because the low resolution helps hide the weird bits

 

[Hermes2020]

I do the simple, easy monitor calibration steps, that are built into Windows, every few months, to ensure the most accurate display of colours and fonts on my Samsung B2230 monitor. It takes less than 5 minutes, so I suggest everyone here do it as well.

 

[Artyczar]

Do not abbreviate WetCanvas with "WC" if that is in fact what you are talking about???

Oh damn! I'll have to watch that myself. I have been using the abbreviation WC for years... beginning at Wetcanvas.

I had to explain WIP (work(s) in progress) to one of my school administrators who was unfamiliar with the term... which is quite common when talking about art.

We just aren't doing that here because many people who are not from Wet Canvas wouldn't know what that might mean. Even CS for Creative Spark isn't good. WC could even mean watercolor, who knows? Some artists might know that, but not everyone. It's just easier to type out what you mean. It's just preferred as to not alienate others. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Hermes2020]

When one writes a paper for publication in an academic journal, it is standard practice, when an abbreviation is used the first time, to write out the full expression or acronym, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses. As an example, when discussing oil pastels, one should write out "oil pastels (OP)" the first time, after which it is acceptable to just write OP in the same article. Perhaps we should do the same here in Creative Spark (CP) threads.

 

[Artyczar]

Yes, that would be acceptable.

 

[Bartc]

Enhancing color to make a sale is nothing new and not exclusively an online computer monitor issue. Catalog publishers and advertisers have been doing it forever in print and signage too. It's unfortunate. Just that these days so much shopping is done online (by choice, convenience, or the necessity of items that aren't carried locally), so we're focused on this medium. Still, it is damn frustrating!

My other problem with viewing art on monitors, which I've stated before, is that you view a work at too close a distance. In normal viewing on a wall the artwork would be feet away from you, the distance at which most images (not necessarily photo-realistic, I realize) are intended to be seen. But on a monitor it's little more than a foot away. So if it's life size as a digital image, you are seeing it tooooooooo close for full effect, and it's far too easy to concentrate on minutiae that were not the point of the painting.

 

[stlukesguild]

Enhancing color to make a sale is nothing new and not exclusively an online computer monitor issue.

I don't see the point of that. If you want your paintings to have a more saturated color just use more saturated colors when you paint them. I try to adjust the color of photos of my paintings to get as close as possible to the actual paintings... but ultimately, what you see varies according to the device you are viewing them on... and the colors vary from one photo to the next. Just look up Van Gogh's Starry Night and you'll see an incredible array of colors. This is just one reason that seeing a work of art in real life is a whole different experience from seeing a work in reproduction.

My other problem with viewing art on monitors, which I've stated before, is that you view a work at too close a distance. In normal viewing on a wall, the artwork would be feet away from you, the distance at which most images are intended to be seen.

Well... with the exception of painting installations such as the Sistine frescoes that are seen from a set distance, I don't think paintings have a single distance at which they are intended to be seen. My paintings measure a standard 45"x80" and certainly can be "read" from a good number of feet away... but I spend most of my time painting them from less than a foot away... and they certainly reward close-viewing (or at least I hope so). The huge canvases by Rubens and Veronese work at a distance and theatrical images... but they also reward close viewing of the surface and the brushwork. This is one of the limitations of photographic reproductions. They are taken from a single set distance with a single lens and this is not how we experience the real visual world around us... including paintings and sculpture.