Post #1073343
2026-04-11 15:17 UTC
I had a discussion with yet another individual who believed in “wide gamut”.
It is a very simple question; should an author be able to depict rainbows, prisms, dispersion, indirect interactions of materials, etc. without a wide gamut display?
The answer is *of course* of course.
Rethink how we are being sold nonsense to compel us to purchase things, and focus on what a picture is as a cultural artifact.
“Wide gamut” is a bogus construct, founded upon a false belief of “simulacrum”.
Replies (2)
-
@troy_s@mastodon.art 2026-04-11 15:20
More folks should invest the time to think about what a pictorial depiction should encompass in terms of *invariants* with respect to what they cognized in front of the camera, or their PBR models. We can clearly show that the idea of colourimetry reproduction is a fatally flawed construct, supported by absolute reams of evidence. Further, it leads to hilariously bad takes of requiring specific colourimetric hardware for a depiction. Absurdity at its finest.
-
@pq@floss.social 2026-04-12 06:06
@troy_s Is it irrelevant to artists what set of paints they have available to paint a picture with?