You know, when we've done some catalog photography in the past, we had to include either an 18 per cent neutral grey card or a Kodak color and density chart in the periphery of the shot. This was the reference and if, for example, the neutral grey looked a bit too magenta, then the viewer knew that the whole photo had a magenta cast and could compensate for it.
In this internet age when "your monitor may vary", it'd be nice to see the neutral grey swatch in some of these photos. A frame of reference would be nice.
I did mention in another thread that I thought that acrylic fabrics tended to take color a bit more "dramatically" than wool or PV. If that photo is accurate, it tends to support that contention. I would, however, mention that certain dyes photograph differently than they look to the human eye. Once upon a time I was shooting a catalog spread of towels for a large retailer (okay...it was Sears) and we had a helluva time getting all of the colors to balance out. Turns out that some of the dyes reacted to ultraviolet light differently and we had to correct for that. That could be the case with the photo of the FC IOS.
I did mention in another thread that I thought that acrylic fabrics tended to take color a bit more "dramatically" than wool or PV. If that photo is accurate, it tends to support that contention.
I would agree with you 100%. Not just on this tartan, but most any acrylic tartan in general. I can almost always tell an acrylic kilt from a distance simply from the colors. They tend to be much more bright and garish than the corresponding tartan in wool.
I don't know if that is a function of the acrylic per se, because I'm sure I've seen some acrylic yarns and other goods in more soft, muted tones. Maybe it's just a dye choice made by the mills who produce the bulk of acrylic tartans.
Originally Posted by auld argonian
Bookmarks