Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best light for final print evaluation?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:25:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
use for indoor print evaluations?

*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:48:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:truv819co5ba67fh3srsvd5jl9mr57ovtu@4ax.com...
> I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
> in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
> to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
> suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
> use for indoor print evaluations?

At work we use daylight-balanced (tri-phosphor) fluorescent tubes, but
they're quite expensive. In the UK there are daylight-balanced compact
fluorescent lamps (for domestic fittings) available for about GBP15. I've
found it tends to be art and craft shops that stock them which probably
bumps the price up. Daylight can be rated between 5400°K and 6500°K - here
in the UK where we get more than our fair share of cloud cover we tend to
use the colder end! The main thing is consistency, after all will your
clients be viewing the product in controlled conditions? I know ours aren't.

Best regards,

Craig.

p.s. good on you for getting your colour management sorted!
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:04:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:truv819co5ba67fh3srsvd5jl9mr57ovtu@4ax.com...
> I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
> in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
> to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
> suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
> use for indoor print evaluations?

Wouldn't the best light be the same light the prints will be displayed in?
Related resources
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:truv819co5ba67fh3srsvd5jl9mr57ovtu@4ax.com...
>> I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
>> in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
>> to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
>> suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
>> use for indoor print evaluations?
>
> At work we use daylight-balanced (tri-phosphor) fluorescent tubes, but
> they're quite expensive. In the UK there are daylight-balanced compact
> fluorescent lamps (for domestic fittings) available for about GBP15.
> I've found it tends to be art and craft shops that stock them which
> probably bumps the price up. Daylight can be rated between 5400°K and
> 6500°K - here in the UK where we get more than our fair share of
> cloud cover we tend to use the colder end! The main thing is
> consistency, after all will your clients be viewing the product in
> controlled conditions? I know ours aren't.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Craig.
>
> p.s. good on you for getting your colour management sorted!
>
>
>

If you were ever to see a spectral chart of even the most expensive tri-
phosphor fluorescent lamps (a chart from someone other than the company
itself) you wouldn't be using them for anything critical. This
particularly applies to the vastly overrated Ott-Lite. ISO 9000 and
ISO9100 standards require a 5000K light source for print or transparency
inspection. You want the highest CRI rating you can find, at least 98.

I (and most art museums) use Solux 4700K halogen display lamps. Although
they are slightly warmer than the standard calls for, I have had good
luck with them. They have a spectrum as continuous as the sun's (a bit
more so, actually) compared to the hills, valleys and steep notches of a
fluorescent lamp's spectrum.

Solux also makes a 5000K lamp but it is more expensive and short-lived
and requires a regulated 10V supply instead of the much more readily
available 12V supply that the Solux Q35MR16/CG/47/36 uses.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 10:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
> in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
> to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
> suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
> use for indoor print evaluations?

A north facing window on a clear day. (Northern hemisphere)

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 11:01:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> If you were ever to see a spectral chart of even the most expensive tri-
> phosphor fluorescent lamps (a chart from someone other than the company
> itself) you wouldn't be using them for anything critical. This
> particularly applies to the vastly overrated Ott-Lite. ISO 9000 and
> ISO9100 standards require a 5000K light source for print or transparency
> inspection. You want the highest CRI rating you can find, at least 98.
>
> I (and most art museums) use Solux 4700K halogen display lamps. Although
> they are slightly warmer than the standard calls for, I have had good
> luck with them. They have a spectrum as continuous as the sun's (a bit
> more so, actually) compared to the hills, valleys and steep notches of a
> fluorescent lamp's spectrum.
>
> Solux also makes a 5000K lamp but it is more expensive and short-lived
> and requires a regulated 10V supply instead of the much more readily
> available 12V supply that the Solux Q35MR16/CG/47/36 uses.

Well, I shalln't be buying any fluo lamps for myself then!!
A 10v supply is not that big of a deal after all for absolute precision.

Craig.
May 23, 2005 1:57:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
> in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
> to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
> suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
> use for indoor print evaluations?
>
I look at it fisrt under the incandscent light in my work room. I hold
it by the window and look at it in natural light, then I usually look at
it at varying distances under halogen lighting.

I spent many years working in industries where colour matching was done
as a precision science - to ensure that for example a print of a
cigarette packet in a photo looked exactly the same as the real
cigarette packet. The marketing executives believed this made people
smoke more of their cigarettes, so considered it very important. I
guess if you were taking product marketing related shots, then marketing
executives will be just as anal as they used to be.

Nowdays I figure that near enough is good enough. For a reality check,
I pull out a 10 year old album of 10 x 8 Cibachromes that were printed
for me by a very respected lab from Fuji ISO 50 slide film that I used
to use. They are nowhere near as good as what I can now do with an
inkjet printer (R1800) in my home. The colour balance isn't as good.
The tonal range isn't as good. And, despite what some people will tell
you are the limitations of digital versus film, my inkjet prints look
much sharper and contain more detail.

So, my suggestion is that unless you are taking commercial product
shots, then forget about treating it as an exact science and do what
looks nice under normal lighting. Be sensible about it (don't have your
work area walls painted bright yellow etc), but don't get so wound up in
a quest for perfection that you will find fault that nobody else will
notice.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:57:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

> Well, I shalln't be buying any fluo lamps for myself then!!
> A 10v supply is not that big of a deal after all for absolute precision.
>
> Craig.
>
>
>

Keep in mind that you'll need to come up with some sort of fixture to hold
four or more of these lamps to get decent illumination levels over an 11x14
so you'll need a 150W 10V supply (15 Amps), at least. I run mine (the 12V
lamps) from the regulated power supply from a gutted computer but that's
only enough power to run three of them. These lamps are MR16's , so they'll
fit in many 12V track lighting systems.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:58:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

> Wouldn't the best light be the same light the prints will be displayed
> in?
>
>
>

Theoretically, yes, if you know what it will be. Barring that, you should
print to an internationally accepted illuminant standard.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:00:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> I've calibrated my monitor, got custom printer profiles, worked it up
>> in Photoshop and printed it. Now what kind of light should I be using
>> to evaluate it with? I've a couple of color management books which
>> suggest the Ottlite but other articles suggest Solux. What do you all
>> use for indoor print evaluations?
>
> A north facing window on a clear day. (Northern hemisphere)

Way too blue, by at least 2000-3000K.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>

>> A north facing window on a clear day. (Northern hemisphere)
>
>
> Way too blue, by at least 2000-3000K.

Yes. In retrospect you're right. I'm thinking of diamond dealers
preferred light source.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:04:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6sq50$krg$5@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Bubbabob wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>
>>> A north facing window on a clear day. (Northern hemisphere)
>>
>>
>> Way too blue, by at least 2000-3000K.
>
> Yes. In retrospect you're right. I'm thinking of diamond dealers
> preferred light source.

Diamond dealers Alan? What social circles do you move in mate?! LOL

Craig
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:04:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Craig Marston wrote:

>
> Diamond dealers Alan? What social circles do you move in mate?! LOL

Quite ordinary middle/upper-middle class Canadians with a couple
obscenely rich (to me anyway) folks thrown in for good measure.

A boring and self-absorbed lot, come to think of it. There are of
course diamonds in the rough in this bunch who make life a little more
joyful regardless of the light in which they're seen ... and a couple of
the Karaoke places we go to have characters who are of an entirely
different socio-economic classification ... I claim them as friends too.

The diamond thing comes from a passing curiosity I had about how gems
are evaluated for quality. Quite a subject in itself and one which I
know only in the most superficial terms.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 24, 2005 3:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Craig Marston wrote:
>
>>
>> Diamond dealers Alan? What social circles do you move in mate?! LOL
>
>
> Quite ordinary middle/upper-middle class Canadians with a couple
> obscenely rich (to me anyway) folks thrown in for good measure.
>
> A boring and self-absorbed lot, come to think of it. There are of
> course diamonds in the rough in this bunch who make life a little more
> joyful regardless of the light in which they're seen ... and a couple of
> the Karaoke places we go to have characters who are of an entirely
> different socio-economic classification ... I claim them as friends too.
>
> The diamond thing comes from a passing curiosity I had about how gems
> are evaluated for quality. Quite a subject in itself and one which I
> know only in the most superficial terms.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
So, what colour temperature should be used for best examination a photo
of a diamond?
!