Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pearlstreet on November 19, 2017, 07:09:32 pm
-
I can't do the whole print viewing station but I have a large cabinet that I use to view prints but I need better lighting. Anyone have a good solution? I've tried searching the site but I'm not coming up with anything.
-
I'm thinking about this one. https://www.dickblick.com/products/daylight-combo-lamp/#description
-
Here's what I got in a LuLa search...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102190.0
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99479.msg814417#msg814417
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111844.5
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116755.20
Here's a review from a LuLa contributor...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/pdv-3e-desktop-viewing-stand-review/
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/grafilite-print-viewing-lighting-review/
-
See the last page:
http://digitaldog.net/files/16TheRightLightpart2.pdf
-
Thank you both.
-
I can't do the whole print viewing station but I have a large cabinet that I use to view prints but I need better lighting. Anyone have a good solution? I've tried searching the site but I'm not coming up with anything.
Hi Sharon,
I started a thread on this topic about 5 months ago and had a number of responses with varied opinions. I've been making photographic prints since the late 60s, working with various methods. I initially started in a Custom Colour Lad and eventually my own lab since 1981. When I moved my business to my home location earlier this year I was also dealing with the print evaluation lighting issue. Until my move I had used 5000K fluorescent lighting for all of my printing years. However, after a lot of research on the subject I decided to go the LED route. More research and settled on a system from a company in Toronto. I'm using a rectangular array of LED Bars, 2-6" and 2-48" bars connected in a 6" x48" configuration. These are providing a 4000K light source, which is somewhat warmer than I was using previously, but so far seems to be suiting my needs very well. Referring to your post I imagine this might be a bit costly for your situation, but the company I referred to also sells a variety of single bulbs as well that might be more suited to your setup. This company specializes in high quality lighting for various situations, TV and Movie production included. One very important piece of information you should look for in any light source used to evaluate colour prints is the Colour Rendering Index(CIR). It should have a value of at least 90 and preferably higher. As the name would imply, a lower rating would not render colours accurately, which would be useless for your purpose.
This is the company I've been referring to - http://lumicrest.com/. These are the LED bars I'm using - http://lumicrest.com/product-category/led-flexible-strip/undercabinet-modular-lighting/. The attachment shows part of my present work area, including the LED Bar assembly mentioned above. I hope this is of some use to you Sharon.
Gary
-
Thanks very much, Gary. I can't use any kind of track lighting or ceiling lighting where I view prints. None of the lights on that site look like they can go in a lamp. I'll send them an email and see if they do.
-
Thanks very much, Gary. I can't use any kind of track lighting or ceiling lighting where I view prints. None of the lights on that site look like they can go in a lamp. I'll send them an email and see if they do.
OK Sharon. I wasn't aware of your viewing setup. However, I would be very careful about the lamp you have been looking at. It's obviously a fluorescent with a tungsten to add for a warmer light. Even top of the line fluorescent bulbs usually exhibit spiking in certain colour areas, and also loose their colour temperature over a period of time, so I suspect this one might do so even sooner. And also the CRI is not mentioned at all, which means it is probably quite low, and that's not good for evaluating colour prints. If you need this sort of lamp for your needs I would suggest at least looking at some LED lamps. They are usually very consistent and many will at least carry a CRI rating, so you can judge by that. Often office supply stores carry such lamps.
Gary
-
Thanks Gary.
-
Big doh to me, I had my search set up to only search one subforum.
-
So I'm thinking about the goose neck solux.
http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/clampon.html
-
So I'm thinking about the goose neck solux.
http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/clampon.html
That's the one I have and I can mount it right next to my printer.
Alan
-
CRI is a hack, don't go there.
Fluorescent's have spectral spikes making them less than ideal for this kind of work if/when you end up encountering OBAs.
Nothing I know of produces a spectrum from a man made Light source like Solux. Hopefully LED will get there someday as these pups put out heat!
I use both Solux which I prefer, and a GTI Fluorescent booth since other's in print and prepress use such a booth and that's useful when collaborating remotely and viewing prints. But other than that,
http://digitaldog.net/files/15TheRightLightpart1.pdf
I'd prefer Solux for critical print viewing NEXT to my display:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
-
So I'm thinking about the goose neck solux.
If that works for you. I'ld recommend you get it. It's the most accurate to the color rendering characteristics of a sunbeam on the planet.
There's an observation I'ld like to relate here about daylight balanced LED's I'm starting to notice in how they circumvent the green to bluegreen spike in their spectra. And I see it in the photo posted by Garnick's studio setup and in my Hyperikon LED bulbs.
Couple of years ago I bought a 27" LG LED sRGB gamut display that was color calibrated at the factory by a very expensive Minolta Color Analyzer. What I've found in the ensuing years comparing its native white to the high CRI LED 4000K- 5000K bulbs is that the bulb's color of white has a magenta filtering component that attempts to neutralize their green spike. Since it is very difficult for us humans to see the exact color of bright transmissive white on a display it works out pretty well but not as perfect as the Solux.
I just found this out when calibrating/profiling my LED display with the Colormunki Display set to target white balance of D65 which now makes my native white and neutral grays look greenish. I checked the Target D65 profile's vcgt tag (I have a Mac) which shows the red and blue curves equally pulled way down from the top that are making my video card render in a way my supposedly native 6500K white point of my display comply with Xrite's definition of 6500K which is attempting to override the magenta bias of white I can't see on my display.
This could be an alternate method of double profiling due to the appearance of the color of white can be subject to adaptation and thus my native display white, though it was measured at the factory to be 6500K, by setting to target D65 (instead of native) tells the software that the Minolta Color Analyzer definition of 6500K isn't so perfectly neutral.
Not sure but when I see a pattern of manipulation of color with daylight LED bulbs compared to LED backlit displays, it makes me take note. Any PAR30 or PAR20 bulb as on the Lumicrest site will work but find out how much light they put out first because you may need to buy more than one to get it to match the luminance of your bright white LED display which is far more influential in color matching prints.
I'm not that concerned about it because my eyes adapt pretty well to slight variances of white light and any tint that might exist in neutral grays. It's so subtle that it doesn't really drastically change the appearance of memory colors but B&W prints might be slightly off from the display under these LED bulbs.
Just something I discovered about LED daylight bulbs.
-
Just something I discovered about LED daylight bulbs.
Yeah, they are not daylight. Now onto Fluorescent bulbs that tell you they are 'daylight' or worse, D50/D65.
Couple of years ago I bought a 27" LG LED sRGB gamut display that was color calibrated at the factory by a very expensive Minolta Color Analyzer
Calibrated to what/why and what makes the consumer believe that this 'calibration' is ideal for the needs OR doesn't shift over time??? And you believe IF you use your very expensive or inexpensive 'color analyzer" (probably a colorimeter or spectroradiometer), that you'll produce the same results?
The amount of marketing BS people accept is worrisome....
-
Calibrated to what/why and what makes the consumer believe that this 'calibration' is ideal for the needs OR doesn't shift over time??? And you believe IF you use your very expensive or inexpensive 'color analyzer" (probably a colorimeter or spectroradiometer), that you'll produce the same results?
The amount of marketing BS people accept is worrisome....
I was going by your statement you've said many times that there is a range of color temp hues that can be defined by a color analyzer or spectro as some number of Kelvin or 'D' designation. It is the manipulation of white balance appearance which of course we adapt quite quickly to that is the secret sauce behind selling daylight bulbs including the Solux.
Are you going to question the accuracy of a $10K Minolta Color Analyzer or are you going to fully explain the engineering behind the manipulation going on by the entire industry. I believe that's above your pay grade, Andrew.
-
I was going by your statement you've said many times that there is a range of color temp hues that can be defined by a color analyzer or spectro as some number of Kelvin or 'D' designation. It is the manipulation of white balance appearance which of course we adapt quite quickly to that is the secret sauce behind selling daylight bulbs including the Solux.
What I wrote was correct, what you wrote about the calibration from the factory was questionably useful and filled mostly with marketing hype you accepted. Can you answer my questions about how this calibration from the factory is useful and the end of the calibration process moving froward? With a different device?
Pretty clear here who's pay grade is lower than another.....
Are you going to question the accuracy of a $10K Minolta Color Analyzer or are you going to fully explain the engineering behind the manipulation going on by the entire industry. I believe that's above your pay grade, Andrew.
Did I say anything about accuracy of the devices? No. Did I call out the silly notion that your display being calibrated from the factory is marketing hype? Or that you'll have to calibrate yourself in time, using a different device? I asked if you expect that to produce a match to what you got out of the box; no answer.
Tell us what you think you've gained with this comment if it's factual:
Couple of years ago I bought a 27" LG LED sRGB gamut display that was color calibrated at the factory by a very expensive Minolta Color Analyzer.
Couple years ago I bought a car, it came with a full tank of gas and smelled new. So what?
-
CRI is a hack, don't go there.
Fluorescent's have spectral spikes making them less than ideal for this kind of work if/when you end up encountering OBAs.
Nothing I know of produces a spectrum from a man made Light source like Solux. Hopefully LED will get there someday as these pups put out heat!
I use both Solux which I prefer, and a GTI Fluorescent booth since other's in print and prepress use such a booth and that's useful when collaborating remotely and viewing prints. But other than that,
http://digitaldog.net/files/15TheRightLightpart1.pdf
I'd prefer Solux for critical print viewing NEXT to my display:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
Hi Andrew,
Not that I dispute your information or opinion on this subject, but have you looked at the Lumicrest site and their testing information? I'd like to get your opinion on what you see there as well if possible.
Gary
-
have you looked at the Lumicrest site and their testing information?
I have not looked at that specific LED; got a URL?
-
What I wrote was correct, what you wrote about the calibration from the factory was questionably useful and filled mostly with marketing hype you accepted. Can you answer my questions about how this calibration from the factory is useful and the end of the calibration process moving froward?
Pretty clear here who's pay grade is lower than another.....
Did I say anything about accuracy of the devices? No. Did I call out the silly notion that your display being calibrated from the factory is marketing hype? Or that you'll have to calibrate yourself in time, using a different device? I asked if you expect that to produce a match to what you got out of the box; no answer.
Tell us what you think you've gained with this comment if it's factual:
Couple of years ago I bought a 27" LG LED sRGB gamut display that was color calibrated at the factory by a very expensive Minolta Color Analyzer.
Couple years ago I bought a car, it came with a full tank of gas and smelled new. So what?
I'ld rather let others determine whether my observations on the magenta filtering component in high CRI LED daylight bulbs is useful information. There seems to always be this battle between whether neutral white should look green or red. Now I'm seeing it in LED displays and bulbs. Whether it's high CRI numbers or some spectrum graph analysis really isn't as important as just having enough light to make the brightness of white paper match the brightness of display white.
-
I'ld rather let others determine whether my observations on the magenta filtering component in high CRI LED daylight bulbs is useful information.
Oh after the peer review, they will (should). Funny, I didn't mention anything about magenta filtering component in high CRI LED daylight bulbs. Only someone's silly acceptance of marketing hype, with questions that you simply cannot or will not answer for obvious reasons to some here!
Whether it's high CRI numbers...
You still are unaware that this is a bogus metric and tells us virtually nothing?
...or some spectrum graph analysis
The correct way to evaluate a superior and useful metric; are you able to do this?
... really isn't as important as just having enough light to make the brightness of white paper match the brightness of display white.
What a rather broad and ridiculous statement.
You should study this topic a bit more before posting, especially in terms of what paper white, white and white appearance all mean and produce, and sometimes poorly with OBAs and less than ideal lighting.
The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, is that those who have it are so eager to regularly share it! - The Digital Dog
-
If that works for you. I'ld recommend you get it. It's the most accurate to the color rendering characteristics of a sunbeam on the planet.
There's an observation I'ld like to relate here about daylight balanced LED's I'm starting to notice in how they circumvent the green to bluegreen spike in their spectra. And I see it in the photo posted by Garnick's studio setup and in my Hyperikon LED bulbs.
Couple of years ago I bought a 27" LG LED sRGB gamut display that was color calibrated at the factory by a very expensive Minolta Color Analyzer. What I've found in the ensuing years comparing its native white to the high CRI LED 4000K- 5000K bulbs is that the bulb's color of white has a magenta filtering component that attempts to neutralize their green spike. Since it is very difficult for us humans to see the exact color of bright transmissive white on a display it works out pretty well but not as perfect as the Solux.
I just found this out when calibrating/profiling my LED display with the Colormunki Display set to target white balance of D65 which now makes my native white and neutral grays look greenish. I checked the Target D65 profile's vcgt tag (I have a Mac) which shows the red and blue curves equally pulled way down from the top that are making my video card render in a way my supposedly native 6500K white point of my display comply with Xrite's definition of 6500K which is attempting to override the magenta bias of white I can't see on my display.
This could be an alternate method of double profiling due to the appearance of the color of white can be subject to adaptation and thus my native display white, though it was measured at the factory to be 6500K, by setting to target D65 (instead of native) tells the software that the Minolta Color Analyzer definition of 6500K isn't so perfectly neutral.
Not sure but when I see a pattern of manipulation of color with daylight LED bulbs compared to LED backlit displays, it makes me take note. Any PAR30 or PAR20 bulb as on the Lumicrest site will work but find out how much light they put out first because you may need to buy more than one to get it to match the luminance of your bright white LED display which is far more influential in color matching prints.
I'm not that concerned about it because my eyes adapt pretty well to slight variances of white light and any tint that might exist in neutral grays. It's so subtle that it doesn't really drastically change the appearance of memory colors but B&W prints might be slightly off from the display under these LED bulbs.
Just something I discovered about LED daylight bulbs.
Hi Tim,
I just have one question. What is it exactly what you are seeing in the photo I displayed of my working setup, as mentioned in this sentence - "And I see it in the photo posted by Garnick's studio setup and in my Hyperikon LED bulbs". Just curious.
Gary
-
I have not looked at that specific LED; got a URL?
Well I see a lot of (more) marketing hype on their site. Can't fine a spectral plot which (to again correct Tim) would tell us a massive amount about the light quality prior to actually buying/seeing the blubs. The talk about CRI; ignore it. Only 8 tiles, the metric was created by the Fluorescent bulb industry to make their numbers look better (much like how projectors use Lumens and those numbers to make you think higher is better; not for photo's!).
8 is too small a set of tiles. That make it easy to create a spectrum that will render the 8-14 tiles and doesn't tell us that the light source is full spectrum. It doesn't tell us how the other colors will render. My understanding is there are two reference sources; Tungsten for warm bulbs and D50 for cool ones: Above and below 4000K. That means that a normal tungsten bulb and perfect daylight both have a CRI of 100! As such, a high CRI is a decent gauge of how well a light will preform in your home but not such a great indicator of how well it will work for photography and proofing. Both a Solux 48 and a "full spectrum" tube from home depot may have a CRI of 97. I can assure you the Home Depot bulb has a giant mercury spike and some spectral dead spots.
-
I have not looked at that specific LED; got a URL?
This is the URL I included with my reply to Sharon - http://lumicrest.com/. I do have the link for the testing information as well but couldn't find it at the moment. I'll check again later, or perhaps you will find it first. It's on their site somewhere.
Gary
-
Hi Tim,
I just have one question. What is it exactly what you are seeing in the photo I displayed of my working setup, as mentioned in this sentence - "And I see it in the photo posted by Garnick's studio setup and in my Hyperikon LED bulbs". Just curious.
Gary
I noticed you photo is abnormally quite neutral for most camera AWB or custom WB mechanisms but it is neutral looking except the closer you get to the light source which I took a screengrab indicating the slightly violet blue bias. I get the same thing visually in the Hyperikons but my camera's white balance isn't as good as most cameras. Nikons really force R=G=B and have been the best at AWB.
No manufacturer can perfectly neutralize the oddball spectra of artificial daylight. I'ld say from your posted image yours is very good but I don't know if that's your camera making it look like that.
The point I'm making is sort of questioning who gets to define the look of neutral white light and assign a 'D' or Kelvin designation and call that accurate to some black body radiator seeing all the variances in the definition according to what instrument brand is measuring it.
-
I noticed you photo is abnormally quite neutral for most camera AWB or custom WB mechanisms but it is neutral looking except the closer you get to the light source which I took a screengrab indicating the slightly violet blue bias. I get the same thing visually in the Hyperikons but my camera's white balance isn't as good as most cameras. Nikons really force R=G=B and have been the best at AWB.
So you don't know what bulbs he's using (despite him naming them below), an sRGB Adobe RGB (1998) JPEG upload to a web page is data enough to assume these bulbs are your Hyperikons? Ouch. :-\
No manufacturer can perfectly neutralize the oddball spectra of artificial daylight.
Neutralize?
The point I'm making is sort of questioning who gets to define the look of neutral white light and assign a 'D' or Kelvin designation and call that accurate to some black body radiator seeing all the variances in the definition according to what instrument brand is measuring it
The point I'm making is sort of questioning what you wrote about paper (just having light to make the brightness of white paper match the brightness of display white.) and the idea a display calibrated at the factory is in anyway useful today or over time; questions you cannot answer. So I probably shouldn't have asked you what on Earth you're talking about above. Sorry. :-[
-
Clearly what I'm talking about isn't for you, Andrew. Just drop it and move on.
-
Lastly Tim, you need to attempt understand what that Digital Color Meter you've pulled out really tells you!
It's not measuring anything. It is taking two or three bits of information:
1. The color that an app is actually outputting to a pixel. i.e. an RGB level.
2. The colorspace that the app says should be used for that pixel for ColorSync to correctly display it (defaults to sRGB if the app doesn't specify).
3. The ICC profile associated with the display.
Then given those bits of information, it can calculate (via ColorSync) what that particular pixel should be if you were to measure it with an external device, and all of the color transforms, profiles etc. are correct. Since there's much going on here that's not correct, I had to post again. Sorry!
So it is sometimes useful (if you really know what you are doing; big IF) to make sure that all your profiles are in order if you can measure patches with an external sensor.
But it doesn't really do anything to validate anything without an external sensor, other than to verify numbers are what they should be.
-
Clearly what I'm talking about isn't for you, Andrew. Just drop it and move on.
Nor correct. That's why it's not for me. Others besides yourself I can't say. But the peer review/corrections and questions you refuse to answer (for obvious reasons) should be a useful paper trail for those on the fence. ;)
BTW, excellent job assuming about bulbs here.
If you've only imagined it, you haven't experienced it!
-
That's the one I have and I can mount it right next to my printer.
Alan
Alan, do use the plano-convex diffuser you can order? I'm not sure if I need that or not.
-
Measuring instruments should follow close to what the eyes see or else what's the point of calibrating to a standard so we all see the same thing.
Since the Colormunki colormeter wrote my native WB now so way off now into the purple blue regions according to Photoshop's XY numbers (see screengrab), I pulled back the same display gains on the red and blue as it did on target D65/6500K and I still get way off xy color temp measurements at native WB. When the display was new there was no greenish white. In fact I had the RGB gains set to R51,G49,B47 and I got a x, y Kelvin number as read in Photoshop's Color Settings indicating it was near 6700K.
If it is WB drift, why didn't the Colormunki software adjust the vcgt RGB curves to reflect the now purplish white which doesn't look purplish at all?
The curves look the same as they did when white balance measured 6700K native.
-
I'll answer this issue myself.
These are not precision instruments and neither are the definers of white light for daylight bulbs!
It is dependent on the manufacture and what color of koolaid you want to drink!
-
Measuring instruments should follow close to what the eyes see or else what's the point of calibrating to a standard so we all see the same thing.
Tell us about those instruments you've designed to come up with that concept considering your pervious statements to follow.
Readers should consider the text above and the text below from the same source:
It is the manipulation of white balance appearance which of course we adapt quite quickly to that is the secret sauce behind selling daylight bulbs including the Solux.
Tell us how such instruments adapt as you admit we do. Oh no, don't; it was a question and you're not one to answer them here (historically today for example).
I'll answer this issue myself.
But correctly?
If it is WB drift, why didn't the Colormunki software adjust the vcgt RGB curves to reflect the now purplish white which doesn't look purplish at all?
The WB drift assumption? That is to be added to the other assumptions:
Curves assumption?
CRI assumptions?
Solux assumptions?
The Koolaid for some to drink?
Is display calibration a new process for you?
More question marks that you can't answer; sorry. ;D
-
So I'm thinking about the goose neck solux.
http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/clampon.html
Sharon,
I have one of those for "taking my show on the road" and am constantly frustrated with the gooseneck being "too short" to get the lamp head out far enough to get decent coverage of even a 13x19" print. The other fixture with a longer straight-arm (up to 32") might be a better choice!
And.... I originally got the diffuser to use to make a more even light - which it did - but which also lowered the overall illumination from the single bulb enough to make is not optimal for my purposes.
Rand
-
Thanks Rand.
-
Alan, do use the plano-convex diffuser you can order? I'm not sure if I need that or not.
Yes, I use the diffuser.
-
Thanks, Alan.
-
I noticed you photo is abnormally quite neutral for most camera AWB or custom WB mechanisms but it is neutral looking except the closer you get to the light source which I took a screengrab indicating the slightly violet blue bias. I get the same thing visually in the Hyperikons but my camera's white balance isn't as good as most cameras. Nikons really force R=G=B and have been the best at AWB.
No manufacturer can perfectly neutralize the oddball spectra of artificial daylight. I'ld say from your posted image yours is very good but I don't know if that's your camera making it look like that.
The point I'm making is sort of questioning who gets to define the look of neutral white light and assign a 'D' or Kelvin designation and call that accurate to some black body radiator seeing all the variances in the definition according to what instrument brand is measuring it.
Two things Tim. You seem to think that I did this shot using AWB, which is not the case. Since the LED Bars are advertised as being 4000K, that's the WB I used for the shot. Initially I thought you might be taking me to task due to the discrepancy between the green cast shown from the light near the far end of the printer and the foreground area. That's quite easily explained, since the bulb in that fixture is just a run of the mill "daylight" LED bulb, whereas the LED Bars are obviously much closer to the advertised colour temp. Either that or the Nikon was just having a good day. I shot RAW, and the only adjustment was a very slight exposure reduction in Camera Raw, NO colour adjustments. Also, this was meant to be simply a shot to show Sharon these light bars and how they are installed. As far as your analysis of the light quality is concerned, I would have to use my imagination to actually see what you have mentioned, on my 27" calibrated and profiled NEC display. I'm sure you do see what you described, but perhaps only because you were looking for it. I cannot make any sort of judgement on that Tim. I can only say that I cannot see what you are apparently seeing. I can only say that so far I have been very satisfied with the LED Bars and their performance, and my customers are certainly quite satisfied with the results as well.
From this point forward I shall back away and let you and Andrew carry on the battle. Sorry to say it Tim, but I think you might be losing that one.
Gary
-
Two things Tim. You seem to think that I did this shot using AWB, which is not the case. Since the LED Bars are advertised as being 4000K, that's the WB I used for the shot. Initially I thought you might be taking me to task due to the discrepancy between the green cast shown from the light near the far end of the printer and the foreground area. That's quite easily explained, since the bulb in that fixture is just a run of the mill "daylight" LED bulb, whereas the LED Bars are obviously much closer to the advertised colour temp. Either that or the Nikon was just having a good day. I shot RAW, and the only adjustment was a very slight exposure reduction in Camera Raw, NO colour adjustments. Also, this was meant to be simply a shot to show Sharon these light bars and how they are installed. As far as your analysis of the light quality is concerned, I would have to use my imagination to actually see what you have mentioned, on my 27" calibrated and profiled NEC display. I'm sure you do see what you described, but perhaps only because you were looking for it. I cannot make any sort of judgement on that Tim. I can only say that I cannot see what you are apparently seeing. I can only say that so far I have been very satisfied with the LED Bars and their performance, and my customers are certainly quite satisfied with the results as well.
From this point forward I shall back away and let you and Andrew carry on the battle. Sorry to say it Tim, but I think you might be losing that one.
Gary
So your photo looks very close to what you're actually seeing in your studio. If so, that's all I wanted to know. I have to say those are some very neutral looking lights. The EXIF data of the posted sample image off your Nikon D610 indicates the white balance was done manually which most likely considers a 4000 Kelvin number setting incamera is a manual setting.
My 4000K Hyperikon spot flood is much warmer than what's depicted in your image which looks closer to my 5000K Hyperikon.
I'm not arguing for the hell of it, Garnick. I'm trying to see any improvements in daylight balanced LED lighting and how Kelvin is being interpreted or filtered for a particular neutral look. Kelvin numbers are just numbers and I'm finding establishing a consistency in appearance in connection with these numbers is darn near impossible across all brands of daylight balanced lighting.
How does cadmium yellow inkjet ink on white paper look under those lights? Maybe you could provide a photo of a color print and it's source image to see how those Lumicrest lights render color. Does cadmium yellow take on a slightly greenish hue to look like lemon yellow?
-
So your photo looks very close to what you're actually seeing in your studio.
Is that really a serious question?
This is what his (raw) and our raw really looks like:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg)
My 4000K Hyperikon spot flood is much warmer than what's depicted in your image which looks closer to my 5000K Hyperikon.
What Spectrophotometer and software did you use to come to that conclusion?
I'm not arguing for the hell of it, Garnick.
You have yet not argued anything but you have posted some rather suspicious ideas about color. Thankfully Garnick and I'd hope others are onto this concept!
I'm trying to see any improvements in daylight balanced LED lighting and how Kelvin is being interpreted
That's part of your problem! You don't know how to do so with the proper tools.
When deep in a hole of your own digging: STOP.
Again, SORRY :o
-
Oh and while we are on the subject of color analysis (or lack thereof), can you explain this?
(http://digitaldog.net/files/TimsFlawedConcept.jpg)
Digital Color Meter set two ways compared to Photoshop's values directly. 3x3 sample in the same area of color.
Two differing values from DCM (which is correct?). One correct value from actual downloaded image (which is and was uploaded in Adobe RGB (1998)) shown in Photoshop with the same 3x3 sample.
It is of course a number game Tim. The correct numbers are often appreciated by those who understand what they tell us. ;D
-
I finally got Colormunki Display to write a profile with an x, y color temp number that falls in the 6500K region on Andrew's Plankian Locus diagram he used to demonstrate the color temp results from different brands of display profile/calibration packages.
I didn't back off my red and blue gains far enough so I set them from their default R50,G50,B50 to R45,G50,B45, increased brightness and the xy numbers landed right next to the i1Display's 6500K results on the Plankian Locus xy diagram. Letting some time pass for adaptation to kick in I've got a somewhat neutral looking display though slightly bluish green. Unfortunately the profile's gamut was slightly reduced.
Another PITA now is when I have daylight streaming in through my windows the display looks ruddy greenish yellow so I set the gains back to the way it was with a more neutral white and gray at R50,G50,B47 and the ruddy look is reduced.
Oddly, doing all this didn't have much of an impact on changing the colors of my images like I thought it would. Adaptation is quite handy.
-
Adaptation is quite handy.
And further you believe your ColorMunki does the same. Sad. Time wasted instead of seeing how your examples with the Digital Color Meter are fooling you.
I wrote:
Oh and while we are on the subject of color analysis (or lack thereof), can you explain this?
Seems not. :P
-
I finally got Colormunki Display to write a profile with an x, y color temp number that falls in the 6500K region on Andrew's Plankian Locus diagram he used to demonstrate the color temp results from different brands of display profile/calibration packages.
Andrew's Plankian Locus diagram: Andrew who?
Damn another question that will go unanswered: sorry!
-
This Plankian Locus, Andrew...
I used to resort to finding the math calculation transform from x,y to Kelvin online until it dawned on me you supplied the diagram that maps it visually. This is the screenshot of Photoshop Color Settings' CustomRGB of my greenish WB display profile plotting where it falls roughly on the color temp arc on your Plankian Locus diagram you've posted over at Photo.net.
-
This Plankian Locus, Andrew...
Not mine. Which Andrew are you referring to (opps, another question: sorry)
That screen capture (from THIS web site*) is clearly not clear to you as to what it shows and more importantly why.
I used to resort to finding the math calculation transform from x,y to Kelvin online until it dawned on me you supplied the diagram that maps it visually. This is the screenshot of Photoshop Color Settings' CustomRGB of my greenish WB display profile plotting where it falls roughly on the color temp arc on your Plankian Locus diagram you've posted over at Photo.net.
The key word above is roughly. Like the results you provided from the Digital Color Meter. Great.
* http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103094.msg845726#msg845726
-
And here's the very first profile made of the LG27in. in 2013 with display RGB gains at R51,G50,B47 where it gave an exact reading of 6500K in Photoshop Color Settings' CustomRGB.
Maybe the colorimeter is drifting.
The Andrew I'm referring to is you or do you have a problem using your real name. From your past behavior it's no wonder you don't want to use your real name.
-
And here's the very first profile made of the LG27in. in 2013 with display RGB gains at R51,G50,B47 where it gave an exact reading of 6500K in Photoshop Color Settings' CustomRGB.
So what?
Maybe the colorimeter is drifting.
Maybe, probably not.
Got any idea how to alter the settings in whatever product you use (if possible) to alter settings to produce what none of us yet know what you want from your calibration? Wasn't you who brought up the factory calibration of your display; if it isn't massive marketing hype, why not stick with it? Oh, another question who's answer might prove embarrassing: sorry.
The Andrew I'm referring to is you or do you have a problem using your real name. From your past behavior it's no wonder you don't want to use your real name.
First, you got the wrong guy; that isn't my image. Unlike perhaps some here, I don't take credit for work I didn't produce. 2nd, I have zero problem using my real name and if you study the 12 thousand post just here, you'll see my name!
3rd, it's time for me to move on unless you must type more misinformation to others. You're all over the map here, can't answer simple questions about your writings and really need to spend more time studying the topic before posting more. Just the odd analysis (If I can be so kind) using the Digital Color Meter and assuming you know what kind of light was used from a JPEG is just over the top and kind of belongs on a forum that's more dedicated to fiction. Again, hopefully for the last time: sorry!
-
Bye, Andrew.
I take it this isn't you and you didn't post the Plankian Locus diagram...
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/shopping-for-an-editing-monitor.5504480/
-
I received my solux light today and it's great. I got the extendable light. This is meant to be an art light not a task light but it is working well for me. If you can't clamp the light close to the print, it won't work well as the clamp restricts the lamp movement. The light quality is great. My husband is going to build something for me to add track lighting over the cabinet.
https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/clampon.html
Iphone shot of the setup now.
-
Iphone shot of the lit print.
-
I take it this isn't you and you didn't post the Plankian Locus diagram...
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/shopping-for-an-editing-monitor.5504480/ (https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/shopping-for-an-editing-monitor.5504480/)
-
I received my solux light today and it's great. I got the extendable light. This is meant to be an art light not a task light but it is working well for me. If you can't clamp the light close to the print, it won't work well as the camp restricts the lamp movement. The light quality is great. My husband is going to build something for me to add track lighting over the cabinet.
Yes the quality is amazing. What CCT (temp) did you end up with?
-
I went with the 4700.
-
I went with the 4700.
That's what I use and recommend.
-
That's what I use and recommend.
Thanks for all your help, Andrew.
-
Thanks for all your help, Andrew.
What has gone unmentioned in this discussion is that the print quality is a function of both the illuminant and the printer's ink spectral absorbance. The limited ceramic color set used for CRI or even larger sets doesn't address the issue of the printer's ink response. And that's the only set of colors that matter when viewing prints.
The best measure of an illuminant for print viewing, be it a fluorescent, LED, or incandescent is how it interacts with the printer's ink being used. There are ways to do this but it's somewhat involved and requires some programming. That said, the current state of the art in fluorescent and LED lights gives Solux the edge regardless of ink.
-
That said, the current state of the art in fluorescent and LED lights gives Solux the edge regardless of ink.
I've yet to see anything (print made with ink or otherwise) that didn't look lovely under a Solux.
-
I've yet to see anything (print made with ink or otherwise) that didn't look lovely under a Solux.
Oh, I've got some, but the problem isn't the lamp. ;D
But, yeah, it's going to be a while before LEDs or fluorescents reach Solux though they are a lot closer. Especially LEDs which used to be quite awful.
-
I purchased a SoLux proofing kit with 4 5000K bulbs. After assembling it and plugging it in here’s something burning/vaporizing off the bulbs. I never touched the bulbs or fixtures with bare hands, only my paper handling gloves. Is this normal? Also their web site says the 5000K bulbs are rated for 100 hours while the 4700K bulbs are rated for 4000 hours. That 40x difference can’t be right, can it?
-
I purchased a SoLux proofing kit with 4 5000K bulbs. After assembling it and plugging it in here’s something burning/vaporizing off the bulbs. I never touched the bulbs or fixtures with bare hands, only my paper handling gloves. Is this normal? Also their web site says the 5000K bulbs are rated for 100 hours while the 4700K bulbs are rated for 4000 hours. That 40x difference can’t be right, can it?
Yes, it's somewhat normal. But you should really gone CCT 4700K as it is the same bulb, running LESS wattage and lasts longer.
-
Ok, guess I’ll swap to 4700K when these burn out.
-
I purchased a SoLux proofing kit with 4 5000K bulbs. After assembling it and plugging it in here’s something burning/vaporizing off the bulbs. I never touched the bulbs or fixtures with bare hands, only my paper handling gloves. Is this normal? Also their web site says the 5000K bulbs are rated for 100 hours while the 4700K bulbs are rated for 4000 hours. That 40x difference can’t be right, can it?
Yes... the first time I fired up my Solux track lights (after being careful not to get fingers on bulbs, etc.) it sent my electrician scrambling up into the overhead to make sure all was well with the wiring! I think it was a combination of “some” residual people-oil on the glass discs, and/or bulbs, but mostly the paint on the fixtures themselves “curing” under the heat generated by the bulbs. It went away after a bit. So, as long as you’re sure you’re “good” wiring-wise, I’d not be alarmed.
And I concur re the 4700k temp bulbs. While my GTI booth (5000) is great for accurate comparisons, the Solux 4700k is what I used to “enjoy” prints and to show clients how their prints look! While my GTI booth (5000) is great for accurate comparisons, the Solux 4700k is what I used to “enjoy” prints and to show clients how their prints look!
I also have a Fiilex V70 desktop viewing lamp (LED) w/ variable temps. Specs say CRI is greater than 90. It’s actually quite nice, for what it is, and is often useful for showing clients the impact of different color temps on the apearance of their prints.
Rand
-
I've been having issues with the Hyperikon 5000K LED BR40 floods in that the second one I bought has a noticeable color temp difference (see CCchart image below that I also sent by email to Hyperikon's support).
It appears these daylight balanced CFL/LED high CRI rated bulb companies vary in their manufacturing tolerances and quality of customer service because Hyperikon jumped on my problem immediately and shipped me free of charge a replacement only to find it too had the white balance hue (greenish buttermilk) I didn't want. I just got off the phone with Hyperikon CSR and they narrowed it down to the bulb I want has an FCC number which they are going to hunt down in their inventory and ship it to me for free. Now that's customer service.
I wish I could say that about the LED Soraa folks. It was impossible to even find a contact number when I had issues with a cracked front Fresnel glass element.
For print viewing both Hyperikons are adequate at 94 CRI but the one that is on the slightly reddish side (the one the left) has more accurate CCchart Lab numbers by clicking for R=G=B on the mid gray patch. None look perfectly neutral but they do put out a lot of ambient light for a 12x14ft. white walled room.
My Solux lamp's power converter block quit after about 40 hours of off and on use spread out across several years. I paid around $80 that included the 50watt 4700K bulb. I still have the bulb but never bothered to buy another lamp after Tailored Lighting wouldn't replace the lamp since it was out of warranty.
My Hyperikons have a 5 year unlimited warranty and put out far more light than the 50 watt Solux.
I wonder how PIXAR became a client of Hyperikon's after seeing their logo on their website.
-
For print viewing both Hyperikons are adequate at 94 CRI but the one that is on the slightly reddish side (the one the left) has more accurate CCchart Lab numbers by clicking for R=G=B on the mid gray patch. None look perfectly neutral but they do put out a lot of ambient light for a 12x14ft. white walled room.
Adequate at 94 CRI? You still seriously believe that CRI has any useful metric outside the massive marketing speak from those who designed CRI and use it to sell bulbs?
My Hyperikons have a 5 year unlimited warranty and put out far more light than the 50 watt Solux.
Now please compare a spectral plot of each and post. 5 years of spikes vs. smooth and less light? I know which I'd buy.
-
Adequate at 94 CRI? You still seriously believe that CRI has any useful metric outside the massive marketing speak from those who designed CRI and use it to sell bulbs?
Now please compare a spectral plot of each and post. 5 years of spikes vs. smooth and less light? I know which I'd buy.
I don't make nor am I interested in viewing photos according to whether they follow a spectral plot. I indicated the Hyperikons are adequate for me as print viewing lights. They're even better than the Philips Natural Light 5000K T8's flotubes.
And I only use CRI as a guide on whether I should consider their color rendering capabilities. I'm not looking for perfection because my eye's adaptive nature to changing lights from different devices takes care of the rest. The CC chart results I posted are adequate enough for me.
-
I don't make nor am I interested in viewing photos according to whether they follow a spectral plot.
Don't have the hardware, software or know how? But a bogus CRI number impresses you.
I indicated the Hyperikons are adequate for me as print viewing lights. They're even better than the Philips Natural Light 5000K T8's flotubes.
Yes adequate for you. And no comparisons with Solux who's spectral plots are damn telling.
And I only use CRI as a guide on whether I should consider their color rendering capabilities
Indeed, you believe despite the facts, this marketing designed metric from the lighting manufacturers actually tells you about color rendering capabilities: it really doesn't.
I'm not looking for perfection because my eye's adaptive nature to changing lights from different devices takes care of the rest.
Yes, do tell us about how your eyes adapt when the spike in the spectrum of lights you are ignoring affects OBAs in papers among the other issues with such lighting.
The CC chart results I posted are adequate enough for me
A rendered JPEG. Terrific.
-
Yes, do tell us about how your eyes adapt when the spike in the spectrum of lights you are ignoring affects OBAs in papers among the other issues with such lighting.
CRI numbers are and indication, higher is better, but only a rough one. LEDs are spikey and the key question that determines how well they work with a specific printer is the way the spikes interact with the inks and color matching functions. While that is a non-trivial thing to evaluate it's pretty easy if you have an I1Pro spectro and I1Profiler. You can capture the LED spectrum with the spectro. Load it into I1Profiler, and make a special profile using that illuminant as well as a standard one using the default D50.
To visually compare the effect of the LED v D50 in Photoshop, take an image and convert it to one printer profile. Make a copy. Now assign the other printer profile to the copy. Now just click back and forth between the two image tabs. The places the image changes colors will show the effects of the LED v D50. (D50 is VERY close to Solux profiles). If you want to see just how bad industrial fluorescent lighting is do the same with T2 illuminant.
Having measured the spectrums from various supposed high color rendering LEDs, including Hyperikons, they all have negligible uV. Which means they should be used with OBA free paper or M2 based profiles with any paper containing OBAs. Fluorescent lights, OTOH, typically have uV to various degrees so you may also need to consider a M0 ro M1 profile for those.
-
CRI numbers are and indication, higher is better, but only a rough one. LEDs are spikey and the key question that determines how well they work with a specific printer is the way the spikes interact with the inks and color matching functions. While that is a non-trivial thing to evaluate it's pretty easy if you have an I1Pro spectro and I1Profiler. You can capture the LED spectrum with the spectro. Load it into I1Profiler, and make a special profile using that illuminant as well as a standard one using the default D50.
To visually compare the effect of the LED v D50 in Photoshop, take an image and convert it to one printer profile. Make a copy. Now assign the other printer profile to the copy. Now just click back and forth between the two image tabs. The places the image changes colors will show the effects of the LED v D50. (D50 is VERY close to Solux profiles). If you want to see just how bad industrial fluorescent lighting is do the same with T2 illuminant.
Having measured the spectrums from various supposed high color rendering LEDs, including Hyperikons, they all have negligible uV. Which means they should be used with OBA free paper or M2 based profiles with any paper containing OBAs. Fluorescent lights, OTOH, typically have uV to various degrees so you may also need to consider a M0 ro M1 profile for those.
Few institutes test lamps as good as Olino.org
For example:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2017/11/17/dmlux-medi-art-led-panel
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2016/03/14/pharox-pharox-400-ledlamp-dimmable-8w-40w-e27
What does a Solux say 4000K on UV output and what is the choice then for the profile to convert to?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
While that is a non-trivial thing to evaluate it's pretty easy if you have an I1Pro spectro and I1Profiler.
Tim you got that?
-
Tim you got that?
Andrew, shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?
-
Andrew, shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?
I will take that as a no answer.
-
Having measured the spectrums from various supposed high color rendering LEDs, including Hyperikons, they all have negligible uV. Which means they should be used with OBA free paper or M2 based profiles with any paper containing OBAs. Fluorescent lights, OTOH, typically have uV to various degrees so you may also need to consider a M0 ro M1 profile for those.
Since it's been established that Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper has OBA's, I'm not seeing what your measuring devices are claiming what OBA paper should look like under various full spectrum lights and in this case the 5000K Hyperikons where the company has updated their definition of 5000K as an actual hue of light reflected back on white surfaces. (See the two hues' affect on OBA paper below.)
I can't separate visually the look of OBA's effect from the Hyperikon's change to color temp hue. I don't define how my prints should look according to how a measuring device defines it.
I want to know why all this technical and scientific analysis doesn't line up with human perception.
-
Since it's been established that Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper has OBA's, I'm not seeing what your measuring devices are claiming what OBA paper should look like under various full spectrum lights and in this case the 5000K Hyperikons where the company has updated their definition of 5000K as an actual hue of light reflected back on white surfaces. (See the two hues' affect on OBA paper below.)
I can't separate visually the look of OBA's effect from the Hyperikon's change to color temp hue. I don't define how my prints should look according to how a measuring device defines it.
I want to know why all this technical and scientific analysis doesn't line up with human perception.
Someone here needs to teach you the difference between color appearance and color perception.
-
And I only use CRI as a guide on whether I should consider their color rendering capabilities. I'm not looking for perfection because my eye's adaptive nature to changing lights from different devices takes care of the rest. The CC chart results I posted are adequate enough for me.
I am not an expert, but I believe that the eye's adaptive abilities relate to color temperature, not to uneven tonal response. There is a very good reason why photographers still prefer tungsten lights when the highest level of precision in color representation is required. At this point, no other artificial light source compares with tungsten for this purpose.
-
I am not an expert, but I believe that the eye's adaptive abilities relate to color temperature, not to uneven tonal response. There is a very good reason why photographers still prefer tungsten lights when the highest level of precision in color representation is required. At this point, no other artificial light source compares with tungsten for this purpose.
Since you've admitted you're not an expert, have you seen what you describe about the adaptive effect induced by color temp hues on color perception and have actually seen tungsten deliver the highest level of color precision? Most of what you've said appears to be second hand knowledge based on subjective statements from god knows who except maybe the points on the adaptive effect.
I'm not an expert, either. I just observe and report what I've seen with my own eyes which I've been told since I was a teen and graphics professional that I have a good eye for observing detail.
-
Well, many museums have switched to using LED lamps. The impetus for the change has been conservation, but they wouldn't want to use lamps that impair the viewing experience. It is not clear to me which lamps they are choosing to use.