Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: John R Smith on May 18, 2010, 03:56:01 am
-
Just a quick question, because I can't seem to find an answer to this -
I am profiling my LCD monitor using Spyder 2. Should I do this with the normal ambient light in the room on (falling on the screen as it normally does) or with the ambient light off and in a dark room?
Many thanks
John
-
Just a quick question, because I can't seem to find an answer to this -
I am profiling my LCD monitor using Spyder 2. Should I do this with the normal ambient light in the room on (falling on the screen as it normally does) or with the ambient light off and in a dark room?
Many thanks
John
You should do it with the lighting as it normally is when you are editing photos. This should be fairly dim light, although some people prefer to edit in total darkness (Why? Beats me). In any event, the room lighting is unlikely to affect the calibration if your puck is flat against the screen as it should be.
-
Doesn’t have to be a dark room however, darker is better because any ambient light that strikes the display affects its black appearance. Ambient light can be too bright, it can’t be too low.
-
Thanks, folks. I have never been sure quite how to do this. It's a very small room, where I display my prints as well, so the ambient can't be very low.
John
-
Thanks, folks. I have never been sure quite how to do this. It's a very small room, where I display my prints as well, so the ambient can't be very low.
John
In that case, I suggest some guidelines:
1)The light for your print display area should not be in your visual field when working on the images, or when softproofing them.
2) At least, get or make a hood for the monitor. Even some black matte foamcore would do.
-
I confirm what Walter says about the hood. You would be amazed at how much contrast is lost because your shadows are all washed out by the ambient light shining directly on the screen. Any kind of hood to prevent direct overhead light from falling on the screen would be good.
-
As suggested for best practices while working the ambient light should be controlled, or you will get contrast reducing flare if you are on a matt display or bothersome reflections if your display happens to be a glossy one. However, I don't believe the ambient light will actually affect the profile itself unless it's pretty bright ...
-
I go against what all the rest say. I cover my monitor with a black cloth when profiling. The puck is reading from the screen and I don't want any ambient light leaking in from the sides. All of the above advice is great for viewing, but I have been told by a consultant that you want as pure a reading as you can get from the screen.
-
I go against what all the rest say. I cover my monitor with a black cloth when profiling. The puck is reading from the screen and I don't want any ambient light leaking in from the sides. All of the above advice is great for viewing, but I have been told by a consultant that you want as pure a reading as you can get from the screen.
There is a large amount of truth to this. Your goal is to measure the output of your display, not the ambient lighting. Different measurement pucks and display technologies are affected differently by ambient light. what you want to avoid is the sensor picking up light scattered from the sides. If the sensor is reading light that comes from the room rather than the display, you will not have any accuracy in the screen's shadow response. We have characterized a number of measurement pucks for an upcoming report on sensor accuracy and found large (>15 DE) differences in measured black levels when comparing low light vs. typical office lighting for the ambient. The worst pucks in this regard were the i1-Pro and Spyder 3, the best the i1-Display.
Draping a cloth over the monitor works in a brightly lit environment. If you have control of the light switch, however, this is a better approach. Some sensors are prone to overheating and skewing the calibration levels. This is compounded if you use profiling software that takes a long time to do its thing.
As far as viewing environments go, the comments by Pat, Andrew, and Walter are spot-on. Avoid having light shining directly on your screen. A simple hood makes a major difference.
The overall lighting level should not be overly bright, but today's LCD screens allow more flexibility than past models. Decent quality graphics displays offer the best overall color gamut and output smoothness when run at a luminance of at least 140 cd/m2. If your editing environment is still tuned to the 80 cd/m2 luminance of yesteryear's CRT displays, this will seem blindingly bright. If so, come on out of the cave!
If your ambient light is too bright you will not see the full black range your display shows. Profiling the screen with the light on will not help; the software tries to compensate for light that does not originate from the display. The result is a profile with poor shadow definition and, usually, a color cast as well.
-
2) At least, get or make a hood for the monitor. Even some black matte foamcore would do.
Right. A bit like the hoods that come with Eizo screens, I suppose. What is foamcore?
John
-
Right. A bit like the hoods that come with Eizo screens, I suppose. What is foamcore?
John
Foamcore is 5mm or so of polythene foam sandwiched between card or thin plastic sheet to form a very light but stiff board usually used for mounting photos. You can cut it with a steel ruler and a scalpel, glue it or gaffer tape it together to form an effective and very cheap monitor hood, attach to the monitor using self adhesive velcro fixings on both hood and monitor.
-
Foamcore is 5mm or so of polythene foam sandwiched between card or thin plastic sheet to form a very light but stiff board usually used for mounting photos. You can cut it with a steel ruler and a scalpel, glue it or gaffer tape it together to form an effective and very cheap monitor hood, attach to the monitor using self adhesive velcro fixings on both hood and monitor.
Thanks Pete. This is not something that I've come across, I'm still back in the mounting board era. I shall try to find some foamcore at our local art shop. And then gaffer tape and blu-tac will be my weapons of choice. Perhaps I shall build an enormous hood that fully encloses the operator, with just a small vent to let tobacco smoke out at the top
John
-
Right. A bit like the hoods that come with Eizo screens, I suppose....
I have a home made matte black foam core hood on my LCD. It cost around $10 for the board and the art supply store cut it for me on their huge matting table. It's held on with a few pieces of Velcro tape and has a hinged opening to accommodate the calibrator puck. Here's a link to a simple hood design:
http://www.photo-facts.com/A-Z/M/monitorhood.html (http://www.photo-facts.com/A-Z/M/monitorhood.html)
-
Just a little inadvertently acquired experience: I usually do both my work and my calibration with the main room lights off. The other day I started a calibration and left the room. Without my noticing, a family member turned on the lights and entered the room. The calibration was WAY off! I ran it again with the lights off and it was OK. So, at least for the puck that comes with the NEC 2690wuxi2, ambient light is definitely detected.
--Milt--
-
...Without my noticing, a family member turned on the lights and entered the room. The calibration was WAY off!...
My wife has done that to me more than once, raising the window blinds because "the dog wants to look outside".
-
A black cloth and a darken room seems extreme to me - you will probably see more shadow detail on the display than you would ever get in a print.
I believe the best viewing conditions would be dim ambient viewing light and a "hooded" monitor with a separate "brighter" light that is representative of the final "hanging" brightness were the prints will be viewed.
NEC's SpectraView software references an ISO Standard 12646 for the ambient light condition for displays used in critical color applications. If you have a ColorMunki you can determine the "Ambient Light Measurement" in your viewing area.
(http://theuncarvedblock.com/images/3-lightAmbient-info.jpg)
BobD
-
For those who use the 'cover the screen with a black cloth' approach, how do you make adjustments to the screen? That is, how do you adjust the brightness/backlight, colour temp, etc? Or do you put the software on autopilot so no user intervention is needed and let the profile make up the difference between measured and desired?
Bob, wrt the ISO standard the NEC device is comparing to, I'm admittedly no expert on ISO standards but I believe 12646 was written more for press environments. Standard 3664 is more aimed at photo editing and suggests ambient lighting in the range of 32 to 64 lux and a monitor brightness in the range of 75 to 100 cd/m^2 which, in my view, is too dim; particularly with today's LCD monitors. As others have noted, dimmer light for editing is better and not having light shining directly on the screen is also much better. I'd add that the lighting in the room being diffused (i.e., through a frosted glass shade) is also a good idea.
-
For those who use the 'cover the screen with a black cloth' approach, how do you make adjustments to the screen? That is, how do you adjust the brightness/backlight, colour temp, etc? Or do you put the software on autopilot so no user intervention is needed and let the profile make up the difference between measured and desired?
With the NEC monitors and Spectraview software, unless you are adjusting the individual primaries to get one monitor to match another, you simply set up the target settings and let the software put the monitor through its paces until the profiling/calibration is done. The software controls the monitor's lookup tables and resets the computer's video card to have no influence on its lookup tables.
-
OK, thanks Walter.
-
With the NEC monitors and Spectraview software, unless you are adjusting the individual primaries to get one monitor to match another, you simply set up the target settings and let the software put the monitor through its paces until the profiling/calibration is done. The software controls the monitor's lookup tables and resets the computer's video card to have no influence on its lookup tables.
Ditto with the Eizo and Color Eyes.
-
Any monitor and calibration package that supports DDC (automated control over the monitor settings via software) allows you to hide either the monitor or yourself under a blanket.
There are three primary ISO specs that cover print viewing and display luminance. ISO 3664:2009 specifies the conditions for evaluating a print or an image on-screen, but not necessarily both at once. ISO 12646 lists requirements for comparing soft and hard copies, while ISO TC130 (included in ISO 12646) describes soft-proofing procedures. The quick summary along with some editorial comments:
Print viewing (ISO 3664):
- Critical comparison (P1 appraisal level): 2000 lux. This is definitely not for soft-proofing, as the illumination corresponds to a monitor luminance level of 570cd/m2. The reason the light is so bright is to maximize shadow resolution. Recent research shows that illuminance levels above 600 lux reduce the ability to perceive color differences in saturated colors except for yellow, so this number may well change in the future.
- Practical comparison (P2 appraisal level): 500 lux. This viewing condition corresponds to a monitor white luminance of 160 cd/m2, so there is some hope of accurate comparisons. Shadow details may appear compressed vs. the P1 level, but color variances are at least as visible.
- S Appraisal level (soft proofing only on a monitor): At least 80 cd/m2 with a D65 whitepoint and ambient light at or below 32 lux. The assumption is that one is editing for the web.
Soft proofing (ISO 12646 with TC130 procedures):
- Soft-proof only: D50 display whitepoint, minimum 80 cd/m2 luminance, maximum ambient light of 20 lux.
- Soft-proof with comparison to hard copy in a viewing booth: Hard copy illuminanted at P2 appraisal level, display at least 100 cd/m2, with 160 recommended, display whitepoint matches viewing light color temperature, maximum ambient light of 20 lux.
- Soft proof with the display integrated into the viewing booth: As above, but max of 64 lux around display.
What does this heap o' numbers tell us? First. the ambient light level is seriously low. 20 lux approximates a fireworks display. 8 seconds at f/8 for 100 ISO. There are multiple reasons for this cave-like value. The first is that the display whitepoint is set to D50. For most people, this reads visually with a yellowish tint unless the display luminance is very high and the ambient lighting low. The second is that the only consideration is maximum correlation between screen and print. Darker ambients work better. The specs also still hark back to the CRT luminance levels of 80cd/m2. Finally, these specs are geared toward typical commercial printing on groundwood stocks, which have a more yellow base than most artsy inkjet or photo lab papers. Moving the display whitepoint to the D60-D65 range helps here.
In a more realistic work environment, one where you need to see keyboard, mouse, and tablet, increasing the ambient light will not make much of a difference in the quality of comparison. Matching the viewing booth illumination level to the display is, however, a good idea. Higher quality booths support the 500 lux/P2 illumination level, or a display luminance of 160 cd/m2. Depending on how dark a room you wish to work in, and whether your viewer has a dimmer, lowering the display output is certainly possible.
-
Also, the specific purpose for the dark room or cloth while calibrating is to get an accurate black reading. If you think about it, this makes sense. When the black patches come onto your screen during the calibration, your puck is basically asked to report what color / brightness it is seeing. If it's black then there is hardly anything there at all for it to measure. So any stray light that sneaks around the foam padding on the face of the instrument is going to enter into the measurement of those black patches. This will basically increase the noise in what the instrument is reading. Black won't be the blackest your monitor can produce, but will be a little bit lighter. Therefore the profile that is made - and through which all the colors running through that profile to your display will be adjusted - reflect that grayish black. Even if you don't sit in a cave when you do your normal viewing, you don't want to generally cripple your monitor to a higher black point (if you can help it!)
-
Well, I popped into our local Staples at the weekend and got a pack of black A3 foamboard. Spent a fun evening last night measuring and cutting, lashed up the Smith Mk I monitor hood and blu-tacked it into position. It seems to work really well, actually, the cheap LCD screen that I have looks much more posh. Cost was ten quid and I have two sheets left over.
John
-
-> Cost was ten quid and I have two sheets left over.
Now you're all set to get a second monitor!
-
Doesn’t have to be a dark room however, darker is better because any ambient light that strikes the display affects its black appearance. Ambient light can be too bright, it can’t be too low.
It has been my experience that... If the brightness of your light is…
- right for your monitor, then it is too dark to evaluate your prints
- right for evaluating your prints, then it is too bright for your monitor.
Andrew (Digital Dog) do you want to weigh in on these premises?
Bob D
-
It has been my experience that... If the brightness of your light is…
- right for your monitor, then it is too dark to evaluate your prints
- right for evaluating your prints, then it is too bright for your monitor.
I don’t understand. The light I use for my prints is either a GTI booth I can dim to match the luminance I set on the display or a Solux task lamp I can move closer or farther away from a print to result in a match. There are no other lights used when viewing print to display matching.
-
I don’t understand. The light I use for my prints is either a GTI booth I can dim to match the luminance I set on the display or a Solux task lamp I can move closer or farther away from a print to result in a match. There are no other lights used when viewing print to display matching.
Andrew,
I find most people try make monitor adjustments and print evaluation in the same room under the same light brightness.
What I am saying is: if the brightness of your light is properly “dim” for monitor evaluation then it is too dark to evaluate your prints… AND conversely, if the light brightness is sufficiently bright to evaluate prints then it is too bright for monitor evaluation. (I think this agrees with your prior post: “… (a darker room light) is better because any ambient light that strikes the display affects its black appearance.”)
Changing Brightness of the Print Viewing Light to Match… but match what?
You say “The light I use for my prints is either a GTI booth I can dim to match the luminance I set on the display or a Solux task lamp”.
Are you saying the you change your “print evaluation light” to match the brightness of your display… and not the brightness of the light where the print will be hung?
I also use the Solux task lamp to evaluate prints and move it closer or farther away to change the brightness (measuring lux with the ColorMunki). However, I try to match the brightness of the light in which the prints are to be hung. If I don’t know the brightness of the “hanging light” then I try to attain a brightness of 250–300 lux (brighter than the average room but a standard brightness that most museum seem to use.)
Are you saying that you try matching the print viewing light to the brightness of the monitor? Am I right in thinking that there is no conversion from cd/m2 to lux because one is the light source measurement and the other is a reflected measurement?
Solux Bulb?
Which Solux bulb do you use in your task lamp:
... 50 watt / 3500K / 36 degree? or
... 50 watt / 4700K / 36 degree? or
... or?
Thanks in advance,
Bob DiNatale
Adobe Certified Expert Photoshop Lightroom
Xrite Coloratti
-
Are you saying that you try matching the print viewing light to the brightness of the monitor? Am I right in thinking that there is no conversion from cd/m2 to lux because one is the light source measurement and the other is a reflected measurement?
There is no direct conversion I’m aware if and if there were, it probably wouldn’t work. Just like a D50 illuminant and a D50 calibrated display rarely match. All the target values for white point will differ from user to user. I suspect that is one reason one can place an x/y chromaticity value into the better software products, rather than having to force a value like D50, or 6500 etc.
I adjust the display to the lower limits it can comfortably hit as lower means it will last longer. In the case of my NEC’s, that’s about 150cd/m2. New, out of the box, its hard to get them much lower. Then I adjust the viewing booth, which in the case of the GTI has a digital dimmer. The value that produced a visual match is 50% but that value is meaningless. The number means nothing. The match is what counts. Same with the Solux. I have to move it closer or farther away to result in a match. The distance value is a meaningless metric. What is meaningful is a match:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
-
I adjust the display to the lower limits it can comfortably hit...
Andrew,
My modest NEC P221w display can be set to 40 cd/m2 using the SpectraView II software and my ColorMunki... however, I find 100cd/m2 is giving me a good match. Do you choose 150 cd/m2 or is that as low as your NEC's will go?
Also, what Solux bulb do you use for print evaluation, 3500k or 4700 k?
Bob DiNatale
Adobe Certified Expert Photoshop Lightroom
Xrite Coloratti
-
My modest NEC P221w display can be set to 40 cd/m2 using the SpectraView II software and my ColorMunki... however, I find 100cd/m2 is giving me a good match. Do you choose 150 cd/m2 or is that as low as your NEC's will go?
Natively its about around there.
I’m using 3500K Solux.
-
Natively its about around there.
I’m using 3500K Solux.
This has always confused me. If you are shooting for D50 why use lights that are 3500K? It seems to me you would use 5000K Solux, but I know that hardly anybody does. I just ordered some of the 120v Solux 3500K for my home office. I also noticed the task light on the GTI. I though the purpose of the GTI was for viewing and matching. Does the Solux not corrupt that display or do you turn the GTI off when you have the task light on?
-
This has always confused me. If you are shooting for D50 why use lights that are 3500K? It seems to me you would use 5000K Solux, but I know that hardly anybody does. I just ordered some of the 120v Solux 3500K for my home office. I also noticed the task light on the GTI. I though the purpose of the GTI was for viewing and matching. Does the Solux not corrupt that display or do you turn the GTI off when you have the task light on?
Because the numbers are often meaningless, we’re dealing with correlated color temp values, because 3500K looks better and matches better.
Keep in mind the important bit about any kelvin value is its correlated to a theoretical object called a black body radiator.
-
Andrew
What the hell is "a theoretical object called a black body radiator"? It sounds really good.
John
-
What the hell is "a theoretical object called a black body radiator"? It sounds really good.
See: http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200512_rodneycm.pdf (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200512_rodneycm.pdf)
-
Thank you, Rodney. As always, the truth was rather less exciting han I had imagined it might be (possibly a sort of black scaly thing with tusks and fins, radiating malice) but I am now better informed than I was.
John
-
Thank you, Rodney. As always, the truth was rather less exciting han I had imagined it might be (possibly a sort of black scaly thing with tusks and fins, radiating malice) but I am now better informed than I was.
John
I think you weren't far off with the "radiating malice" part. I often think I hear a black body radiator giving an evil cackle of glee whenever somebody tries to explain in simple terms the connection between, say, D65 and 6500K. As for what you need in practice, I find it suffices to try to do whatever Digitaldog suggests, without going too deeply into the physics of it.
My own understanding of Color Management is similar to the father of a friend many years ago explaining how an automobile works: "You pour gasoline in the back and water in the front and they mix in the middle and make the car go."
Eric
-
The bottom line is, don’t put pure faith into the numbers per say. What correlates to a visual match may numerically be way off. Doesn’t matter. A visual match is what counts. Color management is far from a perfect numerical science.
-
See: http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200512_rodneycm.pdf (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200512_rodneycm.pdf)
Very informative. Thanks for the link. I have show my ignorance and ask how the what the number on the outside of the gamut plot relate to the X-Y scale and what does the X-Y scale represent? TIA.
-
I have show my ignorance and ask how the what the number on the outside of the gamut plot relate to the X-Y scale and what does the X-Y scale represent? TIA.
Visible colors based on the “standard observer”, theoretical human vision. X-Y is just a means to plot 2 dimensionally, some color within human vision.
-
Visible colors based on the “standard observer”, theoretical human vision. X-Y is just a means to plot 2 dimensionally, some color within human vision.
OK I hate to be a PITA, but I am a land surveyor and very anal retentive when it comes to numbers. You chart was very informative on the different tints of the the same color temp, but I cannot see the correlation to the numbers on the x-y axis nor the numbers on the outside. I trust your chart and I am not arguing with you results, I'm just trying to understand the chart.
-
In addition to device-dependent color spaces, there are also device- independent color spaces. These color spaces encompass all of human vision. The most common is called CIELAB (or L*a*b; often written as LAB, although technically the * should be used). Back in 1931, the CIE (Commission Internationale de L’Éclairage, also known as International Commission on Illumination), a group or color scientists, conducted a series of experiments and tests on humans to determine how they perceive color. The tests involved showing groups of volunteers a sample color under very controlled conditions whereby each subject adjusted the intensity of red, green, and blue lights until the mix of the three matched the sample color. This allowed the CIE to specify precisely the stimulus response of the human eye.
The CIE came up with the term standard observer to describe a hypothetical average human viewer and his or her response to color. Furthermore, the results of these tests produced a mathematical model of a color space formulated not on any real-world device, but rather on how we humans (the standard observer) actually perceive color. This core color model is called CIE XYZ (1931). This is the color model from which all other device-independent color models are created. Like the RGB color model with three additive primaries, CIE XYZ uses three spectrally defined imaginary primaries: X, Y, and Z. These X, Y, and Z primaries may be combined to describe all colors visible to the standard observer. Also in 1931, a synthetic space called CIE xyY was created, which itself is derived from CIE XYZ. In 1976, CIELAB and CIELUV were added to the mix of these device-independent color spaces. The CIELAB color space is a synthetic, theoretical color space derived from XYZ. Unlike the original, CIELAB has the advantage of being perceptually uniform (sort of . . .). That simply means that a move of equal value in any direction at any point within the color space produces a similar perceived change to the standard observer.
The XYZ color space is based on three quantities or stimuli. The geek term for describing this is tristimulus values (three stimuli). Technically the term tristimulus values refers to the XYZ values of the original CIE XYZ color model although you will often hear people describe tristimulus values when defining a color in RGB or CMY (or using any three values). This is incorrect. Since our aim is to keep the color-geek-speak to a minimum, it’s not important to know the differences in the various CIE constructed color models, but rather to recognize that a color space such as CIELAB is based on how we see color. What you should keep in mind here is that using a set of three values, any color can be specified exactly and mapped in three-dimensional space to show its location in reference to all other colors. This can be useful! There are no capture or output devices that directly reproduce CIELAB; however, this color space allows us to translate any color from one device to another.
Chromaticity Values and the Chromaticity Diagram: The CIE XYZ color space represents color using three imaginary primaries defined as X,Y, and Z—imaginary because the color of these primaries doesn’t correspond to a real-world light source. This is a three-dimensional color space. The CIE also defined a method in which chromaticity can be plotted in two dimensions (x,y). In this color space, the third component is luminance (Y). They named this CIE xyY. This color space allows you to plot hue and saturation, independent of luminance, two- dimensionally on a two-dimensional graph called the CIE Chromaticity Diagram. The x and y values used to plot a color on this diagram are referred to as the chromaticity coor- dinates or sometimes, chromaticity values.
IF you look closely at the diagram in the article, around the horseshoe shaped plot, you’ll see numeric values which are the range of frequencies from approximately 400nm to 700nm that is visible to the eye.
-
IF you look closely at the diagram in the article, around the horseshoe shaped plot, you’ll see numeric values which are the range of frequencies from approximately 400nm to 700nm that is visible to the eye.
Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't see how those values relate to the XY scale and I am still totally confused how you plotted the black body and the corresponding Kelvin lines on the chart.
-
Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't see how those values relate to the XY scale and I am still totally confused how you plotted the black body and the corresponding Kelvin lines on the chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body)
Knock yourself out with any or all equations.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body)
Knock yourself out with any or all equations.
Thanks for you patience, that answers my questions.
Mark
-
BobD, how can you adjust the viewing conditions of your prints at your site to mimic the conditions under which the prints will be viewed? Unless you're hanging them in your own house/office or know precisely what the conditions are, it's not possible. We have no idea under what conditions someone who buys a print will be displaying it. At least not in the majority of cases. The best we can do then is get the best possible result in 'ideal' conditions and not worry about it after that. No?
-
BobD, how can you adjust the viewing conditions of your prints at your site to mimic the conditions under which the prints will be viewed? Unless you're hanging them in your own house/office or know precisely what the conditions are, it's not possible. We have no idea under what conditions someone who buys a print will be displaying it. At least not in the majority of cases. The best we can do then is get the best possible result in 'ideal' conditions and not worry about it after that. No?
Bob F:
I think I said “I try to match the brightness of the light in which the prints are to be hung. If I don’t know the brightness of the “hanging light” then I try to attain a brightness of 250–300 lux (using the ColorMunki).
Granted it is not always possible to know the final hanging light brightness but when I am printing for a controlled hanging area like a corporate space, I will take my Munki to get an indication of the brightness.
I also said “…most people try make monitor adjustments and print evaluation in the same room under the same light brightness.”
I think a general statement can be made that it is better to evaluate prints with a light duller than the hanging light. If your print evaluation light is too bright then your prints will lose shadow detail when viewed in a duller light.
Also, let’s not lose sight of the prize here – a good photograph is more important than exactly matching evaluation and hanging light. Remember doubling the viewing light from 250 to 500 lux is only one stop and it can only help to show more shadow detail in the print.
-
I only red the last few posts. If I can add the fact the middle to high brightness retains a fairly constant appearance , whereas in low brightness it no longer holds true.
I am not saying at 300 lux, but just wanted to point out predicting print matching becomes iffy at low brightness and is outside of the viewing model of ICC profiles intentions. The more stable the colorants/pigments are the better the consistency will be in variable lighting scenarios.
I do agree if you can at least lower the viewing lights in the proofing station you'll be closer to the possible match. If you can use similar lights the same will also help or be as close as possible to the display conditions.
-
BobD, how can you adjust the viewing conditions of your prints at your site to mimic the conditions under which the prints will be viewed? Unless you're hanging them in your own house/office or know precisely what the conditions are, it's not possible.
Its even less complex than that. You only need to match the luminance of the display to the luminance of the viewing conditions next to it. If the print is hanging in a different room, if that room is 20 feet or 20 miles away, the display is out of the equation.
You can adjust the white point of prints (the print ICC profile) to that of the print viewing conditions (a gallery) but this has nothing to do with the print to display match.
-
You can adjust the white point of prints (the print ICC profile) to that of the print viewing conditions (a gallery) but this has nothing to do with the print to display match.
Thank you, Andrew. This statement brings us back to what I understand as the main reason for softproofing, calibration and profiling in the first place, which seems to get lost in all of the discussion:
Unless you have a consistent way of viewing what is on screen and comparing it to what is on your print, in your studio or workroom, *you don't know how to adjust the color and tone of the image you are working on.*