Solux long term stability?

[howardm]

I'm trying to get somewhat better print/monitor matching (it's quite good but the OCD is kicking in on some prints).

The existing setup is NEC PA241 w/ SV software and ColorMunki Photo set for 6000K/85/2.2 300:1 and a 4700K Solux for matching. 
Display space is 6x tungsten PAR30's (approx 2950K).  Some prints (3880/Canson Baryta/stock profile)  appear to be pinker in
display space than via Solux which is somewhat understanding.  I also recently did a couple of SV profiles at 5500 and those are good too
for matching.

I got a 3500K Solux yesterday and it's certainly warmer than what was there but when I placed a Whibal
under both the 4700 and 3500 and shot them, I was surprised that my .NEF/ACR gray eyedropper balanced it at 3700 (+3 tint)
(and the 3500K bulb came in at 3150).   Have others seen Solux's warm up over time?

I was thinking of getting a custom D50 profile (and possibly a 2nd profile under Illuminant A) but the person making them said he's never
been asked to do that before.  Is this the wrong rabbit hole?

[Scott Martin]

I was thinking of getting a custom D50 profile (and possibly a 2nd profile under Illuminant A) but the person making them said he's never been asked to do that before.  Is this the wrong rabbit hole?

So you're thinking about building light source measurement into the print profile? You just bought an i1Pro2 right? Goto town!  I think it's a rabbit hole but we all have to feed the OCD every now and then. We all have to find the right solutions that makes sense for us that may not make sense for others.

[howardm]

Actually, the i1Pro2 should arrive on the brown truck today but I have yet to decide as to whether to keep it or return it.  It is a
fair chunk o change (I found a NIB one for 25% discount) and while it'd be fun to play with and tweak to no end, I need to balance
that relative to the CM Photo I already have.

It seemed to me from a logical point of view & lots of reading that if the display illumination is significantly off from the profile's
built-in illumination, that a profile made closer to the display illuminant would be the way to go (simply by using the illuminant dropdown
in i1Publish s/w).

So you're thinking about building light source measurement into the print profile? You just bought an i1Pro2 right? Goto town!  I think it's a rabbit hole but we all have to feed the OCD every now and then. We all have to find the right solutions that makes sense for us that may not make sense for others.

[Scott Martin]

It seemed to me from a logical point of view & lots of reading that if the display illumination is significantly off from the profile's
built-in illumination, that a profile made closer to the display illuminant would be the way to go (simply by using the illuminant drop down in i1Publish s/w).

Right, you can take an ambient light measurement and include that in the printer profile. If all your prints are viewed only under those lighting conditions then it might be logical to do so. In reality, this is complicated and can produce prints that look weird when viewed under other lights. For most people, the preferred approach is to make profiles using the default illuminate which look and match well under daylight and accept with the differences when prints are viewed under different lights. Do what you think is best for you!

[howardm]

true enough.  I didn't realize you could do an ambient reading and use that.  But it could be interesting to see the differences but I see what you're saying re: using an oddball illuminant vs. std and unintended consequences of viewing  those prints.

[digitaldog]

You just bought an i1Pro2 right?

Sounds like a ColorMunki so I don't think measuring the illuminant is going to fly unless there's some software that will save from that device a cxf file and the OP has the software to build profiles with it.

I got a 3500K Solux yesterday and it's certainly warmer than what was there but when I placed a Whibal
under both the 4700 and 3500 and shot them, I was surprised that my .NEF/ACR gray eyedropper balanced it at 3700 (+3 tint)
(and the 3500K bulb came in at 3150).

That test is meaningless, ignore it. You need to measure the actual illuminant. Shooting and viewing the CCT value from a raw converter isn't even close to an accurate or ideal way to gauge what the Solux is producing.

And yes, by and large, this sounds like a big rabbit hole about to be dug. IF you want an illuminant specific profile, you or the person building the profile needs the measurement data from that bulb typically in a format some software and access it for profile creation (a cxf file). You can do that if you get an i1Pro (I don't know if the ColorMunki + software can do that).

[howardm]

Sounds like a ColorMunki so I don't think measuring the illuminant is going to fly unless there's some software that will save from that device a cxf file and the OP has the software to build profiles with it.

Actually, a real $ i1Pro2Photo kit, not a ColorMunki Photo.  Like I said, still debating whether this piece of GAS is even sorta sane.


That test is meaningless, ignore it. You need to measure the actual illuminant. Shooting and viewing the CCT value from a raw converter isn't even close to an accurate or ideal way to gauge what the Solux is producing.

OK, I thought it was a reasonable test but that's why I'm asking

And yes, by and large, this sounds like a big rabbit hole about to be dug. IF you want an illuminant specific profile, you or the person building the profile needs the measurement data from that bulb typically in a format some software and access it for profile creation (a cxf file). You can do that if you get an i1Pro (I don't know if the ColorMunki + software can do that).

[Tim Lookingbill]

"OCD"?...uh...Obsessive Color Desire?

Nothin' wrong with that, right?