Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Frans Waterlander on September 01, 2016, 01:35:07 am
-
Is that even possible? I think it is and I'll explain why. Pay attention, Andrew.
Our eyes' sensitivity to brightness is far from absolute. Our eyes adapt to huge changes in brightness. We can see the Milky Way at night and sunny ski slopes at noon.
I hope we can all agree that too bright a room is a problem for image editing on a monitor: the image looks too dark and drab and contrast is low; shadows will be washed out by light falling on the monitor, either directly from light sources or indirectly as reflections off of objects, including the clothing of the person behind the monitor.
But how about too-dark a room? Let's look at that a little closer. Assume we have a room with good quality digital darkroom lighting (e.g. a viewing booth or SoLux lighting) and no other direct or indirect light sources (if we turned off the monitor and digital darkroom lighting, we would be in total darkness). We should have a good match between images on the monitor and prints illuminated by our digital darkroom lighting (assuming we did everything right: calibration, color profiles, color and brightness matching between the monitor and the digital darkroom lighting, etc.). The monitor and print colors and brightness should match very closely. So far, so good. But what happens when we switch off the digital darkroom lighting? The brightness level in the room drops dramatically since the only light is now coming from the monitor, our eyes adapt to this lower level and become more sensitive, the image on the monitor appears brighter to our eyes and if we edit the image now, we would turn down the brightness. If we then make a print, it would be too dark. The digital darkroom lighting provides a reference point for our eyes, not only during print viewing, but also during editing, when it prevents our eyes from becoming too sensitive and messing up our editing.
For these reasons I believe that you shouldn't edit in too-dark a room. I suggest you put your print viewing area right next to your monitor, keep the digital darkroom lighting on during editing, use a monitor hood to keep the digital darkroom lighting from falling directly onto the monitor screen, and wear appropriate clothing.
Constructive feedback is always appreciated.
-
and wear appropriate clothing.
What is appropriate clothing? :-\
-
I can't buy the argument, because my 27" monitor, running at 80+cd/m^2, subtends a large angle of my view, and IMO its illumination will swamp the effect of a dim room vs. a dark room. i'm not sitting 10' away, there's no small source of light with a large black surround.
Richard Southworth
-
I can't buy the argument, because my 27" monitor, running at 80+cd/m^2, subtends a large angle of my view, and IMO its illumination will swamp the effect of a dim room vs. a dark room. i'm not sitting 10' away, there's no small source of light with a large black surround.
Don't buy it, it's more rubbish.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113202.msg930900#msg930900 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113202.msg930900#msg930900)
-
and wear appropriate clothing.
What is appropriate clothing? :-\
Tin foil hat? ;D
-
Not going to weigh in on stuff I don't understand but I can say, as a physician and an person who is getting older (53), I can say for certain that our ability to adapt to brightness levels decreases with age. Pupil reaction times are slower. Glare is also an issue as we age as corneal transparency decreases with age also. All this is to say that the editing environment will need to be tailored to the individual.
As for proper clothing...........who needs clothing at all for this task?
-
As for proper clothing...........who needs clothing at all for this task?
Depends upon your ethnicity :D :D
Richard Southworth
-
Depends upon your ethnicity :D :D
And unfortunately how you bias your ideas based on ethnicity....
https://www.amazon.com/Obama-Doctrine-Socialism-Corruption-Economic/dp/1463641133/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472738979&sr=8-1&keywords=Frans+Waterlander (https://www.amazon.com/Obama-Doctrine-Socialism-Corruption-Economic/dp/1463641133/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472738979&sr=8-1&keywords=Frans+Waterlander)
Not a plug by any stretch of the imagination, just a data point on the abilities of some to form ideas!
Political science fiction and color science shouldn’t be confused.....
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
-Thomas Jefferson
-
What is appropriate clothing? :-\
Dark/black.
-
Dark/black.
Exactly...Black reflects nothing in the monitor. For the same reason artists working out doors should wear neutral colors. Strong colors will affect the the color cast of the painting. Wearing black is best.
Peter
-
Exactly...Black reflects nothing in the monitor.
Exactly, And the lower the ambient light, the less likely anything reflects into the monitor. A concept Frans seems to miss.
I wonder what this old, in the bag black Radius PressView smock is worth:
-
To make sure I'm thinking about this in the right framework...
We have machine measurable accuracy for color using spectral power distributions, that's physics, but it gets fuzzy when we introduce the spectral response curves of the "standard human observer" ... 2 degree, 10 degree, emissive, reflective, adaptations, etc. Plus, every person sees things a little differently. Then we have scotopic vs. mesopic vs. photopic vision that definitely changes our perception. For most images, there is an end user who's going to view the image in some environment that's probably different than where it's edited/print matched. Sometimes we actually know what that environment is going to be. Sometimes we don't. Scientists have created various color appearance models in an effort to mathematically define our perceptual adaptations to different conditions.
And what we're trying to determine is whether the ambient light level in an editing/print matching environment can be TOO dark. Do we cross over into a different perceptual state when the entire room is dark except the monitor? Is it better to have some other light source in the room for adaptation purposes? I don't know, but it's interesting.
What does the latest color appearance research say about this? Who's doing the latest research?
-
And what we're trying to determine is whether the ambient light level in an editing/print matching environment can be TOO dark. Do we cross over into a different perceptual state when the entire room is dark except the monitor? Is it better to have some other light source in the room for adaptation purposes? I don't know, but it's interesting.
From that other topic post that started Frans here:
From way back in 2007, on the ColorSync list by Karl Koch of BasICColor. This may help the OP and persuade other's to ignore Frans who's got a history here and elsewhere of providing odd ideas about displays and color:
Hi Roger,
its actually 2 relevant standards that need to be taken into consideration: ISO 3664 and ISO 12642.
If you interpret both, you end up with the following suggestions:
Ambient light below 64 lux, best below 32 lux (Bold and underlined for dear Frans)
Monitor luminance ABSOLUTELY above 80 cd/sqm, better above 120 cd/sqm
Viewing light 500 lux ± 125 lux
If you now want your monitor to match the viewing booth, it should be set to 160 ± 40 cd/sqm (= 120 to 200 cd/sqm). basICColor display takes this into account when calibrating the monitor and JUST color communicator2 (basICColor diLIGHT). The brightness of the viewing booth is being adpted to the calibrated luminance of the monitor. A traffic light will show if you meet or exceed any of the 2 standards, also for any other viewing booth that cannot be automatically calibrated but which can be manually dimmed.
The conclusion is that there is not much variance allowed in the ambient light and thus no necessity to "dynamically" calibrate to varying conditions. To do so would mean shooting at moving targets. All the "solutions" I have seen so far, check ambient light in shorter or longer intervals. If ambient light changes during these intervals, you have a sudden change of monitor characteristics when your correction kicks in. Do I need say more?
Regards,
-
Further, the concept of Frans from the other post needs proof of concept of his exact quote:
Care to explain how, in a room that's too dark, you won't edit your images to be too dark.
He's stating that IF we edit in a dark room, our images will be too dark. The ISO provided some guidelines I've provided via Karl Koch. So maybe he can tell us exactly at what ambient light level, in lux, all of a sudden, we'll ruin our editing process and end up with dark images.
Don't hold your breath.
-
its actually 2 relevant standards that need to be taken into consideration: ISO 3664 and ISO 12642.
If you interpret both, you end up with the following suggestions:
Ambient light below 64 lux, best below 32 lux (Bold and underlined for dear Frans)
Monitor luminance ABSOLUTELY above 80 cd/sqm, better above 120 cd/sqm
Viewing light 500 lux ± 125 lux
If you now want your monitor to match the viewing booth, it should be set to 160 ± 40 cd/sqm (= 120 to 200 cd/sqm). basICColor display takes this into account when calibrating the monitor and JUST color communicator2 (basICColor diLIGHT). The brightness of the viewing booth is being adpted to the calibrated luminance of the monitor. A traffic light will show if you meet or exceed any of the 2 standards, also for any other viewing booth that cannot be automatically calibrated but which can be manually dimmed.
Yes. I'd read that. To me, it doesn't fully answer the question about perceptual adaptation to just a monitor versus a monitor with additional light source. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd like to see more explanation from research.
-
Yes. I'd read that. To me, it doesn't fully answer the question about perceptual adaptation to just a monitor versus a monitor with additional light source. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd like to see more explanation from research.
The burden is upon Frans to prove that levels below 32 lux produce dark images. Despite the recommendations of a color scientist quoted below.
-
In all honesty ALL of this sounds fetishistic. Lots of heavy theory which seems to presuppose that most, or even some, high end prints are going to end up in situations where the lighting is perfectly controlled and each viewer of that print will have the visual acuity and color perception, and, of course, be wearing black cloths. I suspect very few prints, no matter how high end, end up in such an environment....which seems like it makes this sort of argument, well, academic.
Just my thoughts from the outside looking in. Not trolling. But not sensitive to the heat either.
-
In all honesty ALL of this sounds fetishistic. Lots of heavy theory which seems to presuppose that most, or even some, high end prints are going to end up in situations where the lighting is perfectly controlled and each viewer of that print will have the visual acuity and color perception, and, of course, be wearing black cloths. I suspect very few prints, no matter how high end, end up in such an environment....which seems like it makes this sort of argument, well, academic.
To clarify, this has noting to do with prints per se. Yes, sound (practical) print viewing conditions are necessary. The finest print you've ever seen will look too dark if only illuminated by a 5 watt night light bulb. The same would be true in the most ideal situations but you're wearing very dark sun glasses.
But this 'debate' again is Frans idea that IF the ambient light is too low, your images will end up too dark. Cause and effect, proof of concept; that's what Frans has yet provided.
The topic is about editing our images and the environmental condition when doing so, not what a print may or may not look like after, in some known or unknown viewing condition.
Frans: For these reasons I believe that you shouldn't edit in too-dark a room.
-
It's really quite simple (and no, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or politics): editing room too bright, tendency to crank up the image brightness, print too bright; editing room too dark, tendency to dial down the image brightness, print too dark. Try it yourself and you may learn something beyond the "common wisdom".
I have tried (and have been doing so for years and years) so no, I'm not buying it and so far no one else has. The burden of proof that editing in a dark or totally dark room produces dark images is yours to prove and you haven't. Nor have you defined what level in lux is too low, and at what point, just above that is the minimum value that 'protects' us from this idea of yours that we'll edit our images such they are too dark.
Without data, you're just a person with an opinion.
As I stated, there's a huge difference between political science fiction which may be your forte and color science which clearly isn't.
-
It's really quite simple (and no, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or politics): editing room too bright, tendency to crank up the image brightness, print too bright; editing room too dark, tendency to dial down the image brightness, print too dark. Try it yourself and you may learn something beyond the "common wisdom".
I don't think Andrew would disagree with you here. If it is TOO dark, then it is TOO dark. If it is TOO bright, then it is TOO bright.
-
editing room too bright, tendency to crank up the image brightness, print too bright; editing room too dark, tendency to dial down the image brightness, print too dark.
I understand you feel this to be true. Is there any scientific research to support or refute this claim?
I'm sincerely interested.
-
It's really quite simple (and no, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or politics): editing room too bright, tendency to crank up the image brightness, print too bright; editing room too dark, tendency to dial down the image brightness, print too dark.
Ah, moving the goal posts (again). First you state this causes our image to be 'too dark' from editing (your exact quote below), now you're saying it's the prints. Make up your minds and read up on something called soft proofing. Doesn't matter how you move the goal post, you've been called out by more than one person to prove your point about working in a room that you state is 'too dim'. What lux value would that be Frans? It's a simple question. Obviously it's 32 lux or lower unless you're quite certain too, the ISO spec is wrong. And Karl Koch. And Karl Lang. But heck, they are just color scientists. We are to believe a political scientist, if I can be so kind, knows more about this subject; just like Trump knows Mexico will pay for the wall.
-
Andrew, if your reading was as thorough as your instigating (inciting someone to do something, especially something bad), you would have noticed that I did NOT move the goal posts. It's right there in front of you in my original post: "If we then make a print, it would be too dark." Try it yourself, you may learn something. Slobodan's avatar subtitle says it all: "When everybody thinks the same...nobody thinks."
Hogwash:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113202.0 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113202.0)
Care to explain how, in a room that's too dark, you won't edit your images to be too dark, Andrew?
Meanwhile, we still await your proof of concept what you wrote is true.
-
Try it yourself, you may learn something. Slobodan's avatar subtitle says it all: "When everybody thinks the same...nobody thinks."
Here's what I wrote (not the first time, not the last):
You can't have too little ambient light! The less, the better as any light striking the display affects your perception of black. And black is damn important!
http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf)
Frans took issue with that text. And that's fine.
Where did I come up with this idea? Did I wake up one morning like Frans and found this idea in my head? No! It's from working with people who know far more about this subject than I and are happy to teach. The concept was from Karl Lang who designed the Radius PressView and the Sony Artisan. Karl is a real life color scientist. http://www.lumita.com/information/ (http://www.lumita.com/information/)
I've worked with Karl over 20 years. He was the tech editor on my book.
Karl's concept also makes sense to anyone who's willing to use some critical thinking about the subject: any ambient light that strikes the display will affect our perception of black. Karl designed the image Douglas Dubler created in the above PDF. That simulation shows the effect of black (by altering the contrast ratio of the calibration) but none the less, the effect of black is rather important.
Does the data points from another actual color scientist, Karl Koch appear to be a figment of my imagination? No. His text, the recommendations of the ISO are not ambiguous.
Has Frans provided a lick of evidence that he's not making this stuff up? No. Is the ISO wrong? No. Can he tell us what lux level below 32, recommended by the ISO will automatically produce a situation where we'll edit our images so they OR our prints are too dark? No. Is anyone here taking Frans seriously? Seems not. That's good.
What Frans should do, but can't, is provide similar evidence and data. Not ideas he's dreamed up on his own. Better yet, he should find a forum on either Fox news or Breitbart where like minding people can debate political science without requiring facts or science. That's constructive feedback considering Frans cannot back up his flat earth ideas he dreams up.
-
The LuLa Forum Signal to Noise alarm just pinged.
Frans & Andrew, please chill!
-
The LuLa Forum Signal to Noise alarm just pinged.
Frans & Andrew, please chill!
Until Frans can back up his claims, I'm done.
-
and wear appropriate clothing.
What is appropriate clothing? :-\
This is appropriate wear for the professional image editor
https://goo.gl/images/q15dxn
-
Do a little research yourself, Andrew, and see what actually happens when you edit in a totally dark room. I did. Maybe, just maybe, the ambient light issue as I described should not be ignored. On the other hand, ignorance can be bliss!
See/read: Reply #20
-
. . .
Monitor luminance ABSOLUTELY above 80 cd/sqm, better above 120 cd/sqm
Am I correct in thinking that, if monitor brightness is increased, the profile will be constructed to decrease monitor brightness so as to maintain the ICC standard? And, vice-versa?
If so, what then becomes the purpose of setting a monitor brightness target to whatever cd/m2 in the first place? What is the criteria that should be applied in making this decision? Is it that, monitors work better at some brightness than others, in which case setting the target becomes part of the calibration and not the profiling?
I've always set my own brightness between 90-100 cd/m2 and appear to get decent results. Now, I'm wondering whether this is the best choice.
-
You mean to say that you agree with me that the room can be too dark?
See/read: Reply #20 again! Stop asking silly questions; pay attention.
-
If the room is too dark, you may have the tendency to tone down the brightness of your images on screen....
Somehow I have not encountered that tendency. Neither have I experienced the urge (or need or tendency) to boost the brightness of my monitor when the room is too bright.
It just doesn't make sense and isn't consonant with my experience.
-
Am I correct in thinking that, if monitor brightness is increased, the profile will be constructed to decrease monitor brightness so as to maintain the ICC standard? And, vice-versa?
The output profile and the calibration of a display (and it's profile) are completely separate entities by design. That's why the display calibration aim points for white point and backlight intensity can vary so widely if the idea is to match the print and the soft proof. It's also why anyone that states that the CCT value of the print viewing illuminant (who's technologies, qualities and spec's for WP) and the settings for WB in the software (who's color engines, algorithms and data from differing instruments) should be the same doesn't know what he's talking about. It might, it usually doesn't.
-
Somehow I have not encountered that tendency. Neither have I experienced the urge (or need or tendency) to boost the brightness of my monitor when the room is too bright.
It just doesn't make sense and isn't consonant with my experience.
It doesn't make sense and it doesn't jive with my experience or that of my clients. Like I said, the idea is rubbish, unproven and against the recommendations of (so far) two color scientists and the ISO.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, but logic would have it that you agree with me.
Your wrong. Understand? Read post #39.
-
Profiles don't alter monitor brightness.
That wasn't the question. Thankfully the question was correctly answered.
-
Nice infinite loop! But maybe you should explain why I'm wrong.
Been there, done that. Just a waste of my time. I kind of told Chris I'd refrain from engaging with you, again a waste of my time, until you prove your point which you can't. I didn't say I wouldn’t answer other's questions.
-
Ah, moving the goal posts (again). First you state this causes our image to be 'too dark' from editing (your exact quote below), now you're saying it's the prints. Make up your minds and read up on something called soft proofing. Doesn't matter how you move the goal post, you've been called out by more than one person to prove your point about working in a room that you state is 'too dim'. What lux value would that be Frans? It's a simple question. Obviously it's 32 lux or lower unless you're quite certain too, the ISO spec is wrong. And Karl Koch. And Karl Lang. But heck, they are just color scientists. We are to believe a political scientist, if I can be so kind, knows more about this subject; just like Trump knows Mexico will pay for the wall.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Regards from México
-
Nice infinite loop! But maybe you should explain why I'm wrong.
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf
-
Profiles don't alter monitor brightness. Monitors don't necessarily work better at a particular brightness. What you want to achieve is a match between the image on the screen and the printed image as seen in the digital darkroom lighting. So your aim is to get a best match for colors and brightness between the image on the monitor and the print as seen in your digital darkroom. That way you will get a pretty good idea how your print will look like while editing the image on the screen. A brightness of 90-100cd/m2 may or may not be a good setting in your case.
Andrew Rodney has a good write-up on this subject with a title something like "Why are my prints too dark". You may want to google that or maybe Andrew is kind enough to chime in.
Thanks for your response. Of course, I can see that profiles do not alter brightness. Let me take this a little further . . .
Let's assume that we have an image file that appears fine on the screen, but which prints a bit bright, when viewed in the digital darkroom. So, the match between screen and print is a little off.
Then, let's increase the brightness target a little, say by about 10 cd/m2 or so and re-calibrate and re-profile the monitor. Isn't it true that the image on the screen should appear the same as before increasing the brightness target? (It should be neither brighter nor darker.) The image file hasn't been altered, and if the profile is doing its job, it should be adjusting each pixel to the same color as before. If that's the case, then the screen to print comparison should still be a little off.
Is this not the case? I ask with all good intentions, because I think that this drives to an important point.
-
Let's assume that we have an image file that appears fine on the screen, but which prints a bit bright, when viewed in the digital darkroom.
That's the first issue you need to fix. The goal is WYSIWYG. IS the print too bright? How's it illuminated? I can guarantee you that if you provide me the best print you've ever seen, and I illuminant with a 10K Arc Lamp, it will look too bright.
So, the match between screen and print is a little off.
Then, let's increase the brightness target a little, say by about 10 cd/m2 or so and re-calibrate and re-profile the monitor. Isn't it true that the image on the screen should appear the same as before increasing the brightness target? (It should be neither brighter nor darker.)
If you increase the cd/m^2 through calibration, it appears brighter. The ICC profile built after calibration reflects this.
-
Since Frans insisted in the thread he helped lock down (before this one does):
How about this https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf (https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf)
The same color scientist, (Karl Lang) I mentioned below who writes:
With the light output levels of current display technology, an ambient light level of 4 lux is an optimal compromise. While a lower light level would provide better results, it’s impractical. You need to be able to walk around your environment. Above 16 lux, the room ambient will have a very significant effect on the dynamic range of the display.\
As to the point about lower light levels provide better results (which Frans dismisses in two threads here), I also pointed out the impracticability to some degree if you can't find a way to turn on the lights when not editing: The ONLY downside is possibly bumping into something, otherwise, the lack of ambient light means none is striking the display. Which is good!
Meanwhile, not a lick of evidence from Frans that a too dark room (undefined but now the bar is 4 Lux) will result in images/prints that are too dark. I'd suspect he could spend his valuable time trying to prove that but alas, no. Maybe a letter to Enrique Peña Nieto explaining how he will pay for the wall is better time spent than trying to dismiss two color scientists, the ISO and other members here? :o
-
Time to move on from the Frans & Andrew Show
Thank you all and good night!