Editing in Too-Dark a Room

[BradFunkhouser]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[digitaldog]

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

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.

[digitaldog]

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

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/
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.

[Christopher Sanderson]

The LuLa Forum Signal to Noise alarm just pinged.

Frans & Andrew, please chill!

[digitaldog]

The LuLa Forum Signal to Noise alarm just pinged.
Frans & Andrew, please chill!

Until Frans can back up his claims, I'm done.

[TonyW]

and wear appropriate clothing.

What is appropriate clothing?

This is appropriate wear for the professional image editor
https://goo.gl/images/q15dxn

[digitaldog]

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

[nkp]

. . .

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[mouse]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[digitaldog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, but logic would have it that you agree with me.

Your wrong. Understand? Read post #39.

[digitaldog]

Profiles don't alter monitor brightness.

That wasn't the question. Thankfully the question was correctly answered.

[digitaldog]

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.

[Rainer SLP]

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.

   

Regards from México

[digitaldog]

Nice infinite loop! But maybe you should explain why I'm wrong.

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf

[nkp]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.