Art Galleries VS Museums and the Holy LUX

[Mc]

From soft proofing to final display, knowing how much light strikes our photographs is a key piece of information which can make or break our workflow. The "suggested" quantity of light striking photographs seems to change depending on whether they are being displayed in a museum, an art gallery, matched to the screen for soft proofing or checked for imperfections and general quality. While I have  found out enough information regarding suggested light levels in museums, and soft proofing scenarios I am at a loss when it comes to high end photography galleries and contemporary art galleries  and I hope you'll be able to lend me a hand fill in the blanks.


Museums: museums appear to prioritize conservation over everything else, probably in an effort to preserve works of art for future generations, hence light levels are kept between 50 to 200 Lux.  I believe that 150 Lux is a good bet if we want to have an idea of how much light is shining on most photographs in museums nowadays. 50 Lux seems to be used for works of art "at risk" and I believe it is the bare minimum at which a photographs might be lit. I have still yet to see any article mentioning more than 250 Lux. By all means let me know if you believe otherwise or have anything else to add.

Established Art Galleries: ??  this is what has been bothering me...   I have visited the internet sites of two  high end galleries in San Francisco (Fraenkel Gallery and Scott Nichols) but  as expected there is no information regarding their lighting. Needless to say, I don't live in San Francisco or New York, hence my light meter cannot help me this time...

Soft Proofing: well, this is inherently dependent on how we set up our monitors, hence it can be tricky to give a definite answer. However, given that "most" photographers calibrate their monitors between 80 to 120 cd/m2 I would say that 500 Lux can be considered a rough but very probable average.

"Chritical Color Decisions" : 2000 Lux is what most ISOs specifications for the graphic arts often suggest.



If you have anything to add or can answer my doubts regarding Art Galleries please contribute to this thread, Thanks.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Isn't the total picture something like this:

One may hope all the Lux levels you quote are from light sources with a continuous spectrum. Add Kelvin numbers to the various Lux numbers. Check the Kruithof curve for the relation between Lux and Kelvin in human vision. Stay somewhere in the middle of the Kelvin grades for your viewing light.  Then find the compromise  between your monitor's output and a viewing light, which doesn't mean both will have the same color temperature. Select an inkset that gives color constancy in changing light, try to avoid papers with FBA. Profile for that average color temperature. And cross your fingers, most of all for the continuous spectrum in the lamps they use.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Mc]

Unfortunately all you say is very true. There are far more factors at play, some having a more profound impact on how photographs are viewed, than just measuring light levels. Actually, I had intentionally decided not to mention colour temperature just to try and make the whole discussion more focused. I believe your post was a much needed reality check, however I would still appreciate it if someone having measurements regarding light levels in art galleries sheared them.

[BradFunkhouser]

Inside the ICC 4 specification, there's a perceptual viewing environment recommendation that goes along with the suggested perceptual mapping reference medium. The viewing recommendation is D50 at 500 Lux with a surround of neutral 20% reflectance.

[Ernst Dinkla]

And then, ....... should we tell the Musea and Galleries to obey to that rule so we can stick to one and the same viewing light - display condition ?  They will have sound arguments not to do so. The D50 condition wasn´t created as an average display illumination for exhibitions either. My best guess is that it was an average condition for magazines, packaging, used in indoors and outdoors, between 2700 and 9000 K. I think 4000K as a viewing light / profile condition is already high for the majority of exhibitions.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[digitaldog]

From soft proofing to final display, knowing how much light strikes our photographs is a key piece of information which can make or break our workflow. The "suggested" quantity of light striking photographs seems to change depending on whether they are being displayed in a museum, an art gallery, matched to the screen for soft proofing or checked for imperfections and general quality.

Soft Proofing: well, this is inherently dependent on how we set up our monitors, hence it can be tricky to give a definite answer. However, given that "most" photographers calibrate their monitors between 80 to 120 cd/m2 I would say that 500 Lux can be considered a rough but very probable average

Personally my take is to calibrate a display for a match to a print next to that display. Once its moved into another location, the display is out of the equation and your eyes adapt to new environment.

As for V4 profiles, at least today, they provide more issues and problems than they solve. Many are really V2 with V4 in disguise or they don’t take the full V4 implementation (PRMG) due to host software ‘issues’.