Hi David,

Thanks for your well thought out reply.

In my case, I work in the dark on a Sony Artisan set to D65 and 2.2 gamma. All lights in the room are off so I can see even the minor detail in the images I work on. I have an over the kitchen sink light screwed into the bottom of my work table so it only lights the keyboard.

I originally started this thread because I was sent a set of prints and digital files that made them, from an artist's uncalibrated system. My job was to tweak the digital files so they accurately matched the prints. They were not to be used for printing, because their system was already making prints that they were happy with. The digital files were then to be turned into 35mm slides so they could have accurate slides to jury into art shows with.

Besides the digital files all being equally cold toned, any purples were blue on screen. Being able to view the prints under accurate color made it relatively easy for me to match the color in the digital files. When the artist got the 35mm slides, he was extremely pleased with the color match and I was reassured that the lighting would serve my purpose.

So for the few times a year I get jobs like that, the Solux desk lamp will be fine for my purposes.

Larry,

Thanks for the positive remarks about my commentary. For most photographers participating in this forum I would think, having a critical print viewing lighting is not crucial unless they are trying to achieve a match to an objective criteria, like what you described doing yourself. For most, most of the time, producing a print that achieves what was intended seeing the image on screen and then in a print as it would be viewed or exhibited in mixed and varying light conditions does not require very critical digital darkroom lighting.

I have a Solux I purchased a few years ago, and at the time I got it I found it amusing because the "bulb" with built-in reflector is the same type as the first quartz-halogen bulbs made for Kodak Carousel projectors, but with the Solux having an added dichroic filter that converts the 3200K of the bulb to output 5000K. Its the same basic technology motion picture production has used for 50 years to produce daylight fill light on location, but with somewhat larger banks of round lamps that look individually like auto headlights. When I used to do still on MP production sets, the few times I tried to use those dichroic daylight lights as a main source the transparencies resulting were really skewed with a strange color cast. However 40 some years later I am sure the technology has been refined.

David,

I agree with Larry. Your comments were right on the mark. I do my post processing work in subdued lighting, none of it falling directly on the monitor. The latest update to Spyder2 Pro has an ambient light evaluator that says my lighting is "moderately low". I check my prints on a white-topped drafting table under a regular household bulb. If I see a color cast or other anomaly that doesn't match the monitor image, the first thing I do it check the print in natural light from the window. In most cases, the anomaly goes away. In the several galleries and restaurants my stuff has hung in, I don't think any two had the same lighting - and a couple were pretty awful. I don't think there's any non-paranoid way to compensate for these kinds of variations in real world lighting environments. (Hmmmm.....Real World Lighting. Could that be the next Bruce Fraser book?)

It hasn't been posted here yet, but it's all over the imaging forums. Bruce Fraser is severely ill with terminal lung cancer.

Oh, damn, sorry to hear that! I only frequent two forums, and this is the first I've heard of it. Thanks, Larry....

Update: According to Online Photographer (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/), Bruce Fraser has passed away. Sad news.....

Bill,

Yes it is a very sad loss to all of us in digital photography. Many, Many years ago when the Photo Forum on Compuserve was still young Bruce was a great supporter to those of us struggling with a then very new technology. He was generous and helpful to everyone who sought assistance, and that led to his major contributions published in many books that have been invaluable to the progress of countless now digital photographers. He will be missed and I hope duly appreciated.

I just read that Bruce Fraser passed away yesterday.

David,

Fluorescent tubes may work well for you and many others, but there are significant drawbacks to these products as compared to low-voltage tungsten-hologen lamps like those from SoLux.

An independent field study measured and analyzed 61 critical viewing booths at 14 different companies using fluorescent lamps from 6 manufacturers and low-voltage tungsten-halogen lamps from SoLux. This study found the following:
- the fluorescent lamps showed Delta E color errors in the range of 0.7 to 3.19
- the SoLux lamps showed Delta E color errors in the range of 0.16 to 0.53
A Delta E of 1 or more causes colors to be seen as different. The study further concluded that the higher color error of the fluorescent lamps is caused by their spiky spectral energy distribution and that fluorescent lamps have sufficiently different rendering properties to produce visually different color appearances for as many as 50% of the colors.

Remember that the fluorescent lamps involved in this study are specifically designed and specified for color-critical applications. A SoLux fixture including the bulb can be had for as little as $75, so this seems to me an ideal solution for the photography enthousiast and professional for print viewing.

Frans Waterlander

If you want to be believed name the study specifically and provide a link to it.

David,

It's so nice to see that you have such confidence in me! The study can be found in volume 3, March 1999, Journal of Prepress & Printing Technology and is called "Quantifying illuminant Metamerism of D50 simulator" authored by Audrey A. Lester of Tektronix. I haven't found this report on the web, but if you want me to, I can mail you a copy.

Frans Waterlander

Frans,

Thanks. As soon as I am free to I'll see if I can find it on the web.

Regardless a lot of very high-end publishing and press shops are using some good (Just Normlicht) and not so good viewing booths and transparency viewers using high-performance fluorescent tubes. The requirements in that industry are pretty exacting, in some cases like the publications produced by Conde Naste. If it works for them, for those of us just making prints to be viewed or exhibited in very mixed environments having a good, clean viewing light can't hurt.

From my perspective absolute color accuracy is not the most important but the quality of the light in every other attribute, like not causing any distracting surface reflections are. So in that regard if I wanted to afford the best I would like Just Normlicht. But to each his own.

Same goes for cameras. I've used a lot of them and some I have liked more than others. But just because I have preferences I don't expect anyone to agree, or like what I like. Just don't tell me I'm wrong and don't have the right to be opinionated. The same rights I respect apply equally for everyone.

Just out of curiosity, I searched both in Google and MSN for Audrey Lester's report. I didn't find the report itself, but did find two references to it. One was on a page from Solux's own website with a 2003 date, the other was a summary of CIE report activity from 2002.

I'm with David, here. There are a lot more real world concerns about light quality than just absolute color accuracy. When we focus too much on just that one aspect, the engineering begins to overwhelm the art. And that's not a good thing......

Bill,

You beat me to it, which is really fine and appreciated. I have been having very time consuming internet problems and am needing to work more with Photoshop CS3.

And, we are in synch about technicalities of an engineering kind. If it works for me and that is confirmed by the fact it works for others way above what I do, why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Bill,

I think it is fair to say that the SoLux lights are superior in terms of color accuracy. Also, they age very little at all, in sharp contrast to fluorescents. Cost-wise, SoLux lights are just as affordable as fluorescents. So what are the other real world concerns about light quality that you mention and how would the SoLux lights differ or be inferior in those areas?

Frans Waterlander

Frans, I'm not saying that Solux lighting is inferior, just overkill for my needs. My primary concern with print viewing is how it will look on the gallery wall, and how it will look on the wall of the person who (hopefully) buys it. Neither of those venues is likely to have Solux or any other specialty lighting. So, for me to view a print under Solux lighting might be deceptive in terms of how it might look outside of these walls......

Bill,

OK, but how about monitor-to-print matching during your editing/printing phase?

Now THAT I pay a lot of attention to! My monitor is calibrated (Spyder2 Pro), and my ambient lighting is very subdued. I think I mentioned in another post that the latest update to Spyder2 includes ambient light profiling, which is very helpful in determining the proper brightness/backlight settings. As far as these aged eyes can tell, my monitor-to-print match is outstanding.....

Bill,

When I mentioned monitor-to-print matching I meant the match or mismatch that you see when you compare your image on the monitor to the print right there in the digital darkroom, not the match between what you think your monitor image looked like and your print in some other viewing environment. For me the side-by-side match in the digital darkroom is way more important than the other one because it gives me immediate feedback of how well I've edited my image and how well further tweaks are working. If the color temperature of my monitor is so much different from my lighting (e.g. 6500K versus 5000K) it is nearly impossible to make any sense of what you see on your monitor and what the print looks like. That's why I use the best possible light source (the SoLux 5000K lamps in my opinion) and match my monitor by calibrating it to 5000K as well.

The match between the image on the monitor and how your print looks like in a remote viewing environment is in my and many other people's opinion way less critical because of color constancy or the eye/brain ability to adjust to great variations in the color characteristics of the light in which you view your prints. I've never much believed in the adage that you need to edit your images depending on the final viewing environment. What looks good in a decent light ("decent" would need to be defined if you wanted to get all scientific about it) will look good in many different viewing environments.

Lastly, in my experience colors of a print don't change perceptually at all when you let your print dry for minutes, hours or days, regardless of what some people claim.

So, after having said all that, what is your opinion on the issue of matching the monitor to the print right there in the digital darkroom and, if you find that match important, what lights are you using to maximize that match and how well has that worked for you?

Frans, I do this in two or three stages: First, I look at the print in the same lighting the monitor is calibrated for, checking for obvious faults, and lay it aside for a few hours for drying. Then, as I mentioned, I look at it on my drafting table under a desk lamp, normal household bulb, and open the blinds somewhat to let some outside light in. Sometimes I'll carry the print back and forth between the drafting table and the window and look for changes. Last step, take it out to our well-lighted dining room and check it there. Of course, this is the only step where I can't compare it to the monitor image. But, I think it's important to make that judgement outside the darkroom environment.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot the most critical fourth step, the one that goes, "Hon, check this out and tell me what you think." She's an acrylic artist and a pretty fair photographer herself, so I trust her judgement (except in the area of B&W, which she hates....)

Bill,

Your approach to judging prints must work well for you and many others. You didn't say what lighting you use in your digital darkroom, but am I correct in assuming its color temperature doesn't match your monitor's? If so, such approach doesn't work at all for me and here is why: if the color temperature of the monitor is say 6500K (recommended by many and used by many) and the lighting has a way lower color temperature (5000K or less seems to be used a lot), to me there is a significant and very observable mismatch; the monitor looks way to bluish compared to the print or the print looks way to reddish compared to the monitor and thus I cannot judge the print while I am in the digital darkroom. However, I want to judge the print right after it has been printed. I use Epson Enhanced Matte paper exclusively on my Epson 2200 printer and prints look the same right out of the printer compared to hours or days later so I don't have a drying time issue. Matching the monitor and lighting color temperature allows me to judge the print right away; no need to go to another room or other lighting or waiting for daylight the next day.

It is my experience that when my prints look good in the digital darkroom lighting environment, they look good in any other lighting that I have tried, be it incandescent, compact fluorescent, household tungsten or daylight and I credit color constancy for that. Not one of the thousands of different images that I have printed throughout the years showed any color issues in all these different lighting environments.

Frans Waterlander

Frans,

I have a corner workstation, in the southwest corner of the room. there is a winddow close by on the south wall, and the blinds are closed when I'm editing. The only artificial light during editing is from a torchier with a 3-way household bulb (usually at the max level) in the southeast corner of the room. The ceiling is white and the walls are light blue, which no doubt affects the color temp of reflected light from the torchier. When my Spyder2 Pro does its ambient light analysis, it recommends setting a color temp on the monitor of 5800, or the next higher setting. My monitor only has two Kelvin presets, 5000 and 6500, so I go with the 6500 setting (just as I did before Color Vision added the ambient light feature to Spyder2 Pro).

What can I say? It works, although I admit the approach isn't very scientific. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Merry Christmas.....

Bill,

The "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach often means missed opportunities for improvement. Apparently your approach works for you in that you ultimately get the results you want. However, an investment of $75 to $150, moderate for many photo enthusiast and professionals, would get you significant improvements in your workflow and efficiency; no more color suprises, second guessing or waiting for daylight to judge your images.

Frans Waterlander