Darkroom Light, Monitor Light and Print Display Light

I am very interested in seeing comments on the following questions:

 

When you make a print, what is your assumption/goal about the colour temperature of the light in which the print will be displayed/viewed?

 

How does this affect how you calibrate your monitor?

 

How does it affect how you arrange the light in the room in which you use your monitor?

 

Thanks.

A couple of subsidiary questions:

 

Do one or more of the answers differ depending on whether you are printing in black and white or colour?

 

For those of you using the Epson R2400 printer, how much discrepancy do you see between the print right out of the printer and the print x minutes/hours later, and what is the nature of the discrepancy?

The international standard to which monitors are calibrated and viewing environments tuned for is what's termed D50 (Daylight, with a 5000 degree colour temperature).

 

In reality this is a very yellowish light, and many prefer D65 (6500 degree - a much whiter light).

 

Normally we don't have much control over viewing conditions of end users, so it's normal just to print to one of the above standards and hope for the best - however - if you can be in a position to know the conditions under which the finished product will be viewed (eg menus to be viewed under candle-light) then yes, adjustments can be made.

 

To answer your subsequent questions, No, I don't make any additional adjustments for monochrome prints, and although I don't have a R2400 (I use a 7800), I doubt you'd see much change at any stage - unless you have a particularly sensitive eye for such changes.

 

If you're as keen as you sound, pick up a copy of Real World Color management by Fraser, Murphy, and Bunting - it covers all of these questions and many more - essential reading for anyone dealing with colour printing or display.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

Thanks Colin, I asked for comments on these questions having read Mr. Fraser's book, and also Mr. Rodney's. Thanks for your paragraphs 3 and 4. I guess that I'm interested in the unspecified adjustments to which you refer in paragraph 3.

 

Cheers.

Perhaps I should have been clearer about what I meant by print viewing conditions. I was thinking of gallery conditions, not reading a menu in a restaurant by candlelight.

Hi Rory,

 

By "Mr. Fraser's book" are you meaning Real World Colour Management (Fraser, Murphy, and Bunting), or just one of the ones that Bruce wrote himself (Real World Camera RAW? Real World Image Sharpening? Others?)

 

Post-processing for specific lighting is (at my level anyway) a case of "seeing how it looks under the target lighting". I don't know for sure, but I would assume that a gallery would use D50 or D65 lighting.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

Just discussed this with Stephen Johnson last week...

 

which led to trying a new (new to me at least) monitor calibration software: Color Eyes Display Pro (http://www.integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html) as an alternative to the very capable i1 MAtch software from X-Rite. A long discussion with one of the principals at www.integrated-color.com about how to best configure the software led to a conversions of sorts for me.

 

You want to have a standard viewing light to judge your prints by

especially if you can't control the lights your prints will be exhibited under. I judge prints using 4700 lights from SoLux. I make my own printer profiles using a 1728 patch RGB target created by Bill Atkinson (http://www.billatkinson.com ), and the target is read by an i1 Pro spectrophotometer (I also use that instrument to profile my monitor with). To build the profile the software I use is i1 Profile Maker 5 (PM5) from X-Rite. In PM5 can create different profiles for different viewing lights but my standard choice is D50.

 

But until now I have been using either the D65 standard or the NAtive White Point setting for the monitor calibration for the LCD built into a recent vintage iMac. What Derrick at www.integrated-color.com suggested I try is to create two monitor proifiles -- one for seeign what stuff will look like on the web --and use the NWP or D65 settign for that - -and a second monitor profile using the D50 setting as the monitor WP when I'm making prints or having my work pritned on an offset CMYK press.

 

Much to my chagrin, given a dispute I had in this very forum earlier this year with a gentleman from Europe, to my surprise I got a better match between what was on screen (calibrating and profiling using the D50 monitor setting) and the print which was also illuminated by a light that is also very close perceptuallly to D50 light. So that was my conversion.

 

How close was I before ? I used top think I was at a 95% match bettwen what I saw on screen and the print. Now I see that my old way of working was closer to a 90% match and with the D50 calibrated and profiled monitor I am getting a much closer match -- maybe 95-98%.

 

In short from my experience, I agree with Colin about the D50 standard for printing -- but change over to the D65 or NWP standard for work I know will only be on the web.

 

I am printing these days with a Canon iPF6100 and with Canon , Hanamuhle or Innova FP papers. Canon's "generic" profiles for the iPF6100 are very, very close to the profiles I am making for their papers.

 

 

In short from my experience, I agree with Colin about the D50 standard for print work -- but I change over to the D65 or NWP standard for work I know will only be on the web. Before talst week I had never seriously considered having multiple monitor profiles but the logic of that makes sense to me now.

Thanks Ellis,

 

That is instructive, and I'm also obliged for your reference to the interesting discussion on these issues from earlier this year, which I have now read.

Rory,

 

I strongly recommend you use the SoLux 5000K lights (they actually are 4900K lights, but that's close enough) and a D50, 4900K or 5000K monitor calibration for the best possible monitor-to-print match. The "gentleman from Europe" that Ellis Vener refers to may be me; I was born in the Netherlands, but reside in Washington State and proud to be an American.

 

You may want to read an article I wrote on digital darkroom lighting. You can find it at: http://www.solux.net/ies_files/Digital%20Darkroom%20Lighting.pdf

Hi Frans,

 

Before starting this thread, I read the Solux website, including your article on their site, as well as many of the threads in which you have played the role of Solux evangelist :)

 

This afternoon I went to a shop that sells nothing but light bulbs, no fixtures. It is far and away the largest vendor of bulbs in my region, and it is run knowledgeable, customer-oriented people who spent about half an hour discussing my needs for a $20 puirchase.

 

Both the owner and his staff, who also sell Solux bulbs, recommended, for my application, GE Chroma D fluorescent tubes.

 

I decided to go with their advice for the following reasons:

 

Fluorescent tubes run much cooler and consume less power. I use tungsten halogen bulbs for other reasons, and I have no doubt that the Solux bulbs generate a lot of heat. Of course, this can be managed, but it is something that I would prefer not to have to manage.

 

I have read statements by pundits on photo.net and elsewhere that fluorescent bulbs are vastly inferior to Solux bulbs. This just doesn't square with the view in my area, where GE Chroma tubes are the graphic industry standard. Among other things, they are apparently used by restorers and others at our national art gallery and by the people who work at our national archives.

 

One of the things that I considered is that Solux bulbs are much more directional than fluorescent tubes, an issue that needs to be thought about having regard to one's room size and the conditions under which one wants to view prints.

 

Finally, I considered statements in an earlier photo.net thread that Solux bulbs give off a certain amount of orange light. Apparently, Solux acknowledges this and says that the solution is a snoot arrangement, which they also sell.

 

Having regard to my own priorities, I decided to follow the advice of the lighting store and go with the Chroma D tubes. If I'm unhappy with the results, the owner of the store wants me to return them, and wants to talk about my reasons. He will be happy to sell me Solux bulbs instead.

 

I think that there is way too much absolutism on internet fora about this and related issues, that there is something to be said for taking into account practical considerations, and that there are so many variables that individual experimentation is unavoidable. I am extremely skeptical of the idea that one size fits all.

 

Cheers

Rory,

 

One size doesn't need to fit all, but the best possible solution from an image editing point of view is the best possible solution. Fluorescents are lower in cost and give off less heat, but everything else is a compromise. Why do you think that companies like Gretag McBeth offer low-voltage tungsten halogen based viewing booths that cost many times as much as the fluorescent versions?

 

All most people need is two 4900K SoLux bulbs and fixtures at a very reasonable cost and calibrate their monitor to about 4900K and they have the best solution for image editing. You talk about $150 or so and 70W of heat dissipation; it's up to you to decide if you can manage that. The orange fringe issue is solved easily by either getting a snoot or ignoring the issue. I have two SoLux bulbs about 1 foot apart and about 5 feet above my computer desk top and you can't see the orange fringe unless you go all the way to the edge of the light circle; a non-issue in my opinion.

Frans,

 

As I'm sure you know, there is no significant cost difference between GE Chroma D tubes and Solux bulbs.

 

I think that the choice depends on what one needs as ambient light, the issue of heat, and whether, having regard to one's specific environment, there is a difference in the quality of colour matching.

 

I use Dedolights, with which you may be familiar. They have their place, but they are, like the Solux lights, highly directional. The fact is, the Solux lights are spot lights of varying angle. This is good in some circumstances, and not in others. To me, and I dare say to anyone else who is familiar with lighting, that statement is beyond obvious. It's a matter of how large an area one wants to light, and how intensely one wants to light it.

 

There is also the complication that Dedolights and Solux bulbs run very hot. This is both a comfort issue and a safety issue. It is not an accident that Dedo and Solux museum/art gallery lights are mounted in a way, often on tracks, that are well removed from the possibility of being touched. And of course people who use Dedo cinema and still photography lights are well aware, or should be, of the dangers, a danger that exists even with their 100 watt lamps. Like anyone else in his right mind, I handle these lights with gloves.

 

I think that it is clear that Solux bulbs give good colour rendition and that they can be a good idea in situations where one wants very small spotlights instead of big diffuse fluorescent tubes.

 

They are otherwise inferior to fluorescent tubes unless it can be established that they provide colour matching that is so superior that their disadvantages are outweighed.

 

Today, I chose to purchase GE Chroma D tubes, having regard to my experience, my needs and the decided advice of competent people who also sell Solux bulbs. If this proves inadequate, I will not hesitate to try the Solux product, although if I go down that road I will certainly look at what Dedolight has on offer. I am a big fan of their products, when what they make is appropriate.

 

I might add that I think that Solux's lack of transparency on its site about a number of issues, as well as your evangelism for the product, which paid or unpaid comes across as over-the-top, may for some people be doing the product some harm.

 

Cheers

Rory,

 

I'm not sure were we are going with this discussion. You asked about lighting to view your prints and when I recommend two 35W SoLux bulbs 1 foot apart at a distance of 5 feet above the desk top you bring up comfort and safety. Such a setup is uncomfortable and unsafe?

 

Please do explain how SoLux bulbs "are otherwise inferior to fluorescent tubes".

 

And what you call my "evangelism" for SoLux bulbs is based on my experience with the products and the advantages of using them for digital darkroom print viewing. If you think that's over the top, fine, but don't question my motives by wondering if I get paid by SoLux; I'm not.

Hi Frans,

 

I think that it is really good that we are getting beyond the question of "which bulbs are best" to practical questions such as number of bulbs and fixtures, wattage and placement.

 

I would like to know, when you say two 35 watt bulbs 1 foot apart and 5 feet above the desk (which is typically 2.5 feet tall), whether you are talking about the desk on which the monitor is located or a desk some distance away on which prints are viewed. If the former, what direction are the lamps facing? More or less straight down or in some other direction? If the latter, how far away are the bulbs and where are they in orientation to the monitor (assuming that they are providing ambient lighting as well as print viewing lighting).

 

I would also like to know what the beam spread is of the two bulbs that you have in mind. Also, what specific Solux fixtures are you talking about for this setup?

 

To me, these are basic questions that have a lot to do with choice of bulbs and fixtures, and they are not questions that are properly addressed (indeed, from what I have seen, they are not addressed at all) in previous discussions about these bulbs.

 

Cheers

Rory,

 

My printer is just to the right of my monitor on the same desk and the SoLux bulbs are in Juno 12VDC fixtures attached to a 120VAC track on the ceiling. The lamps are aimed straight down onto the area immediately in front of the printer so I can view my prints while I'm still sitting at my computer desk. A low-cost hood made of matte black matboard and taped to the monitor prevents the SoLux bulbs from shining onto the monitor front. The two SoLux bulbs are the only lights on when I do my editing and print reviewing so they also provide some "ambient" lighting. You want the largest possible beam spread to get a reasonable lighted area at a 5 foot distance. The 5000K SoLux bulbs are available only in the widest beam spread that they have: 36 degrees and this works well for me in the setup described. All these details are included in my article refered to before.

 

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Frans,

 

I am sure that you know why I am asking about beam spread, but perhaps I should explain in case people read this who are not familiar with spotlights.

 

When one places two spotlights so that their beams overlap, the effect is noticeable in terms of placement of both intensity and shadows. The obvious example is the use of two spots to light a performer on a stage. This effect can be evened out by running the spots through diffusion.

 

Also, I asked about which Solux fixtures because, with the bulbs 7.5 feet off the floor, it sounds to me like we are talking, in North America anyway where the typical ceiling is 8 feet, about ceiling-mounted track lighting. I'd like to know whether I am right about this or whether you have some other fixture in mind.

 

Thanks

Hi Frans,

 

We seem to have posted more or less simultaneously.

 

Thanks for explaing where the lights are located and that we are talking about track lighting.

 

I'd be interested in knowing what you are doing, if anything, about overlap of the beams.

 

I'm quite interested in this discussion, but I'm out at this point and won't be able to comment further until tomorrow.

 

Cheers

Hello Rory,

 

Given the geometry of my setup and the beam spread there is a major amount of overlapping of the two beams and that's what I want, so I have a elongated "circle" of light to view my 13x19" and smaller prints.

 

In terms of fixtures, I have removed the glass windows in my Juno fixtures to avoid any color temperature shift as a result of the glass and I don't need it for safety reasons because the SoLux bulbs have an integral glass front to protect you in case the bulb bursts; that doesn't happen often (it has never happened to me in 6 years) but it does happen sometimes and without glass in front of the bulb it could harm you. My fixtures are also closed in the back to avoid low color temp light coming out of the backside of the bulbs to "contaminate" the light in the room. The closed fixtures cause the bulbs to get rather hot, but I haven't burned out a single bulb yet in 6 years of rather intense use.

Hi Frans,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

To me, the idea of using spotlights to provide the ambient light in a room, or to provide the light under which prints are viewed, especially when one is talking about using two spotlights that overlap, is counter-intuitive.

 

Even in a museum, there is soft, diffused ambient light filling the room as a backdrop when harder narrow beam lights, such as Dedolights and Solux lights, are used.

 

In addition, while I agree that if halogen lights are placed on a ceiling the safety issues are significantly diminished, I am not keen on having 70 watts of halogen lighting directly to my side and pointing straight down about 3 feet/1 meter above my head. I think that it is obvious that that creates a heat issue (the significance of which depends on the size of the room/ventilation), and while I understand that Dedo and Solux take precautions regarding trauma, I would just as soon not worry about it at all.

 

I think that the lighting people who recommended GE Chroma 50 fluorescent tubes, and actively dissuaded me from Solux bulbs, despite that fact that they sell them, gave me very good advice. If anything, that advice is bolstered by the fact that I have now discovered, having done some further research, that the Chroma tubes are widely regarded as the standard for colour matching well beyond my own region.

 

Of course, if the Solux bulbs work for you, and for that matter for others, that's fine. I'm just saying that for me, and for the reasons that I have stated, they are not the first choice. If it turns out that the Chroma tubes give me unacceptable colour matching (although that seems unlikely given how widely they are used for that purpose), I won't hesitate to try what Dedolight or Solux offer.

 

I do think that Solux would be well-advised, if it wants to attract the business of photographers, to make its site more professional.

 

Cheers

Hello Rory,

 

Sorry to say so but I think you have been given rather poor advice to use the fluorescents. Yes, they are used by oodles of people but there are significant drawbacks to them (nasty color spectrum spikes, noticeable aging, flicker). The only advantage for them that I can see is for applications where you need to light very large areas.

 

The term "spotlight" is really very relative. My SoLux bulbs directly light an area of about 5x3 feet for print viewing and provide a low level ambient lighting in my room over a much bigger area than that. You want some amount of ambient lighting, but not too much.

 

My setup gives me an excellent match between the brightness of the monitor, calibrated at 90cd/m^2, and the brightness of my prints when viewing in the SoLux lamp light, which is another important consideration.

 

Additionally, there is no "heat" issue! With my setup I can't feel any radiation heat from the bulbs, even when I stand straight up and I'm rather tall (6'3"). I have to get my hand as close as 6" from the fixture to feel any "heat" at all and even at 0.5" distance the "heat" is BARELY noticeable.

 

And lastly, it may not be an issue of the Chroma tubes giving you unacceptable color matching (although I think chances are that over time, if not right from the start, you will not be happy with them), but rather the SoLux bulbs giving you far superior matching. Given the relatively low cost of the SoLux products (I still think that including the fixtures they are more expensive than fluorescents, but not by a tremendous amount for a single computer/printer setup) I would seriously reconsider if I were you. Again, I have nothing to gain or loose, but you do.

 

You also may want to look at who else besides little unimportant me is using SoLux products; that may be an eye opener all by itself.

 

Do let us know how this all is going to play out!

Hi Frans,

 

I think that the good thing about this thread is that it identifies considerations that ought to be taken into account.

 

Of course, people will weigh these considerations in accordance with their experience and objectives.

 

The one thing that I'd add is that I don't see a significant cost difference. Well, there probably is if one buys Solux fixtures, but not if one purchases generic MR-16 fixtures. Or are you saying that one must also purchase Solux fixtures, and perhaps their ancillary products, to get the best out of their lights?

 

Regardless, the route that I've taken is consistent with what I personally consider to be standard lighting principles. If it doesn't work, I'll look at alternatives.

 

Cheers

Hello Rory,

 

I'm not sure what exactly "generic MR-16 fixtures" are, but I know what bad MR-16 fixtures are; the ones that don't put out something close to 12VDC under varying load and line voltage conditions. SoLux fixtures are a good choice as are Juno's. What ancillary products are you refering to?

 

Maybe you can explain what you consider "standard lighting principles" as it looks to me that you have taken the route of compromise for no sound reasons.