Major update of my article on digital darkroom lighting

Tim_Lookingbill · June 13, 2013

Two displays were both calibrated using the same product to 5200K. Both displays had quite different SPDs as one used CCFL, the other LED and the spectrum of the two are vastly different. They saw colors on one display being much warmer than the other, the results of the differences of the match they made was between 3 and 13dE (76), the average for all users was a dE of 8!

</blockquote>

I think you're on to something there about the different backlight spectra. This LG 27" though slightly smaller than sRGB still exhibits an overall lack of saturation and richness viewing sRGB content.

I emphasis overall because, if I look directly and focus on each individual graphic element (i.e Colorsync Logo with the Spinning Wheel colors) or photo, color managed or not, whose content has been written to the sRGB space, they match what I see on my Dell 2209WA whose gamut is slightly larger than sRGB and has a CCFL backlight.

Step back and look normally at the display by web surfing or rummaging around the OS interface and I get a sense of less vibrance and saturation overall. It's the weirdest sensation I've never experienced in a display. I'm only concerned that this optical sensation is going to induce me to over saturate my Raw images while editing.

This LG 27" was calibrated at the factory by a Minolta CA210 display spectrum analyzer and out of the box it shows a very neutral looking and uniform 21 step grayramp. The Colormunki Display reads default color temp at 6700K. A slight tweak to the RGB gains from 50,50,50 to 51,50,47 delivers a perfect by the numbers 6500K as read in Photoshop's Color Settings CustomRGB dialog box. Colormunki won't give CCT readouts after profiling like my original i1Display. I resorted to using Colorsync's vcgt graph to show how linear this display already is posted below.

I wonder if the green/yellow extension in the 3D gamut model has something to do with affecting SPD's with white LED's because I've seen this same typical shape with my Samsung HDtv and other ICC profiles of other LED displays in this price range.

Tim_Lookingbill · June 13, 2013

dupe removed. Forgot to downsize graphic to 700 pixels

Tim_Lookingbill · June 13, 2013

Here's the graphic...<div>

00bjjW-540773684.jpg.2b1c2daf3c978a2a266bd00d654ccc8b.jpg

</div>

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

I think you're on to something there about the different backlight spectra.

</blockquote>

I can't take any credit, it's all spelled out in this very interesting article on it's way to CIE for publication. I did email the author about when it may be released so you folks can read it and also see some very interesting visuals just in terms of the experiment in matching differing images with displays with differing spectra. That picture is worth 1000 words we've had here already.

Tim_Lookingbill · June 13, 2013

Hope you'll give us a heads up on that article when it gets released, Andrew. Very curious to see what they came up with especially the visuals.

frans_waterlander · June 13, 2013

Andrew,

My article is about matching the image on the monitor with the print illuminated by the digital darkroom lighting, side by side. It is not about viewing environments away from the digital darkroom, which is way less critical and leaves much room for personal preference. This distinction is very important to understand.

You really haven't said if and how you achieve a match inside your digital darkroom. Do you use your SoLux 4700K and GTI fluorescent booth right next to your monitor?

Let me try to answer your questions:

"But the bottom lineis, suggesting a fixed value to set for display calibration without taking a number of important factors into consideration does more harm than good. Those factors have been presented to you more than once, I would ask you look them over and reply."

"Based on both our understanding of just how the backlight of a display can alter the results, how can you say that everyone should calibrate to 5000K?"

"Are you certain that every instrument used to calibrate a display, mated with all the various software products that have a setting for 5000K produce identical results?"

"That the blackbody is a theoretical object and that yes, your mileage will vary, a lot and that simply expecting everyone to set 5000K and get a match is impossible. IF that were not the case, why is it that higher end systems like Eizo and NEC provide such precise control over differing white point settings? CCT Kelvin values in one value increments, the ability to enter chromaticity values, even the ability to measure with an instrument the viewing conditions? Why not have a single setting in such software products: 5000K? Because that one size fits all WP doesn't work for everyone, not even close."

"There are Fluorescent bulbs ranging from $1 to far more that have 5000K on them. Do you believe they are identical and produce 5000K?"

I recommend SoLux bulbs because they have the best spectrum to view prints. I recommend the same color temperature for the monitor and the lighting because color science suggests that would give the best match and in my experience that is indeed the case. So that leaves the question of which color temperature to use. I recommend 5000K because that is in my opinion the best compromise between the monitor being perceived by many as being to reddish and the light being too bluish; going lower than 5000K will make the monitor look even worse for many people and going higher simply isn't an option with SoLux.

If you can stand a 4700K monitor, use the 4700K SoLux bulbs. I prefer 5000K and the SoLux 5000K bulbs last long enough for me.

So what about the differences in calibrator accuracies, LCD panel backlighting, differences in light perception for different people, etc.? As long as you use a decent IPS monitor and calibrator and observe other good digital darkroom practices mentioned in my article, you should get a very good match by using my recommendations. For instance, decent IPS monitors like the NEC PA231W with CCFL backlighting and the NEC P232W with LED backlighting show average delta E values of 0.2 and 0.4 respectively after SpectraView calibration, so that gives you an idea of the impact of different backlighting methods.

If a very good match isn't good enough, than you will have to tweak your setup. And don't get me started on using fluorescent bulbs to view prints. As a matter of fact, I recommend you replace your fluorescent booth with one equipped with SoLux bulbs.

"Maybe you would consider sending the PDF to say Chris Murphy or Phil Brandfield at Solux."

Both Phil Bradfield and Kevin McGuire of SoLux have read my article and like it. They liked it so much that the latest version and previous versions have been on the SoLux website for years. The link is directly to their site.

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

My article is about matching the image on the monitor with the print illuminated by the digital darkroom lighting, side by side. It is not about viewing environments away from the digital darkroom...

</blockquote>

Exactly what I'm talking about too!

You really haven't said if and how you achieve a match inside your digital darkroom. Do you use your SoLux 4700K and GTI fluorescent booth right next to your monitor?

</blockquote>

I do use both (not at the same time!) and I do get a very close match.

I recommend SoLux bulbs because they have the best spectrum to view prints.

</blockquote>

I fully agree.

I recommend the same color temperature for the monitor and the lighting because color science suggests that would give the best match and in my experience that is indeed the case.

</blockquote>

What color scientists? References please.

So what about the differences in calibrator accuracies, LCD panel backlighting, differences in light perception for different people, etc.?

</blockquote>

Yet you haven't answered the questions about differing products producing differing results with the same CCT value, the differences in how SPD's of various items in the chain affect viewer perception and have ignored the CIE piece that shows JUST the differences in backlight technology result in a whopping dE of 13! That's HUGE. How do you explain this?

For instance, decent IPS monitors like the NEC PA231W with CCFL backlighting and the NEC P232W with LED backlighting show average delta E values of 0.2 and 0.4 respectively after SpectraView calibration

</blockquote>

Meaningless measurement (and just how did you measure this)? You say you don't own a Spectrophotometer. Further, using the same device to measure something without a reference device known to be more accurate isn't at all useful. No matter how many times you measure the distance of your room with your foot, which may be 11 inches, you get the same results until you use a reference, a ruler to show your foot is not 12 inches.

Both Phil Bradfield and Kevin McGuire of SoLux have read my article and like it.

</blockquote>

I'm sure they like it, it mentions their product. Liking it and agreeing on the findings are two different things. Read this, it explains how and why one has to use differing values to produce a visual match and why one setting doesn't fit all. Further, you haven't explained any of the points above you quoted. Which is a tad telling. Anyway, here's how to get a match, it isn't about using some setting I recommend because everyone will need a differing setting (just to account for viewer metamerism failure)! http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

frans_waterlander · June 13, 2013

Andrew,

It looks like we totally agree on the need to match brightness between the monitor and print.

"I do get a very close match": you still haven't said what your monitor is calibrated to when you use the SoLux bulbs and when you use the GTI fluorescent booth. Again, I would advise you to ditch the fluorescent booth for the reasons you mention yourself in your article.

"What color scientists? References please.": if this isn't self-evident I don't know what is.

"Yet you haven't answered the questions about...": yes I have. Read the answer!

"...have ignored the CIE piece...": you want me to comment on a piece that I haven't seen? I gave an example of what different backlighting does to avg. delta E. Did the author let his subjects repeat the tweaking process at different times to get a feel for how much "noise" there is on the efforts of the same person doing the same, arguable very difficult, activity? Maybe that's more of a driver of the variability.

"...and just how did you measure this...": ever read the reviews on tftcentral?

"Read this...": I did, a long time ago. And that's the way you say you should go about it. And I say you don't have to go through this long-drawn out process to get very good results. One could argue that many people would get frustrated, mislead, or get totally lost if they tried to follow your process.

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

It looks like we totally agree on the need to match brightness between the monitor and print.

</blockquote>

Numerically, no. Visually, yes. Therefore, any canned recommendation for a cd/m2 is useless.

"I do get a very close match": you still haven't said what your monitor is calibrated to when you use the SoLux bulbs and when you use the GTI fluorescent booth.

</blockquote>

The NEC has multiple calibration targets based on viewing conditions and papers (I can control the display contrast ratio).

Again, I would advise you to ditch the fluorescent booth for the reasons you mention yourself in your article.

</blockquote>

It probably never occurred to you that we color professionals work with others in a collaborated fashion. Have you ever been in a prepress house or print shop? The vast majority use Fluorescent booths, almost always made by either GDI or Just Normalich. I have such a booth because I work with very high in print companies and we can't be ambiguous about how we view proofs. Why don't you try telling RR Donnelley they should ditch the hundreds of Fluorescent booth's?

<blockquote>if this isn't self-evident I don't know what is.</blockquote>

I'll take that as a negative to having heard this from a so called color scientist. Unlike those who wrote the paper for the CIE I referenced.

"Yet you haven't answered the questions about...": yes I have. Read the answer!

</blockquote>

Where? Let me ask just one or two again so you don't go into overload:

<ol>

<li>"Based on both our understanding of just how the backlight of a display can alter the results, how can you say that everyone should calibrate to 5000K?"</li>

<li>"Are you certain that every instrument used to calibrate a display, mated with all the various software products that have a setting for 5000K produce identical results"?</li>

<li>"There are Fluorescent bulbs ranging from $1 to far more that have 5000K on them. Do you believe they are identical and produce 5000K?"</li>

</ol>

The only "answer" I see from you is: I recommend SoLux bulbs because they have the best spectrum to view prints. So yes, looks like you're ignoring the questions.

you want me to comment on a piece that I haven't seen?

</blockquote>

The premise is not sound? That the greatly differing SPD's of devices, something you touch on in your piece all match when set to 5000K? Oops, two more questions you can ignore.

And I say you don't have to go through this long-drawn out process to get very good results.

</blockquote>

No, I said one has to use trial and error to get a visual match, not ignoring the huge differences in the various devices, conditions and visual anomalies that make the idea that everyone should just select 5000K impossible to swallow. Otherwise every solution would fix and force a 5000K calibration which isn't the case one bit. In your mind that's the simplistic path: no matter the instrument and it's filters, no matter the display technology, no matter the surround and conditions, set the number to 5000K and you'll get a match. Frans, just how many sites have you gone to for setting up color management solutions? How many found that simply setting calibration to 5000K produced a visual match? Sorry, more questions. I don't expect answers. I do expect you to consider the 'advise' you are giving readers. Getting a print to screen match isn't rocket science, but it does take some effort after which, you simply continue to use the same systems. Replace one component something you might consider inconsequential like a display, you better test the process again. Sticking to 5000K, a value that is a large range of possible colors isn't the answer.

mark_sirota1 · June 13, 2013

It looks like we totally agree on the need to match brightness between the monitor and print.

Numerically, no. Visually, yes. Therefore, any canned recommendation for a cd/m2 is useless.

</blockquote>

Can I ask you both a question about this?

Until now, I thought I understood the purpose of matching the monitor and print (in terms of brightness, white point, etc.)

But suddenly I find myself wondering why we do things like set up print viewing booths with Solux lights, etc. I mean, after you're done with the print, nobody looks at it in nearly as perfect an environment, even in the nicest galleries.

So why do we bother? I understand the point of calibrating one's monitor even when developing for web output, because while the web is a wild, uncontrolled place, at least it's as good as can be and will look good for the few viewers who actually do calibrate.

But with prints, there isn't a single calibration standard, so there aren't even the few who do calibrate. So I'm suddenly lost on the point of calibrating for print matching. Help?

frans_waterlander · June 13, 2013

Mark,

You want your print, as viewed in the digital darkroom, to be as close as possible to the image on your monitor, otherwise editing becomes iffy. Suppose you have purplish flower on your screen, you print the image, and it turns out way to reddish to your liking. How would you then edit the image on your screen? Whatever you do to the monitor image will give you unpredictable results in print. That's why you want WYSIWYG, what you see (on the monitor) is what you get (in print).

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

But suddenly I find myself wondering why we do things like set up print viewing booths with Solux lights, etc. I mean, after you're done with the print, nobody looks at it in nearly as perfect an environment, even in the nicest galleries.

</blockquote>

Mark, I address this in my piece (why are my prints too dark) in the section: Moving the print.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

frans_waterlander · June 13, 2013

Andrew,

"Numerically, no. Visually, yes. Therefore, any canned recommendation for a cd/m2 is useless.": nowhere do I recommend a certain cd/m^2.

"The NEC has multiple calibration targets based on viewing conditions and papers": you are still not telling us what your monitor is calibrated to.

"It probably never occurred to you...": yeah, I'm a dummy. Many wrongs don't make a right. And yes, I understand the implications, but somebody's got to speak out to do the right thing, maybe not right this minute, but unless you start thinking about what needs to change, nothing ever will.

"I'll take that as a negative to having heard this from a so called color scientist. Unlike those who wrote the paper for the CIE I referenced.": yeah, I'm a dummy and I can't think for myself so I just make up things, even my own opinions. Somebody should make me stop doing that.

"The only "answer" I see from you is: I recommend SoLux bulbs because they have the best spectrum to view prints. So yes, looks like you're ignoring the questions.": If you took the effort to really read what I'm saying, you would have seen that I said that all those issues are not big enough to prevent you from getting a very good match if you follow my advice.

"...so you don't go into overload...": is such condescending really necessary?

"The premise is not sound?": now you want me to comment on the premise of a piece I haven' seen? I didn't say they match, I said they are not big enough to make a visual difference for most people, unlike you of course.

" Oops, two more questions you can ignore.": should I stop right here or are you interested in an honest discussion?

Maybe keeping it simple is the answer for most people. Ever thought of that?

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

nowhere do I recommend a certain cd/m^2.

</blockquote>

I never said YOU do.

you are still not telling us what your monitor is calibrated to.

</blockquote>

What I use doesn't matter because YMMV. But in an effort to show you how questions can be specifically answered: ONE of my calibration targets is a WP of CCT 5750K using an EyeOne Display-2 on a PA271W, 150cd/m2 for a match to a GTI booth set digitally at for dimming at a value of 67 (something you can't do with Solux), Gamma 2.2, 300:1, Full Gamut. What you don't seem to grasp is that the beauty of the NEC design is the ability to produce any number of calibration targets (aim points) so that one can setup the display calibration to match a print! I have half a dozen different settings! That's why they built this functionality into the hardware and software.

yeah, I'm a dummy. I'm a dummy and I can't think for myself so I just make up things, even my own opinions.

</blockquote>

1st: You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. 2nd: I initially thought you were interested in an conversation but with such text, I've come to the conclusion you're not and now you're wasting my time.

I didn't say they match, I said they are not big enough to make a visual difference for most people, unlike you of course.

</blockquote>

Another opinion without any facts to back it up. 1dE or less? That's not a visual difference. The article discusses between 3 and 13dE (76), the average for all users was a dE of 8 and that's huge, very visible.

<blockquote>should I stop right here or are you interested in an honest discussion?</blockquote>

Yes considering your posts thus far and how you continue to ignore salient and clear questions about how you came up with your 'opinion'. Doesn't appear as yet to be fact based. As thus it's a waste of time for me as my original intent was to help you. Be honest, answer the questions presented to you fully or move on.

Maybe keeping it simple is the answer for most people. Ever thought of that.

</blockquote>

Simple and incorrect, not interested.

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

Graphic artists who plan to print on offset presses may prefer to use 5000K, which is the ISO standard for the graphic arts. However, viewing standards were written for fluorescent light bulbs. CRT monitors are generally dimmer, especially when adjusted to match 5000K. Many users find that 5000K is too warm and dull and prefer to use higher settings like 5500 or 6500. LCD monitors can be brighter and can be calibrated to any value between 5000 and 6500 without diminishing the brightness, but we still recommend 6500K for general graphics use. Some advanced users try different values (always between 5000 and 6500) to find the one that best matches the look of their paper under their viewing conditions.

</blockquote>

http://www.xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/DisplayProfilingNTK_EN.pdf

mark_sirota1 · June 13, 2013

Thanks, Andrew, but that didn't completely answer my question, though it leads me down the path. In the article, you write:

Other than the rare problematic condition called metameric failure, often incorrectly called metamerism** if the print looked good under the viewing booth and matched the display, you will almost always find it looks good under other illuminants.

</blockquote>

Is the assumption that metameric failure is more likely to happen if you don't match the print to the monitor under a proper light booth? Does the white point of the monitor/booth affect the likelihood of metameric failure?

digitaldog · June 13, 2013

Is the assumption that metameric failure is more likely to happen if you don't match the print to the monitor under a proper light booth?

</blockquote>

Metameric failure is a condition where a print may appear a fixed way under one illuminate (neutral) but under another it appears to shift to green as an example. The causes can be due to the actual illuminate, the addition of OBA's (optical brighteners) in the paper interacting with the illuminate or both.

Does the white point of the monitor/booth affect the likelihood of metameric failure?

</blockquote>

Very possibly. Additionally there is the possibility of viewer (observer) metamerism which is the meat and potatoes of the CIE article I referenced. The effect of Observer metamerism is another reason why a 5000K calibration of a display and a 5000K viewing condition might produce a visual mismatch.

</blockquote>

frans_waterlander · June 14, 2013

Andrew,

You wrote:"What I use doesn't matter because YMMV. But in an effort to show you how questions can be specifically answered: ONE of my calibration targets is a WP of CCT 5750K using an EyeOne Display-2 on a PA271W, 150cd/m2 for a match to a GTI booth set digitally at for dimming at a value of 67 (something you can't do with Solux), Gamma 2.2, 300:1, Full Gamut."

Yes, a very specific, but incomplete answer and you should know it is incomplete given the context of my article, which is the subject of every objection that you have brought to bear here, paricularly my position that the color temperature of the monitor and lighting should match. So the obvious question, that you haven's answered yet, is: what is the color temperature of the GTI booth?

Of course, all bets are off when you use fluorescents, as both you and I have alluded to in our respective articles. So, the more imortant question here is: what are the settings of the monitor when you use the SoLux lights and what is the color temp of those lights?

digitaldog · June 14, 2013

So the obvious question, that you haven's answered yet, is: what is the color temperature of the GTI booth?

Of course, all bets are off when you use fluorescents

</blockquote>

First, you'll have to wait until next Thursday as all my equipment is off site as I'll be until then. Next, I can't understand why you'd want to know the color temp when you say all bets are off. But since I strive to answer all your questions, I will do so later next week when I and my Spectrophotometer's are in front of the GTI booth.

frans_waterlander · June 14, 2013

Andrew,

I'm more interested in your setup with the SoLux lights. Fluorescents never worked for me and given the horrendous peaks in their spectrum I don't know why anyone would want to work with them. I'm not sure what I could learn from your fluorescent setup numbers.

Gerry Gerlach forwarded me Abjihit's paper on observer metamerism and I plan on making some observations after digesting the information.

digitaldog · June 15, 2013

I'm more interested in your setup with the SoLux lights.

</blockquote>

Then why did you write: what is the color temperature of the GTI booth? I've gone to great lengths to answer the questions you've asked me while you've answered hardly any IF any of my questions to you above (those have ? next to them). It's becoming progressively clear to me you have no intention or interest in an honest discussion (your words) but rather to attempt to grind down anyone who doesn't share your opinions. For example, in your last post: Fluorescents never worked for me and given the horrendous peaks in their spectrum I don't know why anyone would want to work with them. I told you why. I told you an advantage to such devices. I told you I agree about their spectrum.

I'm not sure what I could learn from your fluorescent setup numbers.

</blockquote>

So it's another <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2220857">Frans Waterlander</a> who asked what is the color temperature of the GTI booth? YOU started this thread informing us of your new improved article. I read it. I wish you had written here: I've updated my article on digital darkroom lighting and please no comments other than positive, I have no interest in peer review and what I've written is technically excellent in every area. Had you said that, I'd have ignore you after post 1.

Gerry Gerlach forwarded me Abjihit's paper on observer metamerism and I plan on making some observations after digesting the information.

</blockquote>

If you can't even read the posts here and reply based on what's written, don't even attempt to digest Abjihit's paper, we have no hope of anything more than more digression from you. When I get back to the office with the Spectrophotometer, I'll measure both the Solux bulbs I use and the GTI booth if anything to illustrate how some people do strive to answer specific questions asked them. I'm without a doubt sure you'll either ignore the numbers or take us down another rabbit hole. You've illustrated in just the last 24 hours of your posts your ability to vacillate incessantly.

frans_waterlander · June 15, 2013

Andrew,

I thought I answered all your questions on page 4 of this thread, Jun 13, 2013, 04:09 p.m. I know you don't agree with them, but there they are. Do let me know if I missed any.

From my perspective (match the color temp of monitor and lighting), the info you gave about the GTI booth setup was incomplete without the booth color temp, so I asked. And yes, the info on your GTI booth setup is not nearly as important to me as your setup with the SoLux lighting. Fluorescents are a no-no for me, but I do understand why you work with them and I did get it when you said they have the advantage of being dimmed. I get that.

I think we can do without comments like "...don't even attempt to digest Abjihit's paper..."?

robert_k1 · June 15, 2013

This cnet review of the Dell U2410 doesn't suggest it's not an 8 bit panel but the descriptions of the visual anomalies indicates the reviewer must have gotten a bad "not so perfect" build version of this model in the review posted below...

Static dithering in the shadows?! Pinkish hue in whites?!...

</blockquote>

Cnet's review of the U2410 was apparently based on a rev A00 copy. Without a followup on a rev A01 copy.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/19.htm

Dell Accidentally Leak Firmware Fix for U2410!

The two main issues with the U2410 A00 revision (the initial release) seem to be:

<ul>

<li>

Green and pink tinting and colour uniformity problems across the screen

</li>

<li>

Dithering artefacts especially visible in dark shades when using the sRGB or AdobeRGB preset modes

</li>

</ul>

Dell Returns and Replacements

Leaked User Updatable Firmware! - Make your U2410 an A01

digitaldog · June 15, 2013

I thought I answered all your questions on page 4

</blockquote>

You didn't, you provided a small paragraph which doesn't answer any of the questions:

I recommend SoLux bulbs because they have the best spectrum to view prints. I recommend the same color temperature for the monitor and the lighting because color science suggests that would give the best match and in my experience that is indeed the case.

</blockquote>

We agree on the smoother spectrum of Solux. That doesn't answer these questions:

<ol>

<li>"Based on both our understanding of just how the backlight of a display can alter the results, how can you say that everyone should calibrate to 5000K?"</li>

<li>"Are you certain that every instrument used to calibrate a display, mated with all the various software products that have a setting for 5000K produce identical results"?</li>

<li>"There are Fluorescent bulbs ranging from $1 to far more that have 5000K on them. Do you believe they are identical and produce 5000K?"</li>

</ol>

The 'answer' above doesn't even start to discuss question #2. You ignore question #3 by ignoring the use of any Fluorescent lights. You haven't measured your Solux bulbs. You haven't measured the display with a device independent of the software used to calibrate the display to prove it's even calibrated at 5000K. You ignore that multiple software products will report such values and produce a different value when measured again with an independent software product. You totally ignore the CIE article that discusses that just the backlight technology produces visually different results as high as dE 13. You seem to agree that differing spectrum's produce differing visual results as you will not accept any Fluorescent viewing condition, but some how, in your mind, that same difference in a display backlight doesn't count, always set the display for 5000K. If Fluorescent are so piss poor, what are we to take of the use of Fluorescent (and as well LED) as display backlight? With those spectrum you hate, the display is producing 5000K?

From my perspective (match the color temp of monitor and lighting), the info you gave about the GTI booth setup was incomplete without the booth color temp, so I asked.

</blockquote>

The bulbs ARE rated at D50 (which isn't 5000K). further, I can almost guarantee you they will not measure at 5000K. But you asked anyway. The Solux bulb may be rated at 5000K, they probably will not measure 5000K but since you have no tools to test this, you force the proof on me! You take a lot at face values expect any peer review which is notable. I wonder what you'll say when I report the CCT Kelvin values of the Solux, the WP of a display set to a fixed value and the value of the GTI booth.

So what about the differences in calibrator accuracies, LCD panel backlighting, differences in light perception for different people, etc.? As long as you use a decent IPS monitor and calibrator and observe other good digital darkroom practices mentioned in my article, you should get a very good match by using my recommendations.

</blockquote>

You should? And if you don't? Then don't use 5000K? I am supposed to take this as:

When 5000K matches, use 5000K. Duh! Still without any independent measuring of either the illuminant or the display by yourself.

I think we can do without comments like "...don't even attempt to digest Abjihit's paper..."?

</blockquote>

You can't seem to digest what I ask, that paper is far, far more complicated but hopefully just the pictures will be enough for you to SEE that differing SPD's used in a backlight ALONE produce a hugely visible difference so how can you then say, set everything to 5000K? It's ridiculous.

digitaldog · June 15, 2013

Yes, a very specific, but incomplete answer...

</blockquote>

While I end up with a very non specific and incomplete answer. Telling.

Sign In

Major update of my article on digital darkroom lighting

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in