Major update of my article on digital darkroom lighting

frans_waterlander · June 16, 2013

Andrew,

Ok, I'll take one question at a time. Here goes...

1. "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?" Calibration reduces errors caused by differences in backlighting. I gave the example of two NEC LCD monitors, identical but for the backlighting, one being CCFL, the other LED; after SpectraView II calibration the delta E was less than 0.2 and 0.4; that's an undetectable difference.

2. "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?" Of course there will be differences, but I don't think that those differences will be large. I have measured, with a Minolta color temperature meter, the results of 4900K calibrations with two different versions of the Monaco EZColor calibrator and one ColorVision calibrator and all were within 50K, which is undetectable to the human eye. That was about 10 years ago. I would think that with ongoing improvements most calibrators nowadays would be at least that accurate.

3. "There are Fluorescent bulbs ranging from $1 to far more that have 5000K on them. Do you believe they are identical and produce 5000K?" No, I don't believe that and that should have been very clear for you given what I have said about fluorescents. All bets are off with them and that's why I strong recommend not to use them.

"You haven't measured your Solux bulbs." That's a bad assumption on your part. I have measured them with the same Minolta meter and they were within about 50K when measured within the circle of light they project, staying away from the fringe around the circle of light; in the fringe area they show a color temp much lower, as they do in the back, which is why you should buy the ones with black paint on the back or use closed fixtures.

"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." I've dispelled those above.

"You totally ignore the CIE article that discusses that just the backlight technology produces visually different results as high as dE 13." I'm not ignoring the article. As I said before, proper calibration should bring the errors below the human visibility threshold. For starters, the article doesn't give any details about the monitors used or the calibration results like delta E. Further, it may be that the abysmal results in the article are caused by other factors like the viewing booth (I believe the article doesn't tell what booth was used: fluorescent, SoLux, LED?) or human error like repeatability: the article doesn't say whether or not tests were carried out to establish how repeatable the various test subjects could carry out the tasks. There are in my mind too many unanswered questions about that article after quickly scanning it (and yes, I will study it further and will let you and the author know) to just take it as fact.

"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?" See above.

"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!" See above. And no, they are not and measure not 5000K; they are rated at 4900K and measure within 50K.

"Still without any independent measuring of either the illuminant or the display by yourself." Again this assumption that I don't do my homework!

"...but hopefully just the pictures will be enough for you..." Again Andrew, we could do without this uncalled for sarcasm or whatever it is that is eating at you.

"While I end up with a very non specific and incomplete answer. Telling." Is this reply specific enough for you? I hope so.

digitaldog · June 16, 2013

I gave the example of two NEC LCD monitors, identical but for the backlighting, one being CCFL, the other LED; after SpectraView II calibration the delta E was less than 0.2 and 0.4; that's an undetectable difference.

</blockquote>

And I told you that methodology doesn’t wash, you used the same software and instrument to produce the results without using another reference device and independent software to test the output. I gave you an analogy of why this isn't acceptable! You can measure that room 1000 times with your 11 inch foot and the results will always be incorrect.

Here are some interesting findings from a real color scientist from the ColorSync archives who also produces the product you could and should use for such testing. Notice the date and the impending release of the 5000K bulbs which predate your 'testing' with that old Minolta device you mention in 'answer' 2. Notice that two instruments were used and instruments that ARE suited for this kind of measurements:

Subject: Re: Solux Bulb color temperature From: Robin Myers Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 Here are the CCT results from measuring a Solux 4700K bulb, and two Solux 5000K bulbs (one with clear sides, one with black sides). The measurements were made 1 m from the front of the fixture to the measuring devices aperture.

i1 Pro with Ambient filter

Solux 4700 50W 36-degree 4304K +-4K Solux 5000 35 W 36-degree Clear 3974K +- 3K Solux 5000 35 W 36-degree Black 4428K +-7K

PR-655 with CR-655 Cosine Corrector

Solux 4700 50W 36-degree 4431K +-2K Solux 5000 35 W 36-degree Clear 4025K +- 4K Solux 5000 35 W 36-degree Black 4528K +-2K

With only one sample each of the 5000K bulbs, it was not possible to double-check the 5000K Clear bulb, but it is apparent that the 5000K bulb is not right. I suspect it is a mismarked lower Kelvin bulb or a bad bulb.

Otherwise, the i1 Pro and the PR-655 agree. There were two different setups, at two different locations but the light fixture was the same and the bulbs were the same for both sets of tests. The CCT was calculated with SpectraShop 3 (to be released later this week, hopefully) and the CCT results of 5 to 6 measurements of each bulb were averaged.

The calculated CCTs do not agree with the expectation based on the manufacturer's marketing.

In comparing the emission spectrums, the i1 Pro and PR-655 agree fairly well. Both of them have a general shape similar to the D50 curve, but much smoother. There are several small peaks in the D50 spectrum absent from the measured Solux spectra. The manufacturer has claimed a spectral shape similar to D50 and it is a reasonable approximation.

In Ken Fleisher's original post, he reported a CCT of 4450K for the Solux 4700K bulbs and the results above agree with the lower than claimed CCT value (if you believe the "4700 Kelvin" on the bulb's box means CCT).

Robin Myers

</blockquote>

AR: "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?"

FW: Of course there will be differences, but I don't think that those differences will be large. I have measured, with a Minolta color temperature meter, the results of 4900K calibrations with two different versions of the Monaco EZColor calibrator and one ColorVision calibrator and all were within 50K, which is undetectable to the human eye. That was about 10 years ago. I would think that with ongoing improvements most calibrators nowadays would be at least that accurate.

</blockquote>

The 10 year old Minolta was what device (a Spectrophotometer, Colorimeter) and it give you Lab or Spectral data? You don't think the differences will be large but you've not provided any metric to that assumption. Care to explain the results Robin found?

That's enough as a start to your 'answers' which thus far are IMHO not based on sound methodology. Once we go farther, your 'answers' prove that your assumptions about calibration, profiling and matching differing devices fall apart even farther. But this is enough of a start, now that you've introduced more data for us to understand about your testing procedures.

AR: "You haven't measured your Solux bulbs."

That's a bad assumption on your part. I have measured them with the same Minolta meter and they were within about 50K

</blockquote>

I don't know how you measured the 5000K Solux bulbs 10 years ago when they were not in existence nor how your 50K difference differs so much from two others as outlined above. Care to explain?

digitaldog · June 16, 2013

And there's this too from the list Franz:

Subject: RE: Solux Bulb color temperature From: "Tim Vitale" <email@hidden> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:21:24 -0800

I have four Solux 4700 K 36deg floods that are about 1-2 years old with 100-300 hours (or so) on them. The only variation can be hours of use. I will be ordering a new batch quite soon. If you are still interested get back to me in 7-10 days and I'll report the newest findings.

# 1 = 4363 K # 2 = 4550 K # 3 = 4307 K # 4 = 4456 K

They were measured with an i1 Rev D (UV incl) in Emissive-Light mode, using Robin Myers SpectraShop.

As Robin said earlier, I have never found a bulb to be the actual stated CCT. All except one.

I just rebuilt my light bleaching set-up and purchased a $120, 250 W, Metal Halide "Hostile - Blue" lamp (Eye Lighting, Japan) that outputs 6530 K +/- 35, with 16500 Lux, about 20" from the bulbs; less than 1 hour old. As one would expect, it is a bit spiky, but not as bad as normal Metal Halide lamps. They label it 6500K in the PDF; http://www.eyehortilux.com/blue.html; PDF <EQS-N-52-78-57799[1].pdf>.

Tim Vitale

</blockquote>

All going back to my suggestion to ignore the numbers, they can be all over the place. The numbers for display WP calibration that produce a visual match are the correct numbers, they are rarely ever 5000K and that reported number is a range of colors anyway.

digitaldog · June 16, 2013

AR: "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!"

See above. And no, they are not and measure not 5000K; they are rated at 4900K and measure within 50K.

</blockquote>

Solux doesn't make a 4900K bulb. Never have.

AR:"Still without any independent measuring of either the illuminant or the display by yourself."

Again this assumption that I don't do my homework!

</blockquote>

Yup!

From the same ColorSync list:

There are two bulbs rated at 4700K and 5000K. We purchased the 5000K bulbs expecting the color temperature to be fairly close to this, but when we measured it we see it is 4450K. According to a Solux engineer, the term "D50" in their product literature refers to the spectral nature of the light, not the exact color temp as metered in Kelvin degrees, that the bulbs labeled 4700K produce a "daylight spectrum" and that they could be expected to rate within 200K of labeled output.

</blockquote>

So again Fanz or anyone reading your piece, the numbers you hold so dear are not all that useful, you paid more for a bulb that doesn't last as long and bought into the marketing of having to have a Solux bulb that has 5000K written somewhere on it or the box (and which is really just the 4700K bulb in sheep's clothing).

Between this and the CIE article, I'd say you probably should post to the ColorSync list your article and let the other color scientists comment.

frans_waterlander · June 16, 2013

Andrew,

Calibrators have a certain accuracy and when you know that you know what the possible errors in the CCT measurements are. I don't have this information at my fingertips, but for the sake of argument let's say it's +/- 5%. That would translate into +/- 250K for a 5000K calibration. That's not "all over the place" in my book. But since I don't know right now, I'll find out and report back.

This really begs this question: since you claim that all bets are off, to paraphrase it, with monitor CCT numbers, you must have a pretty good idea how bad it is; can you share that information with us?

Next, measuring SoLux CCT numbers. There are a lot of wrong ways to measure them and I'm pretty sure the two gentlemen you refer to are doing it wrong. SoLux has been faced with this issue for years and, as far as I can tell, have been able to prove the measurements wrong in each and every case they were able to get involved to sort out the mistakes made. An example is right on the SoLux website here: <a href="http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/ultralux-false-data.html">http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/ultralux-false-data.html</a>

After the measurement errors were corrected the 3500K measured at 3542K, the 4100K at 4194, and the 4700K at 4782, all within 100K.

I dug out my notes from way back and here is the information. The Minolta I used was the Color Meter III F. I made the measurements 10 years ago in October of 2003 and I measured the 4700K versions, not the "5000K" version I said previously. I put the 5000K in quote marks because it is specified as 4900K.

I measured the 4700K bulbs at between 4 and 7 feet and measured between 4690K and 4720K, well within the 50K I quoted previously. Getting into the fringe of the projected circle of light, letting the light escape from the back of the bulbs or letting other light, outside or otherwise, contaminate the meaurements shows up immediately in lower color temp readings, as my measurements clearly showed.

digitaldog · June 16, 2013

Next, measuring SoLux CCT numbers. There are a lot of wrong ways to measure them and I'm pretty sure the two gentlemen you refer to are doing it wrong.

</blockquote>

That's hilarious. Of course they are, you're not. Tell you what, put your money where your mouth is. Post to the ColorSync list the URL to your article, then ask the list if Robin's measuring is wrong. I dare you. I double dare you. You don't even own the proper equipment but a guy with a PR-655, and who wrote the software to drive it to measure this data is doing it wrong? Prove it.

The Minolta I used was the Color Meter III F

</blockquote>

Worthless for this task compared to a spectroradiometer and one of the quality of the PR-655, it runs about $13,000! You have the nerve to tell us you used this Minolta product to measure the values you want to see, but experts in color and color management software are doing it wrong? Come on, put up or shut up. Post the article or maybe I should? Ask Robin to comment on your testing methodology and tell him and the list, you're suggesting measured the bulbs wrong? They will have a field day with you!

frans_waterlander · June 16, 2013

Andrew,

"Solux doesn't make a 4900K bulb. Never have." What SoLux calls a 5000K actually runs at 4900K, as per their data sheet. Read it one of these days.

"...and which is really just the 4700K bulb in sheep's clothing..." The "5000K" has, if I'm not mistaken, a 10V filament, which means it's overdriven at 12V, runs hotter and has a higher CCT. That's how these bulbs have different CCTs, by running them hotter or cooler.

Did you read the article on the SoLux website I referred you to about the testing lab's mistakes and how the numbers came out after the measurement errors were corrected?

If you want to pick a fight about SoLux bulbs, do it with SoLux. I'm sure they are in a way better position to defend the attacks on their products than me.

digitaldog · June 16, 2013

OK, Frans, I'll address Solux off list, let's stick to your sloppy methodology and lack of proper test equipment that results in an article that you apparently can't (or will not) hold up to peer review. Let's see how it flies over on the CS list, when will you be posting the URL there as you did here? Or your rebuttal to the findings of the CIE article I was responsible for having sent to you that suggest an average dE of 8 which dismisses your concept that display and proofing condition that has the same CCT value always produce a match?

frans_waterlander · June 17, 2013

Andrew,

"OK, Frans, I'll address Solux off list": I'm sure that Phillip Bradfield or Kevin McGuire at SoLux will be happy to respond to Robin Meyers', Tim Vitale's and your assertions that SoLux bulbs are way, way off spec. Since you brought this up in this thread, however, you should report back here on this issue.

"...let's stick to your sloppy methodology and lack of proper test equipment...": Tell me, if you please, what's so sloppy or improper about using a Minolta color temperature meter to measure 4700K with an accuracy of +/- 44K?

And talking about putting up or shutting up (your words): let me repeat my previous request - how about you telling us how inaccurate CCT calibrations are; you keep repeating that those numbers are all over the place, so tell us how bad those are in your opinion?

I'll keep working on getting accuracy information on calibrator accuracy and responding to the upcoming CIE article.

digitaldog · June 17, 2013

Tell me, if you please, what's so sloppy or improper about using a Minolta color temperature meter to measure 4700K with an accuracy of +/- 44K?

</blockquote>

I outlined your sloppy methodology TWICE along with an analogy you either didn't understand or decided like many of my posts to ignore. Now you want me to take on another digression of yours and explain why the device you used to measure the illuminate but not the display and which doesn't provide spectral data (despite your love of posting other's graphs of spectral data) doesn't wash. I wonder why you didn't use the Minolta device to read the CCT of the two displays?

You asked me to measure my Solux bulbs but after providing you measurements from an actual color scientist with a $2K and $13K spectroradiometer and which closely correlates with another person running the same tests we are told: they did the measurements incorrectly. I'll indeed measure the Solux when I return from location but what's the point? If it doesn't match the values you want, you'll dismiss them as well. Mindset of a religious zealot who refuses to accept carbon dating and insist his Earth is 6000 years old.

You've lost all credibility in my book, I suspect most other's still patient enough to read these last two dozen posts or so. You refuse to engage in any peer review. Hell will freeze over before you submit your paper to the ColorSync list, yet we poor PhotoNet readers have to put up with your lack of peer review paper and accept all your premises which makes me now realize I'm wasting my time debating not science but your religious belief of color. I'll not go down that path, you are free to believe any science fiction you wish. Why post it here?

I'm off on location this week as I told you, I don't have any interest in going further until I see you post the URL of your article to the ColorSync list. Will take you no more than 5 minutes to do.

You've had the CIE article that in the first two pages dismisses your ideas about color for days now, yet no reply which is telling. And like your dismal of Robin's measurements, you've already attempted to poke holes in it. I don't know how you sleep at night knowing you haven't as yet a leg to stand on here and that's why you'll never post your piece to the CS list or challenge Robin and the other's on their data. This from a guy who doesn't even own the correct equipment to make simple spectral measurements but will knock a guy who's been well know for years in the color industry and also happens to be mentioned on your beloved Solux web site (as am I).

PhotoNet readers. Franz isn't to be taken seriously! He's got a some good points in his piece and some that are nonsense and he's got no means to back up his flat earth theories and as yet, hasn't posted his 'findings' to a peer review group like the CS list. Best to dismiss him as someone looking for a few free Solux bulbs or mention on the Solux web site. Reader beware.

That's it bud. I'll post the CCT values Thursday if I get back on time since I promised to do so and nothing more. You'll suggest the data is wrong anyway. You'll never undergo the humiliation from the ColorSync group or challenge Robin on his data. And that says it all about your ability to write about a subject like color management.

digitaldog · June 17, 2013

Not for Franz's eyes but useful data from CHROMIX the maker of ColorThink, Colorshuttle and Maxwell:

Myth #16: Two 5000K bulbs will match -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

First let's talk about 5000K, D50, D65, etc, how they are specified and what they describe.

5000K is a color temperature. It's a color of white that is based on heating a "black body" object to 5000 Kelvin. When you get something this hot it glows a yellowish-white. This color is expressed as a colorimetric number, such as XYZ, Yxy or Lab and is then called a correlated color temperature. The lights that produce these colors of white are not actually burning at that temperature, they just make the same color of light as a black body that is - that's the correlation.

D50, D65, etc are daylight illuminant standards based on spectral curves.

Remember, spectral curves are the most detailed light information we can get. When we add human observer influence we get colorimetric numbers. An important thing to realize is that many different spectral curves can result in the same colorimetric number. Another way of putting this is to say that fluorescent, incandescent and sunlight can all have significantly different spectral output but still produce the same color of white for a human observer; the same colorimetric number.

This "match" is for an even white card that has no brighteners. As each of these light sources have a different spectral make-up they will affect papers containing brighteners and printed colors differently.

The net effect of this is that two bulbs that measure as 5000K can affect paper and printed color differently and that one print can look different under two 5000K bulbs.

There is another measurement that reflects how closely a light source matches the D50 daylight spectral curve. CRI, the Color Rendering Index is expressed as a value out of 100. 100 is a perfect match to a reference light source that is within 100K temperature (D50 in the case of standard viewing environments). Typical cool white fluorescent bulbs have a CRI of about 62. The CIE states that the color differences between sources that differ by 3 CRI units is not perceptible. You should aim for CRIs that are as high as possible (over 95) when shopping for lighting and viewing products - and the booth can affect it as well.

I suppose the summary point of this myth is that 5000K is not a guarantee that you have a good light source or that it will match another 5000K light source effectively.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Myth #17: D50 bulbs are available http://www2.chromix.com/colorsmarts/smartNote.cxsa?snid=1112

August 16th, 2004 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

D50, as mentioned above, is a standard daylight spectral curve.

This spectral information is defined very specifically using more than 30 curve points. It has a single colorimetric number and, unlike 5000K, it cannot be created by different light sources composed of different spectral output.

D50 is so specific in fact, that the only thing that can create it is the sun as it passes through the Earth's atmosphere.

Why choose a standard like D50 as an aim point if nothing man-made can achieve it? Well, because our visual system is based on millions of years of evolution under the sun. We are tuned to see objects illuminated by our star and filtered by our atmosphere.

The light source that I have seen to be the closest to D50 is the Solux lamp designed by Tailored Lighting. It is a Halogen light that can be easily mounted in track-lighting systems and is also quite inexpensive (around $9 US per bulb). The Solux CRI is 98, the industry's best. You can find out more information about these bulbs from .

If you are not interested in the more "do it yourself" side of lighting that track-lighting sometimes requires, consider GTI or Just Normlicht light boxes. They are fluorescent-based lighting systems which may not have as high a CRI but they are so widely used (especially GTI in the US) that they are de facto standards themselves. If you want to view things as many others view them, light booths will typically get you there.

So, if a company is calling their lighting D50 I'd love to hear about it because it's probably not true. If they are calling it 5000K then they've chosen the broad side of a barn as their target. And if they quote a CRI they may be closer. At least they're more savvy. Remember D50 is the aim-point and so far Solux is the closest.

</blockquote>

frans_waterlander · June 17, 2013

Andrew,

Abusive language like you increasingly use has no place on this or any forum. That, coupled with your unwillingness to engage to the degree of actually responding to several of my questions, tells me that nothing constructive will come of this. I had my inputs for the CIE article ready to go, as well as answers about the accuracy of color temperature calibration of monitors and feedback on the measurements of SoLux bulbs, but I'll stop wasting my time.

Please contact SoLux directly on the issue of their products meeting specifications. Their products have been proven to meet specifications every time that was challenged or misreported and every time setup errors were the cause of the faulty measurements.

digitaldog · June 17, 2013

Apologies for abusive language.

When will you be posting your article for review to the ColorSync list?

frans_waterlander · June 17, 2013

Andrew,

Apologies accepted. But I'll stop wasting my time nonetheless.

digitaldog · June 17, 2013

But I'll stop wasting my time nonetheless.

</blockquote>

Agreed although I will provide the Solux measurements as promised later this week.

Final question: When will you be posting your article for review to the ColorSync list for review? Or maybe you could post on Luminous Landscape.

frans_waterlander · June 18, 2013

Will I be posting my article for "review" on other forums? No thanks! I've had my fill for a while of insults and personal attacks.

digitaldog · June 18, 2013

Will I be posting my article for "review" on other forums? No thanks! I've had my fill for a while of insults and personal attacks.

</blockquote>

What makes you think the ColorSync list would do that Franz? Or are you just afraid of the findings of other 'peers'?

No surprise, I didn't think you had the courage to subject your article to others and the reasons are clear. And I don't believe you'll let us know about the CIE article that pokes holes in your ideas. Best to ignore any discussions that don't agree with you, which is SO TELLING. I wonder what the other readers here who now know you will not subject your article to any review will think of it. As I said above, ignoring it would be their best move until you decide to let other's read and comment.

What are you afraid of? Being proven you're wrong? Yup.

frans_waterlander · June 18, 2013

Andrew,

One has to seriously wonder about your apologies, given more insults and personal attacks. I'm all for an honest debate, but if you can't behave in a professional manner, than our "discussions" is over and done with. I wouldn't mind starting over with a clean slate, just let me know if you are sincerely interested in doing that, but I won't put up with any of your past behavior.

I'll be more than happy to have a constructive dialog with anyone else.

digitaldog · June 18, 2013

One has to seriously wonder about your apologies

</blockquote>

I apologized for abusive language (your term) not for dismissing your premise or your poor methodology or your poor understanding of color management, or your continued efforts to say anyone disagreeing with your findings are wrong. Big difference! It's telling that you refuse to under go peer review on the CS list or elsewhere here. I suspect that no one else is following this discussion. I suspect few if any are accepting your article. IS anyone still here buying into Franz's concepts? Or wondering why he refuses to ask on the CS list about his piece and further, tell Robin Myers, a respected color scientist he's 'wrong' in using his equipment to come to the results he and at least two others came to?

I'll be more than happy to have a constructive dialog with anyone else.

</blockquote>

PROVE IT! Post the article to the CS list and ask for feedback! You know, it's up there for public digestion anyway, nothing stops someone from posting the URL and asking for comment. That toothpaste is out of the tube.

frans_waterlander · June 18, 2013

Andrew,

It looks like you are not willing to start over with a clean slate. You apparently don't want to take responsibility for your past abusive language by labeling it "your term". Then you continue to deride me with terms like poor methodology and poor understanding of color management. Sorry, that's not my definition of a clean slate.

As for Robin Meyers and the others, tell me where best to bring up the subject of measuring SoLux bulb color temperatures with them and I'll do it, with the understanding that they then would take up the subject directly with SoLux, as they can best address the issue (as they have done numerous times in the past). I'm not their spokesperson or have the best possible information to address this issue.

digitaldog · June 18, 2013

As for Robin Meyers and the others, tell me where best to bring up the subject of measuring SoLux bulb color temperatures with them and I'll do it, with the understanding that they then would take up the subject directly with SoLux, as they can best address the issue (as they have done numerous times in the past).

</blockquote>

I told you, several times. The ColorSync list where the discussion has been discussed and referenced here several times.

frans_waterlander · June 18, 2013

I don't know what "the ColorSync list" is. Can you give me a url?

digitaldog · June 18, 2013

https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/

frans_waterlander · June 18, 2013

It looks like you must be a member, but it nowhere says how to become one.

digitaldog · June 18, 2013

It looks like you must be a member, but it nowhere says how to become one.

</blockquote>

It's NO different from setting up to use THIS forum. Not difficult.

<tbody>

<tr>

If you are having trouble using the lists, please contact <a href="mailto:mailman@lists.apple.com">mailman@lists.apple.com</a>.

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

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