richard_pate

<p>I'm amused that this discussion of plastic vs. metal body frames has been focussed primarily on "toughness" as THE main concern. Here in the New Mexico mountains, a photo shoot at dawn can start out at below freezing and by mid-afternoon it's 80+ F, over 100F in a 4x4 parked in direct sun. </p>

<p>Question is, can a polycarbonate body frame hold the extremely fine tolerances for the mirror mechanism, shutter box, field screen, etc. as well as a metal frame when subjected to extreme thermal fluctuations -- month after month? </p>

<p>Great idea. Thanks Charles, I will try it for final print evaluation.</p>

<p>But I was also looking for a quick way to display 2 or 3 versions of the same print side-by-side for comparison in the final editing process.</p>

<blockquote>

Barry Fisher wrote:

Old wooden cloths pins?

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, do they have to be "old" or will the new ones work? ;-).</p>

<p>Howard, I'm not familiar with x-ray holders, but sounds like they may work. Thanks.</p>

<p>I have just set up a print evaluation area in my studio with Solux lighting and a Munsell N8 neutral gray equivalent painted wall. Next I need to figure out the best way to temporarily hang prints that are up to 17"x25" in size on the wall for viewing, without damaging their edges. I primarily use fine art (matte) and luster finish papers.</p>

<p>I have seen the GTI Print Bars on the B&H Photo website, but they don't actually show photographic prints being used with the product, and they seem a bit pricey for my budget. Has anyone used these and found them to be adequate for hanging photos w/o edge damage?</p>

<p>I am wondering if the metal channels with ball-bearings in them that are used by restaurants to hang meal-order tickets in the kitchen would work? I have seen these at restaurant supply outlets, but doubt if they are strong enough to hold large prints.</p>

<p>Does anyone know of any other products available that work well? Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your input to this in-depth discussion.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew: "The way to successfully accomplish this has been specified here at least a few times."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, yes, several good suggestions have been made in this thread. I just find JPC's input a bit more concise and easier to understand. Thus the link to his comments, which may also help others trying to sort through this tome of a thread.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tim: "Hey, Richard, if you have the Solux 3500K halogen light, can you show me what hue of color cast it shows on your fine art paper compared to your neutral looking display?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I am placing an order today for the Solux lamps needed for my print viewing area. One reason for starting this thread was to get advice on what temp. lighting would be best relative to the color management setup I decided on. I'm going with the 3500K lamps, buying JPC's DVD, and will probably try to steal a copy of Andrew's book from Borders because now I have no money left. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had posted earlier...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I still feel there is a way to accommodate 3500K. JPC is doing it, and quite successfully. Too bad he is not a member of this forum and willing to enlighten us all.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well John Paul Caponigro has responded to my similar thread over on the Adobe Forum at<br>

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2954790#2954790</p>

<p>Very helpful. Thanks JP.</p>

<p>Thanks Joe, good suggestion which I am already experimenting with.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can tell you from my experience I'm never going to make my display emulate 3500K lighting just to get a match on a print viewed under those lights. Even if you could calibrate your display that way, would it let you beef up the blue sky better than I could editing the Raw image on a 6000K calibrated display?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I appreciate your efforts to illustrate the challenge of devising a color management workflow that includes final print evaluation for 3500K viewing. Even though you used 2800K lighting, which may well be beyond the capability of my equipment and software, I still feel there is a way to accommodate 3500K. JPC is doing it, and quite successfully. Too bad he is not a member of this forum and willing to enlighten us all.</p>

<p>My guess is that calibrating your monitor to 3500K may not be necessary, while making compensation in other areas -- like maybe incorporating a special soft-proofing technique in a studio with 3500K ambient lighting. Who knows, maybe just looking at your monitor through an 81A color correction filter will do the trick? ;-) Or, on that note, applying a curves preset just prior to printing?</p>

<p>Well, what <strong>would actually be practical</strong> for my needs considering all the factors involved, including the limitations of my monitor, Epson 3880 printer and Spyder2Pro colorimeter? Would some compromise be most practical? I'm not sure how John Paul Caponigro does it when he says,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I use SoLux 3500K bulbs for my studio and gallery. I evaluate and display prints under the same light, one that most closely approximates the display conditions prints are most likely to be viewed under."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that I will have to take one of his fine art printing seminars to find out exactly. For now I'm guessing that maybe a monitor calibrated for a 5000K white point at low luminance (100 cd/m2) in combination with bright (close) SoLux 3500K or 4100K viewing lamps might be adequate to accurately edit and print the subtle hues and tones that I'm working with. Am I on the right track here?</p>

<p>So gentlemen, in "light" of this in-depth discussion, would it be best for me to try to target the settings of my monitor calibration to emulate a 3500K print viewing environment, or would it be best to try to come up with equivalent printer profiles? Thanks for all the input.</p>

<p>You are correct, Barry. These expensive viewing stations, like from GTI, provide a standardized lighting environment for print viewing that will closely match a calibrated monitor. And under these controlled "laboratory conditions" all is well in the world of color management theory.</p>

<p>But what if you viewed your perfect print under moderate to low intensity 3500K lighting, or 3000K lighting, the most common interior lighting? That print will look rather dull with low contrast and color saturation. Not so good if you would like to impress a viewer enough for them to actually purchase your work. </p>

<p>Thanks Tim, very helpful. Glad I have decided to go with SoLux lamps.</p>

<p>However, rather than trying to match the lighting of my print viewing area to my monitor, my main concern is how to match my monitor's color calibration to my color balanced prints as viewed under 3500K SoLux lighting -- the lighting under which my prints will be displayed for sale. </p>

<p>The interaction of subtle hues and tonality upon a particular print paper play an important part in the composition of my color fine art photographs. Unless these are all intact and visible, the composition can fail. This is often the case when images are carefully edited on a monitor with standard calibration (6500K white point, 2.2 gamma, etc.) and then viewed under moderate intensity 3500K lighting. </p>

<p>My goal is to tweak my color management workflow so that editing and producing a "successful" print is less of a trial & error experience. I don't know enough about the voodoo of monitor color calibration to deviate much from a "standard" calibration in order to get my monitor to emulate the color balance necessary for the display/viewing environment of my prints. Any advice?</p>

 

<p>Thanks. ISO 3664 (2009) looks like it could be interesting.</p>

<p>Anyone know of a source for free copy of it? The ISO guys charge $130 for a PDF copy.</p>

<p>Thanks, David, Andrew and Kelly, for bringing the lofty Theory of Color Management Workflow down to the realities of working (and selling) in the real world. </p>

<p>So, from all this I surmise that it's best to first "standardize" your color management workflow with calibrating one's monitor to a 6500K white point and 2.2 Gamma, while adjusting luminance to a level in harmony with your studio's ambient lighting. Next, start with evaluating your prints (made from a calibrated printer/ink/paper profile) under bright (D50) lighting for any printing imperfections and sharpness, but then try to match the lighting of the print's ultimate destination in your print viewing area for the final evaluation -- in my case, under 3500K SoLux lamps.</p>

<p>Hopefully, if everything is set up properly (the light intensity in the viewing area and the monitor luminance), the "white" of the monitor is close to the "white" of the photo paper in your viewing area. Perceptually, the eye will compensate for color temp variance if monitor and viewing area are well separated. Then the needed editing can be accurately made with minimal waste of time and materials. Am I even close to being on the right track here?</p>

<p>Kelly, (or anyone else) for all the various lighting/viewing scenarios for which you must produce prints, do you first produce the prints to a standard as I mention above and then edit with curves for a specific lighting environment (via presets?), or do you have custom ICC print profiles for the various lighting scenarios?</p>

<p>I can relate Tom. But I have a unique opportunity in that I CAN control the lighting in a particular gallery that my photographs will be displayed -- with 3500K SoLux lighting.</p>

<p>Here is an interesting article just presented to me by Larry over at the Adobe Forum:<br /> http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/eyes-response.html</p>

<p>In this article it points out that when an individual is outdoors 6500K looks white, but when indoors 4700K looks white while 6500K looks too blue. Then in a dimmer museum-like lighting condition, 3500K looks white with 4700K looking blue -- all based on the function of the human eye. Interesting study, especially in regard to how your potential customers are perceiving the colors in your displayed work.</p>

<p>Of course, my question is how do you go about setting up a color management workflow based on lighting temperatures less than the "holy grail" calibration standard of 6500K and print evaluation under 5000K?</p>

<p>Thanks again. Leigh, good suggestion, which validates my choice of calibration equipment. I have a Spyder2Pro for monitor calibration and the Spyder3Print device for printer calibration.<br>

<br /> I noticed that the SpyderPro documentation has recently added a single statement as an alternative to calibrating the monitor at 6500K, "...some photographers may prefer selecting the 5800K option setting." That's all it says, but maybe this is in regard to my concerns.<br>

<br /> I can't find any further information on John Paul Caponigro's website concerning his well-publicized recommendation of calibrating final print output for the display environment of 3500K. I guess the details of that procedure are privy to those who take one of his fine art printing seminars.</p>

<p>Thanks Joe and Leigh.</p>

<p>In regard to my use of the word "exact" to describe how my final print compares to the image on my monitor, let me just say that my goal is to be able to produce a print that looks like the edited image on my monitor. Then I hope to become proficient at soft-proofing in order to save time and materials. I'm primarily a photographer/artist and rather challenged at the technical aspects of color management.</p>

<p>I'm working with fine art photographs that require attention to fine color gradations and tonality, but its not as critical as the exact color matching required in advertising layouts or product catalogs.</p>

<p>The lighting that I plan on using in my dedicated print viewing area are SoLux lamps which are available in 3500K, 4700K and 5000K. My work will be sold through local galleries that use lighting in the 3000K to 3500K range with occasional indirect daylight. I want my work to look as intended (from my monitor) in the final print that's on display at the gallery. How may I best achieve that relative to my monitor calibration and the quality light in which I evaluate my prints?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am setting up a color management workflow using Photoshop for fine art photos that includes monitor and printer/paper calibration, ambient light control and a dedicated print viewing area.</p>

<p>I'm having trouble deciding which temperature lighting to use in a print viewing area for evaluating the color of final prints. Some experts say 5000K (kelvin) lighting is ideal, others tout 4700K (D50) as ideal, while others like John Paul Caponigro say prints are best evaluated at the temperature lighting they are to be displayed at -- like 3500K.</p>

<p>That makes sense to me, but how do you get photos to print exactly how they appear on the monitor when the monitor is calibrated at the recommended 6500K, and the prints are evaluated under 3500K lighting? Or am I comparing apples & oranges here? Could anyone help clarify this for me? Thanks.</p>