I've been following guidelines for proper monitor and ambient light D50 suggestions since 1990 or so, and it's cool to find everything we've ever thought about and tried all in one place with George's article. Especially since it's so well balanced -- no stringent insistence on ISO when it doesn't matter at all. (I was a bit peeved to see that ISO is charging for the standards information which should be free, as George and CreativePro have done. After all, ISO didn't do the work of the last decade in color viewing conditions.) Especially, I find so sensible the suggestions to use alternative, economical alternative light sources, N8 paint formulas and near D50 lamps. After all, with 30 workstations one can hardly afford the stuff sold by my good friend, Fred McCurdy of GTI. If ever we are going to get customers and creative services to use correct viewing environements, it's got to be within the budget, at least to start with.
Thanks to you, George and to CreativePro
Tom
it would be awesome if the article could be updated with a larger viewable version of the "ideal digital studio" panoramic photograph. The current picture is too small to see details. A larger version would give more clues as to lighting techniques, light placement, and would give people some ideas about what, exactly, makes an efficient, comfortable work space given the article's guidelines.
Submitted by potempkin on Tue, 02/20/2001 - 11:49.
I am a print professional, and wherever I go, its easy to tell who is and who is not serious about color. Those that are have painted their studio walls 18.5% gray and have all the lights turned down low, usually with a small light-checking box at each station to check proofs with. The places that dont really care make you work under normal flourescent lighting and dont provide tablets to work with, thinking that you can get the same sensitivity with a mouse. one place thought I was some kind of freak when I brought my own Wacom in.
Also, I disagree with the previous comment on this article: read the article if you want to know what to do. If you just want to look at the pictures and try to figure out what to do, you're in the wrong place.
We have added a QuickTime VR version of the example "digital darkroom," which lets you look about the room and zoom in and out. We intended to post this with the article to begin with but ran into technical problems.
Thanks to all for the feedback!
Mitt Jones
Senior Editor, creativepro.com
Submitted by Mitt Jones on Tue, 03/06/2001 - 11:18.
Even 32 lux must be nicer than the smell of the chemicals (especially the stop bath if you're into black and white) and in my case working under the light of a couple of red LEDs. :-) Such are home made darkrooms.
I've had a go at setting my home system up. Room lighting is very low - a halogen in the next room spilling in. Following the instructions that came with my "Spyder 3" I set my monitor to 5000K, 90cd/m2, which is warmer than I'm used to seeing it.
Colour really seems so subjective. If I "soft proof" a file I sent to a photo lab, then go look at the print under halogen light, then the match looks quite good. If I turn on the halogen room light and place the print next to my monitor it still looks pretty good to me, but to a camera it looks far off with the monitor blue. I guess my eyes adjust where the camera does not?
My first impression looking at the print under daylight and also under a daylight flourescent was that it was slightly cold - so I have a system that seems to be able to give me a good impression of what a print will look like if I send it to the lab then look at the result under halogen light, but taking the same print and looking at it under different light changes things.
Is it worthwhile my trying running my monitor at 6500K? The slightly bluer light (assuming my eyes don't compensate) would presumably give me a better impression of the photo I get assuming that I mostly look at photos in the daytime?
George has done us a great service!
I've been following guidelines for proper monitor and ambient light D50 suggestions since 1990 or so, and it's cool to find everything we've ever thought about and tried all in one place with George's article. Especially since it's so well balanced -- no stringent insistence on ISO when it doesn't matter at all. (I was a bit peeved to see that ISO is charging for the standards information which should be free, as George and CreativePro have done. After all, ISO didn't do the work of the last decade in color viewing conditions.) Especially, I find so sensible the suggestions to use alternative, economical alternative light sources, N8 paint formulas and near D50 lamps. After all, with 30 workstations one can hardly afford the stuff sold by my good friend, Fred McCurdy of GTI. If ever we are going to get customers and creative services to use correct viewing environements, it's got to be within the budget, at least to start with.
Thanks to you, George and to CreativePro
Tom
larger version of "digital studio" picture, please
it would be awesome if the article could be updated with a larger viewable version of the "ideal digital studio" panoramic photograph. The current picture is too small to see details. A larger version would give more clues as to lighting techniques, light placement, and would give people some ideas about what, exactly, makes an efficient, comfortable work space given the article's guidelines.
nails the essentials
I am a print professional, and wherever I go, its easy to tell who is and who is not serious about color. Those that are have painted their studio walls 18.5% gray and have all the lights turned down low, usually with a small light-checking box at each station to check proofs with. The places that dont really care make you work under normal flourescent lighting and dont provide tablets to work with, thinking that you can get the same sensitivity with a mouse. one place thought I was some kind of freak when I brought my own Wacom in.
Also, I disagree with the previous comment on this article: read the article if you want to know what to do. If you just want to look at the pictures and try to figure out what to do, you're in the wrong place.
PART 2 of this story will offer product solutions
A note from the author:
Part 2 of this report will be posted soon, and it offers ideas for purchasing and installing the proper lighting equipment in image editing rooms.
QuickTime VR illustration added
We have added a QuickTime VR version of the example "digital darkroom," which lets you look about the room and zoom in and out. We intended to post this with the article to begin with but ran into technical problems.
Thanks to all for the feedback!
Mitt Jones
Senior Editor, creativepro.com
thanks colorexpertsbd
thanks for sharing valuable information
Monitor white point?
Even 32 lux must be nicer than the smell of the chemicals (especially the stop bath if you're into black and white) and in my case working under the light of a couple of red LEDs. :-) Such are home made darkrooms.
I've had a go at setting my home system up. Room lighting is very low - a halogen in the next room spilling in. Following the instructions that came with my "Spyder 3" I set my monitor to 5000K, 90cd/m2, which is warmer than I'm used to seeing it.
Colour really seems so subjective. If I "soft proof" a file I sent to a photo lab, then go look at the print under halogen light, then the match looks quite good. If I turn on the halogen room light and place the print next to my monitor it still looks pretty good to me, but to a camera it looks far off with the monitor blue. I guess my eyes adjust where the camera does not?
My first impression looking at the print under daylight and also under a daylight flourescent was that it was slightly cold - so I have a system that seems to be able to give me a good impression of what a print will look like if I send it to the lab then look at the result under halogen light, but taking the same print and looking at it under different light changes things.
Is it worthwhile my trying running my monitor at 6500K? The slightly bluer light (assuming my eyes don't compensate) would presumably give me a better impression of the photo I get assuming that I mostly look at photos in the daytime?
Thanks
- Richard