Digital BW, The Print

At 05:19 PM 4/10/03 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn
>
> > Regarding metamerism,   virtually all colorants - paints,
> > inks, dies - look different under different light.
> > A water color painting (which contains both pigment
> > and dye) or litho print won't look exactly the same under
> > every light source.
>
>I disagree that this is a significant issue with most
>artwork.  My wife and I are art collectors (and I'm
>an artist and photographer).  We have oil, acrylic, and
>watercolor paintings, as well as monochrome intaglio
>prints and stone-plate lithographs that are over 100
>years old.    Some of these are displayed in rooms with
>incandescent(halogen) lights, some under fluorescents,
>and some under daylight (in my north-facing studio - not
>direct sunlight).    I've never seen any significant color
>shift between these different light sources.  When it gets
>dark out and I turn on the lights in my studio they don't
>shift.
>
>So I don't think the inkjet inks can be let off the hook
>that easily.
>
> > I don't see how  that ever can be corrected given all
> > the paper, ink, dye variables.
>
>The RIPs do a good job.   See:
>http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22001.htm

Peter,

Thanks for the URL.

Of course the mind adjusts to the light in a home or office environment 
where the lighting is mixed or dim. Objectively the color has to appear 
different depending on the illumination.  One wouldn't want normal 
household bulbs or cool florescent bulbs or a mix in a gallery or studio.

According to your helpful web page I learned that metamerism  has to do 
with adjacency of individual specs of color  in both the spatial and hue 
dimensions.    If the printer driver favors a certain color dot or pattern 
metamerism is more severe.  Reminds me of tiny Albers squares and the 
simultaneous contrast phenomenon.  Did I get that right?

AZ