Digital BW, The Print

Your remark about monitors having their own "sweet spot" is the key I
think.  I have been back and forth with this issue and various
displays over the years.  Recently, I added a fairly high end NEC
2080UX LCD screen(the first LCD screen which was actually better than
the CRT Mitsubishi Diamontron and Lacies I had previously used!). 
What I found was that the "Native" Gamma on this screen was extremely
close to 6500K(around 6470K) and the Native gamma was just over
2.2(2.3).  With this screen, using either Native points or D65 and
2.2, the screen is perfect.  At D50, it looks aweful and way yellow. 
On previous CRT's I have owned, D65 would look way blue and the gamma
looked better at 1.8.  In the end, I think each specific viewing
environment and monitor hardware will dictate what works best in a
specific situation.  Staying close to the Native white points and
Native Gammas for your monitor might be a good starting point...and my
guess is that the better monitors have those points very close to the
standards.  

Tariq


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina"
<lbdina@c...> wrote:
> 
> Ernst,
> 
> A lot of my color brochure work goes to press, so accurate color 
> management is critical for me.  I need accurate proofs so I can work 
> properly with my commercial printers.  
> 
> I tried for over a year to get a good monitor to print match using 
> 6500K and 2.2 gamma, but never was satisfied.  6500K was way too 
> blue, and my editing resulted in me adding yellow to balance to the 
> colors properly.  This added yellow to the file, which showed as an 
> excessively yellow print.  I know the eye is capable of adapting to 
> color swings, but this was too much of a swing for my eyes.
> 
> So, I did a lot of testing and experimentation and finally settled on 
> 5200K and 2.0 gamma (using my Eye One and ProfileMaker 5).  Now my 
> monitor to print match is almost perfect in both color and tonal 
> distribution.  It is also interesting to note that most of the papers 
> we print to with our inkjets (or on press) have measured white points 
> between about 4900K and 5200K.  (I chose 5200K since it is the color 
> temp of the whitest paper I print on).  I don't think this is a 
> coincidence.   
> 
> I use 5000K 98 CRI viewing lights set to the same brightness as my 
> monitor white.  
> 
> I have found that most monitors have a "sweet spot" or range of color 
> temperatures and gammas where they perform best.  When you step 
> outside that range, the monitor really begins to perform poorly.  My 
> monitor goes suddenly very yellow at about 5000K, which is why I 
> settled on 5200K.  Most higher end monitors can handle 5000K without 
> any problem.  I use these setting at work and at home, for all my 
> press and fine art work.  This doesn't mean they are ideal settings 
> for everyone else, since they take into account my viewing lights, 
> environment, monitors, video cards, etc.  
> 
> I encourage everyone who wants the absolute best match to experiment 
> with their settings until satisfied.
> 
> Regards, Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
> <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> > On the colorsync list quite a number of color gurus use 6500K on 
> the 
> > monitor and 5000-5500K on the lightbox etc. I have done that for 
> some 
> > time but switched back to 5000K for all. But I use 5000 with 2.2 
> Gamma 
> > and not the 1.8 usually associated with 5000K. The Prove It! 
> software 
> > needs a bit more custom settings for that. The moderate quality of 
> my 
> > monitor probably has to do with the lower preferred setting, it 
> lost a 
> > bit of its output. When the room isn't too light it doesn't matter. 
> > Using 6500K for the monitor versus 5000K for the lightbox isn't so 
> > strange. The amount of illumination influences what is considered 
> the 
> > best color temperature for viewing art etc. So quoting color 
> temperature 
> > and not mentioning lumen or footcandles for the same source doesn't 
> help.
> > 
> > See:
> > http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn21/wn21-3/wn21-308.html
> > 
> > In that chart 5000 and 6500 are not that far apart and near the 
> center 
> > of the curve. Footcandles a factor 2:3. You can put them next to 
> one 
> > another.
> > 
> > By Mr. Kruithof who is still living somewhere in this town.
> > 
> > 
> > Ernst