Thanks David. Wasn't really suggesting (cold) north light as a good source for these purposes, but it is significant historically.
----- Original Message ----
From: "CDTobie@..." <CDTobie@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:23:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Light source for evaluating prints?
In a message dated 1/30/07 10:42:43 AM, evogel@flash. net writes:
> Painters have long favored "northern light" as it is considered cold and
> consistent (northern hemisphere). My father was a painter and built his studio
> with the northern side almost all glass with no other windows. During the
> day, the northern light will vary much less in color and brightness - or so it
> seemed to me (I didn't measure this, I just looked).
>
North light, in low tech times, was a good source of broadspectrum,
consistant light... but it is VERY cool, 9300k on average. So its a poor choice for
balance, though its a good choice for consistancy and broadness.
>
> The COLD part is so that if it looks good in the this light is will look
> good in warmer light.
>
Thats a questionable logic, especially for metameric inkjet prints. But there
is some logic on the "better flat than off-key" side of things: if it looks
good in cyan light, then it will have less blue and green in it, and warm is
better than green, most people don't want skintones or neutrals turning green...
but its a poor excuse to set yourself up way at the extreme end of the color
temperature spectrum; some place in the middle is a more reasonable starting
point.
>
> The CONSISTENT part is probably the most important in this context.
>
Agreed; before lightboxes, north light was the most consistant light
available...
C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@colorvision .com
www.colorvision. com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<!--Message
Re: [Digital BW] Re: Light source for evaluating prints?
2007-01-30 by Eric Vogel