Digital BW, The Print

Ahhhh...... one of my favorite subjects.  

I purposely calibrate my monitor for a relatively low lunimance level 
for exactly this reason.  I start with "normal" display lighting 
(which is usually fairly low), then work backwards to my D50 
viewing/evaluation lights, which I prefer to keep moderate to low, 
and that leads back to monitor luminance.  They are all realted.  If 
a monitor is calibrated to a bright white luminance, (higher than 
100), images tend to look washed out on screen, so we edit the file 
and force the numbers darker to make them look darker on screen.  
These numbers are what we send to the printer.  All is fine if we are 
viewing prints under very bright lighting, but that is usually not 
the norm.  Personally, I find a monitor luminance above 100 
excessively bright, unless we are viewing under really bright 
lighting.  

I calibrate my LCD monitor for a white luminance of 85 cd/m2.  I set 
it so that a pure white image displayed in PS looks about the same 
brightness as a sheet of white paper when viewed under "normal" 
viewing lights (which relates back to the lighting I will use for 
average print display).  My monitor to print match is really good, 
but I don't view my prints under bright spots.  If that is YOUR norm, 
then perhaps a higher monitor luminance level is appropriate.

If the print is displayed under brighter lighting, I'm okay with 
that.  It just exhibits a little more detail in the shadows.  I get a 
lot better results with a lower luminance level.  

As far as color is concerned, I have tried creating printer profiles 
for incandescent, fluorescent, and other light sources, but they 
don't seem to cut it.  All these light sources are deficient in part 
of the spectrum.  I just use good old D50 for all my color work, 
since it contains a balance of the colors we are used to seeing.  
When a print thus created is viewed under incandescent lighting, our 
eyes seem to adapt to the deficient lighting just fine.  

That's my take on it.  YMMV.  But, I would definitely try a lower 
luminance level if you are at 100 or above.  BTW, 80-90 cd/m2 is what 
graphic artists have been using for years - oh yeah, and a 5000K 
color temp, which I also agree with. For web based work, no, but for 
good monitor to print matching, it is a lot better in my experience.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard 
Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I've been wondering about something: I've always done my prints to 
look right under good lighting. But most people's homes have poor 
lighting - how many put a spotlight on the ceiling to illuminate a 
framed print?
> 
> If you print for gallery lighting it's probably going to be too 
dark for dull home lighting.
> 
> I just did a print that looked fine under window light (and my full-
spectrum fluorescent light) - and framed it for a client. Above my 
fireplace it looks dark.
> 
> I suppose all one can do is to print for good lighting and expect 
the client to take care of the rest; I'm just thinking aloud ... but 
I'd appreciate any thoughts on lighting used for print evaluation.
> 
> (PS - Also for colour prints (yes I sometimes go over to the 'dark 
side') I've tested prints under full-spectrum light, forgetting that 
most people's homes have incandescent bulbs. And (as I mentioned in a 
previous post) my dark clouds can go a bit mauve if not given a bit 
of extra blue/cyan [Ultrachrome k2].)
> 
> Richard
> --
> Backroads Essay:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/TheBackroadsOfWarkworth
> Greeting Cards available for purchase:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/GreetingCards
> http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
> http://smallfield.vze.com
> 
>    "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, 
>    they do so. " 
>    --Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
>