Digital BW, The Print

My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be making my 
exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB 145. 
Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips are set 
up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In addition to the 
monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the color temperature is 5000K 
and I view all my prints under a 5000K temperature light. I don't 
think I am the only one who is doing this, yet Ive seen no questions 
regarding this exposure question. The only reason I ask it now,is 
that I usually need to lighten most of my images before really 
working on them and sometimes the deepest darkest that I would like 
to have some detail in it doesn't have any; as the result of what I 
think may need exposre correction at time of exposure.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny

Johnny-

I think things are gradually changing.  A LOT of print shops, whether MAC or
PC-based, are using a gamma of 2.2 now.  It has/is become a defacto
standard.  Probably just to keep all things level.

Guessing now, most shops were MAC based, most input was getting to be from
PC, so it all evened out for continuity.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Johnny Eades [mailto:jeades1@...] 
==
==
==My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be 
==making my exposures so that middle gray should read on the 
==monitor as RGB 145. 
==Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips 
==are set up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In 
==addition to the monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the 
==color temperature is 5000K and I view all my prints under a

The reason I wanted to use Gray Gamma 1.8 as the calibration mode for 
my monitor was the need for more detail in the lower Zones (I-III) 
than Gray Gamma 2.2 allows. If I were to switch to GG2.2 then those 
details would be lost and I would be worse off than now. For the time 
being I guess I'll just use a curve upon opening the image to boost 
the middle gray from 128 to 145 and go from there, unless someone who 
has gone through this themselves an has found the solution would care 
to jump into the thread. Oh, if I only had a spectrophotometer to 
create printer profiles!  Would anyone in the group volunteer to help 
me with this by profiling my printer/paper/ink combination?

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny







--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth" 
<seth@m...> wrote:
> Johnny-
> 
> I think things are gradually changing.  A LOT of print shops, 
whether MAC or
> PC-based, are using a gamma of 2.2 now.  It has/is become a defacto
> standard.  Probably just to keep all things level.
> 
> Guessing now, most shops were MAC based, most input was getting to 
be from

> PC, so it all evened out for continuity.
> 
> Seth 
> 
> ==-----Original Message-----
> ==From: Johnny Eades [mailto:jeades1@s...] 
> ==
> ==
> ==My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be 
> ==making my exposures so that middle gray should read on the 
> ==monitor as RGB 145. 
> ==Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips 
> ==are set up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In 
> ==addition to the monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the 
> ==color temperature is 5000K and I view all my prints under a

What kind of monitor, and how old, are you using.  You shouldn't be having this kind of problem.
 
Tom Baker


Johnny Eades <jeades1@...> wrote:


The reason I wanted to use Gray Gamma 1.8 as the calibration mode for 
my monitor was the need for more detail in the lower Zones (I-III) 
than Gray Gamma 2.2 allows. If I were to switch to GG2.2 then those 
details would be lost and I would be worse off than now. For the time 
being I guess I'll just use a curve upon opening the image to boost 
the middle gray from 128 to 145 and go from there, unless someone who 
has gone through this themselves an has found the solution would care 
to jump into the thread. Oh, if I only had a spectrophotometer to 
create printer profiles! Would anyone in the group volunteer to help 
me with this by profiling my printer/paper/ink combination?

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny







--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth" 
wrote:
> Johnny-
> 
> I think things are gradually changing. A LOT of print shops, 
whether MAC or
> PC-based, are using a gamma of 2.2 now. It has/is become a defacto
> standard. Probably just to keep all things level.
> 
> Guessing now, most shops were MAC based, most input was getting to 
be from
> PC, so it all evened out for continuity.
> 
> Seth 
> 
> ==-----Original Message-----
> ==From: Johnny Eades [mailto:jeades1@s...] 
> ==
> ==
> ==My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be 
> ==making my exposures so that middle gray should read on the 
> ==monitor as RGB 145. 
> ==Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips 
> ==are set up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In 
> ==addition to the monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the 
> ==color temperature is 5000K and I view all my prints under a






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The monitor is one year old and is a NEC Multisync 97F 19 inch, which 
was calibrated using Pantone/Colorvision Spyder. The problem is not 
with the monitor or hardware at all. GG1.8 inherently gives more 
detail in the lower Zones than GG2.2. That is a given. That is one 
reason Zone V in GG1.8 is higher than in GG2.2 and that is what 
allows the detail to be more visible in the lower Zones. This is on a 
21 step grayscale strip. Now I'm trying to create a curve for 
paper,ink combination in QTR. I think that is going to be a good 
learning experience (if I don't pull out my hair).

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> What kind of monitor, and how old, are you using.  You shouldn't be 
having this kind of problem.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> 
> Johnny Eades <jeades1@s...> wrote:
> 
> 
> The reason I wanted to use Gray Gamma 1.8 as the calibration mode 
for 
> my monitor was the need for more detail in the lower Zones (I-III) 
> than Gray Gamma 2.2 allows. If I were to switch to GG2.2 then those 
> details would be lost and I would be worse off than now. For the 
time 
> being I guess I'll just use a curve upon opening the image to boost 
> the middle gray from 128 to 145 and go from there, unless someone 
who 
> has gone through this themselves an has found the solution would 
care 
> to jump into the thread. Oh, if I only had a spectrophotometer to 
> create printer profiles! Would anyone in the group volunteer to 
help 
> me with this by profiling my printer/paper/ink combination?
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth" 
> wrote:
> > Johnny-
> > 
> > I think things are gradually changing. A LOT of print shops, 
> whether MAC or
> > PC-based, are using a gamma of 2.2 now. It has/is become a defacto
> > standard. Probably just to keep all things level.
> > 
> > Guessing now, most shops were MAC based, most input was getting 
to 

> be from
> > PC, so it all evened out for continuity.
> > 
> > Seth 
> > 
> > ==-----Original Message-----
> > ==From: Johnny Eades [mailto:jeades1@s...] 
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be 
> > ==making my exposures so that middle gray should read on the 
> > ==monitor as RGB 145. 
> > ==Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips 
> > ==are set up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In 
> > ==addition to the monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the 
> > ==color temperature is 5000K and I view all my prints under a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

On Mar 16, 2005, at 12:09 PM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Subject: RE: Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
>
> Johnny-
>
> I think things are gradually changing.  A LOT of print shops, whether 
> MAC or
> PC-based, are using a gamma of 2.2 now.  It has/is become a defacto
> standard.  Probably just to keep all things level.
>
> Guessing now, most shops were MAC based, most input was getting to be 
> from
> PC, so it all evened out for continuity.
>
> Seth

Some interesting facts:

"March 2005

According to research from New York-based TrendWatch, 83% of graphic 
designers,
77% of corporate design departments and 65% of advertising agencies 
rely on Macintosh computers.
And publishers also continue to depend on Apple's machines."

I wonder what Gamma they are using?

William



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Like I said, the 2.2 is the evolving standard.

You can get numbers you want from any sight you want.  In college,
statistics was a required core class.  They can be made to say anything.
But brands was not the question in the post.

But, I for one, will neither start nor participate in a MAC/PC debate; they
have already been done ad nauseum.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: William John Smith [mailto:william@...] 
==
==Some interesting facts:
==
=="March 2005
==
==According to research from New York-based TrendWatch, 83% of 
==graphic designers, 77% of corporate design departments and 
==65% of advertising agencies rely on Macintosh computers.
==And publishers also continue to depend on Apple's machines."
==
==I wonder what Gamma they are using?
==

Let me repost the question again. Maybe this time someone will answer 
it without getting into a random discussion about 1.8 and 2.2 gamma 
rather than answering what I'm asking.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" 
<jeades1@s...> wrote:
> 
> My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be making 
my 
> exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB 
145. 
> Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips are 
set 
> up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In addition to 
the 
> monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the color temperature is 
5000K 
> and I view all my prints under a 5000K temperature light. I don't 
> think I am the only one who is doing this, yet Ive seen no 
questions 

> regarding this exposure question. The only reason I ask it now,is 
> that I usually need to lighten most of my images before really 
> working on them and sometimes the deepest darkest that I would like 
> to have some detail in it doesn't have any; as the result of what I 
> think may need exposre correction at time of exposure.
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny

The problem is not "random discussion" by the genuine experts on this
Forum, it's the original incoherent question. Someone here can
undoubtedly help. Don't repeat, rewrite properly. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
<jeades1@s...> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Let me repost the question again. Maybe this time someone will answer 
> it without getting into a random discussion about 1.8 and 2.2 gamma 
> rather than answering what I'm asking.
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" 
> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
> > 
> > My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be making 
> my 
> > exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB 
> 145. 
> > Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips are 
> set 
> > up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In addition to 
> the 
> > monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the color temperature is 
> 5000K 
> > and I view all my prints under a 5000K temperature light. I don't 
> > think I am the only one who is doing this, yet Ive seen no 
> questions 
> > regarding this exposure question. The only reason I ask it now,is 
> > that I usually need to lighten most of my images before really 
> > working on them and sometimes the deepest darkest that I would like 
> > to have some detail in it doesn't have any; as the result of what I 
> > think may need exposre correction at time of exposure.
> > 
> > Your friend in Photography,
> > 
> > Johnny

Johnny

We debated a while back the whole issue of exposure and middle grey vs our
choice of workspace and the way RIPs map the image file to the print space
in a Same as Source environment.  The bottom line is that I would work up
your images in Roy Harrington's Lab Gray Space which is the Lab colour space
less the a and the b channels which we don't need.  In that space, the 50%
patch is L=50 which is 18% reflectance - the same as a Kodak grey card (RGB
= 118).  So if you want to determine exposure at the time of shutter release
and know that a certain part of the image will end up as expected then you
can use this as a reference.  When it comes to printing, if you are using a
RIP like QTR I would use Roy's Lab Gray Photo Paper or Lab Matte Paper and
perceptual rendering to map from the broad Lab Grey space to the narrower
print space.  The 50% slot may not stay the same shade of grey but at least
the overall balance will be the same (I am sure there are better
explanations of perceptual rendering out there!).  You will get much better
prints using this workflow.  PS and your computer's graphics card will
handle the conversion from the image file's Lab Gray Space to the monitor
profile (regardless of whether you choose 1.8 or 2.2 - I would and do use
2.2).  The important thing is to work up the image file in a sensible space
and have a sensible methodology for managing the compression in tonal range
to the print space.  Roy's ICC profiles with perceptual rendering do this
well.

Hope this helps

Steve

> From: Johnny Eades <jeades1@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:17:33 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me repost the question again. Maybe this time someone will answer
> it without getting into a random discussion about 1.8 and 2.2 gamma
> rather than answering what I'm asking.
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
>> 
>> My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be making
> my 
>> exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB
> 145. 
>> Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips are
> set 
>> up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In addition to
> the 
>> monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the color temperature is
> 5000K 
>> and I view all my prints under a 5000K temperature light. I don't
>> think I am the only one who is doing this, yet Ive seen no
> questions 
>> regarding this exposure question. The only reason I ask it now,is
>> that I usually need to lighten most of my images before really
>> working on them and sometimes the deepest darkest that I would like
>> to have some detail in it doesn't have any; as the result of what I
>> think may need exposre correction at time of exposure.
>> 
>> Your friend in Photography,
>> 
>> Johnny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Thank you Steve and Dijon for responding. Focus on the 128 to 147 
(mifflr gray) difference between GG2.2 and GG1.8. In the info window, 
when I place the dropper over middle gray, what should it read for my 
system set up in GG1.8? It always reads 128 except for one downloaded 
from Jon Cone's Piezography website. Dijon, how would you have worded 
my question?

Still your friend in Photography,

Johnny

I think it would have read more clearly if the question had followed
your description of the situation. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
<jeades1@s...> wrote:

> 
> Thank you Steve and Dijon for responding. Focus on the 128 to 147 
> (mifflr gray) difference between GG2.2 and GG1.8. In the info window, 
> when I place the dropper over middle gray, what should it read for my 
> system set up in GG1.8? It always reads 128 except for one downloaded 
> from Jon Cone's Piezography website. Dijon, how would you have worded 
> my question?
> 
> Still your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" 
<jeades1@s...> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Steve and Dijon for responding. Focus on the 128 to 147 
> (mifflr gray) difference between GG2.2 and GG1.8. In the info window, 
> when I place the dropper over middle gray, what should it read for my 
> system set up in GG1.8? It always reads 128 except for one downloaded 
> from Jon Cone's Piezography website. Dijon, how would you have worded 
> my question?
> 
> Still your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny

Johnny,

What you are seeing is the results of profile conversions based on the
working spaces you've selected in PS.   If you have a 21step in grayscale
internally the 50 step is always 127 or 128 = 50-K.   The "128" however is hidden
-- grayscale is always displayed in K which is  100-(internal/2.55). 
What you are looking at is the RGB values in the info pallette and they are
the conversion of grayscale to working RGB.    So if you have the RGB
working space set to Adobe RGB its a gamma 2.2 space.  Gray gamma 2.2
matches so you see R=G=B=128.   But if you have gray gamma 1.8 converted
to Adobe RGB the numbers are different i.e. R=G=B=145 is displayed but the
gray value really is 128 or K=50 underneath.

With PS its very hard to get away from all the color management things 
happening under the hood.  If you have PS CS you can set the info palette to
16 bit and see the extra bits -- the values range from 0 to 32768 instead
of 0 to 255 so you can calculate the midpoint which is 16384 = 50 step.
(If you take an 8bit 21step and convert the numbers are a little off.)

Roy

Just something I came across.  When I had a big graphics studio here do some 2' x 3' prints for me (applied to foamcore, sealed for use in a textile showroom) I had the chance to spend some time in their inner sanctum.  Almost dark, hoods on all monitors, lots of Macs---but several PCs and they told me that so much of their work coming in was from PCs they felt they should become very familiar with PCs --and even admitted they couldn't see much difference working with PS on PC as opposed to Mac
  Some interesting facts:

  "March 2005

  According to research from New York-based TrendWatch, 83% of graphic 
  designers,
  77% of corporate design departments and 65% of advertising agencies 
  rely on Macintosh computers.
  And publishers also continue to depend on Apple's machines."

  I wonder what Gamma they are using?

  William




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That being said though, Johnny I am not sure why you are driving things the
way you are.  The question better asked perhaps is what, ideally, should 50%
grey be?  Frankly it doesn't matter what gamma you profile your monitor at
if you have colorsync managing the conversion between the image file and the
monitor profile.  People tend to use 2.2 because of the abundance of PCs out
there and the fact that many users don't have colorsync enabled.  I am
puzzled as to your workflow and why you ask the question.

> From: Roy Harrington <roy@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:59:37 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you Steve and Dijon for responding. Focus on the 128 to 147
>> (mifflr gray) difference between GG2.2 and GG1.8. In the info window,
>> when I place the dropper over middle gray, what should it read for my
>> system set up in GG1.8? It always reads 128 except for one downloaded
>> from Jon Cone's Piezography website. Dijon, how would you have worded
>> my question?
>> 
>> Still your friend in Photography,
>> 
>> Johnny
> 
> Johnny,
> 
> What you are seeing is the results of profile conversions based on the
> working spaces you've selected in PS.   If you have a 21step in grayscale
> internally the 50 step is always 127 or 128 = 50-K.   The "128" however is
> hidden
> -- grayscale is always displayed in K which is  100-(internal/2.55).
> What you are looking at is the RGB values in the info pallette and they are
> the conversion of grayscale to working RGB.    So if you have the RGB
> working space set to Adobe RGB its a gamma 2.2 space.  Gray gamma 2.2
> matches so you see R=G=B=128.   But if you have gray gamma 1.8 converted
> to Adobe RGB the numbers are different i.e. R=G=B=145 is displayed but the
> gray value really is 128 or K=50 underneath.
> 
> With PS its very hard to get away from all the color management things
> happening under the hood.  If you have PS CS you can set the info palette to
> 16 bit and see the extra bits -- the values range from 0 to 32768 instead
> of 0 to 255 so you can calculate the midpoint which is 16384 = 50 step.
> (If you take an 8bit 21step and convert the numbers are a little off.)
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
>

I believe the original question has to do with the effect of monitor
gamma choice.
The answer is no, whatever number you decide is middle gray has
nothing to do with which monitor gamma you have chosen to use.
Photoshop will display that gray the same on a 2.3 gamma monitor or a
1.8 gamma monitor assuming your color settings are correct. It knows
via the monitor profile how to adjust that gray before sending it to
the display.
Leaving the rest of all this aside, do not rethink gray numerical
values because of monitor gamma choice.
Continue working...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
<jeades1@s...> wrote:
...

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" 
> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
> > 
> > My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be making 
> my 
> > exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB 
> 145. 
> > Is that correct?...

I want to thank everyone who shed light on my misunderstanding simple 
numerical interpretation. I had a hard time getting my mind to relate 
the differing numbers. I was attempting to make something hard out of 
something that really was only different ways of displaying the same 
thing. Middle gray is middle gray. The actual numbers displayed as 50%
K and 128.128.128 (RGB) or 145.145.145 (GG1.8) mean the same. 
Sometimes I get hung up on details like that which I feel the need to 
understand more completely. I'll just keep working now....

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> 
> I believe the original question has to do with the effect of monitor
> gamma choice.
> The answer is no, whatever number you decide is middle gray has
> nothing to do with which monitor gamma you have chosen to use.
> Photoshop will display that gray the same on a 2.3 gamma monitor or 
a
> 1.8 gamma monitor assuming your color settings are correct. It knows
> via the monitor profile how to adjust that gray before sending it to
> the display.
> Leaving the rest of all this aside, do not rethink gray numerical
> values because of monitor gamma choice.
> Continue working...
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
> ...
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny 
Eades" 
> > <jeades1@s...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be 
making 

> > my 
> > > exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB 
> > 145. 
> > > Is that correct?...

I would work in Lab Grey - then the number displayed is K=50 and L=50. Nice
and easy.  And L=50 is Kodak grey or 18% reflectance to boot...

> From: Johnny Eades <jeades1@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:46:53 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> 
> I want to thank everyone who shed light on my misunderstanding simple
> numerical interpretation. I had a hard time getting my mind to relate
> the differing numbers. I was attempting to make something hard out of
> something that really was only different ways of displaying the same
> thing. Middle gray is middle gray. The actual numbers displayed as 50%
> K and 128.128.128 (RGB) or 145.145.145 (GG1.8) mean the same.
> Sometimes I get hung up on details like that which I feel the need to
> understand more completely. I'll just keep working now....
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
>> 
>> I believe the original question has to do with the effect of monitor
>> gamma choice.
>> The answer is no, whatever number you decide is middle gray has
>> nothing to do with which monitor gamma you have chosen to use.
>> Photoshop will display that gray the same on a 2.3 gamma monitor or
> a
>> 1.8 gamma monitor assuming your color settings are correct. It knows
>> via the monitor profile how to adjust that gray before sending it to
>> the display.
>> Leaving the rest of all this aside, do not rethink gray numerical
>> values because of monitor gamma choice.
>> Continue working...
>> Tyler
>> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
>> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
>> ...
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny
> Eades" 
>>> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be
> making 
>>> my 
>>>> exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB
>>> 145. 
>>>> Is that correct?...

Make your own on screen grayscale, then it will match your monitor.

Do an archive search for the instructions.  I have made one and it works.

But, I must ask why you insist on 5000K?  That is fine for newsprint where
the screen gives a close approximation of the paper.  How do you match
whites--as much as anybody can--from screen to paper?

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...] 
==Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:40 PM
==To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
==Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
==
==
==
==The problem is not "random discussion" by the genuine experts 
==on this Forum, it's the original incoherent question. Someone 
==here can undoubtedly help. Don't repeat, rewrite properly. 
==
==
==--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
==<jeades1@s...> wrote:
==> 
==> 
y
==> 
==> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" 
==> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
==> > 
==> > My monitor is calibrated for Gray Gamma 1.8, so I should be making
==> my
==> > exposures so that middle gray should read on the monitor as RGB
==> 145. 
==> > Is that correct? Practically all the 21 step grayscale strips are
==> set
==> > up for Gray Gamma 2.2 and have 128 as middle gray. In addition to
==> the
==> > monitor set up as GG 1.8 it is set so the color temperature is
==> 5000K
==> > and I view all my prints under a 5000K temperature light. I don't 
==> > think I am the only one who is doing this, yet Ive seen no
==> questions
==> > regarding this exposure question. The only reason I ask it now,is 
==> > that I usually need to lighten most of my images before really 
==> > working on them and sometimes the deepest darkest that I 
==would like 
==> > to have some detail in it doesn't have any; as the result 
==of what I 
==> > think may need exposre correction at time of exposure.
==> >

Seth, 5000K has been the standard for photographic print and slide
evaluation and matching for a very long time...at least back into the
Sixties to my direct personal knowledge...so it's sensible to maintain
that standard into monitor viewing.

Whatever you use as a monitor color temp needs to approximately match
your standard color temp for critical print evaluation. For silly
example, if you work at three miles altitude on Mt Whitney, where the
daylight color temp is close to 6000, it'd be OK to set your monitor
to 6000 and evaluate your prints with mid-day reflected window light.
But at lower altitudes, 5000 is much closer to mid-day indirect window
light.

Viewing slides and viewing images on the monitor present the same
visual challenge... to translate the punchy, zippy screen or lightbox
image to the inevitably much flatter-looking print. 

 I must ask why you insist on 5000K?  That is fine for newsprint where

> the screen gives a close approximation of the paper.  How do you match
> whites--as much as anybody can--from screen to paper?
>

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

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

Am I missing something here?  The luminance of your screen should match the
illuminance under which the print is viewed.  Everything else is handled by
Colorsync (including black point).  If you are not getting prints which look
the same as when displayed on screen then one of two things is wrong.
Either your monitor is not profiled properly or you don't have an accurate
mechanism for managing the transition from image file space to print space
ie no colour management in the last leg.  It is this last leg that we have
all grappled with because we chose to work without the benefit of colour
management at the printing stage.  Roy's use of perceptual rendering at the
print stage and the ability to soft proof this has for all intents and
purposes solved this last leg.

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:27:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> 
> 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

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

Steve,

Most of my previous post has to do with calibration for a color 
environment.  Since I do both color and B&W, I want settings that 
work for both.  

Lou

Louis Dina wrote:

>Steve,
>
>Most of my previous post has to do with calibration for a color 
>environment.  Since I do both color and B&W, I want settings that 
>work for both.  
>
>Lou
>
>  
>
It is the same for me. And I measure the luminance of my screen, 
lightbox and viewing lights. And profile monitor and printer with the 
Spectrocam. The point that I tried to get across is that when there's a 
difference in illumination whether in your setup in the studio or when 
the prints are in a gallery somewhere else it makes good sense to adapt 
the color temperature of the light to the amount of light. According to 
their messages many of the gurus  use the 6500K for the monitor and a 
much lower number for the lightbox etc so there's no strict rule for it. 
Based on that I presume there's a difference in
illumination too in their case. Kruithof gives the relation between the 
illumination level and preferred color temperature, it is still a wide 
band and not a single curve so there's some slack.

Ernst

I agree but my comment remains - at least the first part.  If in a fully
colour managed environment you don't get a good match between print and
screen then either the monitor calibration is out or the printer profile is
out.  Illumination white point should equal luminance white point.

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:55:44 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Most of my previous post has to do with calibration for a color
> environment.  Since I do both color and B&W, I want settings that
> work for both.  
> 
> Lou
> 
>

But in the start of this thread Johnny was intentionally matching
illuminance (display) with luminance (photo view box) which I think is
correct.  Whether he was using the more common white point could perhaps be
discussed but I was wondering why Lou would suggest a difference between the
two.  If you know that your prints are going to be displayed in a particular
light proofing them in a different light is not much help ie you should
change the light box as well as the display white point.  Maybe the gurus
aren't really interested in monitor proofs just the light box ones but that
seems very odd.

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:30:04 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Correcting exposure for Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> Louis Dina wrote:
> 
>> Steve,
>> 
>> Most of my previous post has to do with calibration for a color
>> environment.  Since I do both color and B&W, I want settings that
>> work for both.  
>> 
>> Lou
>> 
>>  
>> 
> It is the same for me. And I measure the luminance of my screen,
> lightbox and viewing lights. And profile monitor and printer with the
> Spectrocam. The point that I tried to get across is that when there's a
> difference in illumination whether in your setup in the studio or when
> the prints are in a gallery somewhere else it makes good sense to adapt
> the color temperature of the light to the amount of light. According to
> their messages many of the gurus  use the 6500K for the monitor and a
> much lower number for the lightbox etc so there's no strict rule for it.
> Based on that I presume there's a difference in
> illumination too in their case. Kruithof gives the relation between the
> illumination level and preferred color temperature, it is still a wide
> band and not a single curve so there's some slack.
> 
> Ernst

FYI re white point etc here is an interesting discussion/interview:

http://www.colorhythm.com/s_resources/donhutcheson_1.php

Note also the comments re Apple Cinema Display vs CRT

OK so I just took another look at my monitor calibration and realised it was
set for native white point and so I decided that since my "average" lighting
was likely a lot lower than this I decided to re-calibrate at 5000/D50.  The
Eye One recommends a target luminance of 140 for an LCD but I can't get this
even with full brightness on my Apple HD Cinema Display with a white point
of D50 (I can easily exceed this figure using native white point).  So what
should I do from here?

Throw it away and get a good Lacie tube monitor.

Just joshing..

:-)

> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:37:02 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Monitor Calibration - was Correcting exposure for
> Gray Gamma 1.8
> 
> 
> 
> Throw it away and get a good Lacie tube monitor.
> 
> Just joshing..
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> OK so I just took another look at my monitor calibration and
realised it was
> set for native white point and so I decided that since my "average"
lighting
> was likely a lot lower than this I decided to re-calibrate at
5000/D50.  The
> Eye One recommends a target luminance of 140 for an LCD but I can't
get this
> even with full brightness on my Apple HD Cinema Display with a white
point
> of D50 (I can easily exceed this figure using native white point). 
So what
> should I do from here?

I would disregard that Eye One recommendation. I use a luminance of
about 85 with my CRT. Of course a lot depends on your ambient light
intensity--I assumed it would be fairly subdued. IMHO, 140 cd/m2 is an
extremely high luminance (too high)--for your (well, for my) eye
comfort and especially for your print-matching efforts. If using such
a high monitor luminance, you'd probably be unhappy that your prints
are "too dark". A luminance _below_ 100 is commonly recommended. 

Phil

Or find out who makes it for them. 


Seth
==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
==> 
==> Throw it away and get a good Lacie tube monitor.
==> 
==> Just joshing..
==> 
==
=

FYI the luminance Eye One recommends for CRTs is 100.  I redid my
calibration at 120 but would be interested if anyone knows why Eye One would
recommend such a high luminance (with D50).

> From: Phil Rose <pjrose@...>

> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> OK so I just took another look at my monitor calibration and
> realised it was
>> set for native white point and so I decided that since my "average"
> lighting
>> was likely a lot lower than this I decided to re-calibrate at
> 5000/D50.  The
>> Eye One recommends a target luminance of 140 for an LCD but I can't
> get this
>> even with full brightness on my Apple HD Cinema Display with a white
> point
>> of D50 (I can easily exceed this figure using native white point).
> So what
>> should I do from here?
> 
> I would disregard that Eye One recommendation. I use a luminance of
> about 85 with my CRT. Of course a lot depends on your ambient light
> intensity--I assumed it would be fairly subdued. IMHO, 140 cd/m2 is an
> extremely high luminance (too high)--for your (well, for my) eye
> comfort and especially for your print-matching efforts. If using such
> a high monitor luminance, you'd probably be unhappy that your prints
> are "too dark". A luminance _below_ 100 is commonly recommended.
> 
> Phil
> 
>

Steve,

A color management consultant and friend of mine calibrates his Apple 
Cinema Display at 5000K and 80 cd/m2.  I know this next part sounds 
unbelievable, but he sets his gamma to 1.5.  His reasoning is that 
the contrast level of the apple LCD is so high he has to lower the 
gamma so he can get the proper distribution of tones.  I found it 
hard to believe, so I went to his office and watched him calibrate 
his monitor at various color temperatures, luminance levels and 
gammas.  He convinced me.  The absolute best match (at least on his 
system) was 5000K, 80 cd/m2, and gamma 1.5.  His entire office is lit 
with 5000K lighting.  

He is a true color geek.  He has been doing color management and 
consulting work for about 15 years and works with commercial 
printers, museums, photographers and artists doing high end 
reproductions.  He used to work for a commercial printer and has been 
a scanner operator.  

I'm not saying you should adopt these settings, but it is food for 
thought.  My CRTs at home and work are calibrated for 5200K, 95 cd/m2 
and gamma 2.0.  These work for me.  

FWIW, Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> FYI the luminance Eye One recommends for CRTs is 100.  I redid my
> calibration at 120 but would be interested if anyone knows why Eye 
One would
> recommend such a high luminance (with D50).
> 
> 
> > From: Phil Rose <pjrose@f...>
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> >> OK so I just took another look at my monitor calibration and
> > realised it was
> >> set for native white point and so I decided that since 
my "average"
> > lighting
> >> was likely a lot lower than this I decided to re-calibrate at
> > 5000/D50.  The
> >> Eye One recommends a target luminance of 140 for an LCD but I 
can't
> > get this
> >> even with full brightness on my Apple HD Cinema Display with a 
white
> > point
> >> of D50 (I can easily exceed this figure using native white 
point).
> > So what
> >> should I do from here?
> > 
> > I would disregard that Eye One recommendation. I use a luminance 
of
> > about 85 with my CRT. Of course a lot depends on your ambient 
light
> > intensity--I assumed it would be fairly subdued. IMHO, 140 cd/m2 
is an
> > extremely high luminance (too high)--for your (well, for my) eye
> > comfort and especially for your print-matching efforts. If using 
such
> > a high monitor luminance, you'd probably be unhappy that your 
prints

> > are "too dark". A luminance _below_ 100 is commonly recommended.
> > 
> > Phil
> > 
> >

Lou

That makes a lot of sense to me - at least given my current knowledge.  He
has matched his white point to his lighting.  The difference in gamma is
simply managed by colorsync (image file values are not altered until it's
edited - your workspace is more important for this reason).  (I am still
getting my head around setting the luminance.)  Do a soft proof with
Simulate Paper White (and Ink Black) checked and if you have a monitor white
point that matches your viewing conditions (checked by doing an incident
light reading) then you should get a very good match.  Else the Colorsync
software is flawed.  I suspect a big issue is that a lot of people don't
Simulate Paper White - especially if you are printing to matte paper,
checking that baby can be depressing as all that paper warmth and weak black
is displayed.  But that's reality.  RC paper (there's that term again) soft
proofs turn the white a little blue - again reality.

As for 1.8 vs 2.2 vs other, it's interesting to note that in an article on
the X-Rite website they mention there is a "proposed" "standard" which has
D50/1.8.

Steve

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:51:11 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Monitor Calibration - was Correcting exposure for
> Gray Gamma 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> A color management consultant and friend of mine calibrates his Apple
> Cinema Display at 5000K and 80 cd/m2.  I know this next part sounds
> unbelievable, but he sets his gamma to 1.5.  His reasoning is that
> the contrast level of the apple LCD is so high he has to lower the
> gamma so he can get the proper distribution of tones.  I found it
> hard to believe, so I went to his office and watched him calibrate
> his monitor at various color temperatures, luminance levels and
> gammas.  He convinced me.  The absolute best match (at least on his
> system) was 5000K, 80 cd/m2, and gamma 1.5.  His entire office is lit
> with 5000K lighting.
> 
> He is a true color geek.  He has been doing color management and
> consulting work for about 15 years and works with commercial
> printers, museums, photographers and artists doing high end
> reproductions.  He used to work for a commercial printer and has been
> a scanner operator.
> 
> I'm not saying you should adopt these settings, but it is food for
> thought.  My CRTs at home and work are calibrated for 5200K, 95 cd/m2
> and gamma 2.0.  These work for me.
> 
> FWIW, Lou
>

Whatever works for EACH workflow is the best there.  We agree on that, don't
we?

A non-brightened, slightly warm paper will match better (here) on a
D50/5000-K screen.  But, white, OBA papers look better on a 6500-K screen.
I look at my prints first under an Ott equivalent, then IN daylight --at a
window, not bounced off walls.  So, my screen is closer to this.

I guess that's why I don't understand folks asking--or being told--this
is/what is the correct way to do THEIR screen, paper, lighting, printer,
etc.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 

==That makes a lot of sense to me - at least given my current 
==knowledge.  He has matched his white point to his lighting.  
==The difference in gamma is simply managed by colorsync (image 
==file values are not altered until it's edited - your 
==workspace is more important for this reason).  (I am still 
==getting my head around setting the luminance.)  Do a soft 
==proof with Simulate Paper White (and Ink Black) checked and 
==if you have a monitor white point that matches your viewing 
==conditions (checked by doing an incident light reading) then 
==you should get a very good match.  Else the Colorsync 
==software is flawed.  I suspect a big issue is that a lot of 
==people don't Simulate Paper White - especially if you are 
==printing to matte paper, checking that baby can be depressing 
==as all that paper warmth and weak black is displayed.  But 
==that's reality.  RC paper (there's that term again) soft 
==proofs turn the white a little blue - again reality.
==
==As for 1.8 vs 2.2 vs other, it's interesting to note that in 
==an article on the X-Rite website they mention there is a 
=="proposed" "standard" which has D50/1.8.
==