Digital BW, The Print

Steve Kale, you asked feedback on selecting monitor color temp and 
gamma for color printing in the recent (and very interesting) 
discussion on B&W monitor to print discussion.  I will share my 
experiences.

First, I send a lot of jobs to printing presses and need accurate 
color proofs.  I use an i1 spectro and ProfileMaker 5, a Windows XP, 
and a 2200.  I use D50 Solux lighting (one of the best) for viewing.  

After trying to make D65 and gamma 2.2 to work for over a year, I 
finally threw in the towel.  No matter what I do, I cannot get a good 
monitor to print color or tonal distribution match with those 
settings.  It is way too blue on my monitor, and I end up adding too 
much yellow to compensate, which shows up as way too yellow in the 
print.  

After lots of experimentation, I settled on 5500K and 2.0 gamma, 95 
cd/m2, and my monitor to print match is nearly perfect.  It is also a 
very close match to the proofs I get back from my commercial printer, 
who is fully color managed and runs a tight ship.  

Here is my thinking on the subject.  I find that all monitors have 
a "sweet spot" in which they are capable of operating optimally.  
When you step outside that sweet spot, things can go to hell in a 
hurry.  I tried 5000K and 1.8 with my CRT, but the results were 
incredibly dingy and very yellow, much more than should normally be 
indicated by a step from 5500K to 5000K.  I believe I stepped outside 
of the "zone".  A sony Artisan or other top quality monitor would 
probably work beautifully, but mine didn't perform well at 5000K.

I also measured the papers I print to with my spectro, and nearly all 
of them fall into the 4900-5250K range.  I tried setting my monitor 
temp to the measured paper white of my brightest paper (5250K), and 
that did work pretty well, but I think on was on the ragged edge or 
my monitor's capabilities, so left it set for 5500K.  Gamma 2.2 
didn't give me the distribution of tones that I needed for a good 
match, so I tried gammas ranging from 1.5 to 2.6.  I found 2.0 worked 
best for my monitor.  I don't have any problems with banding or 
posterization using the above settings.  My match has never been 
better.  BTW, these settings work equally well on my setup at home, 
but they are both CRTs from the same vendor.

All of the above were confirmed visually, and also with a special 
calibration target used to assess gamma, contrast ratio, tonal 
distribution, etc. 

I know this goes against some prevailing wisdom, and kills the notion 
of a standard color temp and gamma.  I have a lot of knowledgeable 
friends in the business, and many of them have found they have to 
migrate closer to 5000K for a good match.

All I know is that it works great for me.  

Regards, Lou

I forgot to mention one more thing.  A good monitor to print match 
requires that monitor white displayed on the screen be about the same 
brightness level as paper white illuminated by your viewing light.  
If they are very different, things get very skewed.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" 
<lbdina@c...> wrote:
> 
> Steve Kale, you asked feedback on selecting monitor color temp and 
> gamma for color printing in the recent (and very interesting) 
> discussion on B&W monitor to print discussion.  I will share my 
> experiences.
> 
> First, I send a lot of jobs to printing presses and need accurate 
> color proofs.  I use an i1 spectro and ProfileMaker 5, a Windows 
XP, 
> and a 2200.  I use D50 Solux lighting (one of the best) for 
viewing.  
> 
> After trying to make D65 and gamma 2.2 to work for over a year, I 
> finally threw in the towel.  No matter what I do, I cannot get a 
good 
> monitor to print color or tonal distribution match with those 
> settings.  It is way too blue on my monitor, and I end up adding 
too 
> much yellow to compensate, which shows up as way too yellow in the 
> print.  
> 
> After lots of experimentation, I settled on 5500K and 2.0 gamma, 95 
> cd/m2, and my monitor to print match is nearly perfect.  It is also 
a 
> very close match to the proofs I get back from my commercial 
printer, 
> who is fully color managed and runs a tight ship.  
> 
> Here is my thinking on the subject.  I find that all monitors have 
> a "sweet spot" in which they are capable of operating optimally.  
> When you step outside that sweet spot, things can go to hell in a 
> hurry.  I tried 5000K and 1.8 with my CRT, but the results were 
> incredibly dingy and very yellow, much more than should normally be 
> indicated by a step from 5500K to 5000K.  I believe I stepped 
outside 
> of the "zone".  A sony Artisan or other top quality monitor would 
> probably work beautifully, but mine didn't perform well at 5000K.
> 
> I also measured the papers I print to with my spectro, and nearly 
all 
> of them fall into the 4900-5250K range.  I tried setting my monitor 
> temp to the measured paper white of my brightest paper (5250K), and 
> that did work pretty well, but I think on was on the ragged edge or 
> my monitor's capabilities, so left it set for 5500K.  Gamma 2.2 
> didn't give me the distribution of tones that I needed for a good 
> match, so I tried gammas ranging from 1.5 to 2.6.  I found 2.0 
worked 
> best for my monitor.  I don't have any problems with banding or 
> posterization using the above settings.  My match has never been 
> better.  BTW, these settings work equally well on my setup at home, 
> but they are both CRTs from the same vendor.
> 
> All of the above were confirmed visually, and also with a special 
> calibration target used to assess gamma, contrast ratio, tonal 
> distribution, etc. 
> 
> I know this goes against some prevailing wisdom, and kills the 
notion 

> of a standard color temp and gamma.  I have a lot of knowledgeable 
> friends in the business, and many of them have found they have to 
> migrate closer to 5000K for a good match.
> 
> All I know is that it works great for me.  
> 
> Regards, Lou

Yes exactly.  I guess I was asking a narrower question.  Pop gamma off to
one side for a second.  Ideally one would perfectly match white point with
viewing conditions.  But in the absence of a specific match for a particular
purpose (eg a situation where you know the colour temp of your gallery)
people tend to congregate around general "standards" - not really standards
but practice.  In several places I have read the "standard" for photography
is D65 whereas it is D50 for the graphic arts community.  See X-Rite's site
or here for two examples:

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:56:20 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Color Temp and Gamma for Color Printing
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention one more thing.  A good monitor to print match
> requires that monitor white displayed on the screen be about the same
> brightness level as paper white illuminated by your viewing light.
> If they are very different, things get very skewed.
> 
> Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina"
> <lbdina@c...> wrote:
>> 
>> Steve Kale, you asked feedback on selecting monitor color temp and
>> gamma for color printing in the recent (and very interesting)
>> discussion on B&W monitor to print discussion.  I will share my
>> experiences.
>> 
>> First, I send a lot of jobs to printing presses and need accurate
>> color proofs.  I use an i1 spectro and ProfileMaker 5, a Windows
> XP, 
>> and a 2200.  I use D50 Solux lighting (one of the best) for
> viewing.  
>> 
>> After trying to make D65 and gamma 2.2 to work for over a year, I
>> finally threw in the towel.  No matter what I do, I cannot get a
> good 
>> monitor to print color or tonal distribution match with those
>> settings.  It is way too blue on my monitor, and I end up adding
> too 
>> much yellow to compensate, which shows up as way too yellow in the
>> print.  
>> 
>> After lots of experimentation, I settled on 5500K and 2.0 gamma, 95
>> cd/m2, and my monitor to print match is nearly perfect.  It is also
> a 
>> very close match to the proofs I get back from my commercial
> printer, 
>> who is fully color managed and runs a tight ship.
>> 
>> Here is my thinking on the subject.  I find that all monitors have
>> a "sweet spot" in which they are capable of operating optimally.
>> When you step outside that sweet spot, things can go to hell in a
>> hurry.  I tried 5000K and 1.8 with my CRT, but the results were
>> incredibly dingy and very yellow, much more than should normally be
>> indicated by a step from 5500K to 5000K.  I believe I stepped
> outside 
>> of the "zone".  A sony Artisan or other top quality monitor would
>> probably work beautifully, but mine didn't perform well at 5000K.
>> 
>> I also measured the papers I print to with my spectro, and nearly
> all 
>> of them fall into the 4900-5250K range.  I tried setting my monitor
>> temp to the measured paper white of my brightest paper (5250K), and
>> that did work pretty well, but I think on was on the ragged edge or
>> my monitor's capabilities, so left it set for 5500K.  Gamma 2.2
>> didn't give me the distribution of tones that I needed for a good
>> match, so I tried gammas ranging from 1.5 to 2.6.  I found 2.0
> worked 
>> best for my monitor.  I don't have any problems with banding or
>> posterization using the above settings.  My match has never been
>> better.  BTW, these settings work equally well on my setup at home,
>> but they are both CRTs from the same vendor.
>> 
>> All of the above were confirmed visually, and also with a special
>> calibration target used to assess gamma, contrast ratio, tonal
>> distribution, etc.
>> 
>> I know this goes against some prevailing wisdom, and kills the
> notion 
>> of a standard color temp and gamma.  I have a lot of knowledgeable
>> friends in the business, and many of them have found they have to
>> migrate closer to 5000K for a good match.
>> 
>> All I know is that it works great for me.
>> 
>> Regards, Lou
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Whoops sorry for the earlier post.

Yes exactly.  I guess I was asking a narrower question.  Pop gamma off to
one side for a second.  Ideally one would perfectly match white point with
viewing conditions.  But in the absence of a specific match for a particular
purpose (eg a situation where you know the colour temp of your gallery)
people tend to congregate around general "standards" - not really standards
but practice.  In several places I have read the "standard" for photography
is D65 whereas it is D50 for the graphic arts community.  See X-Rite's site
or here for two examples:

http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1759,1734702,00.asp

Here is a selection from the above:

"Most computer and television displays come from the factory set to a
relatively high color temperature, which produces a white with a bit of a
blue cast, similar to "cool white" fluorescent bulbs. This is done because
most displays produce a brighter image at higher color temperatures. The
standard cool white is 9300 K, but many displays come set even higher. For
multimedia, photography and television the standard color temperature is
6500 K, roughly the color of natural daylight. For optimum color accuracy, a
display for these applications needs to be set to a white point of 6500 K.
More precisely to the chromaticity coordinates of CIE Illuminant D65 or
D6500, which corresponds to average natural daylight for an overcast sky at
noon and includes a blue sky component added to a blackbody spectrum.

For many non-imaging computer applications, particularly under typical
office fluorescent lighting, 9300 K is a better choice. Note that there are
other color-temperature standards, for example, 5000 K is used in graphic
arts because it corresponds to typical indoor lighting consisting of a
mixture of incandescent lighting and sunlight. Note also that if an image is
designed or color-balanced at one color temperature and then viewed at a
different color temperature, all of the colors in the image will be shifted
by varying amounts. For example, reds need to be overemphasized in TVs
operated at 9300 K in order to counteract the blue cast imparted to flesh
tones, particularly facial complexions. This so called "red push" introduces
other color errors."

Yet I noticed that the Eye-One and various other software for measuring
colour (such as calibration targets or step wedges) default to D50.
Presumably one would want the same colour temp on the monitor as the colour
temp used to illuminate a test target.  You use D50 Solux lighting.  I am
puzzled at the references to D65 being the "standard" for photography.

Steve

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:56:20 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Color Temp and Gamma for Color Printing
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention one more thing.  A good monitor to print match
> requires that monitor white displayed on the screen be about the same
> brightness level as paper white illuminated by your viewing light.
> If they are very different, things get very skewed.
> 
> Lou

> I am puzzled at the references to D65 being the "standard" for 
photography.

Join the crowd.  The theory goes that human vision developed based on 
normal daylight, which itself is a moving target, depending on the 
time of day, time of year, atmospheric haze, humidity, etc.  The good 
news is that the eye adapts pretty well to changes in color 
temperature.  That is also the bad news.  

A color consultant friend of mine has a viewing box with three 
different lights, each partitioned off from one another.  He placed 3 
identical images into each partition and turned on the viewing lights 
in a dim room.  One light was tungsten, one fluorescent, and one 
D50.  In this situation, they eye cannot adapt, since all three are 
displaying at the same time, with light baffles preventing light 
bleeed between partitions.  The difference in the images is 
incredible.  In my office, I have a solux D50 lamp and some tungsten 
lighting (which is usually turned off).  Moving a color print quickly 
from one light source to the other shows shifts in color, but the eye 
adapts so quickly, it is far less dramatic.  

When comparing an image on a monitor to hard copy color print, you 
naturally shift your attention between the two pretty quickly.  But 
there is one huge difference.  In the print, you are viewing light 
being reflected from your paper base and pigment or dye ink.  In the 
case of the monitor, the light source IS the image.  Many people 
maintain that the eye's adaptability allows for the use of D65 for 
proofing purposes, and if that works for them, great.  I struggled 
with this for a year, and finally settle on 5500K.  I would have 
preferred to stick with D65 since both sRGB (the default internet 
standard) and Adobe RGB have a 6500K white point.  But it wasn't 
until I recalibrated my monitor to 5500K that I was happy.

That is different from the subject of viewing an image in 
uncontrolled lighting or museum lighting.  Many museaums use 3500-
3600K lighting (see www.solux.net), but that varies all over the 
place.  I have always tried to find a compromise for unknown lighting 
conditions.  I don't like using incandescent balanced profiles for 
color printing, since incandescent light is so deficient in blue and 
I think the prints look lousy.  Whether the best compromise or not, I 
sometimes choose F2 (Cool White Fluorescent) for profile creation 
when I want a print that will work well in mixed lighting or unknown 
situations.  It is a compromise between D50 and the much warmer 
incandescent.  But most of my work is based on a 5000K viewing light 
source.  Here is what Gretag has in their help file regarding F2 and 
F11 light sources:

"The light sources F2 (CWF) and F11 (TL84) represent typical spectral 
power distributions for various types of fluorescent sources. F2 
(CWF) are cool-white fluorescents with a color temperature of 4230 K. 
F11 (TL84) represents a triband fluorescent source with a color 
temperature of 4000 K."

ProfileMaker allows me to build a color profile optimized for a given 
viewing light source.  

Hope this sheds a little more "light" on the subject.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> ...I am
> puzzled at the references to D65 being the "standard" for photography.

THe idea of a standard seems to have been abandoned as far as I can
tell from various posts on the colorsync list. Many don't have the
need or time to mess around with all the options, and 6.5kk does eem
to work well for many.
I used 6kk for quite a while, now trying 5.5kk, it's a mood thing. I
don't have sophisticated viewing booths, none seems to really match my
Ottlite. I think becuase it's a bit spikey.
The discussion about viewing light are relevant here.
I wouldn't take recommedations of a hard standard too seriously any more.
Tyler

> I wouldn't take recommedations of a hard standard too seriously any 
more.
> Tyler

Amen, brother!

Lou

Hi Tyler

When using your photospectrometer (I believe you have one) what illuminant
do you use?

Steve

Not sure if anything I use with the EyeOne will give me any options,
even measuretool. But shows up as D50 in any measured test file.
I see QuickRead and some other utilities let the user select, but it
seems they default to D50, must be a standard. There are only so many
things one can get one's head around... 
The colorsync list is really good for questions like this.
The Spectrocam gave a great array of options in it's software, makes
the EyeOne look like a toy, unfortunately it was unreliable and
currently broken for the last time. Nonetheless, I don't recall
looking into the illuminant option oportunities with it either.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Hi Tyler
> 
> When using your photospectrometer (I believe you have one) what
illuminant

> do you use?
> 
> Steve