Digital BW, The Print

Hi all.  This is a follow-up question to my earlier posting on luminance level calibration.  
With regards to white point, I've always left it at 6500 but wonder if I should change it to a 
5000K since I view my test prints under a D50 light source while working on them.
Thanks for helping me climb the learning curve, Marc.

Marc

You may find Bruce Fraser's book "Real World Color Management" useful.

Steve

> From: marcsienicki <marcsienicki@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:59:30 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] LCD calibration; which white point setting?
> 
> Hi all.  This is a follow-up question to my earlier posting on luminance level
> calibration.  
> With regards to white point, I've always left it at 6500 but wonder if I
> should change it to a
> 5000K since I view my test prints under a D50 light source while working on
> them.
> Thanks for helping me climb the learning curve, Marc.
>

Hi Marc.  

For over a  year, I really tried to get 6500K to work for me.  I 
wanted, if possible, to calibrate my monitors to the Windows and WWW 
standard, since that would make life easier all around.  Some people 
seem happy with 6500K for their personal work, but it never gave me 
what I would call an acceptable monitor to print match with good custom 
profiles.  At 6500K, the monitor is a bluish white, so I was always 
adding more yellow to compensate.  My prints always looked much 
yellower than my monitor (using D50 viewing lights and the same 
brightness as my monitor).  I knew my profiles were good.  I know the 
eye adapts, but mine never could make that big a leap.  

So, I spent months experimentation with color temp, gamma, luminance, 
etc.  I have found that when set to 6500K, neutrals on screen are very 
blueish, both to the eye and measured with a spectrophotometer.  5000K 
is spectrally neutral, and also happens to be about the color temp of 
most printing papers.  One of the whitest papers I ever use is Epson 
Premium Glossy, which measures about 5200K.  The rest are warmer, in 
the 4800 to 5000K range.  

To complicate matters, monitors vary in quality and range.  Most have a 
definite "sweet spot" where they perform the best.  So for me, ideally 
5000K is the best point.  But lower temperatures, especially on lesser 
quality monitors, can reduce gamut, smoothness, etc.  If you stay 
within the sweet spot of your monitor, the loss is minimal, and in my 
opinion well worth a good monitor to print match.  Once you step out of 
the sweet spot, you begin to lose too much.  For this reason, I 
calibrate my monitors to somewhere between 5000K and 5500K, depending 
on the actual monitor.  Once I did this, my monitor to print match 
became nearly perfect.  The same file will now appear less blue (more 
yellow) on screen and the prints match nicely.  

Contrast level also varies quite a bit from one monitor to the next.  
My LCD gives me the correct distribution of tones when set to 2.2, but 
my CRT at work has to be calibrated to 1.8 to give me the same tonal 
distribution.  I use a special Lab file to evaluate all my profiles, 
and this gives me the consistency I need for my personal and 
professional work.

White luminance is another important setting.  A pure white image in 
Photoshop should have about the same apparent brightness as a sheet of 
white paper when viewed under a D50 viewing light.  If they are very 
different, it will be difficult or impossible to get a good monitor to 
print match.  The brightness of the viewing light will affect apparent 
contrast, shadow detail, saturation, etc.  I choose to set both my LCDs 
and CRTs to between 90 and 100 cd/m2 for consistency.  This means I 
also need to have the same approximate ambient brightness in my room 
and with my viewing lights, both at home and at work. 

So, while some people are happy with 6500K, I'm not.  The closer I can 
get to 5000K, given the limitations of the monitor, the better.  Try 
them both and decide what works for you.  If you are happy with your 
match at 6500K, stick with it.  If not, try some other settings.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "marcsienicki" 
<marcsienicki@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi all.  This is a follow-up question to my earlier posting on 
luminance level calibration.  
> With regards to white point, I've always left it at 6500 but wonder 
if I should change it to a 
> 5000K since I view my test prints under a D50 light source while 
working on them.
> Thanks for helping me climb the learning curve, Marc.
>

Try both as well as native white point and use the one that seems best.
Depending on your software, you may also choose one that is closest to your
native white point, which would introduce less correction to the white
point, which in theory should give less banding.  For example, my LCD native
white point is 5600, and it looks a little yellow-green.  I don’t have a
choice for 5600, but I can pick 6000K.  It corrects it to a more pleasing
white, and has less banding than picking D65.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
marcsienicki
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:00 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] LCD calibration; which white point setting?

Hi all.  This is a follow-up question to my earlier posting on luminance
level calibration.
With regards to white point, I've always left it at 6500 but wonder if I
should change it to a
5000K since I view my test prints under a D50 light source while working on
them.
Thanks for helping me climb the learning curve, Marc.





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

> From: marcsienicki
>
> Hi all.  This is a follow-up question to my earlier posting on
> luminance level calibration.
> With regards to white point, I've always left it at 6500 but
> wonder if I should change it to a
> 5000K since I view my test prints under a D50 light source while
> working on them.

I think you should, although you lose absolute brightness when you deviate
from the monitor's natural white point. Your eyes and brain largely adapt to
whatever the environmental white point is, so you should only do it if your
monitor's environment is your 5000K viewing area. If it's separate, then I
wouldn't bother. I run my monitor at 5000K, because I'm sitting under 5000K
lights, and it looks great.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

At 4:21 PM +0000 12/17/05, Steve Kale wrote:
>Marc
>
>You may find Bruce Fraser's book "Real World Color Management" useful.
>
>Steve

And I don't disagree. But the first edition was published in 2003, so 
the second, 2004 edition seems a little long in the tooth, and I'm 
wondering when the third, 2006 (I assume) edition will become 
available. I just checked Amazon without seeing any signs of it, but 
I wouldn't expect to until the last minute.
--
Sam

Lou,
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply.  I have also found the 6500K-calibrated 
monitor to have an excessively bluish hue.  Following your suggestion I've tried 
recalibrating at 5500K but that was too yellow, but 6000K (on my monitor) seems about 
right.
Thanks Steve for suggesting the book.  Like other books in the 'Real World...' series by 
Fraser I would expect that much of it is aimed at commercial printers, but you are right, 
the parts that are relevant are among most authoritative and accurate on the subject.
Marc


DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" <lbdina@c...> wrote:

>
> Hi Marc.  
> 
> For over a  year, I really tried to get 6500K to work for me.  I 
> wanted, if possible, to calibrate my monitors to the Windows and WWW 
> standard, since that would make life easier all around.  Some people 
> seem happy with 6500K for their personal work, but it never gave me 
> what I would call an acceptable monitor to print match with good custom 
> profiles.  At 6500K, the monitor is a bluish white, so I was always 
> adding more yellow to compensate.  My prints always looked much 
> yellower than my monitor (using D50 viewing lights and the same 
> brightness as my monitor).  I knew my profiles were good.  I know the 
> eye adapts, but mine never could make that big a leap.  
> 
> So, I spent months experimentation with color temp, gamma, luminance, 
> etc.  I have found that when set to 6500K, neutrals on screen are very 
> blueish, both to the eye and measured with a spectrophotometer.  5000K 
> is spectrally neutral, and also happens to be about the color temp of 
> most printing papers.  One of the whitest papers I ever use is Epson 
> Premium Glossy, which measures about 5200K.  The rest are warmer, in 
> the 4800 to 5000K range.  
> 
> To complicate matters, monitors vary in quality and range.  Most have a 
> definite "sweet spot" where they perform the best.  So for me, ideally 
> 5000K is the best point.  But lower temperatures, especially on lesser 
> quality monitors, can reduce gamut, smoothness, etc.  If you stay 
> within the sweet spot of your monitor, the loss is minimal, and in my 
> opinion well worth a good monitor to print match.  Once you step out of 
> the sweet spot, you begin to lose too much.  For this reason, I 
> calibrate my monitors to somewhere between 5000K and 5500K, depending 
> on the actual monitor.  Once I did this, my monitor to print match 
> became nearly perfect.  The same file will now appear less blue (more 
> yellow) on screen and the prints match nicely.  
> 
> Contrast level also varies quite a bit from one monitor to the next.  
> My LCD gives me the correct distribution of tones when set to 2.2, but 
> my CRT at work has to be calibrated to 1.8 to give me the same tonal 
> distribution.  I use a special Lab file to evaluate all my profiles, 
> and this gives me the consistency I need for my personal and 
> professional work.
> 
> White luminance is another important setting.  A pure white image in 
> Photoshop should have about the same apparent brightness as a sheet of 
> white paper when viewed under a D50 viewing light.  If they are very 
> different, it will be difficult or impossible to get a good monitor to 
> print match.  The brightness of the viewing light will affect apparent 
> contrast, shadow detail, saturation, etc.  I choose to set both my LCDs 
> and CRTs to between 90 and 100 cd/m2 for consistency.  This means I 
> also need to have the same approximate ambient brightness in my room 
> and with my viewing lights, both at home and at work. 
> 
> So, while some people are happy with 6500K, I'm not.  The closer I can 
> get to 5000K, given the limitations of the monitor, the better.  Try 
> them both and decide what works for you.  If you are happy with your 
> match at 6500K, stick with it.  If not, try some other settings.  
> 
> Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "marcsienicki" 
> <marcsienicki@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all.  This is a follow-up question to my earlier posting on 
> luminance level calibration.  
> > With regards to white point, I've always left it at 6500 but wonder 
> if I should change it to a 
> > 5000K since I view my test prints under a D50 light source while 
> working on them.
> > Thanks for helping me climb the learning curve, Marc.
> >
>

You will be surprised how quickly you get used to D50 on screen.  Only looks
odd for a very short while.  Like Lou, I also find D50 "appropriate".

> From: marcsienicki <marcsienicki@...>

> 
> Lou,
> Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply.  I have also found the
> 6500K-calibrated 
> monitor to have an excessively bluish hue.  Following your suggestion I've
> tried 
> recalibrating at 5500K but that was too yellow, but 6000K (on my monitor)
> seems about 
> right.
> Thanks Steve for suggesting the book.  Like other books in the 'Real World...'
> series by 
> Fraser I would expect that much of it is aimed at commercial printers, but you
> are right, 
> the parts that are relevant are among most authoritative and accurate on the
> subject.
> Marc
> 
>