This creates a problem for purposing the image for different uses.
If you edit an image for web use and print use, maybe one should simply get it right on screen and then adjust the gamma by a standard amount for framed print use.
Instead of holding proof prints up under my full spectrum light for evaluation, I will now instead hold it up against the wall - which is where it will be.
The thing about calibrating one's monitor for a dull room, when sending files to a web site, for example, is that you won't know what you're going to get on other people's monitors because the monitor is a light emitter - so is always well-lit, unlike a dimly lit room. Granted, the average viewer won't have a calibrated monitor so that's another issue. But a standard calibration with your calibrator is the best chance for universal capability on the world's monitors.
I calibrate for 6500K. Strangely, my monitor says 6500 for image management, 5500 for image retouch. I can't think what the difference would be, because retouching and management both require accurate colour and tone.
Also I think that glass darkens an image slightly.
thanks for your input,
Richard
At 05:46 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, you wrote:
>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)
--
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
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
--H. G. Wells (1866-1946)