So I started experimenting, and realized, for me anyway, it's more important to consider the light source the prints will be viewed under. But within the last year or so, and after seeing my final prints (evaluated under light-booth conditions) in situ, their real-life situ, I began to feel that the prints just didn't look "right". Initially, I was evaluating my prints (intended for hanging) in a light-booth environment. My solution (and I don't argue this is THE solution) is that I view my prints under a variety of lighting conditions, limited to the possibilities that I think are likely, and compromise. Obviously this does demonstrate the need for an "industry" light source agreement for printers, but in the real world (at least my world), I think it's not that simple. Color consistency is something the printing industry & associated pre-press fields realized many many years ago is crucial to doing buisness.īut IF your intent for the photograph is to hang on a wall, it's more important to consider the light they'll be displayed in: tungsten, quartz-halogen, flourescent, daylight(direct sun), north light, window light,etc.
It's vital that an art director looking at artwork in New York, is "seeing" the same thing as the printer in Italy, or Japan, or EVEN New York just down the street. I use the phrase "industry-calibrated" with intent. I can't believe I am about to disagree with the "digital dog", but here goes.Īndrew, I agree with you, that having an official light source for viewing is vital, crucial, insane without, IF you're a printer, an advertising agency, a graphic design company, etc., EVEN if you're a photographer working on a photograph INTENDED to go on press,īUT, if you're a photographer intending to create prints to "hang", I seriously question the wisdom of a "Light Booth", per se, at least an "industry-calibrated" light booth.
These bulbs can be found at /Īuthor of Color Management for Photographers They even make a nice clip on light (so you don’t have to get special track lighting). If you have a bit more money to spend, consider the Solux lights which are about as close to daylight as anything you’ll find (and have a very smooth spectrum). The issue with Fluorescent lights is the spikey spectrum you can see on this site. For the money, it’s probably OK and certainly better than viewing under a desklamp. That being said, the spectrum shown on this site looks like it’s using the typical Fluorescent light. Having a controlled lighting can be very helpful especially when viewing print and display together. And I don’t agree that CCT 5000K is only useful for prepress. Yes, that’s a good reason to use such lighting. Household (incandescent) lighting doesn't give an accurateĪssessment of color and especially contrast. Because I have found evaluating inkjet prints under normal
0 kommentar(er)
