I am a Diver and am just getting into Photography and work for a non-profit FFRDC so I don’t have lots of cash.

Could you please tell me a cost-effective way to calabrate my monitor?

thanks!

Chris

Question: Would one 50W bulb provide the right light intensity levels you mention in your response, assuming I darken the room? Would the 35W bulb be a better choice?

(I’m also thinking that if this would be a good set-up for my home work area, it could also work for our camera club, as the clamp-on fixtures would work with our display easel, and the judging is always done in a darken room.)

I hate to say that your current setup is the worst you can use to critically judge photographs, although it is commonly used at camera clubs and many wedding and portrait competitions. The problem is that the intensity is too bright, which makes prints with a correct density look washed out. Ansel Adams recommended around 100 foot candles falling on the print as the best viewing light. Most museums exhibit at about 10 foot candles, and your setup is probably about 1000+ foot candles!!!

I can see a difference even between 100 and 200 footcandles, and the more intense the light, the darker you will try to print to overcome it.

My take is for viewing enjoyment is to use a tungsten bulb of about 3200K.

Judging your “color management skills” is more complex than the right light becasue there are so many factors that come into play, but viewing prints next to a monitor with a 4700K solux bulb is a first step.

I’ve learned so much from your website and your writing. Thank you.

What brand of desk lamp can you recommend for holding the SoLux 4700K bulb and the 3200K gallery bulb?

This brings up an interesting issue for me. I am an active member of a few camera clubs which hold monthly critique and competition sessions. Usually, an image is placed on an easel and lit with a light from one of those clamp-on utility lamps one might use in the garage. Bulbs are standard household bulbs (although they sometimes vary from standard to “soft-white” to whatever was last purchased; consistency has not always been a strong point).

My question is: what might be the “best” light source for this type of situation? We want our prints to display at their best, while at the same time, we want to be able to determine if we are doing a good job with mastering our color management skills. Any thoughts?

They are as good as they claim. The SoLux bulbs are way more accurate than the GTI lights by my observations. The fluorescent bulbs are the weak point as they still have spikes in the spectrum which can overemphasize some colors as compared to true daylight.

The only challenge with SoLux is that there is now “viewing booth” solution. You have to make your own.

The math doesn’t seem to work out, but many color professionals have discovered that if you calibrate a monitor to 6500K, it gives a better match to a print in 5000K light than when you calibrate your monitor to 5000K. It can also vary by monitor, so try it out and see how it works. 6500K will render blues more accurately on most screens, 5000K will yellow up the blues but show reds and warm colors more accurate to the print. You have to decide where you want the bias. (And splitting the difference at 5700K doesn’t necessarily split the difference!)

Are you talking about CMYK on an offset press? The “CMYK” on an Epson printer has a far greater gamut than your LaCie display does.

RIPs use profiling so its not an “instead of” option. It is perfectly possible to get accurate prints from a inkjet printer using the driver, a RIP is not required.

Regarding lighting, it seems to work out that if you make it look great under 5000K lighting, it still looks great under 3200K lighting, for the most part.

It’s not that the monitor is “untrue.” It’s just not as “true” as the print. I consider using a profiled color accurate monitor essential, but when that monitor disagrees with the print, I know that it is because the monitor is untrue, not the print. For most users, the monitor will get you there 99% of time without a hard proof (a print). For experienced fine art photographers, the monitor is the starting point, but you’ll also need the hard proof to guide you because you are trying to pull out the last 1%, maybe the last 0.1%. The purpose of this article is to let you know that there are limitations and how to deal with them when you encounter them, not do dissuade the use of profiled color accurate monitors.

If that is true then the print output is obviously going to differ from my monitor, not because of the difference between incident and reflected light but because the color spaces are so different (though that is obviously part of the issue).

I gave up the myth of of print-screen image parity long ago for the color space issue. But I have not tried (nor am I interested in trying) an RIP, but I have to ask, would that get you closer than profiling? I figure that if it looks “good” printed it’s going to be OK on a wall somewhere where the lighting is going to be radically different than the perfect 6000K lighting in a studio.

Thanks for the article!