Re: Metamerism was photogravures
Re: Metamerism was photogravures
- Subject: Re: Metamerism was photogravures
- From: David Wollmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:30:43 -0700
- Organization: Luna Vista Imaging
Bruce Lindbloom requoted a part of my original post;
>
> I must be seeing the effects of metamerism because the prints look one way
>
> in my viewing both, other way under tungsten, fluorescent and still
>
> different in daylight.
>
The sentence directly in front of this was;
>
These vintage gravures
>
of course all have a nice brown tone to them and are hard to
>
match and balance...
>
>
>
I was thinking that it was evident, by stating that the gravures are hard to
match, that I was comparing my Epson prints directly to the original
Photogravures, you are right though that I should have stated this more
emphatically. After all it is the readers that we must make things clear too,
guess that is why good writers have great editors. <g>
As far as your 3 ways to interpret my situation, version 2 is correct;
>
2) David could instead have meant that each print, *when viewed along side
>
the original photogravure*, matched the original to a greater or lesser
>
degree, depending on the illuminaton. This is metamerism.
>
When I compare my Epson prints to the Original Vintage print, the Epson matches
in Daylight, and from there, under the various illuminants, is a mixed bag. I
would say that the shifting away from "neutral" can vary as much as 15 to 20
percent too magenta under one illuminant to maybe 10 percent too Cyan, under a
different illuminant. (I would be more specific as to which but the original has
been returned so I am unable to repeat the comparison at this time.)
To me this is a rather dramatic shift, so large in fact that even my client could
see the shifting as we walked around my studio - me with the Original and the
best Epson proof in my hands and him following - to view them under the various
lighting conditions.
I want to find a paper and ink combo that has a less dramatic shift, pigment inks
need to be used as longevity is a requirement. So far my vendor has been unable
to produce anything decent with his Epson 10000, but then he does not yet have a
profile for the Epson Archival paper and I would think that a custom profile is a
necessity given the nature of attempting to print a monotone print with CMYK
inks.
The original folio prints have an image area that is roughly 12.5 x 17 and all
are on paper that is 18 x 22. The impression from the printing plate is clearly
evident on all the folios prints and so the client is requesting that the entire
area of the 18 x 22 paper be scanned and included in the final reproductions.
This means that the borders of these reproductions now have a good deal of tone,
do to the aging of the original paper, those numbers being 25y/7m/2c for this
sample. Once the margins are trimmed there is no unprinted paper left as a
reference, so your interpretation (3) would not apply in this case.
>
3) The unprinted paper of each print, when viewed in a given environment,
>
always looks "white" due to the adaptation of the visual system. It is
>
possible that after adaptation, a certain color could look greenish-brown
>
(relative to paper white) under viewing setup "A" and could look
>
reddish-brown (relative to paper white) under viewing setup "B". My
>
suspicion is that this is the case David was experiencing. Maybe this is
>
where flooberism comes in.
>
David Wollmann.