Re: Anyone care to comment?
Re: Anyone care to comment?
- Subject: Re: Anyone care to comment?
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:12:45 -0400
1/ I've been reading up about how our eyes work. "The biology of
seeing" by Margaret Livingston is a good book to start with.
It validates my personal feeling that 5000K compresses the tonalities
and darkens the display, so that it is harder for our eyes to perceive
in the red part of the spectrum. The cone photoreceptors in our eyes
need a lot of light to perceive color.
Perhaps if it is difficult to match a print to the image on a computer
display, it does help to reduce the visual spectrum. It follows then
that limiting it even further - dark brown sunglasses - should be even
more helpful ;-)
D50 standard seems to me evolved out of what color light bulbs can
manage - especially in the past.
If you are a prepress professional with a D50 booth right next to your
display then you may want to calibrate to that booth,
which may or may not be 5000K. I believe, however, it's a moot point
unless you have both in your field of vision simultaneously. Your eyes
will instantly calibrate as white to the brightest area you see at any
one time. I find that if i look at an image on the display and then
turn my head and look at a print, my memory of the colors and densities
serves to help evaluate the print regardless of the color temperatures.
I have 30 years plus of practice judging color, but it's mainly a
function of the way our brain processes visual information.
I'm a photographer and I always do my work calibrating to native white
point and gamma on an LCD. I calibrate to both 5000 and 6500 (and
native) and switch between them to see what prints look like under
different conditions. I also have an informal viewing station with
6000K bulbs.
2/ I have real life empirical practical proof that it makes a
difference visually to work with the extra bits.
Margulis is making his assertions based on looking at a computer
display and I can only suppose that his display is not showing the full
gamut of a 16-bit image file - I dont think that there are any such
displays made (?). Even so, I see a difference on my displays driven
by 8-bit / channel. Most images of a clear blue sky would illustrate
the advantage of extra bits. Especially in editing density and color
changes of that file. 4/color reproduction is not the only kind of
prints or venues for display available. In 4/color reproductions I see
a lot of banding - perhaps this could have been helped if the files
were 16-bits while being edited.
Ulf Skogsbergh
On Tuesday, September 21, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Armand Rosenberg wrote:
* In a recent issue of Inkjetmall News the author recommends
calibrating monitors to 5000K and 1.8 instead of 6500K and 2.2 (for
both Mac and PC) when screen-to-print matching is paramount. I've been
doing the opposite for years with success. Anyone else care to >
comment?
* In a recent issue of PEI magazine, a little item reports that Dan
Margulis ran a test in which he "proved" that no visible differences
result from editing images scanned into 8-bit files vs those scanned
into 16-bit files. Anyone care to comment on this one?
Armand
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden