Re: Kelvin Relevance in Fine Art?
Re: Kelvin Relevance in Fine Art?
- Subject: Re: Kelvin Relevance in Fine Art?
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:03:01 -0700
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:25 PM, email@hidden wrote:
In the process of changing out the generic Halogen bulbs to the Solux
4700K bulbs I realized that this CANNOT be what is used in many fine
art and modern art galleries around the world – the blue-shift was
substantial and it took a Solux 3500K bulb to come close to what
“seemed” neutral light. Also, the Kelvin rated bulbs made some art
more flat…
At lower ambient light levels, rods in the retina become more sensitive
to blue light. It's similar to the sensation of things getting
bluer/cooler in appearance after the sun as set. So in a fine art
setting, something less than 5000K is as necessary as it is
appropriate.
I understand that using a 5000K booth for viewing is standard but
isn’t this standard more realistic in office-type atmospheres where
Fluorescent lighting is abundant? If one is printing a digital fine
art print that is expected to be viewed in a gallery-like atmosphere,
isn’t 5000K too high of a rating for viewing such work?
It depends on the nature of the work, and the ambient light level.
Outdoor photography could reasonably be lit with more light, and also
something closer to 5000K, for example.
I understand that 5000K is basically “sun straight up” noon but that
reference point, it seems to me, should not be relevant to fine art –
whether that be painting, giclee, dye-sub, photography, etc. I
recently read that the Van Gogh Gallery uses Solux Halogen MR-16 bulbs
but I find it hard to believe that they would use a bulb rated at
4700K with its slight bias toward the blue spectrum (as far as I can
see). I am not an expert but I would like anyone experienced with
this topic to please respond.
I don't know what they are using for certain, but I think they are
using the 3500K bulb, which is specifically marketed for museum use.
Interesting questions that result from this are, which of the following
methods produces better results, and are "better" results dictated by
more by the originator, viewer, or the artwork itself?
a.) Produce printer profile based on 5000K/D50 (most are), view under
ISO 3664 recommended conditions which is a fairly bright D50-based
environment for critical evaluation and any editing; and then display
the artwork in lower ambient light with a corresponding lower color
temperature.
b.) Produce printer profile based on custom spectral power distribution
(e.g. 3500K SoLux), view under that condition for critical evaluation
and editing; and display artwork under that same condition.
I think when the SPD's are similar, just the amount of light and the
color temperature are being reduced, I think a.) would work as well as
b.) perhaps with a little more effort. But if the SPD's are not the
same between the two light sources, then I think the way to go is
method b.)
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management, 2nd Edition"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-321-26722-2)
_______________________________________________
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