Re: Neutral grey under different lighting
Re: Neutral grey under different lighting
- Subject: Re: Neutral grey under different lighting
- From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:04:28 -0500
Ah yes, yet another exhausting metamerism discussion. I think
everyone on this list is well versed on the topic. Metameric failure
is a better term to be used here, and more accurate. When
communicating to common end users "metameric failure" might lead to
more questions whereas "metamerism" gets the point across. This is a
tough situation for us because the term "metamerism" has become the
commonly used term for "metameric failure". In a similar fashion
"analog photography" has become the commonly used term for silver
halide photography, and that drives me nuts. At least in that
situation one can correctly say "silver halide" or "film and paper
based photography" or whatever and get the point across. It drives me
crazy that one can't mention metamerism without getting into an off
topic discussion about the terminology even when all attendees know
exactly what you are talking about.
So my apologies, Crystal Archive and (even more so) Kodak Endura are
susceptible to metameric failure. If you compare a gray card, a K3
inkjet print and an Endura print in a variety of lightsources the
Endura print will demonstrate the most visually apparent green to
magenta changes. Fluorescent lights can be the worst lights to view
this type of print under.
Moreover, I noticed that on some images white areas would
sometimes tend to pink (I only later realised that sometimes meant,
'when viewed under fluorescent light'). This was particularly
annoying when white clouds turned pinkish.
Right! They probably look perfectly acceptable under daylight or
incandescent though. This is common and a good limitation to be aware
of. I've demonstrated this at the front counter of a gajillion labs
and a lot of them have changed their front counter lighting because
of it.
The whole thing started as I was asking myself whether I should
send the lab files in Adobe RGB or already converted into their
profile, so I sent them several gradients to see whether there is a
difference.
My take on this is that it is the lab's responsibility to perform
this conversion. As a whole, if customers are left with this task
they will eventually have problems staying up to date with the lab's
latest profiles. It is the lab's job to stay up to date with their
profiles and provide lab-wide consistency with a minimal amount of
effort and hassle on the customer's part.
However, you are exactly the type of savvy customer that will test
their limits and encourage them to improve their quality. Sounds
like testing a few different manufacturers profiles could be in
order, and enlightening.
- Perfectly neutral:
Perfect in the sense that to the casual observer they would appear
as neutral grey or only slightly warm or cold regardless of viewing
conditions and perfect in the sense that bright areas don't have a
different cast as dark areas. (This what I am used to from b/w
photographic paper, as I said I did not expect color photographic
paper to match this fully.)
- The profile: Copyright = "Copyright by LOGO GmbH, Steinfurt"
I would imagine that you are seeing a slightly cooler gray balance
than what you are used to from b&w photo paper. I've seen this time
and time again at photo labs. If possible, try making an MP profile
and see if you prefer the gray balance with it - I think you will.
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com
_______________________________________________
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