Ben, Your comments are littered with the sort of practical common sense that is unusual on a forum of technical experts where I, for one, are often left floundering by the technical debates. I live in a world of Prepress Operators and Photographers who have to make things work in order for their employers and clients to stay in business. It has always been the case that publications and photographic prints are viewed, or consumed, in a variety of viewing conditions: in factories and offices, on trains and planes, in living rooms and bedrooms, as well as imaging 'laboratories', all using a variety of lighting sources that are never controlled and often mixed. However, this misses the point of controlled viewing conditions and standardisation in particular. It is not so much about the end user as it is about the production environment and 'the contract'. The long drawn out process of standards development has, as its first priority, a justifiable business case. In this commercial frame of reference parties come together to produce printed product for a commercial gain and need to have agreed, standardised, viewing conditions so that can agree on the qualities of the product and limitations/boundaries of the contract. It is as essential as lawyers having enough light to read the fine print. It's not just about the appeal of the image. What happens to it once sold is anybody' guess. It may be confronting to those that put so much time, energy, effort and expertise into perfecting these things that, to us, are fine examples of the technical prowess of those involved in their production and a thing of beauty to those that initially 'consume' them. But it should always be remembered that in this age of recycling they could end up in the lavatory rather than the laboratory... and not just for the purposes for which they were intended. Mark On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 at 06:30 Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:09 PM, Mark Stegman <mark.stegman@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben implies the viewing environment has to be the most difficult to predict and control and I would agree. The technical limtations of 'affordable' lighting may be a factor but convincing the affected parties that it is a worhtwhile investment along with other contributors to the ambient viewing conditions is probably the biggest obstacle.
There is, of course, another perspective, one that I try to encourage...and that is to recognize the futility inherent in the quest.
That's not to suggest giving up, of course, or that standards should be excessively loosened or what-not.
It _is,_ however, my suggestion that you should always start by considering what the end product actually is and how it will be viewed. Magazines, for example, are mostly viewed in living rooms and doctor's offices. If a magazine photo looks great in an editorial photo booth but looks horrid in typical office lighting, that's a problem -- and I've seen some big-name magazines whose pictures were far too dark for the living room and which only came to life in direct sunlight.
Straight-up reprographic work is difficult but straightforward; it's very reasonable to expect to be able to put the original and copy side-by-side and have them look the same, with a couple minor footnotes.
And if you have source and destination viewing environments, things are also straightforward. For example, you might get a spectrographic measurement of the ambient light in an artist's studio and a museum gallery and make a copy that very faithfully reproduces the "look" that the artist saw, even if the museum's lighting is quite different.
But if you want to make a general-purpose print that looks good anywhere and everywhere...well, the _original_ isn't going to look good anywhere and everywhere, so why should you expect the copy to be any better?
Cheers,
b&