Question:
Hi Doc. Professionals use a purpose built print viewing box. They are colour corrected to 5000 degrees Kelvin, which is considered daylight colour temperature. You can get them any size…from 4 ft wide to just large enough for a 11×14" print. If colour is really critical you should not view your prints under flourescent lighting because it is not a continuous spectrum light source. I believe Vistek in Toronto carries these print viewing boxes. The difference between shooting video or certain types of film under 3500K is that the video camera has a built in white balance and certain colour films adjust for flourescent lighting. Your eye adjusts for this lighting as well and a print that looks pretty good in your office can look like hell in sunlight. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi folks – I’ve viewed this group for about a year, and if this has been discussed in depth, I’ve missed it. I do most of my photo printing on an Epson 1270, and am looking for a decent balanced light source to view the finished output. I fully realize the "look" of the print will change with light sources, and have done a fair amount of reading on that, but I’m looking for internal consitency. I just read an article that I picked up in the archives of rec.photo.nature, where the author (owner of a video studio in Florida) gives a very persuasive case on why and how fluorescent lighting, using GE bulbs at 3500 K, works well for them. According to him, when one gets past the bargain basement fixtures and spends about $50+, the issue of noisy ballasts and flickering goes away. He uses the balanced GE bulbs at about $5.00 a shot, but says that other companies also sell more expensive bulbs. Has anyone used this as a "light table" for viewing prints as opposed to his use to take videos? He says the GE bulbs come in 3000, 3200, and 3500 K. Given that my prints will be viewed in situations ranging from tungsten to fluorescent, with lots of ambient daylight as well, is the 3500 K a good "baseline" for my output to be consistent, and then its up to the Gods as to what it looks like "out there"? Thanks for any shared experience, Peter M. Peter E Mezciems, MD, CCFP, FASAM, Listowner ADD_MED Post Traumatic Stress Recovery Unit, Homewood Addiction Division, 150 Delhi Street, Guelph ON N1E 6K9 Canada
Response:
I have three thoughts, but no answers. First you should examine the prints under the same kind of lighting they will be viewed under. Fluorescent is not a very good source of light for viewing anything. Even the color "corrected" lamps are only better than standard, but not good. The real problem is they are not smooth spectrum. (Not much light is really smooth, but the metal halide and florescences are really bad). As a result dyes that don’t react evenly (most of them) may look quite different under one than another. Your eyes and brain are great. They work together to white balance without you knowing it, so to a great extent they make corrections you don’t notice until you view two prints side by side. So it is a good idea to compare all the prints that will be shown together under the same light at the same time. Good Luck — Dia ’s Muire duit Joseph E. Meehan Please note that this author is not the same Joseph Meehan who is a professional author of Photograph materials. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi folks – I’ve viewed this group for about a year, and if this has been discussed in depth, I’ve missed it. I do most of my photo printing on an Epson 1270, and am looking for a decent balanced light source to view the finished output. I fully realize the "look" of the print will change with light sources, and have done a fair amount of reading on that, but I’m looking for internal consitency. I just read an article that I picked up in the archives of rec.photo.nature, where the author (owner of a video studio in Florida) gives a very persuasive case on why and how fluorescent lighting, using GE bulbs at 3500 K, works well for them. According to him, when one gets past the bargain basement fixtures and spends about $50+, the issue of noisy ballasts and flickering goes away. He uses the balanced GE bulbs at about $5.00 a shot, but says that other companies also sell more expensive bulbs. Has anyone used this as a "light table" for viewing prints as opposed to his use to take videos? He says the GE bulbs come in 3000, 3200, and 3500 K. Given that my prints will be viewed in situations ranging from tungsten to fluorescent, with lots of ambient daylight as well, is the 3500 K a good "baseline" for my output to be consistent, and then its up to the Gods as to what it looks like "out there"? Thanks for any shared experience, Peter M. Peter E Mezciems, MD, CCFP, FASAM, Listowner ADD_MED Post Traumatic Stress Recovery Unit, Homewood Addiction Division, 150 Delhi Street, Guelph ON N1E 6K9 Canada
Response:
I use the light under which I expect it to be seen – incandescent. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Old site with some pictures still up at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi folks – I’ve viewed this group for about a year, and if this has been discussed in depth, I’ve missed it. I do most of my photo printing on an Epson 1270, and am looking for a decent balanced light source to view the finished output. I fully realize the "look" of the print will change with light sources, and have done a fair amount of reading on that, but I’m looking for internal consitency. I just read an article that I picked up in the archives of rec.photo.nature, where the author (owner of a video studio in Florida) gives a very persuasive case on why and how fluorescent lighting, using GE bulbs at 3500 K, works well for them. According to him, when one gets past the bargain basement fixtures and spends about $50+, the issue of noisy ballasts and flickering goes away. He uses the balanced GE bulbs at about $5.00 a shot, but says that other companies also sell more expensive bulbs. Has anyone used this as a "light table" for viewing prints as opposed to his use to take videos? He says the GE bulbs come in 3000, 3200, and 3500 K. Given that my prints will be viewed in situations ranging from tungsten to fluorescent, with lots of ambient daylight as well, is the 3500 K a good "baseline" for my output to be consistent, and then its up to the Gods as to what it looks like "out there"? Thanks for any shared experience, Peter M. Peter E Mezciems, MD, CCFP, FASAM, Listowner ADD_MED Post Traumatic Stress Recovery Unit, Homewood Addiction Division, 150 Delhi Street, Guelph ON N1E 6K9 Canada
Response:
Hi folks – I’ve viewed this group for about a year, and if this has been discussed in depth, I’ve missed it. I do most of my photo printing on an Epson 1270, and am looking for a decent balanced light source to view the finished output. I fully realize the "look" of the print will change with light sources, and have done a fair amount of reading on that, but I’m looking for internal consitency.
For proofing my inkjet prints from an Epson 870 I use a task lamp from Ott-Lite (http://www.ott-lite.com/) that does a very nice job. It has a 13-watt colour corrected fluorescent in it, takes up very little desk space, and gives very good colour. There’s a brief user review of it at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ott-lite.htm Paul http://www.chefurka.com
Response:
Hi folks – I’ve viewed this group for about a year, and if this has been discussed in depth, I’ve missed it. I do most of my photo printing on an Epson 1270, and am looking for a decent balanced light source to view the finished output. I fully realize the "look" of the print will change with light sources, and have done a fair amount of reading on that, but I’m looking for internal consitency. I just read an article that I picked up in the archives of rec.photo.nature, where the author (owner of a video studio in Florida) gives a very persuasive case on why and how fluorescent lighting, using GE bulbs at 3500 K, works well for them. According to him, when one gets past the bargain basement fixtures and spends about $50+, the issue of noisy ballasts and flickering goes away. He uses the balanced GE bulbs at about $5.00 a shot, but says that other companies also sell more expensive bulbs. Has anyone used this as a "light table" for viewing prints as opposed to his use to take videos? He says the GE bulbs come in 3000, 3200, and 3500 K. Given that my prints will be viewed in situations ranging from tungsten to fluorescent, with lots of ambient daylight as well, is the 3500 K a good "baseline" for my output to be consistent, and then its up to the Gods as to what it looks like "out there"? Thanks for any shared experience, Peter M. Peter E Mezciems, MD, CCFP, FASAM, Listowner ADD_MED Post Traumatic Stress Recovery Unit, Homewood Addiction Division, 150 Delhi Street, Guelph ON N1E 6K9 Canada
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.