Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: lighting finished photos  (Read 4501 times)
Phil B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: March 27, 2007, 06:39:59 PM »
ReplyReply

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CLSxyCgyq3E
Logged
jorgedelfino
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2007, 08:02:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CLSxyCgyq3E
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 spam?
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2007, 10:36:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Why would you regard this as spam? I think it's valuable information for photographers who exhibit their work.

Michael
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2007, 01:16:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why would you regard this as spam? I think it's valuable information for photographers who exhibit their work.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Solux is certainly a respectable brand name. The only thing I find slightly off-putting is the sales-pitch tone rather than strictly information. The segment does raise some questions that I'd like answers to.

For one, I'd like to see a comparison between the 3500K light and an equal amount of whatever the other lighting was. Simply covering one of the lights (the "3500K" one, presumably) made both prints look darker, so how can one tell anything about the effect of the color temperature on the vibrancy of the color? A clear A-B test, with X-watts of 3500K Solux vs. the same wattage in Solux 5000K bulbs would be informative.

If one adjusts one's prints to look as good as they can in a conventional D50 or D65 viewing station, will they still look better viewed under 3500K lighting?

And finally, I wonder why the 3500K "looks better" than conventional lighting. Is it something about the color sensitivity of the human eye?

I find the notion sufficiently intriguing that I will probably buy a few Solux bulbs and adapters and see what things look like to me. If and when I do, I'll certainly report back here. If anybody else does such a comparison, I'd like to hear their views.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2007, 01:17:27 PM by EricM » Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2007, 02:54:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Solux is the finest light source for illuminating artwork because its spectral characteristics match those of natural light (sunlight) more closely than any other light source.

Solux lamps can be used to evaluate prints and to light artwork.

When evaluating prints, the main issue with Solux is practicality. A vertical light booth with color-balanced neon tubes (such as those from Just Normlicht or other brand) is far easier to use than a Solux lamp mounted in an adapter.  

When lighting artwork, Solux lamps are far better than anything else I know of.  The true colors of the artwork are revealed.  Practicality is not an issue here because several well-made Solux artwork-lighting fixtures are available.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2007, 03:02:46 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2007, 06:25:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

Quote
Solux is the finest light source for illuminating artwork because its spectral characteristics match those of natural light (sunlight) more closely than any other light source.

Do you use 3500K, 4100K, 4700K or 5000K version for artwork illumination?

Any user experiences on the newer black based version of the solux bulb? I'm wondering if those could be used for color-critical work (proofing & product photography) without expensive fixtures?
All info appreciated!

J
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2007, 11:22:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you use 3500K, 4100K, 4700K or 5000K version for artwork illumination?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe Solux recommends 3500k for artwork illumination but I have used 5000k also and it looks great.
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2007, 05:50:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I believe Solux recommends 3500k for artwork illumination but I have used 5000k also and it looks great.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanx!
J
Logged
Roberto Chaves
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2007, 06:24:42 AM »
ReplyReply

This is one of the least serious comparisions I've seen, covering the light with one hand and comparing it to a darker image?!
Why didn't the reporter react on this? Not much of an objective/awake journalist in my opinion.

Also the idea of having a 3500K light because it looks better (to whom and on which artwork?) seems odd to say the least.
The artwork should be viewed in the light that it was created in, so that one can see what the artist had in mind and not your own coloured (pun intended) version of it.

If on the other hand they claim that the light spectra from their 3500K bulbs will modulate with certain papers in such away to enhance/saturate certain frequencies, which todays printers have trouble reproducing, then that's another thing. Though it still requires the artist to readjust his workflow / display calibration / profiling etc to be able to acount for this in a controlled manner.

Colouring pictures with different light sources to suite your taste seems like using equalizers on your stereo to add more bas and treble because you like that sort of sound (not because the artist original recording had it).
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 08:27:24 AM by Roberto Chaves » Logged

Best regards,
 Roberto Chaves
 www.tabi.se
Phil B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2007, 11:50:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If one adjusts one's prints to look as good as they can in a conventional D50 or D65 viewing station, will they still look better viewed under 3500K lighting?

And finally, I wonder why the 3500K "looks better" than conventional lighting. Is it something about the color sensitivity of the human eye?

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I get that question - Why does the 3500K look better? - all the time.  The answer is - I don't know.  At a recent color science conference in Charlotte NC I gave a presentation about the issue of color proofing with one light source (D50 for example) and then displaying under a different light source -3500K - since the finished work looked better under 3500K despite the fact it was created under D50 calibration (printer, monitor, color proofing light).  I did the demonstration for them and at the end of my talk I challenged them to find out what it is about the human eye that likes what  3500K does for color.    

FYI: the original testing we did to determine that 3500K was best was done at the National Gallery of Art in Wash. DC several years ago.   We had a device that allowed us to shfit a smooth spectrum light source from about 2800K to under 5000K while maintaining the same intensity of light.  We turned the lights off in the gallery and illuminated one painting at a time.  There were about 9 people standing around, and they were asked to say when they thought the art looked its best.  To my utter amazement there was total agreement throughout the night at about 3500K - we did this to over 30 pieces of artwork including a large special gathering of Vermeer paintigs (you can't believe how good his stuff is till you see it).   One of those present that night was Steve Weintraub and he subsequently repeated the experiment under more controled academic conditions.
(To see his paper in JOSA go to [a href=\"http://www.solux.net/ies_files/MuseumLightingStudy.pdf)]http://www.solux.net/ies_files/MuseumLightingStudy.pdf)[/url]

Sorry I can't answer your question as to why the eye prefers 3500K but now you know how we found out about it.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2007, 01:36:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks! That is very helpful. I will definitely have to get some Soluxes at both 3500 and 5000 to do my own comparisons, but that sure sounds impressive.

Curiously (but very unscientifically), I have my computer room set up with 5000K lights throughout, and this is where I do Photoshop and printing. But most of my "at home" print viewing is in our family room, which has conventional incandescent track lights, which are surely much closer to 3500K than to 5000K, and my prints (both BW and color) look good in there. Your testing at the National Gallery suggests that this may not be too far off.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad