Had the opportunity to borrow an i1 calibration and spent about 2 hours going through the advanced setup last night. Great little calibration gadget by the way. My question for those of you that have it or another high end unit is this.
I used the measurement to measure my ambient lighting in my computer room, and the results were quite stunning. It had my light temp on the extreme warm side at 2900, instead of in the cooler range. I managed to get it up to about 3300 by switching lights to a couple of florescent lamps I had. I'm sure others have had this issue as well? What do you do to resolve this? Do you go full on florescent lighting to get it cooler in the mid range? Does it even matter? Any info is appreciated.
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM
In technical terms it probably matters some if the ambient temp is way off what is ideal, but in practical terms, if you don't have a window covered with white curtains being lit by the sun and reflecting off your monitor, the monitor calibration covers you for probably 99.9% of what you need. Stare at it long enough and you won't even see the ambient light. I cover my windows with opaque roller shades, but I work with a CFL biohazard -- er, I mean, bulb -- overhead and it hasn't seemed to affect my color perception. It is, oddly enough, picking up an FM radio station from Guatemala and transmitting it through the copper wiring in my house, which is kinda weird.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 29, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Like Todd, I wouldn't worry about this with regards to viewing your images on screen.
Where this makes a much bigger difference is in the appearance of your prints, and that happens at two levels. First, the brightness of the viewing lights can significantly change how you view the prints. Most people complain that their prints don't match the monitor because they are too dark. Changing the intensity of light on the print will change this perception. Second, the color temp of the light source can change the appearance of the print. Prints can elicit significantly different responses when viewed under tungsten, north window and direct sunlight.
Personally, the spiked distribution of wavelengths in in most FL lights bugs me. If I had the money, I'd setup my office with solux lighting and I'll get around to it at some point.
The CFL bulbs is what I have in my overhead lights now. The two lamps bounced off the ceiling seems to help a bit with temp, so I re-calibrated with those. If the calibration pretty much covers things regardless of the temp, then I think I will just stick with this setup for now. My main concern is to ensure my prints come out right based on what I am seeing on my screen. I don't really want to throw much money at this issue either, so this helps quite a bit. I'm getting ready to send out for some test prints to see how the new calibration looks, so I will let you guys know how they turn out. Thanks both for the info!
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 29, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Like Mel said, print-viewing situations are real important. When I get proofs back fromm the overseas printer, I always make the mistake of pulling the package open in the worst possible light. Then I take them out onto the back porch and look at them in full sunlight and turn my frown upside-down.
You could also buy an Ott Light.
Posted by Bob Falcone on March 30, 2010 at 12:14 PM
I turn off all the lights in the room, and work with a dimmable desk lamp. Unfortunately, my office faces south, and has louvered blinds that let in a fair amount of diffused light, so I tend to work after it's dark outside (or on overcast days).
Todd, the argument that I am sure has been had before would be, if your prints look perfect outside in the sunlight, but they are hung indoors on your wall in the "Not So Great Lighting" room, shouldn't you calibrate for those conditions and try to proof against those conditions? That is the location that the picture will be hanging 99% of the time. =) I'm pretty new to understanding all the details of ambient lighting and print/proofing, so take my questions with a grain of salt.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Koveh,
The number one issue in print viewing is light intensity, not color temp. A dimly lit print will look dark, a brightly lit print will look vibrant.
Our internal visual systems auto white balance for us well in most situations. Metamerism can be a issue in prints, but its not nearly as important as the luminance in the viewing area.
As for myself, I would choose a bright tungsten or halogen over any fluorescent light including an Ottlight because I prefer the bell curve distribution of wavelengths of tungsten over the spiked distribution under FL light.
It is somewhat important to understand the final viewing light where the print will be displayed and it is possible to calibrate a system around this. But I'd shoot for making prints that look good under proper lighting intensity before shooting for prints that look good under the dim light in your workspace.
Mel, very interesting. So as long as the intensity of light in your viewing area is pretty accurate, then I really shouldn't try to adjust for the temp/type of light. This makes a certain amount of sense when you consider that a picture will be viewed in different types of light throughout the day. For instance, in my living room it will have natural light during the day, then Tungsten at night. If I take that picture and hang it somewhere that I have a CFL light, again different.
I think what I will do is go with the majority here. Since the large majority of lighting in my house is still probably Tungsten, I think I will take your advice and re-calibrate against that. As long as my office has the right amount of light (not too bright or too dark) then I should be good in 80% of viewing situations. Very interesting..thanks for the info!
Discussion
8 repliesI used the measurement to measure my ambient lighting in my computer room, and the results were quite stunning. It had my light temp on the extreme warm side at 2900, instead of in the cooler range. I managed to get it up to about 3300 by switching lights to a couple of florescent lamps I had. I'm sure others have had this issue as well? What do you do to resolve this? Do you go full on florescent lighting to get it cooler in the mid range? Does it even matter? Any info is appreciated.
Where this makes a much bigger difference is in the appearance of your prints, and that happens at two levels. First, the brightness of the viewing lights can significantly change how you view the prints. Most people complain that their prints don't match the monitor because they are too dark. Changing the intensity of light on the print will change this perception. Second, the color temp of the light source can change the appearance of the print. Prints can elicit significantly different responses when viewed under tungsten, north window and direct sunlight.
Personally, the spiked distribution of wavelengths in in most FL lights bugs me. If I had the money, I'd setup my office with solux lighting and I'll get around to it at some point.
You could also buy an Ott Light.
The number one issue in print viewing is light intensity, not color temp. A dimly lit print will look dark, a brightly lit print will look vibrant.
Our internal visual systems auto white balance for us well in most situations. Metamerism can be a issue in prints, but its not nearly as important as the luminance in the viewing area.
As for myself, I would choose a bright tungsten or halogen over any fluorescent light including an Ottlight because I prefer the bell curve distribution of wavelengths of tungsten over the spiked distribution under FL light.
It is somewhat important to understand the final viewing light where the print will be displayed and it is possible to calibrate a system around this. But I'd shoot for making prints that look good under proper lighting intensity before shooting for prints that look good under the dim light in your workspace.
I think what I will do is go with the majority here. Since the large majority of lighting in my house is still probably Tungsten, I think I will take your advice and re-calibrate against that. As long as my office has the right amount of light (not too bright or too dark) then I should be good in 80% of viewing situations. Very interesting..thanks for the info!