As the ISO has not been determined then it is obviously possible. However, if we assume this to be LV (or EV at ISO 100) then you could have a point.
Steve.
How do you view your prints?
-
A
- Thread starter Mr Man
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 2 11x14 contact printing frames
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale 8x10 acros
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuij GA-645Zi - Gorgeous
- Started by chuckroast
-
For Sale FS: NIKKOR Z 28mm f/2.8 S lens
- Started by pascalkea
-
For Sale FS: Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm F/2.8 Xenotar w/ Copal Shutter
- Started by pascalkea
Forum statistics
As the ISO has not been determined then it is obviously possible. However, if we assume this to be LV (or EV at ISO 100) then you could have a point.
Steve.
Essential for critical color correction and inexpensive to set up an MR-16 array....http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/color-proofing.html
Sorry should have said I was also been looking at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and was indeed using ISO 100
Easy to set up ...maybe
Essential for critical color correction..........I agree they are good for colour proofing, but I think they are unnecessary for B & W
Inexpensive.........well they maybe in the US but here in the UK they are about £13.00 a bulb with no fitting
Also I am not in favour of using spot lamps for illuminating works as they tend to produce hot spots unless you several diffused lamps, a traditional bare bulb at a reasonable distance produces a much more even light.
Dose not Vilk have a point that as long as you are happy with the levels of shadow and highlight detail trying to produce prints to the environment in which they will be displayed will just result in prints with either greater or lesser amounts of contrast?
I use twelve solux mr-16's with two tracks I got at the home depot. They're diffused with lee quarter white frost. I get perfect even light against a metallic 12'x8' wall. Compared to a Normlicht viewing system this set-up is inexpensive. Prints are held in place with rare earth magnets. This system works great and other than photo-floods I don't know of any other bulbs that provide the full spectrum output of the solux's. But I color correct a lot and that's why I chose solux. If I had 20' ceilings than I could use fewer bulbs to get an even spread. Try this with low ceilings and you'll be looking at glare more than the picture. Use a bare bulb and the light will be shining in your eyes - best to get a par of some sort.
I just use a regular 60W bulb and a white wall 
For a first view, right after printing, anyway. It will never look the sames as with daylight (real or simulated), but with a bit of experience, it's good enough to know, if a BW-print is good or not.
For a first view, right after printing, anyway. It will never look the sames as with daylight (real or simulated), but with a bit of experience, it's good enough to know, if a BW-print is good or not.I'm sure you do but I think you are probably making more money from your photography than I am and at about £158.00 for a viewing light I think I would rather put the money towards some soon to be defunked Fotokemika / Adox products before they disappear. Also I only have an 8' high by 4' wall available, and I need to fit a couple of storage shelves on there as well, but your system sounds like one to aspire to.
Most incandescent bulbs put out full spectrum light they just put out more of the red end of the spectrum than a daylight balanced bulb.
Not if the bulb is behind you
I don't agree par lamps create a focused central point of light that falls of towards the edges where as a bare bulb will produce an even light on a surface subject to the inverse square law
THis is a very interesting thread. I have always wondered what you have to gear prints contrast n deatails for when displaying em, in a home or gallery. It seems there are some gallery standards for lighhting both for display n conservation.
Some interesting reading here which may spur further research to how we print n for who.....
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/19_1/news_in_cons1.html
http://mgnsw.org.au/uploaded/resources/Fact Sheets/Exhibtions/FS - Lighting for Exhibitions.pdf
Some interesting reading here which may spur further research to how we print n for who.....
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/19_1/news_in_cons1.html
http://mgnsw.org.au/uploaded/resources/Fact Sheets/Exhibtions/FS - Lighting for Exhibitions.pdf
Hi Paul, interesting reading indeed but I find your statement that it
rather frighting, and I shall explain why.
In the text you refer to there is no differentiation in the type of images displayed, colour photographs and monochrome photographs are all just referred to as photographs despite being produced by differing chemical process. Colour photographs are produced by dyes that are lied down in proportion to the amount of silver in the image, silver that is subsequently removed from the image. These colour images are, I would have thought, rather more susceptible to fading than a B & W silver image that is formed from metallic silver that is unlikely to fade. There maybe other issues with silver gelatin images relating to improper processing but exposure to a reasonable amount of light I would not have thought to degrade the silver itself to a detrimental level. There is however the point that the paper base may suffer and discolour as a result of exposure to light, which brings me to my second point. I understand that many papers bases use optical brighteners to create brilliance in the print, these brighteners are activated, as well as degraded by UV light. Displaying a print made on a paper base that contains optical brighteners under a light source that contains no UV will lessen the brilliance of the image that the photographer was trying to portray, which brings me to my third point. It is the job of the photographer to create images, the job of the curator to display those images and the job of the conservator to protect them. We, as photographers, should create images as we see fit and not to some specification as defined by curators or conservators. If a curator wants to display a work they should do their best to display it as the creator intended it to be displayed and if I intend my work to be displayed in a room illuminated by flaming oil drums of diesel while thunderflashes go off every 30 seconds then that is how they should display it, and as for the conservators they can pick up the pieces and do what they want with them after. There are many works of art that have been created in recent years that have been defined by there own destruction, why should photographers adhere to the idea that there images should last a thousand years? When you buy a new car for £20,000 the manufacture dose not expect you to still be driving it in 300 years time and yet some of the earliest cars survive, not because they were built with superior materials and design but because a few individuals decided they were worth preserving and that is what gives them there current value. Create your work as you see fit and if you want to use fixer that is so exhausted that the image is destroyed after a few months so be it.
rather frighting, and I shall explain why.
In the text you refer to there is no differentiation in the type of images displayed, colour photographs and monochrome photographs are all just referred to as photographs despite being produced by differing chemical process. Colour photographs are produced by dyes that are lied down in proportion to the amount of silver in the image, silver that is subsequently removed from the image. These colour images are, I would have thought, rather more susceptible to fading than a B & W silver image that is formed from metallic silver that is unlikely to fade. There maybe other issues with silver gelatin images relating to improper processing but exposure to a reasonable amount of light I would not have thought to degrade the silver itself to a detrimental level. There is however the point that the paper base may suffer and discolour as a result of exposure to light, which brings me to my second point. I understand that many papers bases use optical brighteners to create brilliance in the print, these brighteners are activated, as well as degraded by UV light. Displaying a print made on a paper base that contains optical brighteners under a light source that contains no UV will lessen the brilliance of the image that the photographer was trying to portray, which brings me to my third point. It is the job of the photographer to create images, the job of the curator to display those images and the job of the conservator to protect them. We, as photographers, should create images as we see fit and not to some specification as defined by curators or conservators. If a curator wants to display a work they should do their best to display it as the creator intended it to be displayed and if I intend my work to be displayed in a room illuminated by flaming oil drums of diesel while thunderflashes go off every 30 seconds then that is how they should display it, and as for the conservators they can pick up the pieces and do what they want with them after. There are many works of art that have been created in recent years that have been defined by there own destruction, why should photographers adhere to the idea that there images should last a thousand years? When you buy a new car for £20,000 the manufacture dose not expect you to still be driving it in 300 years time and yet some of the earliest cars survive, not because they were built with superior materials and design but because a few individuals decided they were worth preserving and that is what gives them there current value. Create your work as you see fit and if you want to use fixer that is so exhausted that the image is destroyed after a few months so be it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well at least we raise the question; how our prints were intended to be viewed vs proper lighting technique vs as per the creator's instruction. It would be funny to see a florescent circle line kitchen light displaying an Ansel Adams museum photograph though.
There must be some standard somewhere for illuminating B&W archival prints? I notice a big difference in my prints when viewing in my back yard as opposed to my basement with 8' overhead florecent day light balanced bulbs (one warm, one cool). A curious problem, how will my prints look in a galery when I become famous after I'm dead for a 100 years?
Next time I visit the museum I am going to make a special note of checking the lighting with my meter and maybe asking someone in the know if they can give me more info.
There must be some standard somewhere for illuminating B&W archival prints? I notice a big difference in my prints when viewing in my back yard as opposed to my basement with 8' overhead florecent day light balanced bulbs (one warm, one cool). A curious problem, how will my prints look in a galery when I become famous after I'm dead for a 100 years?
Next time I visit the museum I am going to make a special note of checking the lighting with my meter and maybe asking someone in the know if they can give me more info.
john, interesting that you came up with that number. i tested this with a number of participants, and came up with 1/12 fstop, which is close to 10%!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |