Lighting: What type of light is best to evaluate a a B & W print?

[Dan0001]

I know this will be very subjective. I have difficulty when I evaluate a print because different types of light show differences. The best lighting in my opinion is on a wall with a good ceiling direct light or a picture frame light like an art museum would. That is not practical in a darkroom so much. I remember somewhere Fred Picker recommended a 40 watt bulb working for him...doesn't work for me so much. My own method is somewhat tedious in that after I turn on the white light and look, then turn on a small intensity lamp and look. Then bring the print to another room and look under a strong desk lamp. If I am really uncertain I will walk upstairs to a large room displaying pictures with good overhead direct lighting and prop up the print so I can see that aspect. The results are in general that the print will look VG in some light and not in others. Oh sometimes I will go outside and and see what ordinary daylight will do.
Ok I know I have OCD but that's why I got into photography. Just curious how other darkroom workers evaluate their work.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ideally, you'd evaluate a print in the same light it will ultimately be viewed under.

 

[Keith Pitman]

I view wet prints at about EV 6 (read from a gray card).

 

[Ian Grant]

An issue here is dry down and also the effects of Selenium toning (if you use it).

At the moment I have a fluorescent tube light as well as two sets of 3 spotlights. The one on the wet side of the darkroom has a spot pointing at the fixer bath and another at the sink and wash trays, this allows good evaluation, the spot light bulbs were tungsten halide but as they blow are replaced by warm white LED bulbs. At some point I'll replace the Fluorescent with a similar long led light.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

My favorite is a Tungsten 100 watt bare light above and away about 45 degrees from the fix/water trays.

The bulbs vary depending on what I can get but I like the GE Reveal blue tinted but clear halogen bulb. Will settle for regular filament clear blue bulb... Or even if it doesn’t have the blue tint.

It doesn’t make the print pretty but gives me a standard look that I can imagine will dry down... so I try to make the highlights look delicate and fragile. Then when dry the highlights come down to have a little substance

 

[logan2z]

Ideally, you'd evaluate a print in the same light it will ultimately be viewed under.

True, but not always possible to know, especially if you sell your work.

 

[ooze]

Apparently there is an ANSI standard for print inspection lighting. Check out the first five minutes of this video:

 

[Bill Burk]

Ah yes of course the standard. That would be best for judging dry prints.

I thought the goal was to judge prints in the fix or wash. Here you need to trick your eye to visualize what it might look like dry. A dimmer light will not make you think the print is too light which would urge you to make the next print darker. You need to think the print is already too dark, so you dodge a little more or cut your print time a little.

When it comes to viewing a finished print, then you could setup standard lighting.

You could even go to the trouble to match that viewing condition to a calibrated computer monitor. Chris Edge at Kodak made that work. I don’t usually talk much about that, but I can claim I was involved in that professionally since 2001.

 

[Pieter12]

I print almost exclusively on Ilford MG fiber neutral glossy. I really haven't seen much darkening due to dry-down. What I do see is a flattening of the image, due to the print appearing more contrasty when wet. For what it's worth I will view my final, dried and flattened prints in a graphic arts desktop viewing booth.