Print Density vs Expected Lighting

[dancqu]

I'm at a point in making prints where concerns
of the consumer's print lighting levels may be
quite different than the levels I use when
evaluating the print.

Should I worry? Dan

 

[Tom Stanworth]

All you can do is go for something in the middle, where the print would only suffer in poor light or very bright light. I find average lighting conditions in the home far lower than a gallery or similar.

 

[BobNewYork]

The eternal conundrum. The rule of thumb is to always evaluate prints in the lighting in which they'll be displayed. Printing the work for others you can only guess at it. I once printed an exhibit for a client who failed to tell me that the exhibit was to be hung in a huge, glass atrium. She loved the prints when she picked them up - and blamed me entirely when they looked "washed out" when hung! I had 36 hours to reprint a 50 print exhibit "properly"! Not my most profitable job!

Bob H

 

[Maris]

That's why I don't do editions. Even when working with a perfect negative I make the final gelatin-silver photographs in a range of densities and contrasts. Deliberately, no two are the same. Some are made to look good in the typical dim yellow light of art museums. Others are made for a bright office environment.

In practice I vary contrasts about half a grade up and down. Density range corresponds to an exposure change of about 10% up and down. I reckon all the gelatin-silvers are "good" but one will be ideal for its particular viewing environment.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Maris, I often do the same. I hone in on what is perfect for the intended lighting but keep the ones that are either side.... its amazing how good that flaky light print is a a glowing, dull hallway.... Lighting even varies around a room, so for home use, I pick the one that works best in the intended location.