D65 is not a daylight standard. It's a TV standard. Morning and evening daylight is around D50. Average daylight is around D55 and noon daylight peaks at D65. That's neither average nor standard.
What I mean by a "standard" is a defined light output. And D65 is more than a TV standard. Needles to say, in color work, you need to work to some daylight standard. Your choice is dependent on many factors. A good book on color management will cover much of this. And there are many texts that cover viewing conditions with color material.
... A lightjet print from a digital file printed suing a monitor calibrated to 6500 K looks the same as a negative printed optically on the same type of paper when both are viewed under 5000 K lights.
I haven't particularly investigated the reason for using a monitor color of 6500 K, but I do know that if I calibrate my monitor for 5000 K, the colors are too warm on screen, and when adjusted, print out too cold. Why a discrepancy in temperature? I don't know, but the end result is clear. A lightjet print from a digital file printed using a monitor calibrated to 6500 K looks the same as a negative printed optically on the same type of paper when both are viewed under 5000 K lights.
We have our lab set up the same way--monitor D65, viewing lights D50. It works--the digital print and monitor image are very close. Could it be the optical brighteners in the paper? Could it be the difference of how we perceive a glowing screen verses reflected light. A combination of both? I don't know. But it works well.
I think the same thing. I don't believe the 6500 K setting for a monitor is truly a 6500 K color temperature. It may just be a designation for the white point using a familiar scale. It does seem to render colors more true than the other settings. A quick google search turns up nothing but speculation.
... Obviously how the human visual system interprets the two conditions of the glowing monitor and the absorbing ink plays a big part. ...
That should not make any difference. Luminance is luminance. The human visual system does not care if light is emitted or reflected. The big difference between a monitor and a print is the subject luminance range (SLR). A print cannot produce much more than 200:1 but monitors go up to 1000:1, in which case a print-to-monitor match is physically impossible, and any software claim promising such a match is nothing but hype. The print vs monitor difference is similar to the print vs slide difference in analog photography.
Then explain why my 200:1 print looks like my 1000:1 monitor.
... (Actually, it can make a big difference if light is emitted or reflected.)
But I'm afraid we're getting off topic.
... It may not be the color temperature itself, but how the monitor renders color at that temperature that accounts for the discrepancy. We are expecting the monitor to render colors at 5000K the same as a light box would, but perhaps it doesn't.
Using 5000 K as a compromise makes a lot of sense to me, and in my view, it puts the 6500 K monitor-calibration standard in question. How, do you think, can they co-exist?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?