Kirk, You can find the OTT lights in fly tying shops or here (google search) http://www.best-vacuum.com/hbx/g-ott-lite.html. They are great but as someone above mentioned, a picture will look different if the client has different lighting... floro lighting can run the gamit from really bad green to a "psuedo" daylight.
The best artifical light source for judging colour and black and white prints' tone are Solux 4700K bulbs. They are a bit warm compared to some types of daylight but colours are perceived accurately. The problem with Solux bulbs is that they are halogen type bulbs and you need several to cover a large area. They are also very intense and will cause colours to appear a little richer than in daylight (because of the 4700K temperature) and a little brighter (because of the light intensity). So I use the Solux bulbs to judge colour but not print density. In my experience, all 5000K high CRI (92 or better) flourescents display some sort of subtle colour casts which increase and change as they age. The GE chroma 50s seem to be okay as are the equivalent Philips bulbs. But Solux bulbs are superior to the flourescents.
Kirk, I'm fifty and just started wearing glasses in the last year. I know my eyes have changed and I'm sure I am less tolerant of eye strain or stress than I was a few years ago. Add in the fact that you probably spend a good deal of time out in the bright sun and then go spend too much time in the dark and it all gets harder and harder as we get older.
A few years ago I did mostly tabletop work for print reproduction - catalogs and such. Transferring color to the printed page is a very refined science (with some voodoo still involved). I found it in some ways easier than trying to deliver a great photographic print because there are standards for viewing conditions and you are generally working in a controlled loop type situation where the translations are fixed more or less and everyone involved could get a good preview of what the final product would look like. The varied lighting conditions and complete lack of standardization of viewing conditions make delivering a great photo print to an architectural client a daunting proposition. They usually have a very good idea what their baby looks like! Add in the fact that some of the current processes do have problems with color shifts under different light sources and you've got a mix for trouble. If you were delivering perfectly exposed chromes you would be excused from the exercise. As soon as you take on the additional responsibility of making the print you open yourself to the vagaries of that process.
I deliver prints because it is an integral part of how I choose to do the work. I shoot color neg film, scan and make adjustments to make the best print I can. For me that completes the cycle of creation, something that I find lacking in delivering a chrome or a CD with files that will go on press far away and I might not see until months later and have no control over during the printing steps.
You, no doubt, already know all that I've just written from your long experience and I am a relative newcomer to architecture photography. But I've been through this conversation with other photographers before and even though we called in all the "magic bullets" the best answer I have found is that its hard if not impossible to simply churn out perfect work everytime. You will be more involved than you might want to be at times! The last crisis was around the management of digital files and maintaining color and look while handing the job off to the next step in the cycle - the job that used to belong to the engravers and printers. I think this is the same conversation again but revolving around a slightly different subject. But I'd welcome anyone who has new ideas about how to make it easier.
As I wrote before, using a print method that provides the most stable appeareance under varied lighting conditions is imperative. Once you have that locked down you just have to do the best you can with your senses. I find that slowing down helps me.
If you are not doing digital work yet (I get the impression that you are doing traditional color printing) you might think about that as a helpful solution. For sure it is capable of producing large quantities of prints that are identical once you get the first one right.
Kirk,
Perhaps a Colorado answer to your question. A personal friend, Gary Regester, who developed the original Chimera light banks and now of Plume Wafer light banks has done extensive research & development of alternative light sources for governmental projects as well as private usage. Gary, who lives in Silver Plume along the I-70 corridor, has a unique reading/study light which may be of interest. Gary's email is info@plumeltd.com--His web site is, www.plumeltd.com and the light/lamp I am speaking of is under Plume Tools-------If you follow up on this lead & persue Gary's light, please keep me posted as I have pondered it as well.
Gary's trade mark, off beat thinking & development of unique lighting sources, is a story unto itself. You will find him a most unusual individual.
And yes, our fading eye accuteness--what a bitch!!!!!!!
Raymond in Vail
Kirk, Two other possibilities here. Both have to do with how your body works. First, if you are tired, your color perception is affected. Second, caffine affects color vision as well. Bret Weston commented that he always printed in the morning when he was rested. His prints speak for themselves. Andy
I also use an Ott lamp that I find serviceable, but if you have money to spare or higher standards, you could get a reflective print viewer such as the ones made by Just Normlicht.
Andy how does coffee affect color vision. This is the first I ahve heard of this. I confess! I am a Starbucks addict.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks