Print inspection table

[bobbotron]

I'm having a problem where under the desk lamp I use, prints look brighter than they are. I can build all kinds of things, what is a good set up, lighting and table wise, for print inspection?

[Doremus Scudder]

Choosing the intensity of lighting for print viewing can be fairly personal. I base my print viewing area lighting on what I consider to be ideal display lighting intensity and color. I've got a big white board lit by track lighting with a mix of 3200K and 5000K floodlights at about four feet from the surface. I can hang prints on the board with clips and back up and view them as if they were in a gallery.

You're right that too-strong lighting can end up making you print darker. When making a print, I end up viewing them in several lighting situations before making final decisions. I view them on my white board described above, in less-intense general room lighting in my workroom and often in direct sunlight outdoors.

What I'm shooting for is a print that is optimized for my "gallery lighting," but still works in dimmer and brighter light. Most prints displayed in homes aren't under lighting as bright as that in galleries. Sometimes, a print will be illuminated by sunlight coming through a window part of the day, i.e., in very bright light, and then be under rather dim incandescent (or worse, CFLs) after dark. I like a print that will take these extremes and really shine in the situation where the display lighting is somewhat brighter than the ambient room lighting.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Peter De Smidt]

Set up an area that mimics where the print will hang. As Doremus says, gallery lighting is often quite a bit brighter than home lighting. My proofing area currently uses Solux bulbs, but I'm going to switch to high cri led panels.

[Pieter]

There is a video on photo that might help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRAHJmn5EtE&feature=youtu.be

[Tin Can]

I need to do this also.

Table is no good, wrong angle. Fresh flat paint on a wall with prints hanging at the correct angle and height will also be important. As is gallery lighting.

I hate glass or anything over the print...

My second wife, a painter, wanted a good wall in our textured walled apt. I installed a 4X8 piece of drywall and painted that. I don't think the landlord ever noticed.

I will need to do that here soon.

[Ulophot]

Doremus, I'm interested that you chose white and would like to hear your considerations for that choice, since I'm certain you are familiar with both Adams's personal choice on ideal illumination and background, and with disappointing gallery displays in which white walls display poorly illuminated prints, making the values even harder to appreciate. Some years ago, I took my wife to a Strand exhibit at Phialdelphia Museum of Fine Arts, where, despite thougthful attention to showing various aspects of his work over time, the illumination in all but the last gallery, all white-walled, left the richness of his shadow detail mostly to the imagination, or the memory of better showings. The National Gallery, in contrast, rarely uses high values of wall paint, at least in the original building.

By the way, it occurred to me the other day that Doremus might be the Latin nominative for the musical genitive Doremi, later adopted by the famous Italian Renaisssance tenor Solfeggio.

[Peter De Smidt]

If the print is going to hang in a home with only ambient lighting, I go with about 300 Lux to view the print. Obviously, this depends on how bright the area is.

[Tin Can]

In my experience in lower end galleries, repainting the walls flat white is a constant practice, almost always required after every show.

[Ken Lee]

A gallery owner wisely told me not to worry: no matter what we do, buyers will display our photos however and wherever they want.

I sold a photograph to a couple who liked it so much they placed it in their bathroom where they were certain to view it often. The lighting there is... variable.

[Ken Lee]

Doremus, I'm interested that you chose white and would like to hear your considerations for that choice, since I'm certain you are familiar with both Adams's personal choice on ideal illumination and background, and with disappointing gallery displays in which white walls display poorly illuminated prints, making the values even harder to appreciate. Some years ago, I took my wife to a Strand exhibit at Phialdelphia Museum of Fine Arts, where, despite thougthful attention to showing various aspects of his work over time, the illumination in all but the last gallery, all white-walled, left the richness of his shadow detail mostly to the imagination, or the memory of better showings. The National Gallery, in contrast, rarely uses high values of wall paint, at least in the original building.

By the way, it occurred to me the other day that Doremus might be the Latin nominative for the musical genitive Doremi, later adopted by the famous Italian Renaisssance tenor Solfeggio.

As in Do-Re-Mi-Fa-So-La-Ti ... ?

[Drew Wiley]

There is absolutely no such thing as real white, nor do serious galleries tend to aim for that. I've sold thousands of gallons of paint specially batched for museums etc, and I've been paid as a color consultant on those premises. A light complex neutral gray is preferable. Look at MacBeth color matching stations. You can even buy their neutral gray paint from places like B&H. I wouldn't put it on gallery walls; it's too dark. But it is intended for color matching booths. My personal retouching station is deluxe, with a tilting platform and special fluorescent German color matching tubes. You can acquire such tubes from MacBeth or Normlicht, which B&H also sells. You want 500K for critical evaluation work. But because prints get displayed under various lighting conditions, I also have a set of different kinds of common lighting which can be switched on or off, for comparison, just like the selection of lighting booths you'll find in serious lighting stores. True daylight is available just outside the door. But don't believe one word about high CRI from cheapo home center bulbs, especially Phillips. You don't get something for nothing. Solux has already been mentioned; it's a reputable source. ... But the AA custom of displaying prints on deep mocha chocolate backgrounds was forced upon him by the Victoria and Albert Museum, then caught on. I'd rather have real wood paneling in that case. But I've worked with panels where the background of each print could be different. Seen it done that way too. I had my own big Cibas on light gray between AA big prints on traditional chocolate; that's the way the curator wanted it, and it worked out lovely. But display options are somewhat different than critical evaluation when the print is first made. What you DON'T want in either case is anything distracting or which prematurely fatigues the eye. Also understand the fundamental physiological principles of simultaneous contrast and successive contrast - that it key to all of this.

[bobbotron]

Choosing the intensity of lighting for print viewing can be fairly personal. I base my print viewing area lighting on what I consider to be ideal display lighting intensity and color. I've got a big white board lit by track lighting with a mix of 3200K and 5000K floodlights at about four feet from the surface. I can hang prints on the board with clips and back up and view them as if they were in a gallery.

You're right that too-strong lighting can end up making you print darker. When making a print, I end up viewing them in several lighting situations before making final decisions. I view them on my white board described above, in less-intense general room lighting in my workroom and often in direct sunlight outdoors.

What I'm shooting for is a print that is optimized for my "gallery lighting," but still works in dimmer and brighter light. Most prints displayed in homes aren't under lighting as bright as that in galleries. Sometimes, a print will be illuminated by sunlight coming through a window part of the day, i.e., in very bright light, and then be under rather dim incandescent (or worse, CFLs) after dark. I like a print that will take these extremes and really shine in the situation where the display lighting is somewhat brighter than the ambient room lighting.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

Ha, that helps greatly, I had sort of known already this was a tricky subject! Man that's tough, I keep wanting to hold a bright light to them to see the details.

I DID notice in bright sun they look pretty darn good.

I'm currently printing for display in house interiors, I'll have to get a light set higher up to work with, and watch the video Pieter posted below.

[Paul Ron]

photo lighting for galleries n museums use ANSI standards that specify color temps n lumens, angles... etc. but printing for personal use, you should consider what your typical situation is and try to mimic that in your inspection area.

[Tin Can]

Where do we find these standards?


photo lighting for galleries n museums use ANSI standards that specify color temps n lumens, angles... etc. but printing for personal use, you should consider what your typical situation is and try to mimic that in your inspection area.

[Paul Ron]

google ansi museum and gallery lighting standards.
interesting read....
http://inspiringlandscapes.com/blogimg/about/how-to-light-or-illuminate-fine-art-photography/

edit note: i once had a pdf of the ansi standards. i cant find it on my tablet. its probably on my computer... ill look for it via google search n post a link.

https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/iesna/ansiiesnarp3096

http://m.freestd.us/soft/106249.htm

https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ies-rp-30-17?product_id=1951518

[Drew Wiley]

What ACTUAL museums routinely follow such standards?? They tend to tailor the exhibitions to the specific material collection, even with respect to background paint color. And light levels vary. You might notice that valuable old prints borrowed from other collections tend to be illumined at such low light levels, for insurance purposes, that it can be downright discouraging to view them. On the other hand, I've seen expensive galleries using lighting so hot it ruined valuable paintings. I've worked with several major museum prep shops over the years, and never heard of allegedly ideal generic standards being factored into the display side of things. The resident curator generally sets the rules, with specific exhibitions in mind. Just because someone has written books about this just means they want to sell books. The information might be useful, but you probably won't find anything there that actual conservators don't already know a lot better.

[Tin Can]

Thanks Paul and Ron for useful links!

I have spent a lot of time at ARTIC (https://www.artic.edu/exhibitions/9120/conserving-photographs) examining their large print collection and they do illuminate the wall work well. Books are under glass and harder to view. Fancy DSLR is allowed without flash or tripod.

I go to their ever changing print exhibition first, then to the paintings.

Sometimes a very old and rare print will have a black veil we need to move, to let light on the work. But that is seldom.

[bobbotron]

Nothing I'm doing at the moment will go anywhere near a gallery! I'm taking the hint though, stop looking at my prints with a bright desk light source 2 or 3 feet overhead. :^D

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus, I'm interested that you chose white and would like to hear your considerations for that choice, since I'm certain you are familiar with both Adams's personal choice on ideal illumination and background, and with disappointing gallery displays in which white walls display poorly illuminated prints, making the values even harder to appreciate. Some years ago, I took my wife to a Strand exhibit at Philadelphia Museum of Fine Arts, where, despite thoughtful attention to showing various aspects of his work over time, the illumination in all but the last gallery, all white-walled, left the richness of his shadow detail mostly to the imagination, or the memory of better showings. The National Gallery, in contrast, rarely uses high values of wall paint, at least in the original building.

By the way, it occurred to me the other day that Doremus might be the Latin nominative for the musical genitive Doremi, later adopted by the famous Italian Renaisssance tenor Solfeggio.


As in Do-Re-Mi-Fa-So-La-Ti ... ?

Ha!

Being a musician, I get a lot of ribbing about my name, but none have ever referenced the (unfortunately now obscure) tenor Solfeggio!! Probably the tenor with the best intonation in all of singing history.

FWIW, I still practice my solfeggio almost daily.

Actually, my name is a pretty common surname in the Netherlands. I'm the third: my grandfather was named after his generous aunt; they couldn't name him Sarah, so they used her last name.

Ulophot,

A couple of reasons why my viewing board is white. First, it's the most common color for magnetic/dry-erase boards. Second, and most relevant here: my prints get mounted on white museum board. I need to know how they'll look mounted on white. Many prints need a bit of edge burning in order for the edges not to look too weak when against the white background. The trick good galleries use to make a print stand out against a white wall is to use barn doors on the illumination lamps to make sure that the print is illuminated at a higher level than the surrounding white wall. Sorry your Strand exhibit was disappointing; he's one of my all-time favorites and a real inspiration.

Best,

Doremus

[Cor]

Ha!



Actually, my name is a pretty common surname in the Netherlands. I'm the third: my grandfather was named after his generous aunt; they couldn't name him Sarah, so they used her last name.



Completly off topic, but my intrest as a dutch man was spiked by your remark dat Doremus is a common name over here. I never heard of sombody whose family name is Doremus, but who knows.

So I looked it up at:

https://cbgfamilienamen.nl/nfb/lijst_namen.php?operator=eq&naam=doremus

No results, so I checked my family name: Breukel:

https://cbgfamilienamen.nl/nfb/detail_naam.php?gba_lcnaam=breukel&gba_naam=Breukel&nfd_naam=Breukel&operator=eq&taal=

And it gave a nice overview including the highest frequency in the village I was born.

I might have dissapointed you...

Best,

Cor

[bobbotron]

So for an ordinary guy trying to get his prints better.

* print mounted roughly on a white area of a wall, I'm thinking a whiteboard w/ magnets or some other holder I rig up
* 2 bulbs 6 feet or more away?

I'm planning for this setup with for two 40W incandescent bulbs about 6 feet away. I figure they have better colour spectrum than most bulbs I'd find in a hardware store and won't break the bank. I realize I'll probably upgrade this significantly over time.

[Doremus Scudder]

So for an ordinary guy trying to get his prints better.

* print mounted roughly on a white area of a wall, I'm thinking a whiteboard w/ magnets or some other holder I rig up
* 2 bulbs 6 feet or more away?

I'm planning for this setup with for two 40W incandescent bulbs about 6 feet away. I figure they have better colour spectrum than most bulbs I'd find in a hardware store and won't break the bank. I realize I'll probably upgrade this significantly over time.

Get a few bulbs of different wattage and play with those till you get the illumination you want. If you're interested in matching gallery lighting, take you light meter to a few galleries and take readings of their white walls (or take a card with you so you are certain you have the same subject reflectance). Then you can match you viewing area to that approximately.

Personally, I prefer a mix of tungsten and "daylight" illumination for evaluating prints. I have track lighting with both regular tungsten and blue "daylight" bulbs that I use for print evaluation. You might try a halogen bulb too, I think they're a bit higher color temp than regular tungsten bulbs. I'm pretty sure my set-up is brighter than your two 40-watt bulbs at six feet. In the end, it's personal preference, despite all the industry standards.

Best,

Doremus

[Pieter]

With an incident meter you don't need to take a card, just read the light from the photo location.

[Drew Wiley]

What is white? Even different brands of mounting and matboard have different flavors of whites (not just one white, but multiple options in each brand). Wall paint - thousands of options of white. Different amounts of white pigment in paint, and even different kinds of pigment, not to mention a preponderance of adulterants, which much white pigment is actually classified as by paint chemists - cheap filler. Too white and you get glare, eye fatigue. And blackboards, how did they suddenly become white? When the high school match teacher turned his back and started scribbling on the board with chalk, and the spitwads came, splattering white paper glop alongside, the whole intended effect would be diminished by a white board! "You knuckleheads!"

[bobbotron]

What is white? Even different brands of mounting and matboard have different flavors of whites (not just one white, but multiple options in each brand). Wall paint - thousands of options of white. Different amounts of white pigment in paint, and even different kinds of pigment, not to mention a preponderance of adulterants, which much white pigment is actually classified as by paint chemists - cheap filler. Too white and you get glare, eye fatigue. And blackboards, how did they suddenly become white? When the high school match teacher turned his back and started scribbling on the board with chalk, and the spitwads came, splattering white paper glop alongside, the whole intended effect would be diminished by a white board! "You knuckleheads!"

I'm not sure what we're talking about any more. :D

[Jac@stafford.net]

A perennial question: where will the print be viewed?

Blasphemy perhaps, but our esteemed gallery's curator scans and digitally prints photographs submitted for display and has the mastery to print to the viewing light temperature, intensity and polarization (a minor factor) to optimize viewing experience.

A significant exception was a display of very large Ansel Adams' (original?) prints where the display walls had to be chosen carefully or moved.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've used Solux bulbs for a long time, and they work well for gallery proofing....but most of my prints are in homes with natural lighting. Recently, I switched my proofing wall to two of these:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K9K92ZS/ref=twister_B07KNBFY5S?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 They have very accurate color rendering, they're bright (but easily dimmable), and they easily adjust color temp. For home display, I normally proof at 4K. Mind you, I'm printing BW with non-optically brightened papers. For my uses, they're a step up from Solux.

[Drew Wiley]

What are we talking about? Print inspection is relative to what is around it, not just the light falling on the print. Your vision is biased by everything it takes in. It's a physiological as well as psychological fact analogous to your taste buds. Eat too much sweet, and the next salty thing you taste will seem even saltier. Likewise, as one of your own RGB visual cones gets fatigued, the other two seem stronger, hence a direct complement to the original color, combining them. And any house painter worth his pay, just like any decently trained painter using a canvas, knows about the third rail of a pure neutral gray approaching the same density of any hue next to it - it induces the complementary in your vision, skewing your objectivity of what you think you are perceiving. So too what ACTUALLY goes into so-called white paint. It's rarely intended to be pure white. About the only exception is pure barium sulfate intended to be used in densitometer housings, at around $200 per half pint. All of this is just the ABC's of color science. And it is a science. ...
Peter, I'm now using LED light panels on the copystand, and regard them as decent for that kind of thing, but not ideal for critical color evaluation, which should ideally involve more than one kind of lighting. ...
And Jac - blasphemy yes. I once got infuriated at a framer who cropped down my mats so he could use less expensive generic frame sizes; but I had already sold those prints, so there was nothing I could do. It messed up the intended balance. The notion of someone digitizing a print and then reprinting it according to their own concept ... well, that would be an abomination. Prints "submitted digitally" aren't prints at all, and should stay in cyberspace, not on the wall of anything pretending to be a serious venue.

[Drew Wiley]

The next big exhibition, Jac ... "If Monet had been Alive Today": he pulls out a cell phone and takes a snapshot of his garden, sends a JPEG to the Curator, and expects the Curator to paint it. It's that kind of nonsense that discourages me from going to certain museums these days. Why bother?

[Peter De Smidt]

Drew, are you using the panels I'm talking about? And who are you talking to about the importance of visual elements around the print? I didn't see anyone denying any of that.

[Drew Wiley]

Peter, I suspect most of those relatively cheap panels are actually coming out of only one or two Chinese plants, though tweaked to brand specifications. I'm using Savage rim LED panels, which have improved evenness due to the extra diffusion of rim design. Somewhat more expensive than yours, but certainly not pro video quality. Fine for my purpose. Of course, none of these lights do what they actually claim, because any plastic involved lowers the color temperature, just like in a light box with the K temp based on the light source, but not factoring added materials. I'm standardizing on 4500K, so no big deal. But if someone wanted to use these kinds of panels to match north window light, they're going to feel gyped by the deceptive labeling. As far as the paint goes, just a general comment. That is a topic I'm a bit of an expert at, and it gives me a lot of appreciation for product lines that do it right, versus those that pretend market. It's more involved than one might think. You not only have to achieve the right brand of pigments, but know how they fade or oxidize in relation to one another. I don't want to bore you with too many stories; but one of the funniest ones is when a big museum around here ordered up several hundred gallons of their particular wall paint. But then one of their employees found a five gallon container still in storage somewhere in back. He was smart enough to know it might not precisely match the new batch, but didn't want to waste it. So he decided to paint the furnace and AC room with it, where the intake air for the whole facility went through. Well, old water-based paint sometimes goes rancid, and smells just like rotten milk. They had to shut down that whole museum for three weeks, and in the meantime, get the rancid paint coated with shellac and air everything out. I don't know what kind of excuses he made, but it sure would have been fun to be there to hear them!