CHROMiX

5000 vs. 6500k light box for best soft proof?

Like many others, I have my monitor profiled to 6500k and a 2.2 gamma even though I’m on a Mac. Recently I bought a dimmable GTI light box and had it lamped for 6500k reflective rather than 5000k (yes, I’m in the U.S.).

After doing a reflective flatbed scan of an image, applying the appropriate profile when opening it in PSCS, and making a proof on my HP130 DesignJet, I put the original art and my inkjet proof side-by-side on the lightbox for comparison to my monitor. I had previously dimmed the lightbox to 60% intensity to roughly eyeball match the whites of my monitor and, the “three-way match” (original/hard proof/soft proof) was nothing short of awesome.

With this kind of monitor-to-proof-to-original art on a lightbox match, I wonder why more people don’t go with 6500k bulbs if they’re already profiling their monitors at 6500k other than 5000k being the U.S. standard for so long?

Has anyone else tried this with any success?

David

My setup: Mac G5, OS10.3.7, dual monitors (1 CRT, 1 LCD), PSCS, GMB Eye-One, Monaco Profiler Gold 4.7, SoftView lightbox

At 5:17 PM -0800 1/4/05, David wrote:

Like many others, I have my monitor profiled to 6500k and a 2.2 gamma even though I’m on a Mac.

good!

Recently I bought a dimmable GTI light box and had it lamped for 6500k reflective rather than 5000k (yes, I’m in the U.S.).

odd but not bad… why 6500?

After doing a reflective flatbed scan of an image, applying the appropriate profile when opening it in PSCS, and making a proof on my HP130 DesignJet, I put the original art and my inkjet proof side-by-side on the lightbox for comparison to my monitor. I had previously dimmed the lightbox to 60% intensity to roughly eyeball match the whites of my monitor and, the “three-way match” (original/hard proof/soft proof) was nothing short of awesome.

With this kind of monitor-to-proof-to-original art on a lightbox match, I wonder why more people don’t go with 6500k bulbs if they’re already profiling their monitors at 6500k other than 5000k being the U.S. standard for so long?

well, there’s a bit of a disconnect between the color temp of monitors vs prints. In many cases 6500 on the monitor will match a 5000K booth better than 5000K on the monitor… Weird and there’s a long list of technical reasons that I don’t fully understand behind it but… that’s the way it is…

Has anyone else tried this with any success?

I haven’t heard about it specifically but I think it’s cool. I have always felt that the white point match is more important than which white point is chosen.

There is the risk that your lighting will be bluer than anything printers are using but that’s only a concern if you want to match what printers see. 6500 is used widely in the textiles industry.

Regards,

Steve


o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX


Post generated from email list

[quote=“upton at chromix.com”]
At 5:17 PM -0800 1/4/05, David wrote:

Like many others, I have my monitor profiled to 6500k and a 2.2 gamma even though I’m on a Mac.

good!

Recently I bought a dimmable GTI light box and had it lamped for 6500k reflective rather than 5000k (yes, I’m in the U.S.).

odd but not bad… why 6500?

I’m also on a Mac. We use a Cinema Display and GTI’s Soft View 2e. Although the lamp is the standard D50, I’ve found a monitor setting of 6000K comes closest to matching the whites. Is this normal or reasonalbe to occur? The room itself is not brightly illuminated, so that should not adversly effect color perception.

Unlike David, I’m still using 1.8–convince me why I should switch…

This is pretty normal. Most people find that a monitor at 5000K in a room of “normal” ambient brightness appears too yellow. 6000-6500K looks closer to the white in a light booth.

Strange but true. Overall I think it’s much more important to find a white that you like and that matches what’s in your booth than one “to the numbers”

Well, in Photoshop it’s not really going to make much difference as PS will convert to the gamma of your display no matter what gamma it is calibrated to.

There are a few good arguements for calibrating your monitor to gamma 2.2:

  • It’s closer to human perception - look at L50 in Photoshop’s color picker when your working space is set to Adobe RGB vs when it is ColorMatch. The closer L50 is to RGB=127 the better the distribution of numbers to store your shadow detail.

  • It’s what web graphics are typically created / converted for. If most graphics coming into your machine are blasting out to a 1.8 gamma display then they are not going to look right. Until web browsers and other apps are properly color managed 2.2 will make graphics look better.

there are probably others as well but I can’t remember them at the moment. 1.8 won’t really cause problems either, I just think 2.2 is better for the ancillary reasons

Regards,

Steve

Good food for thought, thanks!

Good food for thought, thanks!