Reading mode: Light Dark

EV number for monitor and print

EV number for monitor and print

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
Charles2 said:
digidog said:
Charles2 said:
"Exposure"/"exposure value" has more than one meaning in photography.
Click to expand...
An example of an image from someone who probably shouldn't be discussing exposure or it's 'other' meanings made up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60419935
Click to expand...
Folks, this digicur guy has linked to a photo I did not take, did not praise, and simply commented on.
Click to expand...
You only ruined it in processing as you described in the above URL then.

Need examples from your photo feed?

Interesting you used that as another poor example; your image or another.

Like your favorite color management site that believes a display is an input device (as you do?):

CambridgeInColour and Chuck's idea about color management
CambridgeInColour and Chuck's idea about color management
Charles2 said:
But he works himself into a frenzy and goes into flame war mode and loses all sight of reality. He's been at it for fifteen years.
Click to expand...
I can't believe I (and others) have spent that long correcting you. The paper trail I posted is but a mere sampling.
Charles2 said:
Here, he goes ballistic because the word exposure does indeed have more than one meaning in photography.
Click to expand...
Translation, Ballistic means: I Charles2 have been corrected again for using the incorrect terms or providing misinformation.

And no, there isn't multiple meanings in photography for exposure and showing the word in a piece of software doesn't make it so. That you see that as a label for a slider doesn't make it part of exposure and that you believe that is absurd, worse, trying to convince others of these kinds of fairy tales is, as Iliah calling you out (URL provided) malpractice!

“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” Voltaire,

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Tom Axford said:
I have no idea what you are talking about!
Click to expand...
OK it was not clear. If you look at the wikipedia link and put your camera on ISO 100 you can test your monitor and some prints at your place.
Click to expand...
If I take a photograph the exposure I need to make it look "eight" compared to the scene I'm photographing is a combination of the f-stop and shutter speed I set. No matter what ISO I set in the camera I can control the output (image) brightness by altering one or both of those settings.

As I sit here with my camera at ISO100 my camera suggests the exposure for my screen at f/4 is 1/30s. If I change aperture to f/2 shutter speed goes to 1/125s (effectively 2 stops faster for the aperture being 2 stops faster).

If I go back to f/4 and change ISO to 400 I get 1/125s again - 2 stops of ISO, 2 stops of shutter speed compared to my first settings.

All of that is by looking at the screen as I type this message - nearly all white with some print. The I open a new tab and open a new web page with advertising that's rather darker, and at f/4 ISO400 shutter speed slows to 1/90s.

So - please explain to me how this "test [of] your monitor" monitor works.
Click to expand...
f/4 and 1/30s results in EV=9 at ISO 100.

The point is to test a typical image review use of the monitor. Dark text on white background will most likely give higher EV.
Click to expand...
OK. So I view a fairly bright picture at ISO100 and f/4 and shutter speed goes to 1/8s; I view a fairly dark picture at ISO100 and f/4 and shutter speed goes 1/6s. It's still the same monitor - what am I testing?
Click to expand...
Your patience? :-)
 
Charles2 said:
digidog said:
Charles2 said:
"Exposure"/"exposure value" has more than one meaning in photography.
Click to expand...
An example of an image from someone who probably shouldn't be discussing exposure or it's 'other' meanings made up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60419935
Click to expand...
guy has linked to a photo I did not take, did not praise, and simply commented on.
Click to expand...
No. You _edited_ it, according to your understanding of what is exposure, what is brightness, and what photography is about, like you typed: "Fast Stone: 1. Auto-adjust - press a key combination. 2. Reduce highlights - move a slider. 3. (optional) Save at reduced JPG quality level to cut the file size. < 1 minute."

And here is your result, from that post:

8a5273191cd44292acce1755bc073e53.jpg

--
http://www.libraw.org/
 
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Tom Axford said:
I have no idea what you are talking about!
Click to expand...
OK it was not clear. If you look at the wikipedia link and put your camera on ISO 100 you can test your monitor and some prints at your place.
Click to expand...
If I take a photograph the exposure I need to make it look "eight" compared to the scene I'm photographing is a combination of the f-stop and shutter speed I set. No matter what ISO I set in the camera I can control the output (image) brightness by altering one or both of those settings.

As I sit here with my camera at ISO100 my camera suggests the exposure for my screen at f/4 is 1/30s. If I change aperture to f/2 shutter speed goes to 1/125s (effectively 2 stops faster for the aperture being 2 stops faster).

If I go back to f/4 and change ISO to 400 I get 1/125s again - 2 stops of ISO, 2 stops of shutter speed compared to my first settings.

All of that is by looking at the screen as I type this message - nearly all white with some print. The I open a new tab and open a new web page with advertising that's rather darker, and at f/4 ISO400 shutter speed slows to 1/90s.

So - please explain to me how this "test [of] your monitor" monitor works.
Click to expand...
f/4 and 1/30s results in EV=9 at ISO 100.

The point is to test a typical image review use of the monitor. Dark text on white background will most likely give higher EV.
Click to expand...
OK. So I view a fairly bright picture at ISO100 and f/4 and shutter speed goes to 1/8s; I view a fairly dark picture at ISO100 and f/4 and shutter speed goes 1/6s. It's still the same monitor - what am I testing?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Tom Axford said:
I have no idea what you are talking about!
Click to expand...
OK it was not clear. If you look at the wikipedia link and put your camera on ISO 100 you can test your monitor and some prints at your place.
Click to expand...
If I take a photograph the exposure I need to make it look "eight" compared to the scene I'm photographing is a combination of the f-stop and shutter speed I set. No matter what ISO I set in the camera I can control the output (image) brightness by altering one or both of those settings.

As I sit here with my camera at ISO100 my camera suggests the exposure for my screen at f/4 is 1/30s. If I change aperture to f/2 shutter speed goes to 1/125s (effectively 2 stops faster for the aperture being 2 stops faster).

If I go back to f/4 and change ISO to 400 I get 1/125s again - 2 stops of ISO, 2 stops of shutter speed compared to my first settings.

All of that is by looking at the screen as I type this message - nearly all white with some print. The I open a new tab and open a new web page with advertising that's rather darker, and at f/4 ISO400 shutter speed slows to 1/90s.

So - please explain to me how this "test [of] your monitor" monitor works.
Click to expand...
f/4 and 1/30s results in EV=9 at ISO 100.

The point is to test a typical image review use of the monitor. Dark text on white background will most likely give higher EV.
Click to expand...
OK. So I view a fairly bright picture at ISO100 and f/4 and shutter speed goes to 1/8s; I view a fairly dark picture at ISO100 and f/4 and shutter speed goes 1/6s. It's still the same monitor - what am I testing?
Click to expand...
You are now at EV 7 so something like EV 7 -EV 9 should be typical for your monitor.
Click to expand...
I view my monitor in a room inside (of course) my house. I view the monitor with eyes that are adjusted to the ambient light. I can alter brightness, contrast etc on my monitor. I can alter the way my pictures look. Both depend on what I personally like, so it seems to me that I'm not testing anything; but I'm measuring my preference for how I view my monitor.
Oldboy 1948 said:
Yes this poll was not very good, I am sorry for all confusion!
Click to expand...
But it's been fun ...
 
Oldboy 1948 said:
With modern digital cameras we should like to have a 44" printer to show it all, right?
Click to expand...
Any size print gets it all if the paper shape matches the cameras' framing.

If thinking in terms of fine detail then if the lens and camera was good enough then printing at between 200 and 300 camera pixels per inch of print wil show all the available detail at close examination. For my camera at 4608 pixels frame width that means 4608/200=23inches approx or 4608/300=15 inches or so. That means from maybe 15 to 23 inch wide print would show it all for my camera.
Oldboy 1948 said:
But as most of us don't live in a palace, don't like the cost and don't like weight (above 100 kg) we have to find alternatives.

We have the monitor, the TV or prints we can have in our home.

Looking at a picture is about size, distance and light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Now you know about EV (my monitor is around EV 7)

How is it at your place?
Click to expand...
Monitor output is set for the ambient light conditions and also for user comfort. Monitor calibration hardware/software packages recommend a certain a white luminance (brightness) but that would basically be for user comfort where they may be staring at the screen for long periods.

For a brightly lit living room TV display then the white luminance may be set differently as the user is not sitting so close and the TV has to compete with room light.

Even more extreme is in a shop selling the TV, there the lighting is generally awful so the TVs always have a "store" setting to make then brighter and more saturated so they display better in the high ambient light. Get it home and best to set it to the "home" settings as otherwise everything looks dreadful.

All that talk is just to say that screen brightness is set to suit user and ambient light conditions, there is no one correct setting.

Quoting EV numbers for screens is pointless and basically meaningless if aiming a camera at a screen as my screen varies from all white to all black and everything in between depending on what is being displayed.

As for EV number when aiming a camera at a print, well that's a bit crazy as the print can vary from all white to all black and everything in between as well as the ambient lighting varying from midnight to midday or more extremely bright with extra artificial lighting.

Sorry, but nothing much made any sense in your original post and the poll.

Regards.... Guy
 
Last edited:
Iliah Borg said:
Charles2 said:
digidog said:
Charles2 said:
"Exposure"/"exposure value" has more than one meaning in photography.
Click to expand...
An example of an image from someone who probably shouldn't be discussing exposure or it's 'other' meanings made up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60419935
Click to expand...
guy has linked to a photo I did not take, did not praise, and simply commented on.
Click to expand...
No. You _edited_ it, according to your understanding of what is exposure, what is brightness, and what photography is about, like you typed: "Fast Stone: 1. Auto-adjust - press a key combination. 2. Reduce highlights - move a slider. 3. (optional) Save at reduced JPG quality level to cut the file size. < 1 minute."

--
http://www.libraw.org/
Click to expand...
Damn you! ;-)

I now have to add 'image processing' to the quote....

The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, exposure, recommendations of print shops/labs AND image processing, is that those who have it are so eager to regularly post it! - The Digital Dog

Please don't make me add any more. ;-)

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
Guy Parsons said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
With modern digital cameras we should like to have a 44" printer to show it all, right?
Click to expand...
Any size print gets it all if the paper shape matches the cameras' framing.

If thinking in terms of fine detail then if the lens and camera was good enough then printing at between 200 and 300 camera pixels per inch of print wil show all the available detail at close examination. For my camera at 4608 pixels frame width that means 4608/200=23inches approx or 4608/300=15 inches or so. That means from maybe 15 to 23 inch wide print would show it all for my camera.
Click to expand...
Why are you asking for so small printer when people use 55-66" 4K TV?

After all it is only 3820x2160 pixels.
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
But as most of us don't live in a palace, don't like the cost and don't like weight (above 100 kg) we have to find alternatives.

We have the monitor, the TV or prints we can have in our home.

Looking at a picture is about size, distance and light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Now you know about EV (my monitor is around EV 7)

How is it at your place?
Click to expand...
Monitor output is set for the ambient light conditions and also for user comfort. Monitor calibration hardware/software packages recommend a certain a white luminance (brightness) but that would basically be for user comfort where they may be staring at the screen for long periods.

For a brightly lit living room TV display then the white luminance may be set differently as the user is not sitting so close and the TV has to compete with room light.

Even more extreme is in a shop selling the TV, there the lighting is generally awful so the TVs always have a "store" setting to make then brighter and more saturated so they display better in the high ambient light. Get it home and best to set it to the "home" settings as otherwise everything looks dreadful.

All that talk is just to say that screen brightness is set to suit user and ambient light conditions, there is no one correct setting.

Quoting EV numbers for screens is pointless and basically meaningless if aiming a camera at a screen as my screen varies from all white to all black and everything in between depending on what is being displayed.
Click to expand...
Well not so much if you compare with how prints are used regarding light.
Guy Parsons said:
As for EV number when aiming a camera at a print, well that's a bit crazy as the print can vary from all white to all black and everything in between as well as the ambient lighting varying from midnight to midday or more extremely bright with extra artificial lighting.

Sorry, but nothing much made any sense in your original post and the poll.

Regards.... Guy
Click to expand...
Yes the poll was bad but you understood what my intension was?
 
Oldboy 1948 said:
Guy Parsons said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
With modern digital cameras we should like to have a 44" printer to show it all, right?
Click to expand...
Any size print gets it all if the paper shape matches the cameras' framing.

If thinking in terms of fine detail then if the lens and camera was good enough then printing at between 200 and 300 camera pixels per inch of print wil show all the available detail at close examination. For my camera at 4608 pixels frame width that means 4608/200=23inches approx or 4608/300=15 inches or so. That means from maybe 15 to 23 inch wide print would show it all for my camera.
Click to expand...
Why are you asking for so small printer when people use 55-66" 4K TV?
Click to expand...
The 200 to 300 camera pixels per inch of print is to do with people who get up close to see the detail.

The big TV with its 4K screen is used by people sitting back at a comfortable distance and that distance always translates to the fact that a 2K screen or even less would look the same, They are too far back to see the fine detail.

I have a 43 inch 4K TV and as an experiment downloaded a good looking image that was about 1.2MP and displayed on the 8MP TV it looked perfectly fine at 3 feet away, but pixelly at 2 feet away, back at a comfortable 10 or 12 feet away munching popcorn then it was truly perfectly OK.
Oldboy 1948 said:
After all it is only 3820x2160 pixels.
Click to expand...
That's only temporary, next push is for 8K TV with its 33MP screen and still show the same low resolution rubbish on it.
Oldboy 1948 said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Quoting EV numbers for screens is pointless and basically meaningless if aiming a camera at a screen as my screen varies from all white to all black and everything in between depending on what is being displayed.
Click to expand...
Well not so much if you compare with how prints are used regarding light.
Click to expand...
That I truly do not understand. The prints are either lit brightly or dimly lit or anywhere in between, there are museum lighting standards and print judging standards, but nobody sticks to them even if they know them.
Oldboy 1948 said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
As for EV number when aiming a camera at a print, well that's a bit crazy as the print can vary from all white to all black and everything in between as well as the ambient lighting varying from midnight to midday or more extremely bright with extra artificial lighting.

Sorry, but nothing much made any sense in your original post and the poll.
Click to expand...
Yes the poll was bad but you understood what my intension was?
Click to expand...
No, still hopelessly confused like the rest are here.

Regards.... Guy
 
Charles2 said:
digidog said:
Charles2 said:
"Exposure"/"exposure value" has more than one meaning in photography.
Click to expand...
An example of an image from someone who probably shouldn't be discussing exposure or it's 'other' meanings made up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60419935
Click to expand...
Folks, this digicur guy has linked to a photo I did not take
Click to expand...
You also didn't talk any of the 3 shots found in one image, in your gallery, (nor did Ctein), nor did you build any of the synthetic’s :

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6257687438/photos/3570296/ctein_test_srgb

Maybe that's why they appear properly exposed, wonder who shot them (oh me). :-P

Unlike this example:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6257687438/photos/2858644/flower_by_indirect_sunlight

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
Guy Parsons said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
Guy Parsons said:
Oldboy 1948 said:
With modern digital cameras we should like to have a 44" printer to show it all, right?
Click to expand...
Any size print gets it all if the paper shape matches the cameras' framing.

If thinking in terms of fine detail then if the lens and camera was good enough then printing at between 200 and 300 camera pixels per inch of print wil show all the available detail at close examination. For my camera at 4608 pixels frame width that means 4608/200=23inches approx or 4608/300=15 inches or so. That means from maybe 15 to 23 inch wide print would show it all for my camera.
Click to expand...
Why are you asking for so small printer when people use 55-66" 4K TV?
Click to expand...
The 200 to 300 camera pixels per inch of print is to do with people who get up close to see the detail.

The big TV with its 4K screen is used by people sitting back at a comfortable distance and that distance always translates to the fact that a 2K screen or even less would look the same, They are too far back to see the fine detail.

I have a 43 inch 4K TV and as an experiment downloaded a good looking image that was about 1.2MP and displayed on the 8MP TV it looked perfectly fine at 3 feet away, but pixelly at 2 feet away, back at a comfortable 10 or 12 feet away munching popcorn then it was truly perfectly OK.
Guy Parsons said:
After all it is only 3820x2160 pixels.
Click to expand...
That's only temporary, next push is for 8K TV with its 33MP screen and still show the same low resolution rubbish on it.
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
Quoting EV numbers for screens is pointless and basically meaningless if aiming a camera at a screen as my screen varies from all white to all black and everything in between depending on what is being displayed.
Click to expand...
Well not so much if you compare with how prints are used regarding light.
Click to expand...
That I truly do not understand. The prints are either lit brightly or dimly lit or anywhere in between, there are museum lighting standards and print judging standards, but nobody sticks to them even if they know them.
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
As for EV number when aiming a camera at a print, well that's a bit crazy as the print can vary from all white to all black and everything in between as well as the ambient lighting varying from midnight to midday or more extremely bright with extra artificial lighting.

Sorry, but nothing much made any sense in your original post and the poll.
Click to expand...
Yes the poll was bad but you understood what my intension was?
Click to expand...
No, still hopelessly confused like the rest are here.

Regards.... Guy
Click to expand...
OK the poll was bad and I was too late to remove it (must be done within 5 min).

Now I have some info about monitor EV. Most are in the range EV6- EV8.

If you compare with prints on the wall this is high.

If I go back to analog age on LF back before year 1900 (people building the raiway but they could also be still for 30 sec). I have seen some photos on a museum from sheet plate 8"x10" in poster size like 40" x 50" and even if a good scanner could give you some more detailsit is not likely to see it in a distance like 1 m. But of course the EV must be high close to monitor EV.

Today if we take photos of a city landscape like New York or Tokyo our digicams will have an incredible amount of details (most other landscapes not). How much can we see on a 44"x66" poster? I believe we should use a comfortable distance like 1 m. How depending is this of EV? To save energy we should have lamps with move detector for the poster.

For 4K TV you kan see it all on 1 m with 40" or 2 m with 80". The poster print is 79" diagonal. Could we see around 8K at 1 m if EV is high enough?
 
Oldboy 1948 said:
fishy wishy said:
There is an Ev to luminance in cd/m2 conversion table there. Monitors seem to be often quoted around 300cd/m2 which would make the Ev 11+.
Click to expand...
You make it very complex!

As this is a photographic forum most people can test the EV with their digicam on monitor, prints on the wall, daylight if they have it now.

For monitors normal user distance should be most interesting.

The point is people discuss image quality all the time but how much can they see?

EV 0 is not like EV 10 if you are looking at a printed poster!
Click to expand...
Huh! I like that, I'm only trying to divine what tf you are on about just like everybody else in this thread! I thought you might be on drugs.
 
.....
Oldboy 1948 said:
OK the poll was bad and I was too late to remove it (must be done within 5 min).

Now I have some info about monitor EV. Most are in the range EV6- EV8.

If you compare with prints on the wall this is high.

If I go back to analog age on LF back before year 1900 (people building the raiway but they could also be still for 30 sec). I have seen some photos on a museum from sheet plate 8"x10" in poster size like 40" x 50" and even if a good scanner could give you some more detailsit is not likely to see it in a distance like 1 m. But of course the EV must be high close to monitor EV.

Today if we take photos of a city landscape like New York or Tokyo our digicams will have an incredible amount of details (most other landscapes not). How much can we see on a 44"x66" poster? I believe we should use a comfortable distance like 1 m. How depending is this of EV? To save energy we should have lamps with move detector for the poster.

For 4K TV you kan see it all on 1 m with 40" or 2 m with 80". The poster print is 79" diagonal. Could we see around 8K at 1 m if EV is high enough?
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the amount of detail we can see in a print depends not only on the size of the print and the viewing distance (I think everyone probably agrees on those two factors), but also on how brightly lit the print is.

I have never heard anyone suggest that before (except that, of course, if the light is very dim, which does affect acuity of vision).

My impression is that the amount of detail visible is not much dependent on the brightness of the illumination. I look at prints in artificial light or in natural sunlight and I don't see any difference in detail, despite the sunlight being several ev brighter than typical artificial light.
 
Tom Axford said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the amount of detail we can see in a print depends not only on the size of the print and the viewing distance (I think everyone probably agrees on those two factors), but also on how brightly lit the print is.

I have never heard anyone suggest that before (except that, of course, if the light is very dim, which does affect acuity of vision).

My impression is that the amount of detail visible is not much dependent on the brightness of the illumination. I look at prints in artificial light or in natural sunlight and I don't see any difference in detail, despite the sunlight being several ev brighter than typical artificial light.
Click to expand...
I think what you say is true in general. However, it may breakdown with age. As eyes get old they lose flexibility in the lens so their focus is fixed at one distance (which varies from person to person).

The result is that dim light needs a wider pupil so depth of field diminishes. That can put details out of focus on the retina (at normal viewing distance; what I'm saying doesn't alter the fact that viewing distance alters visibility of detail).

For example, I used to be able to read really fine print in almost any light (I infuriated the doctor at my army medical when I went straight to the printer's name at the bottom of the test chart). Today I can manage small print in bright light but in even quite ordinary indoor light I struggle.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Tom Axford said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the amount of detail we can see in a print depends not only on the size of the print and the viewing distance (I think everyone probably agrees on those two factors), but also on how brightly lit the print is.

I have never heard anyone suggest that before (except that, of course, if the light is very dim, which does affect acuity of vision).

My impression is that the amount of detail visible is not much dependent on the brightness of the illumination. I look at prints in artificial light or in natural sunlight and I don't see any difference in detail, despite the sunlight being several ev brighter than typical artificial light.
Click to expand...
I think what you say is true in general. However, it may breakdown with age. As eyes get old they lose flexibility in the lens so their focus is fixed at one distance (which varies from person to person).

The result is that dim light needs a wider pupil so depth of field diminishes. That can put details out of focus on the retina (at normal viewing distance; what I'm saying doesn't alter the fact that viewing distance alters visibility of detail).

For example, I used to be able to read really fine print in almost any light (I infuriated the doctor at my army medical when I went straight to the printer's name at the bottom of the test chart). Today I can manage small print in bright light but in even quite ordinary indoor light I struggle.
Click to expand...
I suffer much the same problems, but if the light is bright enough I don't think I see any improvement in making it brighter still.

However, it would be interesting to know if anyone has done any scientific tests on this.
 
Charles2 said:
digidog said:
Charles2 said:
"Exposure"/"exposure value" has more than one meaning in photography.
Click to expand...
An example of an image from someone who probably shouldn't be discussing exposure or it's 'other' meanings made up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60419935
Click to expand...
Folks, this digicur guy has linked to a photo I did not take, did not praise, and simply commented on. But he works himself into a frenzy and goes into flame war mode and loses all sight of reality. He's been at it for fifteen years.
Click to expand...
What got me upset, not a frenzy, was you taking MY image and placing it in YOUR gallery which you HAD to remove due to more posting malpractice on your part.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60481276

So it appears you're unable to gather up your own images to edit/post and call your own, very sad and dishonest:

Didn't ask to post here, changed the file name, put it in his own gallery of images.
Didn't ask to post here, changed the file name, put it in his own gallery of images.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
All I've dug up that I will trust is lighting standards for judging prints in camera club competitions in Australia....

PRINTS

9.18 PRINT ILLUMINATION: The total illumination on a white card placed on the easel on which prints are to be judged shall read an f/stop between 5.6 and 11 (ideally 8) with an accurate exposure meter set at 100 ISO and recording 1/8 second, including the general room illumination comprising 1/4 to 1/3 of the total. For the judging of colour prints the illumination on the easel shall be similar to that used for monochrome prints. The best colour temperature of the light is 5000 degrees Kelvin

9.19 Prints shall be evenly illuminated on the judging easel which should be a dull neutral grey and measure approximately 76cm x 76cm. There must be no distracting glare or reflection near the print and the lighting shall be even, with not more than 10% variation over the area of the easel.

9.20 Extraneous light shall be kept to a minimum.

That from the page at https://www.a-p-s.org.au/index.php/exhibition/aps-nationals

I once built a lighted stand for those judges that had the specified illumination at the time, it then was quoted and measured in another way by measuring the incident light on the stand I made, not on the reflection from a white card, as there's white cards and there's white cards.

Reflected light readings are always hit and miss so for lighting standards incident light measurements are the only way. The incident light reading allowed me to move my meter all over the largest print size area to check that my lighting design kept within the specified 10% variation.

The resulting setup was fairly bright and not the sort of brightness that anyone would use to display prints for casual viewing.

Do some Googling for lighting standards for museums and exhibitions in whatever country you live in and you may turn up something of interest.

Regards.... Guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top