|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Jon Cone <email@example.com> writes on 5 November 1999 at 00:37:59 -0500 > > What ARE proper display conditions? And are they designed for > > to optimize the viewer's experience, or to prolong the longevity of > > the work being displayed? > > > a good question... Eastman House for decades specified 100 LUX as adequate > and safe. Museum of Modern Art specs 50 - 100LUX. Galleries put it up > bright although there is a trend in NYC to light dim (museum style) - I > think that you truly do not need 400LUX to view an artwork correctly - you > would in a gallery to maximize it - but at home?? you'd go blind in short > time from all that glare. Depends on the artwork, but I own a number of Ctein's dye-transfer prints, and I've found that they just look better the more light is on them. When he's been in town and doing one of his "home photo showings", I've brought out a 500 watt quartz-halogen to light with. They look better and better the brighter they're lit. Of course for long-term display this would be a problem eventually, and I don't have mine on the walls especially heavily lit. That's as much laziness as policy, though :-) . (And didn't somebody on this list say that their experience with B&W prints was that the ideal illumination was "just short of smoking"? I appreciate that approach.) -- David Dyer-Bennet / Join the 20th century before it's too late! / firstname.lastname@example.org http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.