Re: Gallery lighting.

[William Marsh <redcloud54@earthlink.net>]

There is an official term for that kind of lighting.  It's called
"crappie" or, sometimes, "sucky" lighting.  Gallery types study for
years to get this look just right.

Bill

> Leonard Robertson wrote:
> 
> My wife and I went to a Robert Adams exhibit in Spokane today, paid $7
> each admission, went into the gallery and saw many Adams' prints. Or I
> should say we almost saw them. As far as I was concerned, the lighting
> was just plain dim, almost "mood lighting". I'm in my mid-50s and I
> know my vision in dim light is diminished, but my wife is nine years
> younger than I am and she agreed it was pretty dark in there. The
> ceiling mounted lights were some sort of spot bulb with an orange or
> pink cast (my color sense isn't great either, that's why I prefer
> B&W). Is this some sort of new archival, safe-and-sane,
> won't-fade-the-prints lighting? The gallery is in a new museum that
> cost a gazillion dollars, so maybe this is the latest and greatest in
> gallery lighting. Anyway, now that I've ranted a little and feel
> better - Is there any established standard for illumination level and
> color of light for photo exhibiting? Is there any authority on the
> subject that can be quoted to gallery owners? Finally, is poor
> lighting a common problem out in the rest of the world? I hesitate to
> drive 250 miles to Seattle to an exhibit and find out I can't really
> see it without taking a floodlight and extension cords (probably not
> allowed in most galleries anyway). I know this isn't a alt-process
> question, but I suspect this group more gallery savvy than most photo
> groups on the Web.