Hi all we just had are lab come in and talk to us about blue light.
What can you do to help a Photographer from blue light? What ever we use can not altar the color for them.
Any pinput would br great.
Thanks
Hi all we just had are lab come in and talk to us about blue light.
What can you do to help a Photographer from blue light? What ever we use can not altar the color for them.
Any pinput would br great.
Thanks
Find a new lab...
The more blue you get rid of the yellower the lenses are, it's that simple. If a task requires no departure from "normal" color perception, then you can't eliminate much blue except by moving farther away from the blue emitter and/or turning down the intensity for all wavelengths equally. The flux falls off by the square of the distance from the emitter to the eye.
Why not use a wratten filter for the camera? Or is it his eyes he is worried about?
Lost and confused in an optical wonderland!
No photographer worth their shutterspeed would wear a lens that blocked ANY specific wavelength of visible light. If you suggest such a thing to them you made a bad decision as an optician.
The best lens for a photographer is probably CR39 or Trivex with Sapphire, then maybe other lenses with a blue reflex.
Whatever AR you choose (and you should) make SURE it is a tough one because looking into camera again and again will scratchem up.
EDITED: To sound like less of a jerk.
Last edited by Tallboy; 11-19-2015 at 05:06 PM.
If the patient is insistent on an HEV-addressing product, use TheraBlue. It does not distort visible frequencies appreciably.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
And here is the ONLY advice you need pay attention to.
The fact is simply this: Professional (and many amateur/hobby) photographers want a strictly unaltered view of the world, and as clear and sharp an optic as possible on forward gaze. ANY blue blocking lens on the market today does not allow this. Period.
In addition, I would hope they aren't using any of those sort of lenses if they are doing any proof work - particularly print related proofing, for the obvious reasons of altered color.
Contacts an option perhaps?
That is why professional photographers use mostly grey filters.
Here is one I know well.
See the website: ======>
http://www.progreyusa.com
when on that website look at the Gallery for some of the best pictures you have ever seen.
Last edited by Chris Ryser; 11-20-2015 at 03:02 PM.
Correction - it's SOME amount of ALL light. And it is ALL important to correctly process photo images. DO NOT suggest removing blue frequencies from the photographers vision - regardless of whether behind the camera, or during proofing. Unless you want upset clients, and enjoy remakes.
I am just tring to think outside the box
If they are using blue tec glasses when editing pictures everthing would have a little more yellow Wright . So they would correct changing the white balance witch would add more blue to the picture to bring it What looks good on there monotor. What if there was a way for the labs that printed the picture could compensate for that.
Proofing screens can be (and often are) ridiculously expensive because of the high range of their color gamut. Why would anyone in their right mind spend thousands for one, and completely destroy the investment with yellow pee colored lenses?
Given that the "short" wavelength cone in human eyes can sense all the way down to 380 nm (including filtering by the cornea and the lens, with aphakia its possible to perceive shorter wavelengths, but that's obviously not a "normal" situation), although with practically no sensitivity below 400 nm, removing any amount of blue light will essentially create artificial tritanopia, and no photographer in the world would want that.
The answer here, if your patient is desirous of an HEV-addressing lens, is multiple pairs: one with an HEV coating or treatment for most of the time, the other with a more neutral AR for photography.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
I think that's an exaggeration. I've looked through a lot of yellow filters and can still easily tell blue from other colors. I mean it does skew your perception a bit, but tritanopia? Hardly even tritanomaly. I think lots of photographers wouldn't mind protection from blue under casual avocation activities, but would probably forgo them for critical color intensive tasks. I don't think that even shooting photos requires accurate color control, as modern cameras take care of that except when they actually want to modify away from "normal" for some esthetic reason.
I am/was a pro photographer... I used to pick an AR with the LEAST amount of color change. I spent so much time on monitor calibration and print calibration. Super picky. I always did like above cr-39 or trivex and a zeiss teflon.
The least color change from an AR coating would be no AR coating at all.
You're correct, its probably an exageration, but it depends on the level of blue blocking, I was going based on the plot provided above by Chris Ryser, blocking all the way to 525 nm would almost be the entire spectrum of the S cone, since it tops out at about 540 nm. The sensitivity between 525 nm and 540 nm of the S cone is extremely limited, so it would essentially be tritanopia.
Last edited by Lelarep; 11-23-2015 at 03:16 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks