The standard ∆SCF approach is designed for adjustment of the positions of HOMO and LUMO energies. Thus, for complexes where the frontier orbitals are localized on both the metal and ligands, it results in a better description of MLCT states. To better reproduce transition energies of MC states, we follow again the same approach as for the fundamental gap tuning, Eqs. ( )-( ), but instead of using the LUMO localized on ligands (or ε α,ω HOMO (N + 1)), we use σ * d z 2 and σ * d x 2 -y 2 orbitals localized on the iron center, see Fig. . These calculations were performed using the constrained SCF approach as provided by the QChem program package. Using this "MC tuning" leads to the optimal rangeseparation parameter pairs of (0.05, 0.17) and (0.0, 0.17) when considering the σ * d z 2 and σ * d x 2 -y 2 instead of the ligandcentered LUMO, respectively (see green/blue stars in Figure ). No simple dependence of J 1 on the rangeseparation parameters has been observed. The sets of parameters for both MC-tuning variants are quite close to each other. Both points, however, lie quite apart from the HOMO tuning condition (J 0 for the S 0 state and J 0 for T MC state, see section below) which appears unexpected. Noteworthy, the values of the J 1 functional in this approach are much larger than for the standard scheme considering the LUMO, and addition of J 0 does not change the final results. To study photophysical properties, it is necessary to have a balanced description of both the electronic ground state as well as the excited states. Therefore, the same computational protocol needs to be applied to all the states, which in our case corresponds to using the same set for optimal parameters for all electronic states. Our range-separation parameter tuning considered so far only the electronic ground state, although we have used different LUMOs to target electronic states of different character. Now we test the transferability of the tuned parameters to electronic excited states. For this, we selected the two lowest excited states of MC (T MC ) and MLCT character (T MLCT ) as well as the lowest excited quintet state also of MC character (Q MC ). For all these states, the optimal tuning on the (α, ω) grid using geometries optimized at the B3LYP/def2TZVP level of theory was performed. For the excited states we considered only tuning the IP via J 0 in Eq. 4, and thus, we show only the minimum valleys of this function for the different electronic states in Figure . Note that when ionizing open-shell systems there is an uncertainty in the choice of multiplicity of the N -1-electron system when computing the IP. Here, we choose removing an unpaired electron, which leads to the lowering of multiplicity (triplet to doublet and quintet to quartet).