Hi guys, just a quick vote please, I have lasted this long without buying any calibration equipment but now think I should take the plunge. The two systems that I am looking at are the ColorMunki Photo (£275) and the Spyder3Elite (£135) does the Spyder calibrate the printer as well or do I need to factor in additional expense for that? There are some poor reviews on Amazon on the ColorMunki which was going to be my choice. Just to let you know I normally use CaptureNX2 on my Vista Laptop (yeh yeh I know stop laughing I cant afford it all), which is plugged in to a Dell U2711 monitor. At the moment I only have an old Canon i850 inkjet and an i-sensys LBP5050 colour laser printer. can these be calibrated? I've go my eyes on a Epson Stylus Photo R3000 (no I cant afford this right now either). Suggestions for my first outfit please!
Monitor Calibration w/ Lightroom
(39 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I think they both only due monitors. When you add printing etc. they usually shoot up to $500-1000+. Huey is another one - especially if you have people wanting to match or you print with pantone colors.
I use a Spyder3... something - since I moved (2 years ago)I haven't touched my monitor or hooked it up. Still using the same profile and all looks good. I like the Spyder but I don't have experience with others to compare. Easy to use though.
To be honest, I update my drivers and make sure they are all set right between my monitor, video card, and printer. Doing that right makes a huge difference - pain though. Usually it just takes once and you are good to go. Stuff is off a bit (warmer (even paper can do that- which I like), but not enough for average people to notice. I do have a higher end Samsung (not as good as your dell) but it seems to hold it's color over time really well.
Whichever way you go, make sure it can calibrate laptop monitors as well. Not all do - Something is different about laptops. I learned that painfully after I calibrated a laptop and my entire job came out looking like someone spilled lemonaid all over them - hello yellow.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks Tao, right I got a few things from your reply, firstly the ColorMunki definitely DOES calibrate your printer, as i've been able to gleam this from their online tutorials and youtube. I can't see Spyder showing this being done with the Spyder3 though, so I think you need to buy their MUCH more expensive Spyder3Studio SR kit at £410 to do this? You've never found the need to calibrate your printer Tao? Secondly I was surprised to hear that you don't calibrate frequently, maybe it's just scare mongoring but I thought you had to do it every couple of week depending on use to keep things in check? Thirdly, my monitor came with a factory adobe RGB calibration certificate, which is linked to an adobe RGB profile in the menu. Is there any reason to think that this can go out of sink in time? I would imagine that if not, it still doesn't link THAT profile to my output source, which I guess is the point of calibration? The reason I think I now need to get this sorted, is that I recently printed out a nice looking monochrome shot at a wedding I went too, which came out distinctly purple. I'm hoping that buying one of these will correct this issue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My Spyder 3 is a step up from my Spyer 2.
First let's talk about your monitor's "Adobe RGB calibration". Worth little.
The color displayed on your screen is a factor of three major variables and a handful of secondary ones. The major variables are:
1 - Backlight white balance - the base color of the white light produced by your monitor.
2 - LCD dyes - the colors your panel is able to add (subtract really) to that base color.
3 - Video card output stage.We can see off the bat even if your have a LED backlight (or have a fresh factory CCF) that said monitor calibration only covers 2/3rs of the major variables. Not to mention the minor variables such as monitor drivers and ambient light conditions.
While it should be true in this day of pure digital display chains (you are using DVI or HDMI, no? If not fix that aspect first.) that the output stage of a video card should be neutral this is often not the case. A profile for monitor A produced on system 1 likely will be close, but not a perfect match if monitor A is plugged into system 2.
And, yes, this can go out of sync over time, though much less today with a pure digital solid state display chain than in days of old with fluorescent backlights and an analog video card stage, much less CRTs.
If your printer puts a purple fringe on B/W images a printer profile likely won't help - that is likely to be a head alignment issue.
Think of profiling as map matching. You have two paper maps, one is the native capability of the device, and one is a standard map. Profiling simply overlays the native capability of the device over top of the standard, rotates and scales it to best fit the standard. If there is non-linear distortion that won't be fixed.
As far as printer correction goes, I gave up on it. Even the dingiest drug store tends to have a calibrated photo printer today, and sells prints for less than I can produce them.
EDIT: fix typos.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Drab said:
My Spyder 3 is a step up from my Spyer 2.First let's talk about your monitor's "Adobe RGB calibration". Worth little.
The color displayed on your screen is a factor of three major variables and a handful of secondary ones. The major variables are:
1 - Backlight white balance - the base color of the white light produced by your monitor.
2 - LCD dyes - the colors your panel is able to add (subtract really) to that base color.
3 - Video card output stage.We can see off the bat even if your have a LED backlight (or have a fresh factory CCF) that said monitor calibration only covers 2/3rs of the major variables. Not to mention the minor variables such as monitor drivers and ambient light conditions. While it should be true in this day of pure digital display chains (you are using DVI or HDMI, no?
Yes, HDMI.
If not fix that aspect first.) that the output stage of a video card should be neutral. This is often not the case. A profile for monitor A produced on system 1 likely will be close, but not a perfect match if monitor A is plugged into system 2.
And, yes, this can go out of sync over time, though much less today with a pure digital solid state display chain than in days of old with fluorescent backlights and an analog video card stage. If your printer puts a purple fringe on B/W images a monitor profile likely won't help - that is likely to be a head alignment issue.I resonably frequently run the printer utilities program (Head alignment/Nozzle check etc) so i'd be be surprised if it was that. I have however got a strange issue with a faint line showing up at about 1cm regular intervals on colour printing, strange because printing the nozzle test print pattern doesn't show a problem? This wasn't the problem on the photo I refered to though.
Think of profiling as map matching. You have two paper maps, one is the native capability of the device, and one is a standard map. Profiling simply overlays the native capability of the device over top of the standard, rotates and scales it to best fit the standard. If there is non-linear distortion that won't be fixed. As far as printer correction goes, I gave up on it. Even the dingiest drug store tends to have a calibrated photo printer today, and sells prints for less than I can produce them.
Yes, I've been using online/shop printing up to now, but sometimes it's just quicker to do it yourself if it's just a small job.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you can live with HD resolution you can get a TFT TV and use it as a monitor. These are IPS units and have computer inputs. The smallest units I've seen are 32-inch models going for around $500. You have to check out different models because in some of them you can see the pixels at that size/res combo, but some models seem to have tighter pixels.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Spy Black said:
If you can live with HD resolution you can get a TFT TV and use it as a monitor. These are IPS units and have computer inputs. The smallest units I've seen are 32-inch models going for around $500. You have to check out different models because in some of them you can see the pixels at that size/res combo, but some models seem to have tighter pixels.Sorry I'm confused, which question are you responding to Spy Black?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I took a look at the Munki - Looks like a good product US$499 - I miss the (£) at times. The Spyder3 Studio is about the same price US$449.
I did have a bad monitor that I had to calibrate constantly. Then again I only paid $150 for a 22" one. There is a difference in monitors when you spend the $ or find the good ones like Dell's ultra sharp monitors. I worked with an IT guy who worked for an Ad agency and his sole responsibility was to make sure everything was calibrated in their office. He walked me through everything but it basically came to a some simple things:
- Get all the updated drivers for Pick one (Adobe RGB, sRGB) for Monitor, Video Card (or just the updated one), & printers. That will get you 90% there and keep from things shifting too much.
-If it works - don't mess with updating it again. Ever!
-Calibrate printer first.
-Calibrate Monitor last. Remember your monitor is suppose to show what you can print. Go from real world to virtual world.
That is what he said. Being that he did this for 200 artists, 40hrs a week for 2 years and my stuff has been good for almost 3 years - I think he had it right. I have seen many other work flows as well. Drab points out some good points as well. Most of us have our monitors too bright, for instance.Printer - Drivers for ink & drivers for paper. That is the name of that game if you are printing yourself. Buy OEM ink (Canon, Epson, HP) or very high replacement grade (Costs more $) and any paper you use, get the drivers for it if it is not OEM paper. Having a printer that has dedicated black (black, grey, lt. grey) helps if you want true black and white. Toning B&W images I have found does take some test prints. I calibrated one printer once and still had to do this. I usually just test print a small part of an image first - move the print across the page and keep printing on the same paper - just in a different spot. Depending on your printer - this can change rapidly if ink starts running out - the newest high end printers have a much less problem with this now. Personally I didn't want to spend $500 on something that I can spend $20 on test prints/year. Takes a bit longer and not perfect, but those who get my images have never noticed anything.
Color shift/ calibration Scare mongering? Yes & No. If we all had the top of the line devices, it's not that big of a deal unless your business has a absolute need for it or if your are neurotic about perfect color. I'm neurotic about many things but minor shifts usually don't bother me. The fact that most of us don't have the top line gear - I think it is good and can relieve many headaches. I understand drivers enough that it is just as easy for me as to calibrate everything. If you see the need for it in your workflow and don't really understand drivers, I wouldn't hesitate and get one.
Now what is killing me the most is that some on-line printers are requesting only sRGB. Everything I have is Adobe RGB. Some of my photos have came back looking like garbage. My fault really, but that is starting to really peeve me off. ;)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks for your replies Tao and Drab, you're very kind, as I think calibrating my printer would be desirable, it would seem to me that the ColorMunki device is the one to go for. I might wait to get one, when I can afford the Epson printer to go with it though. With regards to your comment about Adobe and sRGB options Tao, would it be impossible for cameras to shoot in both simultaneously, just as you can shoot in Raw and jpeg?
Posted 1 year ago # -
EDIT: Not worth the misunderstanding and anger this will likely provoke.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
Testing123 said:
No reason to do so as sRGB is a subset of Adobe RGB.I'm aware that AdobeRGB has more colour detail (colour depth?) than sRGB, so I can see that logically the lesser might be able to be extrapolated from the greater, but I wasn't aware that there was currently a way of doing this in post? Is that what you are saying Testing123? At the moment I am sometimes unsure which colour space to use, as I'm not always sure what the client wants to do with the shots at the end. I was always taught AdobeRGB for printing/publication, and sRGB for web/computer display. Being able to shoot in "A" and have the option of "s" would be very useful.
P.S. To the mods, sorry for going off topic, I promise this will be my last. In the voice of my children "TaoTeJared started it"! ;-)
P.P.S I think I may have found the answer in http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1230
Posted 1 year ago # -
Another good rule of thumb the other thread doesn't mention is that you want 16 bits if you're using Adobe RGB. 8-bit files (jpg, e.g.) can give you posterization in Adobe RGB because it's a wider gamut than sRGB (the 256 levels for each channel are spread over more color space). If it's raw or 16 bit there should be no problem converting in post. The raw file's data shouldn't change in A or s (besides a metadata tag and the thumbnail), so in-camera color space is really a final decision only if you shoot jpg or tif out of camera.
Photoshop's convert profile command is in the edit menu, I believe.
Posted 1 year ago # -
A vote for the Spider 3 ( I use the Pro) The elite is same hardware but with different software, yes you can upgrade a pro to an elite, at a later date
As far as I am aware it will not calibrate you printer
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
