Which calibration device?

[Chri5]

So now that I have to decided to use a lab for my printing (lab yet to be discovered) I am going to buy a calibration device. I am not sure which one to go for. Looking on amazon there are so many to look at. can anyone recommend? I am looking at the spyder 5 pro, 4 pro, 5 express then of course there is the spyder elite to look at. Do I save the extra £s and go for the elite?

[Mike Buckley]

I have successfully used a Spyder product for years. If you choose from that line of products, you would select the model based on the device(s) you plan to calibrate. The company has a chart on their website explaining which products each model will calibrate.

[Chri5]

I cant seem to find the chart on the spyder website

[Chri5]

Never mind I found it

[Manfred M]

I would also suggest you look at the various x-Rite products. This company is well known for colour management products and until Datacolor came along with the Spyder products, was the only game in town.

I've been using the i1 product for many, many years. http://www.xrite.com/colorimeter

[Chri5]

The x-rite seem a little b it more expensive though

[Manfred M]

Not really, the prices of their products and capabilities line up quite nicely with the Datacolor ones with similar capabilities.

x-Rite does have some high end pro stuff too, and that might be what you are looking at.

[Polar01]

Chris, just a note as you are not doing the printing yourself you only need a calibration device for you monitor, you do not need one to calibrate for a projector, or create ICC profiles for you own printer/ink/paper as you do not have a printer. With x-rite I would suggest the ColorMunki Smile, I myself use the ColorMunki Photo as I print and create my own ICC profiles.

Cheers: Allan

[Chri5]

Im reading reviews on both the colormonki smile, the i1 display pro and the spyder 5 pro. The monkey has go ok reviews and at £67 on amazon would be a bargain but I want something just a little better so its between the i1 display pro and the spyder 5 pro. On amazon I can get bot new with the spyder at £127 and the i1 at £192 so im slightly leaning towards the spyder. there is still more to consider of course.

[Mike Buckley]

What particular capability of the Spyder Pro is appealing to you that isn't available in their less expensive model?

[Chri5]

The spyder 5 pro compared to the express has some extra features that I think will be beneficial. The pro has 16 choices of calibration settings and better befor and after evaluation compared to the express which only 2 calibration settings while the pro boasts Interactive help and advanced Features on the software. It also has 3 Ambient Light Settings where the express doesn't have any.

[DanK]

I would also suggest you look at the various x-Rite products. This company is well known for colour management products and until Datacolor came along with the Spyder products, was the only game in town.

I've been using the i1 product for many, many years. http://www.xrite.com/colorimeter

Ditto. Works well, and I have never had to fuss with any of its settings. I just hang it over the monitor an let it go. I have never felt a need for anything more expensive.

If you are using a lab, you probably will have no need to create your own ICC profiles. Some labs will provide you with an ICC profile for whichever of their papers you choose so that you can soft-proof before sending the file to them. If you decide to print yourself, most paper companies provide ICC profiles for common printers for each of their printers. I have had very good luck using the ICC profiles provided by Red River, Moab, and Canon papers. Bottom line: I have never created an ICC profile of my own or paid for a custom one.

[arith]

I can't get the right colour on prints; my monitor is calibrated by Datacolor but doesn't seem to work with the icc profile given free by Ilford.

Trouble is I also use cheap ink, it doesn't look right printed and obviously something is wrong. So I looked at the price of ColorMunki and frankly it is a rip off, from £385 to £600 is taking the piss.

I was hoping I could just print straight out; but now I will use 3 papers for every print.

[Manfred M]

Trouble is I also use cheap ink, it doesn't look right printed and obviously something is wrong.

You have just identified your problem.

The colour profiles are both paper and printer / ink specific. If you are not using the ink the profile was created for, you won't get the right colours. If you are using off-brand inks and no icc profiles exist for that combination, you will need to create your own with a calibration tool that also does prints..

[Mike Buckley]

The pro has 16 choices of calibration settings and better before and after evaluation compared to the express which only 2 calibration settings while the pro boasts Interactive help and advanced Features on the software. It also has 3 Ambient Light Settings where the express doesn't have any.

I think all of that is overkill that in theory might seem appealing but in practicality is relatively meaningless. As an example, let's assume you select an ideal ambient light setting. Will the ambient light always be exactly the same when you are viewing your images on your monitor and will you only be using that exact ambient light when viewing your prints? Probably not. If you make a print for someone else, will they view your print only under the exact ambient light that is yours when viewing your monitor? Definitely not.

[shreds]

I previously used the Spyder product, but about three years ago upgraded to an x-rite i1 Display Pro as I got a good deal at a trade show.

No problems since and good fast calibration.

[chauncey]

Mike, you've been using that crystal ball again...I was a fixen to say virtually the same thing.

I use monitor calibration software but, IMHO, it's merely eye candy.
We go thru all the hassle of insuring soft proofed/"color corrected" (whatever that even means)
images that will most likely never even be printed, and then, come to find out that after
all that image tweaking...it still doesn't look "right" because of different display lighting scenarios.

To quote the infamous teacher, Scott Kelby, "when in doubt, make another print".
Oh, hell yes...make another print at what, $5-10 a pop because the reds are to bright under
that lighting...makes sense to me...yeah right it does.

[Manfred M]

Mike, you've been using that crystal ball again...I was a fixen to say virtually the same thing.

I use monitor calibration software but, IMHO, it's merely eye candy.
We go thru all the hassle of insuring soft proofed/"color corrected" (whatever that even means)
images that will most likely never even be printed, and then, come to find out that after
all that image tweaking...it still doesn't look "right" because of different display lighting scenarios.

To quote the infamous teacher, Scott Kelby, "when in doubt, make another print".
Oh, hell yes...make another print at what, $5-10 a pop because the reds are to bright under
that lighting...makes sense to me...yeah right it does.

Sorry - as a long time colour printer (including the "wet" darkroom), I strongly (very strongly) disagree with your thoughts here.

First of all, unless your computer screen has been calibrated and profiled you will have absolutely no idea as to whether the colours are correct or not. If you always view the images on the same computer, it may not make any difference, but if you use a different computer or post images on the internet, you will have no idea if the colours others are viewing are the right ones. If the person on the receiving side has a calibrated and profiled screen, you can be assured that both of you are seeing exactly the same thing on screen.

I occasionally get a comment about the colours / brightness of the images of my being off The first question I will ask is "are you viewing this on a profiled and calibrated computer screen?". The answer was inevitably "no". I know my colours are correct. Can you say the same thing?

Printing is a whole different hornet's nest of problems. Your screen uses a transmitted light, RGB, additive process while a print uses a reflected light, CMYK, subtractive process. Each printer, ink set and paper has different characteristics. If you use a colour managed workflow, you will get a print that has correct colours. The only place where there is a weakness in the process is the brightness adjustment. This requires that the brightness of your computer screen is properly set, but unfortunately most modern computer screens cannot be set with their brightness turned down far enough to match the brightness of a print. This is where Scott Kelby is coming from about the test print. It's not about getting the colours right, but rather aligning the brightness levels between the two media.

The test print process provides the amount of brightness compensation the print requires. I did my test prints around four years ago and as long as I do not fiddle with my screen controls, I apply the same compensation preset all the time, even when I change papers. If I were to change printers, I would have to go through the test print process again.

Test prints are something that we did all the time in the wet darkroom, so while it sounds a bit strange to digital photographers, they have been part of the print workflow for decades. For the people that create custom colour profiles for their printers, they are essentially doing test prints. My test prints are done using small format papers so I'm not looking at anywhere near the costs you are suggesting.

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, you've been using that crystal ball again...I was a fixen to say virtually the same thing.

I use monitor calibration software but, IMHO, it's merely eye candy.

Just to be clear, in my opinion you didn't write remotely the same thing that I wrote, much less virtually the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's irrefutable that any serious photographer always uses a profiled and calibrated monitor whereas you explained that the process is "merely eye candy." My previous post explains that certain features being offered by Datacolor (and perhaps its competitors) may sound like they are worth paying extra money for but in practicality many of those extras not offered in their entry-level product actually do not add value for some of the reasons I explained. In summary, I get the impression that whereas you and I are both happy to throw out the bathwater, only you are happy to throw out the baby.

[dje]

Chris I've just got a Spyder 5 PRO and have used it once. So far so good. I'm not in a position to compare it to the X Rite products.

If you do decide to go for Spyder, It might help you decide between the Express and the PRO if you were to download the Spyder 5 User Manual. It covers all three models.

The main things that the PRO can do that the Express can't are

• Allow for the type of Brightness controls on your monitor (Brightness and Kelvin presets if present).
• Set Gamma,White Point and Brightness during calibration. I'm not sure how significant these settings are I'm afraid.
• Measure room light and allow for this during calibration.
• Use your own images for checking appearance before and after calibration (rather then Datacolor's standard images)
• View a graphical presentation of your monitor's gamut.

To be honest, I wasn't sure how significant these difference are to the average user but I decided to go for the PRO as the Express just seemed a bit too basic. Was it worth it ? - only time will tell.

Dave