SpyderPrint for creating ICC profiles ?

[stevejayd]

Has anyone used the latest spyder print equipment successfully?
The X-Rite solution is too expensive.
Steve

[Manfred M]

The two master printers that I know both feel that the papet manufacturer supplied profiles are superior to the ones created by the low end devices that both write and Datacolor produce. These guys print daily for very demanding clients

[Polar01]

You have not given enough details, when I look up the SpyderPrint to create ICC profiles at B&H, it appears that it will not do monitor calibriations. To do it all then you would need the Spyder5Studio bundle at $422.00 (US). I use the X-Rite ColorMunki Photo which sells for $499.00 (US) at B&H. Not all that different in price. If you are using an Epson printer the ICC profiles that are created for there printers, inks, and papers are very, very good. Each printer even those the same model will print slightly different, that is why high end printers who maybe have more than one printer want them all to print the same, whether small format or large format. I purchased the ColourMunki Photo as it allowed me to calibrate my monitor as well as my printer.

Cheers: Allan

[DanK]

I've used manufacturer-supplied profiles from Canson, Canon, Moab, and Red River with three different printers, and they have all been fine. So, I have never bothered creating my own printer profiles. I just calibrate my monitors.

[stevejayd]

thank you.
I have used custom profiling from paper manufacturers to match my canon pro-1000, so I guess I'll save the money. The colors come out just about perfect (for me). The only issue is when I have subtle colors , such as in sunsets, where the monitor never quite matches what I get. I have a VP2772 which a calibrate with a color munki, to no avail. do you think a better device might be more accurate?

[Manfred M]

thank you.
I have used custom profiling from paper manufacturers to match my canon pro-1000, so I guess I'll save the money. The colors come out just about perfect (for me). The only issue is when I have subtle colors , such as in sunsets, where the monitor never quite matches what I get. I have a VP2772 which a calibrate with a color munki, to no avail. do you think a better device might be more accurate?

What you see on your computer screen will never exactly match what comes out of your printer. Your screen is an additive colour, transmitted light, RGB image. Your printer outputs a subtractive colour, reflected light CMYK image. The very best screens can achieve close to 100% Adobe RGB colour space yet your printer can get well into the ProPhoto RGB colour space.

Add to that the fact that a good screen has a 10-stop contrast ratio (1000:1) whereas a print runs from around 7.5 stops for matte paper and 8-stops for luster / glossy papers.

The other issue is that most people have their computer screens set far too bright; it should be running in the 80 - 120 candela / square meter range and your workspace lighting should be fairly dim and consistent; below 70 at the work area.

[stevejayd]

I agree. I set by brightness to below 100. I soft proof also. Conclusion. Printing is an art
Thank you again.

[loosecanon]

I am not sure how much the device has been developed. I have a spyderprint 3 that became a 4 by software update. I use non oem inks so I calibrate myself. I am satisfied with the results I get when printing out standard test print sheets, as well as my own images. Why would I change?

[DanK]

I am satisfied with the results I get when printing out standard test print sheets, as well as my own images. Why would I change?

If you are printing only for your own use and are satisfied, then it's hard to see a compelling reason to change. On the other hand, if you are going to display publicly, you might be more interested in checking further.

I did an unusual event last night, called a "portfolio walk". About 20 people displayed portfolios of prints at a local photography institution, the Griffen Museum of Photography. What this entailed was anything from a casual flipping through the portfolio to people who wanted to talk about the specifics of individual prints. Quite a number of people commented specifically on the printing, and in a number of cases, I had to pull prints out of the portfolio so that people could examine the printing and the paper stock more closely. It was a first for me: I have displayed prints now and again, but I have never been in a place in which total strangers wanted to discuss both the images and the printing.

For what it is worth--a different topic entirely--everything I displayed was on one of two Canson papers: Baryta Photographique or Rag Photographique. They elicited very positive comments.

[Manfred M]

I use non oem inks so I calibrate myself.

Unless your ink manufacturer provides profiles for the printer / paper you use, what you do is an option. If you restrict yourself to a very limited number of papers, it can be cost-effective to use an external profiling service as well. I don't personally know anyone who has gone that route.

[Manfred M]

I did an unusual event last night, called a "portfolio walk". About 20 people displayed portfolios of prints at a local photography institution, the Griffen Museum of Photography. What this entailed was anything from a casual flipping through the portfolio to people who wanted to talk about the specifics of individual prints. Quite a number of people commented specifically on the printing, and in a number of cases, I had to pull prints out of the portfolio so that people could examine the printing and the paper stock more closely. It was a first for me: I have displayed prints now and again, but I have never been in a place in which total strangers wanted to discuss both the images and the printing.

There is no surprise at all to me.

When I and other judges do our commentary at on the images at competitions, it is typical to show a digital image while the judge is talking. The prints are also on display.

When there is a print that is particularly striking, we will often point out the subtleties in the print that are not noticeable in the projected image and will comment on the paper choices and how they have had an impact on how the judges looked at the print.

In most of the competitions that I have judged, I'd say 90% of the images are projected. I personally find that I really enjoy judging print competitions because there is a lot more skill that goes into a well printed image. I suspect that, as well as the cost, is why we see so many more images as digital submissions.