froyd
Veteran
I'm considering the purchase of a ColorMunki Photo spectrometer. I already own an older Spyder colorimeter (I believe it's a 2). My monitor is a Dell U2415 and my printer an Epson R3000. I normally print on Epson papers with Espon inks, using Epson profiles.
I currently get pretty good results with my monitor and printer combo, but having a few extra shekles in my pockets these days, I'm wondering if I could further improve my printing, especially shadow detail and gradations.
Can any ColorMunki Photo users give me feedback on the following:
- Compatibility with Win 10. I believe the latest software update on X-Rite's site is from 2009
- Improvement of CM profiles over Epson ABW setting for monochrome prints
- Worth using it for monitor calibration as well vs the Spyder 2?
I currently get pretty good results with my monitor and printer combo, but having a few extra shekles in my pockets these days, I'm wondering if I could further improve my printing, especially shadow detail and gradations.
Can any ColorMunki Photo users give me feedback on the following:
- Compatibility with Win 10. I believe the latest software update on X-Rite's site is from 2009
- Improvement of CM profiles over Epson ABW setting for monochrome prints
- Worth using it for monitor calibration as well vs the Spyder 2?
froyd
Veteran
A little bump to catch the morning crew.
rodt16s
Well-known
Didn't think a profile was applied with ABW
I bought a spyderprint and find it quite useful... because I use 3rd party inks am more dependant on sending paper off for a custom profile.. Now I have the flexibility
Can't speak of the colourminki system though
I bought a spyderprint and find it quite useful... because I use 3rd party inks am more dependant on sending paper off for a custom profile.. Now I have the flexibility
Can't speak of the colourminki system though
JPSuisse
Well-known
What I went through the whole color calibration process (years ago), I bought quite an expensive software and color meter from a company in Germany named basICColor. Results were good. But, the meter failed very quickly and the licensing of the software and activation was a pain in the ass when I would switch computers (main board failed on 2 computers, upgrades, etc.)
Being so problematic, I switched to buying a Spyder 2 and iColorDisplay. A cheaper solution and seems to be just as good. Also licensing and activation is no problem as I received a license file. Computer dead? Just a buy a new one and move on. I use no software that requires activation.
In both cases, I tested by giving my raw files to a lab and seeing how they processed and trying to see if the screen and the prints look right. One lab I caught making adjustments, which explained the differences... I would say I've got things under control.
Why change if it's working right now though?
Being so problematic, I switched to buying a Spyder 2 and iColorDisplay. A cheaper solution and seems to be just as good. Also licensing and activation is no problem as I received a license file. Computer dead? Just a buy a new one and move on. I use no software that requires activation.
In both cases, I tested by giving my raw files to a lab and seeing how they processed and trying to see if the screen and the prints look right. One lab I caught making adjustments, which explained the differences... I would say I've got things under control.
Why change if it's working right now though?
froyd
Veteran
Fair comment. I'd agree that one should not let better be the enemy of good, but I'm fond of printing and I just want to improve my photos as much as I can. I the consensus is that a consumer-grade printer profiler will not provide substantial improvements over stock Epson profiles, I'll just stick to calibrating my monitor and leave well enough alone.