M8 Owners: Which color calibration tool do you use?

[eleskin]

Since I have a new 24" Imac and am expecting my Epson Stylus Pro 3800 to be delivered soon for my M8, new color calibration equipment is next on my list. I am just wondering what all of you M8 owners on this forum like to use best and why.

 

[jag157]

I use DataColor's Spyder 3 Elite package which came as part of their Studio kit that also included Spyder Pro Print ... a spectrometer for printer profile development. I've also used iOne's calabration tool and find it to be as good as Spyder3. Either will do an exceptional job for you as long as you use the software that comes with the callabration devices appropriatly. It also helps to have a good monitor, sound room lighting conditions etc.

An observation on your printer ...as good as the 3800 is the Epson profiles leave a lot to be desired. I'd encourage looking at doing your own profiles so you can have a profile specifically for your printer for whatever paper you want to use. Or look to Illford or hannamuller papers who do do good profiles for the 3800.

Have fun ...its a good journey.

 

[adavis47]

I have the Eye One Display 2 and the Huey. As Double Negative said, for the money the Huey is an excellent choice. One nice thing about the Huey is that you leave it connected and senses ambient light and changes adjusts the monitor to any changing light conditions.

 

[Ricko of Fla]

I have the IMAC 24", but the problem is the screen is tooo bright. your picture looks great and then when you print it and your prints is way too dark.
There is a free down load mode, call Shades. You can reduce the brightness with the slider from Shades.
Hope this helps.

 

[biggambi]

Much of this conversation regarding the image perceived on the monitor vs the print has to do with reflected vs emitted light. They never look the same, and it is through experience that one becomes accustom to gauging the two respectively. As for a calibration tool I use the eye one system and I am quite satisfied with the results. It is not inexpensive, but it does accomplish the task of synchronizing /profiling my camera, display, and printer together. I find it indispensable since I am printing larger prints on an Epson 4880 and I do not waste ink and paper. Also, I can send out prints to a lab for larger sizes as needed, knowing what to expect it to look like. Therefore, each gallery print is as close to the same as I can possibly attain given the time span between printings. I do not know what your needs or goals are, other than calibration. Maybe if you elaborate on how accurate you need to be, everyone can better guide you.

 

[JNewell]

Had the Spyder 3 (it is still sitting in a drawer somewhere) and found I didn't get results I liked with it. Looked at the Huey and the Eye One Display 2; really liked the later and have been using it happily for several years. Recently they tried to up-sell me to the Color Munki - make really sure you read all the reviews and feedback on that, because there are a bunch of serious issues.

BTW, you didn't ask, but having tried a bunch of "gray card" solutions in the field, my runaway favorite is the Spydercube. It is the most perfect product for this purpose I've ever seen. It's a little pricey but I got it at firesale pricing from a local dealer.

 

[jaapv]

Hardware calibrated Eizo screen using Spyder.

 

[Ronald M]

The iMac has a color calibration utility built in. Look in the utilities section on HD or use search function. That`s what I use and it works well.
The Epson software has an advanced tab with offsets you can make for color and density if prints do not match.

Start there and see how it goes.

To set up your offsets, make small prints, say 1" x 2" and keep moving it around on the paper and you get a whole lot of tries fast and cheap. Once your are close, put four 4x5 on an 8x10 , different photos you want printed, tweek the offsets if necessary, and make your large prints. It will work the first time.

would also tell you not to mess with color bal. Set the camera to sun, shade,indoor or whatever and keep it off automatic. I have yet to see a digcam that did not produce correct colors if used this way. Stay off automatic WB.

My last advice is to get a file with good reference colors and open it in PS along with something else that needs correcting and make a match. In experienced eyes are easily fooled and comparison is better than memory.

See if Adobe 98 is available for a Mac. That has a grey scale and reference colors. If not make a file in sun of a MacBeth Color checker chart.

 

[biggambi]

The iMac has a color calibration utility built in. Look in the utilities section on HD or use search function. That`s what I use and it works well.
The Epson software has an advanced tab with offsets you can make for color and density if prints do not match.

Start there and see how it goes.

To set up your offsets, make small prints, say 1" x 2" and keep moving it around on the paper and you get a whole lot of tries fast and cheap. Once your are close, put four 4x5 on an 8x10 , different photos you want printed, tweek the offsets if necessary, and make your large prints. It will work the first time.

would also tell you not to mess with color bal. Set the camera to sun, shade,indoor or whatever and keep it off automatic. I have yet to see a digcam that did not produce correct colors if used this way. Stay off automatic WB.

My last advice is to get a file with good reference colors and open it in PS along with something else that needs correcting and make a match. In experienced eyes are easily fooled and comparison is better than memory.

See if Adobe 98 is available for a Mac. That has a grey scale and reference colors. If not make a file in sun of a MacBeth Color checker chart.

I wish I had said this.😎

 

[Tom Niblick]

^ The thing is though, you shouldn't have to compensate. In a properly profiled system, it just works. The picture you took looks right on the screen, looks good on someone else's screen (if they're profiled or close) and looks good coming out of the printer.

Who wants to remember to do a "+5 magenta, -2 blue and +3 green" on every print job?

Profiles adjust your screen so that red is red, blue is blue, etc. What they have a hard time doing is showing the full dynamic range of a file when viewed on a LCD screen. If the range is compressed, the file will look more saturated than it actually is. The mental compensation required is a slight gain in contrast and saturation. It is so slight that many canned profiles supplied by the paper manufacturers actually better match LCD screens while a carefully made paper profile more closely matches a good CRT screen. The difference is about a 15% gain in the mid to 3/4 tones - about what you get on a 4 color sheet fed press.
The other thing about LCDs is that the contrast changes when you tilt the screen. Profiles can not fix your viewing angle.
Look at it this way, its a small price to pay for not having to pay for and find room for a giant CRT.

Tom