I rest my case.
,
I rest my case.
FWIW, I am surrounded by Gretag i1 2 users. I have the earlier version.
I worked in print design and publishing for years, and as jj says, none of us ever calibrated anything.
The reason it worked is that the printers and prepress people that we sent the work to had calibrated systems. We would get colors right on our end the old fashioned way ... by attaching solid color or cmyk swatches, or by trial and error agravation with the color printer.
Then it was up to whoever was making the separations to match our hard copy or our swatches.
Not super efficient, but easier than teaching a room full of designers to keep their systems calibrated and to use the right profiles, etc. etc.
For my own photography, now that I'm printing digitally, it would be a borderline lost cause without monitor calibration. considering the cost of materials, I just couldn't afford to print by the old trial and error, empirical methods. Especially in color, I get it right on the screen and that's that.
As for Tim's question, I use the gretag macbet eye-1 and am satisfied with it, but can't compare to anything else.
I worked in print design and publishing for years, and as jj says, none of us ever calibrated anything.
It's not that nothing is calibrated. The monitors are 'calibrated' using Adobe Gamma. Then we get it so close that the printer is happy. And we work with the same printers; we don't run from cheap to cheap. Your monitor does not have to look terrible. A little bright, but not blinding. It's what profiles are, in part, for.
For web work (admittedly easy), using View - Proof Setup is adequate. It is also quite useful for other things, too.
is the printer taking your file without a hard proof and going straight to press?
if you can accomplish this using adobe gamma, you've worked a modern miracle.
I saw the Dry Creek Photo review some time ago. It was excellent. But since that time, companies have upgraded their hardware and software. For example, we now have the Display 2 and Eye-One Match 3.3 from Gretag. It would be interesting to see that review updated.
One system that stood out in that review was the Monaco system. I have both the pro and regular version. Unless one needs the additional features mentioned above, I'd just go with the less expensive non-pro version. (Like, for a single individual.) It does quite a lot. If you have a CRT, do both the calibration and the profiling. As for calibration, see if you have the capability on your monitor to separately adjust each RGB channel. In that way, you can set that as your actual white point, versus relying on the profile to maintain the whitepoint.
In terms of color management, calibrating and profiling the monitor gives the biggest advantage. Printer profiles also have a big advantage. But printers these days come with so many profiles for their own papers, the additional advantage of custom profiles I don't think offers as large a benefit as having a profiled versus a non-profiled monitor.
With deference to those who have used it, Adobe Gamma is crude. It's based on visual perception of the monitor. Squinting helps to make it work, but it can't compare to the quality of profile that can be obtained from data collected by a colorimeter or spectrophotometer from thirty-five up to a hundred patches. These software-hardward systems cost about $200-$250, and by license agreement, some can be used on all monitors owned by that organization. (e.g. Gretag and Monaco.) That extends from a two or three person organization to a college campus. From both a cost and benefit perspective, it makes sense to have a properly profiled monitor and to redo that profile periodically as the monitor ages.
There's a debate about profiling input devices like scanners and cameras. If one requires accurate color reproduction, then profiling input devices makes sense. But it comes with a cost, since the large color gamut of these devices gets trimmed to the gamut of the target used to profile the device. (The best targets are provided by Hutchcolor.) It begs the question, if one is going to adjust the color anyway in Photoshop, what's the point of profiling?
I've never profiled a scanner, but i suspect it could make sense for someone doing batch scanning ... especially from transparencies or prints, where the goal is to match the original as closely as possible.
"...if one is going to adjust the color anyway in Photoshop, what's the point of profiling?"
That depends upon how much paper you want to waste getting a print "right." The costs of fine art inkjet papers are outrageous compared to standard color photo papers - easily 3-4 times the cost of R4 color papers.
For example, Moab Entrada 300 gsm 8.5 x 11= $1.10 per sheet; Fuji Crystal Archive paper = $.34 per sheet in the same size. 17 x 22 Entrada = $4.20 per sheet; Fuji Crystal Archive in 16 x 20 = $1.20 per sheet.
If you have a controlled system (monitor profiled and using proper paper profiles), you can print exactly what you see on the screen with NO tweaks needed. Not only does that save material costs, but the time involved with multiple iterations.
You don't have to use dead reckoning to get an absolute top-quality print. That's the point of profiling.
I had the Colorvision system and switched to the X-Rite Pulse system - far superior in accuracy - and X-Rite actually provides good customer service.
I bought Eye1 as MG recommended it. Works great, prints from 2100 are fantastic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks