Spyder2Express

[Michael Heald]

Hello! As I contemplate color 4x5 and scanning, I'm wondering of a basic calibration setup for my laptop. Does anyone have experience with the Spyder2Express? Best regards.

Mike

[Don Wilkes]

I'm in much the same boat, and hope others will comment. From what I have read on the boxes. there are three versions of the Spyder: the Express, which is fairly limited, the Suite, which gives you more options, and the Pro which gives a *lot* of options.

A copy of the Monaco EZColor software came with my scanner, but I do not have a colorimeter (the hardware that reads the colour coming form the monitor). I've managed to follow the instructions on how to create a profile without one, but suspect this is much less than idea. I'd be *really* interested in finding out if I can use a cheap colorimeter like the once that comes with the Spyder or the Huey with that software. The "recommended" Monaco one costs about CDN $500, so I'm not in a big hurry to go get one of those...

Cheers,
\donw

[Ted Harris]

For basic monitor calibration you can't beat the Monaco unit that Jim at Midwest seels for around 100 bucks or less ...

[Michael Heald]

Hello! What Monaco is this. The Optix costs abut $219. With the entire package with software its about $300. Best regards.

Mike

[Ted Harris]

Optix it is ... I may misremember the price but it is well under 200 from Jim.

[Michael Heald]

Hello! Thank you for the guidance. Reading the specs, it appears that one advanage of the Optix is that the Monaco software comes with the Epson 4990 pro and V750. It can calibrate the scanner, monitor, and printer, so it would be more versatile down the road. The Spyder2express only calibrates the monitor.

It would seem that the advantage of the Spyder2Express would be that if I plan to use just my laptop/scanner/printer and one paper for a year or so as I learn color management, then I could profile my printer for $30 to $50 for that one paper (or maybe two if I am adventursome).

From this scenario, the Monaco seems better, but to weigh it, any input for the Spyder would be helpful.

So, if/when I purchase a better Epson flat bed scanner, it may be better to pay the additional $200 for the Monaco colorimeter rather than the $100 for the Spyder2Express and $30 to $50 for a printer profile. Best regards.

Mike

[Bruce M. Herman]

I use the Spyder2Pro, which has an option a basic run mode which is equivalent to the Spyder2 Express. I've used this for a laptop with very good success.

By the way, if you purcahse a higher end monitor, it usually comes with SilverFast Ai which you can use with a target to calibrate the scanner. The Monaco is needed for scanner calibration.

[robert]

Ok I'm new to this so I may need a little guidance. If spyder2express creates a ICC profile to send to the printer then isn't that calibrating the monitor so the printer prints what the monitor is rendering. So isn't that calibrating the printer and the monitor together? I'm just trying to understand about calibration so sorry for the novice questions. Thanks, Robert

[PViapiano]

Occasionally, the Monaco EZColor w/ Optix XR can be found on eBay relatively inexpensively. I picked one up for $120 recently...

[Ted Harris]

I think there is some confusion going on here. First the Spyder2Express comes from ColorVision and the optix from Monaco/Xrite. Both do the same thing, calibrate your monitor to specified color standards.

The Spyder2Express does not do any printer profiling, to get that you need to step up to the next level in the ColorVision product line, the Spyder2Suite. I have not seen any results from this system but, for the moment, I am skeptical. For best printing results you need to uild profiles for each paper type you use. To do so requires a different device. The devices you use to calibrate your monitor is generically called a colorimeter (it is a type of spectrophotometer that measure transmissive light). The device used to profile papers is a reflective spectrophotometer, a different and much more expensive gizmo.

As for calibrating yoru scanner, you are using an IT8 test target which is either a film or reflective target with a range of color patches and grayscale that you use to be sure your scanner is properly adjusted. While you do get both the software and the target with Silverfast Ai you can also buy them separately.

Bottom line here is that any of the least expensive "pucks" will do a satisfactory job to calibrate yoru monitor. The less expensive the more limitations of course (e.g. ability to set gamma to your preferred point, etc.). More importantly is the quality of your monitor. Many of the least expensive LCD displays will either not accept calibration at all or just won't stay calibrated for more than a few minutes or hours. Apple displays, Eizo monitors, etc. take and keep calibration.

Printer/paper profiling is an entire different subject for another discussion and not one that you wnat to get into fromt he beginning. Most paper manufacturers provide decent profiles for their papers for use on the higher end printers. RIP manufacturers also provide paper profiles for lots of more popular papers. Try these first. Your entry level investment in paper profiling hardware/software is going to be around $1000 and that is only entry level.

[darr]

I agree with Ted concerning printer calibrations.

I use the Monaco Opix system for three LCD and one CRT monitor calibrations (three Dell and one Microtek) and they stay in tune at least until they are redone which is about monthly. For our three Microtek scanners we use Silverfast IT8 targets with much success. Last week I tried calibrating our Epson R2400 via the Monaco system and scanner and forget it! Did not come close to what the Epson profile does for its Velvet Fine Art paper. If we change papers, we will rely on the paper manufactures for their printer-paper profiles.

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I was thinking of using a calibration service for the printer. Pick a couple of papers that I'm interested in and then send them out for profiling.
I thought that this approach would work with the small volume of printing I do so that calibrating the monitor with the Express and sending out for initial printer paper profiles would be the most cost effective.
However, if printers need relatively frequent profiling, that wuld chnage the economics. How frequently should printers be profiled? Best regards.

Mike

[Howard Slavitt]

I get a couple of papers calibrated on my Epsons (now a 2400) when I buy the printer, and typically not again, or at least not for a year. With respect to printer profiles, Epson's latest ones for the Epson 2400 are really excellent. Still, they're not quite as good as the ones I recently purchased from Andrew Rodney, aka the Digital Dog. He uses a huge amount of color patches based on Bill Atkinson's profiling software. I tried Cathy's profiles first, and they were awful. I'll only use Rodney from now on. I understand that the professional Epson printers like the 4800 and 7800 (unlike my consumer printer) are closely calibrated from the factory and stay in spec, so they should need less profiling, and should be even better with the stock Epson profiles.

[Ted Harris]

Mike, the point is that you shouldn't worry about profiling your printer. Profile your papers. Use the profiles from the manufacturer or get ones from a third party as you suggest or do them yourself which is complicated and expensive. As far as the third party profliling companies are concerned there are those who get great results and thos who are very dissatisfied. Try one and see.

Your printer is also one of the issues. Even the Epson 2400 is not a 'professional' printer .... meaning it is capable of producing gorgeous prints but they are not built to such tight tolerances that the paper makers profiles will be what you want. If you want absolute reliable replicability you need to go to the x800 series printers from Epson or (possibly) the new wide format Canon or HP printers.

BTW, we are starting to gather together the necessary equipment and software to evaluate the Canon and HP printers for a View Camera article. Expect something by the May-June or July-August issue. The printers are available now but we want to do side-by-side print comparisons between Epson, HP and Canon using the supplied printer drivers and using (at least) ImagePrint, ColorBurst and Quadtone RIPs. Quadtone is not available for any printers other than the Epsons at the moment. ImagePrint is out for the Caonons but will not the HPs yet. ColorBurst will be available for the Canons by January and the HPs some months later. We are thinking of throwing StudioPrint into the mix as well but not yet sure .... not a comment on the RIP but more on variables. All suggestions welcome at this time.

[neil poulsen]

All suggestions welcome at this time.

Ted, A very good idea, comparing the three RIPs. I'll be interested to see the results.

A few suggestions:

>> Use custom linearizations and custom profiles for all three RIPs, and then compare all three to ImagePrint without a custom linearization and custom profile. ImagePrint get's a lot of mileage out of their claim that custom linearizations and custom profiles aren't needed. It's fair to put this claim to the test.

>> Examine the ability of each RIP to edit in true CMYK mode, where they have almost full control over each of the four ink channels. (Some call this, "editing by the numbers.") For some image professionals, like graphic artists, this can be a big advantage.

>> Make your color comparisons exacting. Explore the extremes of color and saturation in your comparison that are possible with each RIP. Also explore subtleties of near neutral colors with each RIP.

>> Do comparisons for both color and black and white imaging. (Can QTR do color? If not, then above suggestions apply only to ImagePrint and ColorBurst RIPs.)

Related Areas of Investigation:

>> What are the advantages of using custom profiles in either RGB and CMYK printers. What difference do they make? (I think of RGB printers as those that print through the driver, or use a RIP that requires RGB input. For example, the ColorBurst RIP can accept CMYK input without internally reconverting it to RGB and then back again to CMYK, and so, it's possible to edit in "true" CMYK mode using the ColorBurst RIP. I'm not sure if the ImagePrint RIP can do this.)

>> Compare the impact that custom profiles versus packaged profiles can have on soft-proofing.

[neil poulsen]

I think I took things a bit off topic in my post. Please excuse.

[Ted Harris]

Niel thanks anyway and I will repost as a new thread in a bit.

Meanwhile, harking back to an earlier post regarding the Optix xr from Midwest .... they still have a few of these specials left and the pricee is now $109, that per Jim this am. This is the regular package but they have cut the upc code off the box, a great deal. I bought one months ago when they had just started the offer and paid 40-50 more as I recall.

[robc]

Printer/paper profiling is an entire different subject for another discussion and not one that you wnat to get into fromt he beginning. Most paper manufacturers provide decent profiles for their papers for use on the higher end printers. RIP manufacturers also provide paper profiles for lots of more popular papers. Try these first. Your entry level investment in paper profiling hardware/software is going to be around $1000 and that is only entry level.

I think price of entry level spectrophotometer for print profiling is coming down.

http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=521

anyone used one of these?

[Dominique Labrosse]

Hello! I was thinking of using a calibration service for the printer. Pick a couple of papers that I'm interested in and then send them out for profiling.
I thought that this approach would work with the small volume of printing I do so that calibrating the monitor with the Express and sending out for initial printer paper profiles would be the most cost effective.
However, if printers need relatively frequent profiling, that wuld chnage the economics. How frequently should printers be profiled? Best regards.

Mike

Mike,

I think you are spot on. $1000 will but alot of custom profiles. Some good services have been suggested already. You may want to consider Chromix (http://www.chromix.com) and their ColorValet (http://www.chromix.com/colorvalet/?-session=tx:18559BCC1b5862D125Smo166AC8B) service as well. No matter which service you choose, you'll get a taste of a colour managed workflow without putting out the big bucks for a photospectrometer.

A colorimiter type device would however be a necessary minimum expenditure. Be prepared to spend $220-300 on a colorimiter. Some companies offer trade-in values on colorimiters if one wants to upgrade to a photospectrometer further down the road.

Good luck
Dominique