Help with printing

[jim kitchen]

I have an iMac, and I just used the Mac calibration routine. It seems to have done a pretty good job. Anyone think I should pop for calibration hardware?

Dear Greg,

The answer depends upon your absolute needs, where I would try to recommend that you incorporate a calibration software package that adds value to your image making process, but that economic decision will be answered by yourself. There are a few good packages available, where I do however recommend ColorEyes Display Pro calibration software for your iMac. Their url is located here: http://www.integrated-color.com/cedp...esdisplay.html

It is the best software to address your iMac's screen brightness and colour balance properly. I would suggest too that your review their forum group for further assistance. Although they recommend the Spyder 3, and now package the Spyder 3 with their software, I found that the older "DTP-64" calibration puck addresses the "White Balance" better. The authors of the software do acknowledge within their forum that the "DTP-64" is better, and many folks request the Spyder 3 calibration tool because they are told that they require a calibration tool that can accommodate the latest wide gamut screens. Unfortunately, I do not accept the Spyder 3 marketing hype nor did I see any improvement while using this calibration tool, matter of fact I do not have a desire to use the Spyder 3 calibration tool. I too find the "DTP-64" better with the monitor's white balance.

If you have access to a "DTP-64" through an associate, I would recommend that you try each calibration tool, and then make your own decision, based upon your results. My dissatisfaction with the Spyder 3 should not influence your decision. That said, each calibration tool has a distinct personality, and a properly calibrated monitor will add value to your long term image making routine.

Just my two pennies...

jim k

[Jim Burk]

I had the same problem when I started using the Color Munki. I calibrated my monitor during the day when the ambient light was stronger. The iMac screen was then fairly bright. My prints came out darker than the screen. I did another calibration with little or no ambient light, and the screen was darker, and matched the print almost exactly. Now when I do the final editing I make sure the screen is using the right color setup.

I get the closest match using soft proofing and letting PS manage the colors.

[pherold]

Just a little PS for Jim's post there: He's referring to the "DTP-94" puck (not 64).

For those still following this thread, we wrote a newsletter article that rolls together a lot of the things mentioned here (like soft-proofing, monitor brightness, nozzle checking, etc.) This tries to cover all the bases for why a printer would not match a monitor and what to do about it.

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Printe...atch_my_Screen

[Jim Burk]

Pat,

I checked my Color Munki hardware and software, and could find no reference to "DTP-94" or "64". Do these have anything to do with the Color Munki, or with the Spyder 3, or something else. I assume that "puck" refers to the calibration hardware in general? The web site referenced three entries above never mentions the Color Munki.

Thanks,

Jim

[pherold]

I'm sorry Jim - I was actually referring to Jim Kitchen's post about the DTP-94 (which is a colorimeter and sometimes called an "optix" or "coloreye".) This is a particular kind of measurement hardware, like the Spyder or the i1Display 2. Your Munki is a slightly different device that is able to measure emissive light (from a computer screen) as well as reflective light (off the surface of paper).

The ColorEyes Display Pro software mentioned in the post above does not work with the ColorMunki device. This is unfortunate because it's otherwise a very good software for reducing the overly-bright iMacs during profiling. It works with just about every other device; just not the ColorMunki. But it sounds like you are able to get a good profile by calibrating in low ambient light, so you should be all set.

[Jim Burk]

Pat,

Thanks, I was getting confused there. I am fairly new to all this, so often confuse easily!

Jim