Do you think Monitor Calibrators (Spider2) are worth it?

[rm72]

I've always been dissapointed when I get my photos printed (at photo shops) to find that my prints are darker than I edited them to on my computer. I've calibrated my screen with Adobe Gamma, but it hasn't solved my problem. I was wondering if anyone who calabrates their monitor with the Spider, or other similar calabrating sytems, think this would solve my problem, and if the expense ($150ish) is worth it. Any advice you can give my is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[ckimmerle]

It's definitely worth the money. Without a properly profiled monitor you have no way of standardizing your output, and no way of solving printing woes.

You won't be sorry!

Chuck

[road_runner]

Spider and similar devices also require calibrating your printer. Usually a flat bed scanner is required so that profiles can be built for the differrent papers used. Do you need perfection (i.e. selling your work in art shows etc,)? You should be able to get very good results using Adobe Gama.

I first generate a print (8X10) on the printer manufacturer's paper using the printers "DEFAULT SETTING. Then I use the Adobe Gama feature to calibrate my monitor and generate another 8X10 print using a sheet of paper from the same pack. One of these prints should be within 90% of the maximum quality expected. Use the settings that satisfy your expectations. I was considering the Spider until I found out that I had to get a scanner to calabrate the printer for papers other than the manufacturers. For my purposes, the manufacturer's papers are fine. Sometimes I use another paper, but there isn't too much difference.

If the photo shops are coming up with dark prints, you may want to try a new service. So far, I have not had any problems using My Publisher for albums/Coffee Table Books or with O-Photo or M Pix.

In essence you can get 90 percent with 10 percent of the effort, or you can spend $150 or more and put in another 90 percent effort to get the other 10 percent!

[ckimmerle]

I completely disagree with road-runner. First, monitor profiling devices do NOT require profiling a printer or scanner (not sure where that info came from). Sure, it helps to have such profiles created, but it's not necessary. In fact, many paper manufacturers provide free profiles for a selection of printers and custom profiles can be purchased for $25-$100.

Adobe Gamma is an incredibly poor substitute for profiling because it does nothing other than indicate screen hardware settings. There is no profile that other apps can use to help you see your images properly. Its' better than nothing, but not much.

In a perfect situation the monitor, printer, scanner and camera would all be profiled. But, those profiling packages will cost a couple of thousand U.S. dollars and are beyond the reach of most amateur photographers. If money is an issue (an it alway is) start with a monitor profiler. They're just a bit over $100 US and are absolutely essential.

Chuck

[road_runner]

ckimmerle is almost correct. First I did not say that you would get "PERFECT" prints. My point was that you can get 90% of what you would expect with 10% of the effort. To get what you feel is a perfect print will takie much more effort.

Now - the information I passed on about scanning your printout for further calibration came from PC Magazine, July/August 2005, Pages 32 and 34 and Colorvision's web site.

Fact - Profiles provided by paper manufacturers may or may not do the trick. These profiles are usually determined by using the paper manufacturer's ink and paper combination.

Fact - There are two methods of calibrating. Scanner based systems and a SPECTROPHOTOMETERS. Using a spectrophotometer system does not require the scanning of the printout. The scanning system is not such a simple task. The marketing folks like to use terms that imply their procedure is simple, but not necessarly so. Spectrophotometers are more costly, because they are more accurate and provide excellent software and wizards. Colorvision's Color Plus sells for around $100 - $120.

I suggest that folks get a copy of the article in PC Photo Magazine July/August 2005 written by Lewis Kemper before diving in. BTW, I think it was Colorvision's Web site that indicated that Colorvision's Color Plus (For enthusiests/amatures) requires the images to be printed out and then be scanned for further calibration - thus it is a two step proces. SPIDER-2 and X-Rite Plus are for more serious photographers - like ckimmerle. He is evidently much more sophisticated than I am. Those systems are more costly - $900 - $1,300.

So like I said; I am satisfied with the simpler approach. To be as good as the better photographers on the forum; you will have to get one system or the other. I have never had a problem using the printer services on the net. My Publisher and MPix do just fine for me.