brett_kosmider Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I know, I know... This sounds a lot like a Digital Darkroom forum question, but I wanted to run it past fellow medium format FILM people to see what the concensus is. I'm in the process of putting together my own Photoshop workstation and I wanted to know how important monitor calibration is to others who shoot MF film. I realize that it is a serious component of getting consistent and reliable results from your printer, but I'm curious to know if anyone bothers to go beyond the simple Adobe Gamma utility. If so, which product(s) do you use? Macbeth, Monaco, ColorVision? Thanks BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg1 Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I would never recommend doing any sort of digital image post production using an uncalibrated monitor. Adobe Gamma is fine for playing around but it's a hit and miss method of calibration. How would you feel after spending hundreds of hours 'correcting' your images and finding out that they don't look right on a properly calibrated monitor? Another advantage to using a calibrated monitor is better monitor to print matching even with generic profiles. So go ahead and spend about money on a hardware based system. It's worth every penny. BTW. We use Gretag Macbeth and X-Rite products for our colour management system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I currently use the ColorVision Spyder + PhotoCAL. the Gretag-Macbeth EyeOne Display is more accurate in my tests but I just haven't switched yet. Adobe Gamma isn't adequate because it relies on your eyes and human vision is just too flexible and individual dependent to be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_abelson Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Monitor calibration is only as important as your final print. Calibration becomes much more important when you need consistency in output to different printing sytems - one day your printing to an RGB device, one day to a web 4 color press, one day you're sending web graphics to your partners in LA. If you're mostly printing B/W, then calibration means even less. I use Adobe Gamma to set up my monitor and make sure I'm printing using the proper profiles - I find that a much more important aspect - make sure your profiles are correct. Of course if your monitor is old, then you may see very different colors than appear in the final print, but if your prints are for your own use or are printed to your own specs, and if you're happy with the output and if you're not dealing with printing presses or farming your images to magazines and stuff, I'd use either Adobe gamma or the ColorVision and spend my money elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett_kosmider Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 Great advice, thanks to all. How about a follow up to that... I like the idea of calibrating my printer as well as monitor(s) for complete end-to-end color management, but since its an additional $1100 for Gretag Macbeth Photo, I'd be willing to tough it out with Photoshop printer color management and Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display monitor calibration and know that my files at least are color corrected for reliable service bureau output. Is this sound reasoning, or would I benefit from taking the plunge with Gretag Macbeth Photo? I mean, I'm not made of money, but if something can save me time, headaches and enormous amounts of frustration, I'm all for it. And is the ColorVision Master Suite ($900) a complete waste of money (ie I'd be better off spending $500 more for the Eye-One Photo)? Opinions, please... BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_banister1 Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 If you're getting Master Suite Spectro, so that you're using hardware to read the printer output, then the accuracy would probably be close enough. I have the Eye-One Photo, and one nice thing is that the same piece of hardware does the job for both the monitor and the printer. One other thing to consider is that Macbeth charges extra in order to generate scanner profiles. (It includes the sacn target, but you have to purchase a code to unlock the software.) If you're looking to scan film and the Colorvision Master Suite Spectro will give you the ability to generate scanner profiles without spending more money, that's an extra $300 or so you're saving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael erlich Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I had endless headaches getting the print to match the monitor until I profiled my whole workflow with the Monaco EZ-Color and Monaco Optix system. Now I don't waste paper and ink anymore. I'm sorry I waited so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrumohr Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I upgraded from Photocal to Master Spectro Suite. I am sorry I didn't buy the Eye-One System. It is a better product than my Color Vision product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_yu Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Brett: Like all the experts have said, you need a system to calibrate your monitor, and to profile your file scanner, and more importantly, your printe/paper combo, if you want to go digital at all. Then it is a budget issue when choosing which system. I have Monaco EZ color with Optix, cost about $300, and I am very happy with the results. It may not be as good, as precise as Gretag, but there is a price difference. Note: you need to buy a flatbed scanner to make printer/paper profiles if you buy the Monaco EZ Color (the Optix only calibrates the monitor). When I was choosing between Monaco and ColorVision, I did not know much about the two, but B&H recommended Monaco and I went along. It would be nice to have people using both to give their opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg1 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 We have tested the Monaco and Colorvision systems. The Monaco EZ Color system is fine for monitor and scanner calibration/profiling. Our tests show that EZ Color scanner based ICC printer profiles often lack shadow detail and need tweaking when profiling papers that have optical brighteners. Colorvision ProfilerPro profiles made with a spectro are better but the spectro is slow to use. The profiles also need tweaking to get rid of yellow cast caused by optical brighteners. GretagMacbeth RGB printer profiles are very accurate and rarely require tweaking. For users who will be using only a few paper types I would recommend using an online custom profiling service. Custom profiles made using professional level software and hardware will give you the most accurate ICC profile for your printer. Companies such as Drycreek and Cathy use high-end products and have the expertise to create very accurate profiles. Some also offer custom adjustments for your taste or viewing conditions. We use GretagMacbeth for our profiling services and our clients are very satisfied with our profiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett_kosmider Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 CG Thanks for the thorough description of my options. Since I will tend to use the Epson profiles with the 4000 I'm going with the GM Eye-One Display ($250) and if I develop the need for different paper stocks I'll get a custom profile made. Thanks all for contributing, it's cleared things up for me. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now