Color Monitor Calibrator

[tbelleza]

I have not been satisfied with the color prints I have been getting lately. A

local photo lab suggested that my color monitor may need calibration and

suggested the Eye One Display 2 from X-Rite. I would like to solicit feedback

from those of you who have used this product. Thanks.

[link]

I have the older Eye One Display 1 and it works quite well.

 

So I guess thats one yes vote :)

[the black rabbit]

You will never get the reults you want until you callibrate the monitor. You maybe lucky with a monitor...but in reality you need to callibrate.

 

Colour management is a nightmare, but as simply as I can put it, you need to buy one and follow it's application. Never ever change the inherent colour space though...photoshop may ask you if you want to change it but leave it as srgb or whatever your camera took it as.

 

I use the spyder 2, and it seems to be ok. I have an HP W2207 lcd monitor and after callibration it was immense how different it looked. In fact when I look at it I do feel it isn't right...but in saying that, my prints are now true to what I see on screen with only slight differences.

 

Also...gamut plays a big part. Your monitor can display a lot more colour variations/saturation etc than you can print...so be mindful of this also.

[Ed_Ingold]

A Spyder 2 should work well - it measures patches and creates a full-gamut profile. While much cheaper, the Huey is just too simple and requires too many manual adjustments for consistent results. The next (big) step up from the Spyder is a pro model which measures both emitted light (monitors and projectors) and reflected light (prints).

 

Color management is difficult to grasp at first, but is anything but a "nightmare" in practice.

[kory gunnarsen]

Best one on the market right now. The older X-Rite DTP94 that was my favorite.

[ronald_moravec1]

Easy for the lab to blame you, so send then a file straight from the camera taken in sun with the camera set to sun, not auto.

 

It better be perfect.

 

If it is, use that file to calibrate the monitor.

[teeuwen]

> The next (big) step up from the Spyder is a pro model which measures both emitted light (monitors and projectors) and reflected light (prints).

 

A colorimeter is generally a better instrument for calibrating displays than a spectro. A spectro like the EyeOne Pro is far less accurate in measuring colors at lower luminance levels.

 

See for example this excellent article from Karl Lang:

http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3-comments.pdf

[Ed_Ingold]

A spectrophotometer may be less sensitive at any particular wavelength, but the Eye One Photo device takes measurements at 10 micron increments compared to using three broad RGB filters. On the whole, you get a more accurate reading with a spectrophotometer, with less effect due to differences in emissivity of different phosphers and band shifts at different power levels.

 

The big plus is the ability to read prints and create print profiles. Another benefit is the ability to read and match spot colors which may use non-process inks or pigments.

[Ed_Ingold]

Using a print to calibrate a monitor is about as effective as inverting the column on a tripod to get close to the ground with a camera. Both are often cited by people who have read but not tried it, and dismissed with prejudice by those who have.

[teeuwen]

> On the whole, you get a more accurate reading with a spectrophotometer

 

Mr. Lang (Sony Artisan, Radius PressView etc.) obviously doesn't share your opinion.

 

From above referenced article:

 

"The 1nm Metrology Lab Spectroradiometer ($40,000-$100,000)

 

If budget and time are not factors you care about, this is the very best way to measure any emissive color. I am often confronted by persons who attempt to convince me that a spectral device is the best way to measure a display's color. If this is the device they are referring to, they're right, however at a reasonable price point for the purpose of calibration they are wrong."

 

"For a job like measuring a white light source a low end spectral device may be excellent. If you are adjusting the grey tracking of an LCD display, the error of the device on the darker patches may be far greater than the adjustment accuracy of the display.

My experience has shown that to accurately calibrate a display with a spectroradiometer you need to spend at least $10,000 on the device."

[Ed_Ingold]

The Eye-One Photo system (and other similar kits) have a proven track record for accuracy and reliability commensurate with the demands of digital photography. This is not to say that lab instruments are not better in some respects, but that the "pro" tools are good enough for the task at hand.

 

A $40K instrument is undoubtedly superior for any one measurement. However, the profiles from Eye-One software are derived statistically. The accuracy does not depend on any single measurement, rather many measurements in aggregate. (q.v., "Numerical Analysis" by Donald Knuth and any graduate level statistics book).

 

Prints will NEVER match the display. It's a matter of emissive vs. reflected, RGB vs. CMYK, the limitations of ink and paper, and the intensity and color of the light used to view the print.

[oxide blu]

Ted - I'm new to color management, monitor calibrating in particular. After much research, and I do mean MUCH research, I decided on the new ColorEyes Display Pro system. I opted for the optional DTP-94 sensor, though ColorEyes works with a variety of sensors.

 

The original release of ColorEyes got panned as decent stuff but just not user friendly. The new ColorEyes has gotten glowing reviews by everyone that has looked at it, more so than any other monitor calibration system. It is very very user friendly, has an embedded tutorial mode that will explain what it is doing, and why, what your options are, and why, etc as it goes. After you understand monitor calibrating you can opt to not use the tutorial and it is fast. It also exploits the best possible scenario for calibrating your monitor; i.e. s/w adjustments vs graphics card adjustments vs adjustments on the monitor itself. Of course it saves profiles, shows before and afters, saves calibration histories, and has a reminder that pops up to tell you when to recalibrate if you set it.

 

http://www.integrated-color.com/

 

On the downside the parent company is a couple of guys; one very helpful, one very much not. The helpful one answers email queries in .1 milliseconds, calls if he thinks it is necessary, he makes a hell of an effort. The other guy does not answer email at all, does not return phone calls, couldn't careless about supporting the ColorEyes product. Unfortunately he is also the same guy you have to get pass to access their online color management forum, which also gets rave reviews from everyone that plays in there.

 

In a nutshell, Integrated Color Corp has a great product, perhaps at the apex of its class for monitor calibration, but is like a company run by children. If you opt for ColorEyes buy it presuming you will not get any support, not that you will need it and in reality you probably will get some support, at least to some degree, if you really needed it and can tolerate the occasional frustration of no reply. Don't even expect access to their color mngt forum.

 

My friends that are freelancers in NYC for various publishers all said to stay away from Spyder 3 because of s/w problems. I guess it is not as solid a product as the Spyder 2. And apparently the new sensor is over rated, too. The Spyder 2 is still recommend by them. They are run Apple hardware supporting PC software driving Eizo monitors. Fwiw, the Spyder 2 sensor works with the ColorEyes software.

 

I called the folks at Chromix, a color calibration and mangt company, and ask about the various monitor calibration systems. They sell many of them. They recommended the ColorEyes over everything else. So I contacted (Mr Helpful) at Integrated Color and he recommended the DTP-94 sensor as the best sensor avilable. As sensors go it is supposed to be better than most other sensors out there, though it is slated to be discontinued.

 

One of the websites that compared monitor calibration tools also rated the X-Rite Monaco Optix highly for my application, though not as user friendly and based on older technology. I believe it uses the same DTP-94 sensor. Somewhere I read something about the Monaco being phased out, though that may just have been in reference to the sensor.

 

Which brings me to my last point; you got some reading to do. Not all monitor calibration products are the best choice for all scenarios. Some do better at calibrating a notebook computer, a diff product is better for Apple products, and yet another one for a PC with a high end graphics card that has dual channels for dual CRT displays. This will give you an idea of what you are up against:

 

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm

 

Good luck.