Over the past couple of weeks, I've decided to create some high quality profiles for some of my commonly used papers, specifically for gallery and portfolio prints.
I've profiled 4 different papers, with Bill Atkinson's 2300 patch targets, and my EyeOne UV.
Unfortunately, the results I'm getting are not satisfactory to my eye. Shadow and highlight details are slightly worse than canned profiles, and there are slight color shifts in the reds and blues. My deep reds look more like orange, and my blues more purple.
I've scanned the papers 4 times, and after comparing the data, some patches were off by more than delta 3.0, specifically the darker patches.
My guess is that my EyeOne is just not capable of creating accurate/repeatable results, when used manually.
Now, I would like to step it up a bit to get the best profiles I could possibly make in-house.
I don't plan on doing much profiling, and time is not an issue for me. Would a used Spectrolino provide me with accurate and repeatable results compared to a newer device such as the iSis, or is the iSis a more accurate device overall?
At first, this almost sounded like a cross-post of this:http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=43179
...but it turns out it's not.
First things first, you don't mention what papers you've tried to profile and what profiling package you're using. The problems with your current profiles could be as much to do with your profiling software as the instrument you're using.
As far as your EyeOne, I would say it's capable of *accuracy* but that's different than repeatability. I would agree that the EyeOne is one of the least *repeatable* spectros, especially when used with an iO table. iO tables have real, easily demonstrable issues when it comes to repeatability. The EyeOne and EyeOne iO are very versatile instruments but repeatability and consistency are not one of their strong suits.
As to the question of iSis vs. Spectrolino/Spectroscan, that's a very tough call. I have both (and an EyeOne, DTP70 and DTP41). I personally could not live without both instruments, although if I were forced to choose, I'd probably have to go with the iSis solely for it's speed (it's easily 10-15x faster than a Spectroscan). As far as consistency, I would give the nod to the iSis but I haven't done any formal tests compared to the Spectrolino/Spectroscan. I did some tests a couple of years ago against an iCColor and DTP70. The iCColor was NOT very consistent and, while the DTP70 proved to be very consistent/repeatable, the iSis had fully HALF the delta E error/variation as the DTP70. Suffice to say that the iSis is probably the most consistent/repeatable instrument you can get. My gut feeling is that the Spectrolino/Spectroscan is very repeatible as well, probably falling in between the EyeOne Pro and the iSis. *Accuracy* on the other hand is something that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. To do that, you'd need a "golden spectro" to compare your instrument against and possibly "synchronize" your spectro to. X-Rite has technology that is capable of doing that but it's only for select spectros used for industrial and graphic arts applications. I've personally used their NetProfiler product for spectro synchronization/verification but it currently only works with one instrument, the XRite/GretagMacbeth SpectroEye (basically a hand=held Spectrolino but with a LCD display, intended to be used in a pressroom and for ink formulation, not as a general spectro for profiling).
I think the kicker would be the type of papers you're currently using and would like to profile. While I probably use my iSisXL for 95% of my profiling, there's ONE application where I still dust off my Spectrolino/Spectroscan-T and that's when measuring matte or "uncoated" fine art papers. While the iSis and Spectrolino can be switched between "no filter" and "UV-cut" filters, the Spectrolino also has the option of using a Polarization filter. This filter is frankly amazing when using it to profile matte/uncoated papers. The "POL" filter essentially reads the ink+paper without being confused with the surface texture and diffusion/scatter that happens. A profile built from polarization measurements will reveal shadow detail, even with relative colorimetric rendering, that will just blow you away, instead of the usual shadow clipping that would occur. I will often measure a matte surface paper with both "no filter" and with polarization and blend the two sets of measurements together until I get just the right amount of shadow rendering. The polarization filter also has mild UVcut characteristics where it sort of attenuates but doesn't eliminate the effect of optical brighteners in the paper.
So what to do?
If it were me and I had a fair amount of profiling to do and I was mostly dealing with gloss/semigloss/semimatte "coated" photo papers, I'd stick with an iSis for sure.....but if the majority of my papers were of the matte/"uncoated" fine art variety....and I had all the time in the world to devote to profiling.....I'd seriously consider getting a used Spectrolino/Spectroscan, preferably the later vintage "purple" units. If you go that route, make sure that you get the UVcut filter for the Spectrolino. While the polarization was included with these units, the UVcut filter was optional so not all units will have this filter. Last I checked, these were about $75 to purchase separately.
Does this help?