Updating my calibration and profile building tools - guidance appreciated.

[pili]

One of the few comments I've found that concern me are Waynes about the warm tone that should be neutral.  That would bug me!

Jack,

I'm using Spyder3 Print here to generate profiles for an Epson 3800 printer, including B&W profiles. The results are very good, although not in the same league as MonacoProfiler, ProfilerMaker and i1Profiler. One of the advantages of this package is the ease of exporting results. I'm learning a bit of ArgyllCMS and hope to start building profiles with it and the Spyder3Print measurement device soon.

To print B&W, I use the advanced B&W mode of the Epson driver with simple linearizing B&W profiles created using the QTR-Create-ICC utility that comes with QuadToneRip. Spyder3Print can export directly on the format required by QTR-Create-ICC. You can read a bit more about it here. Results are far better this way than by using color mode combined with any profile I've generated.

The resulting ICC profiles should help you with soft proofing and also improve B&W response, specially for non-Epson papers. I don't have any experience with your RIP, but I assume you could generate B&W profiles the same way, if it has a dedicated B&W mode.

Overall, i really like the Spyder3Print, specially considering the price.

[tony22]

I just spent part of the morning reading a few reviews on the Spider3 and must admit, looks like it gives far more utility, and more complex color patches, than the ColorMunki Photo.  Frankly, it looks like it could give the iOnePhoto Pro a run for the money at a far more cost effective price point.

One of the few comments I've found that concern me are Waynes about the warm tone that should be neutral.  That would bug me!

Am I missing something else?

I've been using Spyder3Print SR since it was first available. I've done color and B&W profiles for my Canon Pro9000 and Pro9500. It is a good device for the money, but in general I agree with Wayne. I would go so far as to say that the "out of the box" profiles are only acceptable. In my case (and others if you look at posts on dpreview) they all needed tweaking with the profile editor built into the S3P software. That is where there is real utility in the product (over the Colormunki IMO). You can tweak the originating profiles until you get the level of accuracy you want. But you have to be willing to do that.

OTOH, there are a couple of experienced people on dpreview who have both the S3P SR and the Colormunki. While there is no clear winner, it seems the Colormunki may be able to do an equally good, or slightly better job in some cases. There is an interesting thread there comparing color accuracy and the Colormunki didn't do badly at all. The big issue with the 'munki seems to be the difficult workflow when printing and creating the profiles. You can't terminate the program and wait for the print to dry, and then restart the program and read the print. (I generally wait 24-48 hours before reading a test print.) That and I think there is no "profile editing" per se, but an opportunity to generate tailored prints for another scan which will refine the original profile.

[Wayne Fox]

I just spent part of the morning reading a few reviews on the Spider3 and must admit, looks like it gives far more utility, and more complex color patches, than the ColorMunki Photo.  Frankly, it looks like it could give the iOnePhoto Pro a run for the money at a far more cost effective price point.

One of the few comments I've found that concern me are Waynes about the warm tone that should be neutral.  That would bug me!

Am I missing something else?

The number of patches used by the colorMunki when creating a profile is deceiving because it uses a fairly unique multi level approach to build it's profiles.  So while it only uses 200 patches to build a base profile, it does so by creating one "standard" target, analyzes that target to try and determine where there is weaknesses in the printers linearity, and then builds a custom target with 100 more patches to refine the profile.  So despite only using 200 colors, the results are very good.  You can continue to optimize the profile if you wish, and you can refine the profile toward particular colors by creating additional targets based on pallets or images.

When I reviewed the ColorMunki, I couldn't find a way to create a custom white point when profiling a display.  I only worked with it for a few hours, so any experienced Munki users that may know of a way please correct me.  A custom white point is often useful when trying to get a good display to print match, but the white point defaults available aren't bad and may be close enough for most.

[PhilipCummins]

When I reviewed the ColorMunki, I couldn't find a way to create a custom white point when profiling a display.

Looks like you can only use D65, D55, D50 and Native - otherwise you could use Argyll to build a custom white point?