Spyder 5 Print

[Rhinetone]

Hello all,

I have recently purchased a Spyder 5 Print colorimeter.
I have few questions and so far have been unable to find much info about it.
I have bought some Epson Premium Glossy Paper, specifically for testing (I have an Epson SC-P400 printer).
I have printed the Outback test print with the standard Epson ICC profile and with three different measurements from a print with the Datacolor software.
My questions are:
Is it normal to get quite different results from one measurement to the other?
Does ambient light have an influence on the measurements?
Of the four profiles, I like the third Spider profile the best.
It goes to 'absolute black' around 10 on the bottom left of the chart. Should I now set 10 to be absolute black in Light room to just 'compress' the contrast a bit?
How would I do this?
Or is this the same as using relative as a rendering intent?

Sorry if these questions sound a bit like the questions you get from a newbie, but I realise I've entered a whole new world. There's a lot more to printing than I thought (or than manufacturers would want you to think).

Andy

[David Sutton]

Is it normal to get quite different results from one measurement to the other?
Meaning, if you are reading the same patches, no.

Does ambient light have an influence on the measurements?
Meaning, ambient light while you are reading the patches, no. But be aware that if the paper is thin-ish, you should put some white paper underneath before reading.
Your lighting will make quite a difference when looking at the test prints. I look at them in similar light to the one where they will be displayed.

Should I now set 10 to be absolute black.
You can probably tweak a little more out of the shadows by opening the profile, and under "SpyderProof-View" select "advanced editing" at the bottom, select the advanced tab and move the shadow detail to +5. Save as a separate profile.
Most of canned profiles for the papers I use don't give any separation in the blacks under 8. If there is important shadow detail under about 50 or so, I open up shadow detail and minimise black clipping in the raw conversion if possible. Then in Photoshop I set my significant blacks to no lower than 8.
I guess in LR you could do this by holding down the alt key and moving the black slider until clipped blacks show up, send the slider back to where it was and drop the mouse over that spot and read the value under the histogram. Multiply by 2.5 to get an approximation of that value for a scale of 0-255 (instead of Lightroom's 0-100).
BTW, for a glossy paper I would make sure there is nothing being printed over a value of 251 or so, as there will be no ink being laid down and you can see it in the final print.

Or is this the same as using relative as a rendering intent?
No. Choose your rendering intent when softproofing in Lightroom

Cheers, David

Edit: I've just done a profile for the new Epson Legacy Baryta with the Spyderprint SR for my Canon 6300 printer, and am quite pleased with the result. I use the plastic strip reader to hold the spectro still and centre it on each patch, but don't use the actual strip reading function as I'm not confident it's reliable. 729 patches sound a lot to read but doesn't take that long.

[Stephen G]

I own, and have abandoned, the SpyderPrint system, version 3. If I were you I'd take it back and get a Colormunki, or the i1Pro system if you can afford that. My thoughts are in this post, linked below, but read that entire thread and others that you can find on this forum:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=78431.msg630093#msg630093

I found that the profiles did not allow for a standard Relative with BPC rendering. Everything was Perceptual, with variations on how out-of-gamut colour is dealt with. Perhaps they've improved/changed since V3.

[Paul Roark]

I can't speak to the newest model, nor can I speak to color profiling, but I have used an old Spyder Print for years for my black and white profiling.  So, FWIW, these are my observations of the unit.

The Lab L output has consistently given me very good linearizations, with paper dry-down being the major factor that effects the black end of the profile to a minor extent.  It is not the Spyder that is the limiting factor to accuracy and consistency.

The Lab A and B reads can jump around + and - about one unit (sometimes more).  But the paper white gives me the baseline information needed to see this degree of inconsistency.  That is, the tones relative to the paper white are read consistently.   It's more of a calibration issue.  In that respect, try doing some warming up (reads) of the meter prior to calibration seems to give a more consistent read.  Keeping the calibration tile clean is also needed.

I find the ease of opening the output files with Excel and graphing the results a huge plus for the platform.  The last X-Rite spectro I had was terrible in this respect, though I suspect the better X-Rites have more accurate Lab A and B readings -- but that is a guess.  A test of the most popular one was not more accurate.

When I early on looked at what the cost of a meter that would give me a reliable, less than one Lab A and B unit accuracy, I decided to stay with the Spyder.  Like I said, that paper white gives me feedback on where the meter is at.  It's the line between the paper white and the deep blacks that matters.  I look at the tones relative to that line.  And I always have my Excel graphs' vertical axis set to a total of 10 Lab A and B units (for B&W).  Anything less is an invitation to frustration.  Humans cannot generally distinguish less than a singe Lab A or B change.

FWIW,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com