Dear all,

I would like to jump into better printer calibration (Epson 3800 and when available Epson 3880). I used sometimes the old Datacolor solution (PrintFix Pro and now Spyder3Pro) to make some profiles; to be honnest, the lack of stripping is painful (generating many wrong readings) and the profiles far from being spot on.

So now what are the advantages to go with X-rite i1 Extreme (price x3) compared to the new Spyder3Studio SR (with stripping)?

Is the i1 still a better and more accurate device than the new Datacolor spectro?

Thanks for the advice!

Ruud

First of all - the device from Datacolor is not a spectro - it's a colorimeter.

i1 Extreme - apart from RGB printer profiling - has many other functionalities - CMYK printer, digital camera, LCD projector and scaner profiling. But if you just want to make profiles for your 3800/3880, you can get i1 Basic + RGB printer module. I don't know Spyder, but i1 pro spectro works really good for me:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=311983

Every time you point this out to them, they say “Its a SpectroColorimeter” a term I think someone made up. I ask “is it a Spectrophotometer or a Colorimeter” and the conversation stops. Yes I agree, a true Spectrophotometer is far preferable and provides more functionality.

Given the price differential between an i1 unit (~$800 or so) and the new Spyder 3 ($600 as they do not market a print only profiler as with Spyder 2) and Color Munki (now well under $400) the key question is the ease of use and accuracy in preparing profiles. For those of us where photography is a secondary avocation, cost of the instrument is a key factor. Depending on which reviews one reads, all seem to do an acceptable job but flexibility for other applications as Andrew notes may be important to some. I had a Spyder 2 print but found the operation quite clunky and after prepary profiles sold it. Many have commented on the Color Munki's ease of use and if it gives good results why would one want to spend twice the money?

The fair comparisons would be with the ColorMunki which is a true spectro. My experience has been very good in terms of the printer profiles built to a few Epson's. With the Pro, you can upgrade some day to an iO.

Thank you very much for your advise.

If I go with the i1 solution from X-Rite, shall I choose the UV-Cut model or the one with no UV-Cut (which is apparently the standard solution)? I use many different papers for printing including papers containing optical brightener.

It may sound like a dumb follow-up question but...

Are printer/paper manufacturers' profiles reasonably reliable? I have noticed that on cheap printers when using the same brand of paper as the printer and letting the printer manage colour you get a fairly decent output (certainly better than an uncalibrated printer managed by Lightroom).

By extension, a downloadable profile from a manufacturer should get you 95% there (and therefore delay the need for spending $800). Any experience worth sharing?

If you have a software solution (meaning ProfileMaker Pro or other X-Rite packages like Match), it will compensate for UV with non UV Spectrophotometer models.

Depends on the printer and of course the profiles. But in the case of the Epson Pro printers, the profiles they supply are difficult to improve upon much by building a custom profile.

Note that it cost a nice chunk of change for such manufacturers to license profiles. In the case of Epson, the profiles are all X-Rite generated and of very high quality. Some mom and pop (and not so mom and pop) paper companies could use a package and provide a profile that’s not so good.

yes and no. As Andrew has already pointed out, the Epson paper profiles for their printers are excellent. I have an R2880 and found that other top brand papers (Hahnemuhle and Ilford Gold Fibre) profiles are also good. The only other paper brand that I print on is Museo. They did not have a profile for any of the matte surface papers and I volunteered to print out the targets for them so I guess I can vouch for the quality of the printed targets. I don't know what hardware/software package the Museo folks used to create the profiles, only that they work very well on my printer. I'm probably going to upgrade my printer to the 3880 when it comes out which means going through the same thing all over again.

Thanks Andrew & Alen

Thank you Anrdrew.

I use mostly Hahnemuhle papers and I am not quite satisfied with the profiles they provide for an Epson 3800 (my Eizo display is calibrated with an i1 Display).

And also, printing a lot of B&W, I have to do grey 21/51-step readings and use them as per Eric Chan's workflow (such "b&w profiles" being used when printing with the ABW option within Epson driver).

Ruud

spectrophotometer

Pronunciation: spek′trō-fō-tom′ĕ-tĕr
An instrument for measuring the intensity of light of a definite wavelength transmitted by a substance or a solution, giving a quantitative measure of the amount of material in the solution absorbing the light; a colorimeter with a choice of wavelength and photometric measurement.


spectrocolorimeter

Pronunciation: spek′trō-kŏl′ŏr-im′ĕ-tĕr
A colorimeter using a source of light from a selected portion of the spectrum, of a selected wavelength.


colorimeter

Pronunciation: kŭl′ŏr-im′ĕ-ter
An optic device for determining the color and/or intensity of the color of a liquid.
Synonym(s): chromatometer, chromometer