December 23, 2004

5:56 AM

Are color calibration devices generally a worthwhile investment? I'm a photographer, and I'm tired of holding my breath every time I print. [+]
posted by neilkod to (14 comments total)

I can never seem to get my prints to match my LCD or monitor. I print to an Epson Stylus Photo 960, or sometimes I print at a local service bureau.

I've tried using the color calibration applets that come with each OS but they just seem so 'relative' to me. How can I ensure that what I see will get printed?

My main tools of the trade are Photoshop and C1.
posted by neilkod at 5:58 AM on December 23, 2004

From what I know and have seen, it is impoossible to keep a CRT monitor in color calibration consistently. The flat screens are better, but still not perfect. If I had the money, I would definitely invest in a system that allows you to calibrate the monitor every time you turn it on and also calibrate your printer to your monitor. There is so much time wasted going back and adjusting curves or levels and money wasted on printing proofs that I think it's definitely a worthwhile investment if you are serious about your art. I mean, you want complete control of your final product, right? It's your vision.

As always, the constraints for me are money and the time it would take to completely investigate and choose the right solution. I think that may be one of my goals for the new year.
posted by spicynuts at 6:55 AM on December 23, 2004

Monitor calibration devices are definitely worth it, but if you're doing your own printing, you want to make sure you have profiles for your printer too. There are some services out there that will create printer profiles for you and they do pretty high end work. If you're sending stuff out to be printed, you can just embed your monitor profile in the image and the printer should be able to do the conversion. So yes, if you're serious about your photography, buy a monitor calibration device.

That said, there are a number of devices out there and the info can be a bit misleading. Call up the folks at Nancy Scans for info about color calibration. They do high end photographic output from files and can tell you absolutely everything you need to know.
posted by spaghetti at 7:05 AM on December 23, 2004

If you want cheap and marginally effective, the ColorPlus system is better than eyeballing it. For a bit more, the ColorVision Spyder2 is an OK choice.

Personally, I'd go with the Monaco Optix XR, which gets good reviews, and costs only slightly more.

If you have the money, the Sony Artisan series of monitors have built-in color calibration, as do the NEC/Mitsubishi 2141SB (though the puck will cost you more) -- the LaCie Electron Blue IV's are the same monitor, and thus offer the same built-in calibration.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:00 AM on December 23, 2004

If you're sending stuff out to be printed, you can just embed your monitor profile in the image and the printer should be able to do the conversion.

Or you can convert the image to the lab's profile before sending it, which will probably work better at the low-cost places like Costco that don't do any color management. Dry Creek Photo offers profiles for lots of digital photo labs, probably including one in your area. They have one for a lab about three miles from my house, in fact.
posted by kindall at 8:02 AM on December 23, 2004

Oh, and don't forget that you need to calibrate for output as well -- that is, your monitor and your printer.

And calibrate under "normal" working operating conditions (i.e., don't calibrate in the early morning with the window blinds open, unless you only do your work then).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:02 AM on December 23, 2004

kindall -- Just calibrating for printer output doesn't mean that the appearance is going to look anything like the output. If your monitor is poorly calibrated, a photo might look fine, but will look terrible even on a properly calibrated printer output. The basic rule of thumb is: All analog-digital conversions must be calibrated.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:04 AM on December 23, 2004

I find that color calibration is definitely worth it; however one need not obsess over doing it every day, like many graphic bureaus are apt to. The best thing is to find a friend who has one and borrow it once a month or so. I have a cheapo spider, and thus supply calibration hardware to a dozen people or so. It is borderline legal (technically you only have a license to install software on one computer, but the software is worthless without hardware which can only be at one place at the time, so my conscience is not too bothered).

If you live in or near Seattle, I can help you out.
posted by blindcarboncopy at 11:15 AM on December 23, 2004

bcc, thanks for your offer. Unfortunately, I'm in SLC.

So if I do calibrate, should I expect to see better printing right away, or does it take time?
posted by neilkod at 12:11 PM on December 23, 2004

Profiling your monitor is probably the single most worthwhile step you can take towards getting accurate colour. Right at the moment the best devices seem to be the Monaco Optix XR Pro and the GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display. It's also worth mentioning that CRTs still tend to do a better job of rendering images accurately than LCDs, most particularly in the shadow detail.

Profiling your printer isn't quite so clear cut. Epson provide paper-specific profiles for many of their printers and the quality of these is generally very good, to the point where you're unlikely to get better results unless you're willing to make a significant investment in a device such as the GretagMacbeth Eye-One Photo.
posted by arc at 2:02 PM on December 23, 2004

It's also worth mentioning that CRTs still tend to do a better job of rendering images accurately than LCDs, most particularly in the shadow detail.

arc, do you know if this< is just hype?
posted by mosch at 10:21 PM on December 23, 2004

when I worked at the prepress house I used to simply print a test photo off the printer then calabrate the monitor to match it as close as possible. We used the carmen fruit hat photo that came with photoshop,

Your monitor will never look the same but you might get close, at least try to match the luminosity and contrast. We did that once a week and it worked better than any calibration machine.
posted by joelf at 11:23 PM on December 23, 2004

mosch - LaCie doesn't manufacture any of their own products. They are a rebranding house, that is all. Look familiar? It's cheaper, too.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:59 AM on December 24, 2004

Mosch, LCDs are definitely getting better although the only ones I'm aware of that can genuinely compete with the best CRTs are the Eizo CG series. I have one of these - the CG18 - and can certainly vouch for the fact that it shows none of the usual problems I'd associate with LCDs such as poor greyscale linearity or a lack of shadow detail. The new CG220 goes one step further in being the first LCD able to display the full AdobeRGB gamut, but it's hugely expensive.

If you're interested in the subject it's worth keeping an eye on the Colour Management forum on Rob Galbraith's site - discussions around displays and calibration devices turn up pretty often and there are some knowledgeable people (e.g. Ethan Hansen of Dry Creek Photo mentioned above) involved.
posted by arc at 8:01 AM on December 24, 2004