Need help on purchasing a monitor calibration sys

[jnsuffolk]

I very seldom post photos on here because I'm not that good. When I think I have a good one I've posted it and everyone tears it up. Thats ok. It s a good thing. So for the most part I shoot pics for my own enjoyment. So I would like to get my monitor calibrated but I do not want to spend anymore than 100 bucks if possible. I have done a little reading on the spyder. The have 3 levels. I was thinking of getting the express. But, Would that be worth it or just a waste of money. and is there anything else out there comparable.

Thanx Joe

[Mr. Pickles]

Well, were the people that "tore them up" always mentioning the colors being off? Did they look good to you? Did you have any printed by the local drug/super store? Did they kind of sort of match?

Since you don't have much money, and you're just messing around right now for your own enjoyment, my not go a free route and see if your system is way off? That would be my cost conscious first go around. Lots of reading and it might get too technical for ya, but lots of good info on this big ole page, and a free program that might help called Quick Gamma 2...
Monitor calibration and gamma

And you can always ask questions here.............

[jnsuffolk]

Ive already been there and read all that. Ive calibrated my monitor that way already. What I really want to know is if you look at the hardware For instance spyder there are three levels. you can buy. The lowest one does't seem to do to much. is it worth buying or not. I just want my colors on the screen to come out the same on paper. There close now but close isn't right on

[Mr. Pickles]

So you print your own images at home? If not, then calibrating your monitor isn't going to fix your issue. You need to know exactly how and what whomever is printing on. You'll need a profile form them. Otherwise, it is still a crap shoot.

And I know a lot of people who have calibrated their monitor with $100 to $300 calibrators and they still were not "right on". But, it is very similar to camera reviews this print accuracy deal. One is better or this is spot on, etc., and the actual differences are so small it is very hard to tell.

I even know some who take and edit in Adobe RGB and post those on the web and send those to the printer and they don't match at all in either place. They are just a bit off. And all they really need to do is change the image to sRGB before sending....

[ohenry]

Getting your print to match what you see on your monitor is one of the more difficult things to accomplish. First, you'll never get it to match perfectly for a variety of reasons, mainly centered around the differences between the light source of monitor and print. Beyond that, you need several elements in your workflow to get a reasonably close output match. First, you need to calibrate your monitor to a known standard using hardware calibration tools. Next, you need software that is capable of utilizing and understanding color management. And finally, you need to have a profile for every printer/paper combination you're printing on.

Spyder, until the recent version, has never received particularly favorable reviews when compared to other tools. For the pricepoint you've given, you're pretty much limited to a stripped down version of Spyder 3, an older version of Spyder, or Pantone's Huey. I've read good reports from Huey users, but have no personal knowledge of them. I used to use a Spyder 2 and was never happy with it. I use a Monaco Optix XR (no longer readily available), custom profiles for all of my papers and my printer, and my workflow centers around Adobe CS3 and/or Lightroom.

Regardless of what system you go with, if you're not using software that supports color management, it's a crap-shoot anyway.

[Mr. Pickles]

And OHenry would get a bit different results if he sent his images to some outside print service....and they will vary "greatly" (relative term). Big boys like MPix or WHCC or EZPrints (SmugMug) will do better than the Wal-Mart or Walgreens of the world....

[ohenry]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

And OHenry would get a bit different results if he sent his images to some outside print service....and they will vary "greatly" (relative term). Big boys like MPix or WHCC or EZPrints (SmugMug) will do better than the Wal-Mart or Walgreens of the world....

But, if one understands color management and uses appropriate measures, including obtaining the profiles from the print service, they can obtain reasonably close matches. Some custom houses (WHCC, MPIX, etc) offer custom profiles for their paper/equipment which will aid in soft-proofing. Some printing houses use printers that do not rely on embedded profiles and, in that case, SRGB is a wiser choice. You have to read what the service wants. If outsourcing, read the requirements prior to sending in and you'll get better results.

It still pays to calibrate your own monitor. My point was that simply calibrating a monitor is not the final resolution to getting prints that closely resemble what you see on screen. The steps one takes beyond that depends on a number of variables and factors.

[jnsuffolk]

Ok I don't think anybody understands what I'm asking. Lets start all over. what is a good calibration tool. I print my own photos. I only pirnt with a little compact printer which does an excellent job. I was just thinking that If I could calibrate my monitor it might be a little bit better. Does this make sense. I don't know one bit about the hardware that you can use. I just used spyder as an example. If there is something better than that and i'm guessing there is. what is it and if its too expensive I'll just continue what I'm doing for now. Thanx

[ohenry]

You obviously didn't read my first message.

For your budget, consider the Huey.

[jnsuffolk]

Yeah I read it maybe I just don't understand whats involve. Thanx for the help anyway

[Songman45]

I may be very late in asking this question, pardon me if it sounds elementary. Have you printed on paper then compared to your monitor? If you are not critical or in a crucial need, your monitor may be close enough.

[kencas]

Originally Posted by Songman45

I may be very late in asking this question, pardon me if it sounds elementary. Have you printed on paper then compared to your monitor? If you are not critical or in a crucial need, your monitor may be close enough.

What Songman45 is saying is a very good place to start. First, download a Test Image from somone such as Digital Dog or PhotoDisc. Both of these test images can be sourced through this Monitor Calibration and Gamma site Monitor calibration and gamma . This site alone has a plethora of great advice for starting out!

Once you have these "known" colour-spaced images, print them on your home printer. Then, with a common room lighting that you would normally use for viewing your screen, compare the colours and gamma of the printed Test Image with that shown on your screen. If it is off, you can adjust your monitors basic controls to match, or you can download a Gamma and Black Level program to give you a rudimentary but pretty close "calibration".

It's a good place to start, and until you can find and justify the cost of a monitor calibrator/profiler it will give you better images than an out-of-the-box monitor...

Hooroo,

Ken.

[jnsuffolk]

I think I'll try it thanx and my pics look pretty good now I was just trying for a little bit better but I think with all ive read so far Ive got the info I was looking for thanx guys for all the advice