Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Roger, I couldn't get consistent color prints either. I burned up a lot of expensive paper and inks trying. The thing I like about hardware monitor calibration is that it's consistent. It eliminates one variable in a process that has far too many variables. I think consistency is more important than accuracy. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as accurate color. It used to be that there was Kodachrome color, Ektachrome color, Velvia color, Cibachrome Color, Ektar color, etc. Today it's even more wide open. I've studied my own color perception enough that I don't always trust what I see. For instance, changes in ambient light in my work area can affect what an image looks like on my monitor. I can be working in daylight or tungsten light, or a combination of the two. It's not something I can easily control. I also have a 5000K fluorescent bulb that I use to judge prints. Metamerism can be found in many places. It's not just variations in how ink looks under different light spectrums. I was in a workshop a while back and we took blank sheets of different printing papers and looked at each one right before looking at a monitor. It was a real eye opener the way my perception of the image on the monitor was altered, depending on the "whiteness" of the paper. Different people have different color sensitivities (and different tastes which may play into sensitivities). Women tend to have better color sensitivity than men. My wife can point out things in a photo that I don't even notice. But once she brings them to my attention, they're obvious. My mind can really play tricks when it comes to color. After all, a person can change the apparent warmth of a BW print using the same gray inks just by changing the paper. The ink, itself, doesn't change. Just the paper. So how can neutral ink appear either cool or warm. It's because the mind plays games when it comes to subtle color variations. Maybe that explains why I never had success eyeballing color balance. The Spyder2 works like a charm. Again, it's not that accuracy is so important. It's consistency I'm after. daveR -----Original Message----- From: Roger Skully [mailto:robinsnes@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:06 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: PS Re: [Leica] DMR DNG profile hell ! Just to take the opposite tack...I have found that Spyder improved my prints in both my Epson stylus photo 960 and in my 2400. Wouldn't dream of not using it on a regular basis. Just my humble opinion. Roger Skully Robin's Nest Photography On Nov 14, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Brian Reid wrote: > Same here. I tried it for 6 months; it made things worse, not better. > > >> I had a Spyder briefly. To make a long story short, eyeball >> calibration >> works much better for me. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information