J Mountford
Forum Enthusiast
Going back a gazillion years and the slow learning curve of photography, darkroom magic and time, it was a relief to go digital. Instant feedback, fast learning curve and so on. Boy was I wrong.
Being a purest, I wanted complete control over every aspect of my photography, from camera to final print, just like I had in the film days. I didn't like the results of print shops and no matter how well I dialed the photo in for the final print, it was always wrong in the end.
First off, my monitor was to bright, my computer room was also to bright. My prints were always to dark. Since I wanted so much control, my first step was to buy a printer (wrong!) I was working backwards winging it and my results were terrible. My printer an Epson L1800 6 ink tank system that you can't buy in the states (I live overseas in the Philippines) was lackluster at best. All my manipulation to get the print right was visually in Lightroom or Photoshop. It was nowhere near WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). So the internet and YouTube became my best friend to find how to fix it.
Spyder5.
My first step was my monitor and found out it was way to bright. Also found that when I adjusted it to where the Spyder5 said it should be was to dim. Then finding out my room was to bright, reduced that too. OK, now I'm getting somewhere. But my prints still were to dark! NUTS!!! What now?
SpyderPrint. Why did I choose that instead of the Color Munki? Availability is the only answer. I'd had no choice but to have the Color Munki shipped out from Singapore and knowing how customs works in the Philippines, it could be that I will get it upon arrival, or it could be hung up for months. The SpyderPrint is availble here and after ordering it I had it in 2 days. Then came the frustration and fun.
But first, lets backup and put printer calibration in context. Ten years ago I worked in the imaging department of a major newspaper in the States. They had bought a beautiful Epson multi ink (I think 9, maybe more) wide format printer for proofing ads and articles for the magazine section of the Sunday paper. I never learned the nuances of the printer, but it took 2 months for technicians from the newspaper and Epson to get it dialed in. Each printer cartridge was calibrated too, which meant that once the printer was dialed in, then those values would be entered in the software (they called it a rip). But therein laid the problem, getting the printer dialed in. Printing out color targets, measuring each square, it seemed hundreds of them, making software adjustments, then a test print which could take an hour (size was the reason) and repeat, over and over and over.
Well, the SpyderPrint is the same system, not as sophisticated, but pretty much the same nevertheless. I printed out the test targets, measured all the squares, created the ICC profile and print --- to dark again!!! First off, I had both the software and printer managing my colors, which of course created a conflict. After poking around the Epson software I finally found out how to turn that off. Print again, junk again! OK, maybe I need to read the manual, that the YouTube video's made it all look so easy. But much to my chagrin, the manual is confusing and poorly written. It seems to assume things that a layman such as myself don't know. But I delved into it anyway and it started to make sense, that and help from the internet and blogs.
I then printed out a series of prints of the supplied ICC profiles to get the best image with the paper I am using (Kodak High Gloss, readily available here while others are not) and it turned out the ICC profile that was pre loaded in the Epson printer software was Epson Semi Gloss which was the best match. OK, printed out the 4 pages of color and grey scale squares using that ICC profile. Then let them dry and "gas off" (whatever that means) for 24 hours. I measured each square, all 480 of them, compared, then remeasured some I was not satisfied with. Printed out their test photo and junk again!! This time, while the overall darkness was not as noticeable, my blacks were a funky and I mean a very funky grey. The greens in shadow area's looked terrible too. Obviously the SpyderPrint is a piece of expensive junk!
Needless to say I was frustrated, expensive printer, expensive measuring devices and lots of money thrown down the toilet for what? Just so I can have the freedom of complete control, yet I had no freedom because I couldn't get it dialed in!
After taking a few days off from this madness, I got back into it, determined so solve this ongoing problem. But this time, instead of using their test photos, I used my own. OH my GOD! I'm finally in the ball park. I have no idea why theirs sucks and mine didn't, but I had something I could work with. (my test print I downloaded off the internet and did not manipulate)
I set up two ICC profiles for my Kodak paper, one for color, the other for black and white. I'm not sure if that is the right thing to do, but I did it nevertheless. Since my prints were still to dark, I went into the profile and turned up the brightness 5 points, I was getting closer. Each time I made an adjustment, I made my test print. Each time I learned a little more. In lightroom I turned up the brightness to 45 in the print module and now my output is so close that it is scary. For the first time, my prints are jumping out, instead of looking flat and lifeless. My black and white prints had an overall light green cast, no matter what I did when working up the photo. So I went into the ICC profile and fooled around with the color sliders till I got, what looks like, a true black and white.
I'm still not quite there, it is going to take more minor adjustments to get it dialed in.
My next step is going to be to calibrate my camera, which should have been done in the first place (it seems I like to work backwards) and that is going to take some more learning, a test target, then working forward from monitor to printer to getting that all dialed in. Then of course, the periodic retesting to compensate for hardware drift.
My point to writing this is the SpyderPrint, from what I see here has gotten some bad press here. The documentation is not that user friendly, but the hardware is.
Pro's:
The SpyderPrint works as intended but you have to have patience. I have no idea how it would measure up to the Munki but from what I can gather, the SpyderPrint has many more targets to measure off from. I am not sure if that makes a huge difference but to me, regardless of availability here, it was a selling point for me.
The Spyder5 monitor calibrator is simple, straight forward and works right out of the box with a minimum of fuss.
Con's:
The SpyderPrint manual needs to be rewritten while answering all the questions laymen like myself would have. Their site is not that much help. Also, the sliding across the test target automatic reading I found didn't work for me. Either to slow of movement, or to fast, or it just didn't like it. So I chose to read each square individually. That of course it totally up to you what works best.
The Spyder5, I can't think of any issues.
If I had to do it all over again, would I buy them?
Yes and yes, while frustrating, once I got past that and had time to think about what I was doing, it all came together. It just takes patience, time and determination. The SpyderPrint is not something you can just take out of the box and use, like so many other things are, it is not very intuitive and takes time to get to what you want. You can not rush the final results. Make one adjustment, print. Don't make 3 adjustments and print, if it is wrong, then you have to go back and determine which one screwed things up, or a combination or 2 or 3. Take notes, always! Use a good light source to view your test prints. I have a daylight fluorescent tube strapped to the top of my monitor with a shield made out of cardboard both to protect my eyes from glare and the monitor. I only turn it on when it is needed. It looks funky, but I don't care, my computer room is not made to impress, it is made for results.
Comments welcome
Jim Mountford
Still learning after all these years
PS I do not work for anyone except myself. I'm retired and I do photography because I love it and don't want to spend my golden years fishing, or playing chess in the park, or watch TV all while waiting to die.
--
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius
Being a purest, I wanted complete control over every aspect of my photography, from camera to final print, just like I had in the film days. I didn't like the results of print shops and no matter how well I dialed the photo in for the final print, it was always wrong in the end.
First off, my monitor was to bright, my computer room was also to bright. My prints were always to dark. Since I wanted so much control, my first step was to buy a printer (wrong!) I was working backwards winging it and my results were terrible. My printer an Epson L1800 6 ink tank system that you can't buy in the states (I live overseas in the Philippines) was lackluster at best. All my manipulation to get the print right was visually in Lightroom or Photoshop. It was nowhere near WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). So the internet and YouTube became my best friend to find how to fix it.
Spyder5.
My first step was my monitor and found out it was way to bright. Also found that when I adjusted it to where the Spyder5 said it should be was to dim. Then finding out my room was to bright, reduced that too. OK, now I'm getting somewhere. But my prints still were to dark! NUTS!!! What now?
SpyderPrint. Why did I choose that instead of the Color Munki? Availability is the only answer. I'd had no choice but to have the Color Munki shipped out from Singapore and knowing how customs works in the Philippines, it could be that I will get it upon arrival, or it could be hung up for months. The SpyderPrint is availble here and after ordering it I had it in 2 days. Then came the frustration and fun.
But first, lets backup and put printer calibration in context. Ten years ago I worked in the imaging department of a major newspaper in the States. They had bought a beautiful Epson multi ink (I think 9, maybe more) wide format printer for proofing ads and articles for the magazine section of the Sunday paper. I never learned the nuances of the printer, but it took 2 months for technicians from the newspaper and Epson to get it dialed in. Each printer cartridge was calibrated too, which meant that once the printer was dialed in, then those values would be entered in the software (they called it a rip). But therein laid the problem, getting the printer dialed in. Printing out color targets, measuring each square, it seemed hundreds of them, making software adjustments, then a test print which could take an hour (size was the reason) and repeat, over and over and over.
Well, the SpyderPrint is the same system, not as sophisticated, but pretty much the same nevertheless. I printed out the test targets, measured all the squares, created the ICC profile and print --- to dark again!!! First off, I had both the software and printer managing my colors, which of course created a conflict. After poking around the Epson software I finally found out how to turn that off. Print again, junk again! OK, maybe I need to read the manual, that the YouTube video's made it all look so easy. But much to my chagrin, the manual is confusing and poorly written. It seems to assume things that a layman such as myself don't know. But I delved into it anyway and it started to make sense, that and help from the internet and blogs.
I then printed out a series of prints of the supplied ICC profiles to get the best image with the paper I am using (Kodak High Gloss, readily available here while others are not) and it turned out the ICC profile that was pre loaded in the Epson printer software was Epson Semi Gloss which was the best match. OK, printed out the 4 pages of color and grey scale squares using that ICC profile. Then let them dry and "gas off" (whatever that means) for 24 hours. I measured each square, all 480 of them, compared, then remeasured some I was not satisfied with. Printed out their test photo and junk again!! This time, while the overall darkness was not as noticeable, my blacks were a funky and I mean a very funky grey. The greens in shadow area's looked terrible too. Obviously the SpyderPrint is a piece of expensive junk!
Needless to say I was frustrated, expensive printer, expensive measuring devices and lots of money thrown down the toilet for what? Just so I can have the freedom of complete control, yet I had no freedom because I couldn't get it dialed in!
After taking a few days off from this madness, I got back into it, determined so solve this ongoing problem. But this time, instead of using their test photos, I used my own. OH my GOD! I'm finally in the ball park. I have no idea why theirs sucks and mine didn't, but I had something I could work with. (my test print I downloaded off the internet and did not manipulate)
I set up two ICC profiles for my Kodak paper, one for color, the other for black and white. I'm not sure if that is the right thing to do, but I did it nevertheless. Since my prints were still to dark, I went into the profile and turned up the brightness 5 points, I was getting closer. Each time I made an adjustment, I made my test print. Each time I learned a little more. In lightroom I turned up the brightness to 45 in the print module and now my output is so close that it is scary. For the first time, my prints are jumping out, instead of looking flat and lifeless. My black and white prints had an overall light green cast, no matter what I did when working up the photo. So I went into the ICC profile and fooled around with the color sliders till I got, what looks like, a true black and white.
I'm still not quite there, it is going to take more minor adjustments to get it dialed in.
My next step is going to be to calibrate my camera, which should have been done in the first place (it seems I like to work backwards) and that is going to take some more learning, a test target, then working forward from monitor to printer to getting that all dialed in. Then of course, the periodic retesting to compensate for hardware drift.
My point to writing this is the SpyderPrint, from what I see here has gotten some bad press here. The documentation is not that user friendly, but the hardware is.
Pro's:
The SpyderPrint works as intended but you have to have patience. I have no idea how it would measure up to the Munki but from what I can gather, the SpyderPrint has many more targets to measure off from. I am not sure if that makes a huge difference but to me, regardless of availability here, it was a selling point for me.
The Spyder5 monitor calibrator is simple, straight forward and works right out of the box with a minimum of fuss.
Con's:
The SpyderPrint manual needs to be rewritten while answering all the questions laymen like myself would have. Their site is not that much help. Also, the sliding across the test target automatic reading I found didn't work for me. Either to slow of movement, or to fast, or it just didn't like it. So I chose to read each square individually. That of course it totally up to you what works best.
The Spyder5, I can't think of any issues.
If I had to do it all over again, would I buy them?
Yes and yes, while frustrating, once I got past that and had time to think about what I was doing, it all came together. It just takes patience, time and determination. The SpyderPrint is not something you can just take out of the box and use, like so many other things are, it is not very intuitive and takes time to get to what you want. You can not rush the final results. Make one adjustment, print. Don't make 3 adjustments and print, if it is wrong, then you have to go back and determine which one screwed things up, or a combination or 2 or 3. Take notes, always! Use a good light source to view your test prints. I have a daylight fluorescent tube strapped to the top of my monitor with a shield made out of cardboard both to protect my eyes from glare and the monitor. I only turn it on when it is needed. It looks funky, but I don't care, my computer room is not made to impress, it is made for results.
Comments welcome
Jim Mountford
Still learning after all these years
PS I do not work for anyone except myself. I'm retired and I do photography because I love it and don't want to spend my golden years fishing, or playing chess in the park, or watch TV all while waiting to die.
--
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius
Last edited:
