Calibration tools

[ChrisDauer]

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum; but it seems to make sense to me. Before you process your image, you calibrate your monitor.

I'm looking at two different versions of the same product, and would love to get other peoples input.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465161-REG/Xrite_EODUV_Eye_One_Design_UV.html

and

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465158-REG/Xrite_EOD_Eye_One_Design.html

There is a $200 (20%) price difference between the two. Unfortunately, the write ups aren't that great on the B&H site and it sounds like it's different items. Looking on the xRite site, it looks like it mights just be software that's different.
http://www.xrite.com/top_Products.aspx

Thanks for suggestions, feedback, etc.
-C

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Chris for just the display i use this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465156-REG/Xrite_EODIS2_Eye_One_Display_2.html

Eye One Display 2 , it works very nice on both my Mac's. Mac Pro with 30 iunch display and my Mac Book Pro Book with my 23 inch display

You will certainly like the price better too

 

[ChrisDauer]

Yeah, I looked at that, but it won't profile the printer (I'm using an Epson 3800) w/ house paper from InkJetArt. Given that I'm not using a RIP (currently); I thought I might compensate by doing paper profiles.

Which gets me back to the Design option. I could go w/ the Photo (RGB printers) or Proof (CMYK printers); but I'm not sure I need more than the "easy version" of the same.

 

[Jack]

You want more than the Easy since that target has so few patches it's all but useless. You don't need CMYK either: even though your printer uses CMYK inks, it is an RGB device

 

[ChrisDauer]

You want more than the Easy since that target has so few patches it's all but useless. You don't need CMYK either: even though your printer uses CMYK inks, it is an RGB device

Crud. So my question still stands...

Photo, or Photo UV, or Photo SG, or Photo SG UV (new links though!)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465163-REG/Xrite_EOPH_Eye_One_Photo.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465164-REG/Xrite_EOPHUVC_Eye_One_Photo_UV.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465165-REG/Xrite_EOPHSG_Eye_One_Photo_SG.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465166-REG/Xrite_EOPHSGUVC_Eye_One_Photo_SG_UV.html

and really... is there any wonder why I'm confused.
fyi:
I tend towards the gloss papers (personal preference). Though I have been using Luster / semi-gloss mostly these days.

I know some people love Matte. I'm not one of them. I don't know if this many influence any of the above.

 

[Bob]

Chris,
Just the photo will do unless you intend to make camera profile. The UV is to remove the effect of optical brighteners in the paper, but I am not convinced of its value. Instead, I use a paper that is low on brighteners, such as the Harmon Glossy Al.
-bob

p.s.
I will be presenting a paper on video on the web in Santa Clara next week. I will wave in your direction.

 

[ChrisDauer]

Well, the Photo LT just arrived.
Personally, as I am new to this; I've found surprising little info (imo) that clearly and concisely explains it all. For those of you who are also new to this; hopefully this will help you out.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/i1-lt.html
has done the best job, reviewing and explaining how most all this stuff works together.

IF I am correct, here is how it will play out:

Photo LT comes w/ a $200 rebate OR a iBeamer [projection] upgrade. As I don't have or use projection now (or in my immediate future), I'll opt for the rebate.

It only does "easy" for printers. They offer a 50% off upgrading a module, (I'll opt for the full version of RGB printer module at 50% off.)

The other option I was considering was the full version of i1 Photo, which costs about 2x as the Photo LT. No rebate, though it also offers 50% off an upgrade module. However, it comes with the advanced versions of everything (projection, scanner, digital camera, RGB printers, and profile maker, so I didn't think I needed the even more advanced version or packaged suites that would be my choices.

I'll update this again if I made a mistake, find I needed another module, or have any other issues.

-C

 

[harmsr]

Chris,

I originally bought the Photo SG version, in order to also do profiles for my M8 when the default profiles in all of the developers were so bad.

However, I also ended up buying Profile Maker 5 in order to get everything really dialed in.

In order to do really good profiles for the camera or the printer, Profile Maker 5 does make a significant improvement. However, that is if you are willing to dedicate the time to learn it.

Your other option is to try ImagePrint RIP. This is really good without the time spent by you to develop the printer profiles, if they support the paper you are using on the 3800. (The ColorBurst RIP that Epson sells with the printer is only good for Epson papers.)

The X-Rite/Gretag Eye One calibrator and software work really well on my monitor calibrations.

Best,

Ray

 

[Jack]

Chris,
Just the photo will do unless you intend to make camera profile. The UV is to remove the effect of optical brighteners in the paper, but I am not convinced of its value. Instead, I use a paper that is low on brighteners, such as the Harmon Glossy Al.
-bob

p.s.
I will be presenting a paper on video on the web in Santa Clara next week. I will wave in your direction.

Hey, stop by for coffee if you have time! (I'm 15 minutes up the road in Los Altos.)

 

[ChrisDauer]

Chris,
In order to do really good profiles for the camera or the printer, Profile Maker 5 does make a significant improvement. However, that is if you are willing to dedicate the time to learn it.

Your other option is to try ImagePrint RIP. This is really good without the time spent by you to develop the printer profiles, if they support the paper you are using on the 3800. (The ColorBurst RIP that Epson sells with the printer is only good for Epson papers.)

The X-Rite/Gretag Eye One calibrator and software work really well on my monitor calibrations.

Thanks Ray!

I was told that camera profiles were almost useless, unless you did many profiles for all the lighting/conditions you were going to shoot it. I'm probably not that likely.

I'm willing to spend the time calibrating the monitor and then I'd like the ability to do my own paper profiles, and just not worry about whether or not I'm using paper that is supported by whatever RIP I have.

So you use Profile Maker 5 for your printer? What can you tell me about it? How much better is it over the Advanced RGB module?

Do you feel you use the Photo SG package fully? Do you feel you purchased the right one for your needs? Do you use the Scanner or Projection modules at all?

-C

 

[harmsr]

Chris,

The big advantage of Profile Maker 5 with the camera or printer is that you can adjust each color individually vs. the global adjustments that are in the Photo SG suite. An example is that you can adjust each color in the color checker SG if you want to change skin tones, or various red response, etc...

If you need to punch up one range of colors you can do that without causing banding that can happen from universal adjustments.

The Photo SG package works great for the monitor. I needed the SG chart to do the profiling. When I upgraded to Profile Maker 5 as an add-on they gave me a very significant discount on it, as I already had the Photo SG suite.

I do not use the scanner or projection modules at all. If I remember correctly the scanner profiling works for slides and not negatives. When I shoot film, it is B&W negative so that is not really needed.

Relative to requiring a profile for each lighting condition, the answer is yes & no. When you shoot the chart, you REALLY must insure that the lighting is even across the entire chart which is very difficult to do unless you are in the studio. Your success on profiling will start at this point on how well you shoot the chart. Once you get a good base here, you can adjust the profile in Profile Maker so that it works well under all lighting with a WB color temp and color tint adjustment in post processing.

Best,

Ray