Cheap or Expensive Calibrator?

[mson]

I'm looking at the X-Rite Eye-One 2 and the Pantone Huey Pro. There is about a $100 difference in price. I don't mind paying the extra money if it is worth it. But is it worth it? I will be calibrating one monitor in one location (Dell 2005FPW). What does the X-Rite do that the Huey Pro does not?

[mson]

Someone has to have thoughts on this... :(

[Damo77]

I've got the Eye-One, and it's terrific.

I've never used the Huey, but I'd say the extra money certainly would be worth it. I've seen a fair few threads about the Huey on this forum (some quite frustrated) - a quick search should give you some info.

[LuckyRobJ]

I'm looking at buying a calibrator too, and from everything I've read, the Eye One display 2 does a great job, and is probably better than the others in the same price range. I say you get what you pay for, and if calibration is important to you, $100 really isn't that much more to pay for superior hardware.

Some more recent discussion here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=448667

[mson]

Thanks for the link but that didn't really answer my question. I don't mind paying extra for superior hardware but for my intended use is the X-Rite superior hardware? Just because they charge more doesn't mean it's better. By the lack of responses I'm guessing no one else knows the answer either.

I'll do a specific search on the Huey to see what problems others are having.

[slava-slavik]

Recently, I got semi-pro LCD monitor NEC MultiSync 2490WUXi-sw that cover almost 100% of sRBG color space and provides excellent colors. The monitor came with calibration software that calibrates monitor by itself without a user touching any on-screen controls. This software, however, supports only the following callibration sensors: Gretag iOne, Monaco Optix-XR, Gretag Spectrolino, and ColorVision Spyder 2.

You might consider one of those if NEC choose them to support in their software. You never know, one day your Dell might not be good enough for your post processing needs.

I have had Monaco Optix-XR and it works fine.

---
Slava Slavik
Atlanta Weding Photographer (http://www.slava-slavik.com)

[Az2Africa]

I use an Eizo CG241W monitor and I calibrate it with a Colorvision SpyderPro2. It works great. I see no reason to pay more for the Eye1 or the others.

[tim]

I've seen a thread somewhere recently where someone wasn't able to get two monitors to match using a huey.

[Mark1]

Calibrating 2 monitors can be tough. Especially trying to make a new monitor match an old one. I have heard people say if the monitor is more than 3 years old the red guns are shot (CRT) and you will never get them to match. I am running dual monitors, a CRT and an LED and I can't get them to even get close as the CRT is like 6 years old and the LED is less than 2 months.

[René Damkot]

I had no trouble getting my Powerbook and LaCie CRT to match (within limits off course, quite a quality and brightness difference between them) using my Monaco Optix XR pro.

My secondary screen on the desktop is a *very* old ColorSync (http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/applevision_colorsync/specs/colorsync_17.html) that won't calibrate well any longer.

[sapearl]

Most of the Gretag iOne, Monaco Optix-XR products are quite solid and reliable. You pretty much get what you pay for with these things. But even using a h/w calibrator I still had to do some minor "visual" tweaking before I got my screen to match the prints coming back from my commercial lab.

One thing that helped was to have the lab send me a calibration print with matching disk file.

[Sleepytrout]

Remember, oftentimes you get what you pay for. I have the EyeOne 2 and debated over what to get for a long time.....same struggle. I've been very happy with it's performance and wouldn't consider another.

[danpass]

............

One thing that helped was to have the lab send me a calibration print with matching disk file.


That is cool. What exactly did you ask for? How would I pose the question to Mpix and actually get what is needed?

Thanks,
Dan

.

[sapearl]

Hi Dan - this should be easy enough for your lab to provide. I use Buckeye Color in Canton, Oh. I just asked their tech guy if they could provide me with one of their standard test prints and it's associated file on a disk for purposes of calibrating my monitor to match their print output..... or words similar to that ;).

You get the file, typically an sRGB JPG, load it onto your OC/Mac, bring it up on screen, hold their "calibration print" next to the screen, and then adjust the monitor controls until you are as close as you can get. This is NOT a completely scientific approach that is infallible, but it will get you very much in the ballpark.

My lab is fairly consistent in its output and this works well for my situation. Good luck and let us know how things work out. :D - Stu

That is cool. What exactly did you ask for? How would I pose the question to Mpix and actually get what is needed?

Thanks,
Dan

.

[Damo77]

Stuart, I know you're a much more senior member than me, so I'm hesitant to say this, but I think that is very unwise advice.

Andrew Rodney (http://www.thedigitaldog.com/) in his book says "if a lab offers you a calibration test print, run a mile". (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have the book at hand).

The days of "fiddling" with the monitor to match a print are well and truly past. If you've calibrated with a reputable device, and you're not happy with the prints, you need to evaluate other things - eg Is my lab properly profiled? Are my lighting conditions unsuitable?

If your setup works for you, then that's great, I'm not suggesting you change it. I simply don't think you should be recommending this course of action to others.

[René Damkot]

I tend to agree with Damo here...

[sapearl]

Point taken - all I can say is that this system works for me.

Fact is I read so much about inconsistent calibration devices and techniques in this forum that I have come to the conclusion that it is a mixture of science, art and a little black magic thrown in.

To me, calibration is 1. about the numbers that a device or s/w will tell you, and finally 2. how does the print really look when you get it back from the lab.

Most of us, myself included, do NOT spend thousands of dollars on top line monitors, calibration devices and the s/w necessary to optimally drive both. My lab has been around for almost 40 years. Granted I've only been with them for about 6, but they provide a high level of service, are very attentive to client needs and produce generally conisistent output. It's not perfect, but quite good in my estimation. When they provided the disk and print I found that I had actually gotten pretty close to what they provided.

That being said, I'll have to read the article you reference.

I suggest this course of action to others because so many people here have a great deal of trouble calibrating their lcd's and tubes and getting their prints to match what they see on screen. I don't honestly know why that is, but I am offering them a solution that has worked well for me.

Stuart, I know you're a much more senior member than me, so I'm hesitant to say this, but I think that is very unwise advice.

Andrew Rodney (http://www.thedigitaldog.com/) in his book says "if a lab offers you a calibration test print, run a mile". (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have the book at hand).

The days of "fiddling" with the monitor to match a print are well and truly past. If you've calibrated with a reputable device, and you're not happy with the prints, you need to evaluate other things - eg Is my lab properly profiled? Are my lighting conditions unsuitable?

If your setup works for you, then that's great, I'm not suggesting you change it. I simply don't think you should be recommending this course of action to others.

[sapearl]

Damo, is this the article you refer to:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Digital_Photography/Details/Color_Management_and_Display.fci

"Color Management and Your Display" by Andrew Rodney?

[Damo77]

No, I own his book (shown on his site). It's a fantastic resource!!

[DocFrankenstein]

Nobody knows for sure.

For one, your dell might be the weakest link.

Second, I never heard very good things about huey from people who compared it to more expensive devices. If this was a monaco vs spyder question, then monaco is definitely worth extra money. Spyder 3 doesn't give full control of highlights... let alone something like huey.

Personally, just on intuition I would buy something for not less than 500 bucks.

[sapearl]

I don't own his book and I confess to not being familiar with his writings, but what is his explanation for "if a lab offers you a calibration test print, run a mile". I'd like to understand his reasoning behind that statement.

I own a Monaco Optix and used it for my initial calibration. It certainly toned done my panel with all its controls set to max from the factory. But even after running the routine a number of times I still was not as close as I wanted. The "guide" printed supplemented those initial settings. Between that a little intuition thrown in I'd say I achieved about 95%.

No, I own his book (shown on his site). It's a fantastic resource!!

[sapearl]

I agree - the Dell was the weakest link and is now my "right hand menu" and email monitor. The newer more expensive Viewsonic is the main display monitor. My Monaco wasn't $500, but I was able to get it at a discount from my lab closer to $300.

Nobody knows for sure.

For one, your dell might be the weakest link.

Second, I never heard very good things about huey from people who compared it to more expensive devices. If this was a monaco vs spyder question, then monaco is definitely worth extra money. Spyder 3 doesn't give full control of highlights... let alone something like huey.

Personally, just on intuition I would buy something for not less than 500 bucks.

[sapearl]

In hindsight, I may have inadvertantly given the impression that a "test print & matching file" is a good fast way to calibrate a monitor. That is not true.

The proper way to calibrate a monitor is with the proper tools and software. You also get what you pay for. Cheap calibration tools tend to lead to inconsitent and non repeatable results, further muddying the water for the confused user. Some even have difficulty with the more expensive devices and we see evidence of that in the numerous posts here. I dont' know why this is the case.

There is nothing wrong with using a lab's test print when used as a supplemental guide with the proper calibrations tools.

I also define LAB as a large establishment with a reasonably stable workforce, geared to the weddng, commercial and pro photographer. These firms pride themselves on their consistency of result, high level of service and longstanding reputation. These are also the same people who created my test print and disk, using equipment far more expensive than anything I own.

I do NOT include places like WalMart or the corner drugstore in the category of pro labs. These firms certainly can and do produce good results. But they are not consistent and their employee turnover precludes a pro staff that is educated to the needs of the pro photographer.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I didn't want to mislead anybody into thinking there was an easy magic bullet for monitor calibration. ;) - Stu

[agedbriar]

Manually calibrating the monitor to printer output does require some effort, but I'm quite happy with the results I achieved.

I was all set to buy a calibrator, but then I read about people getting weird color casts and inconsistent calibrations, so I decided to try the manual approach first. As soon as I swithched from the inconsistent lab output I was receiving to home printing, my efforts started to show the effect. At this moment, whatever discrepancy between monitor and print is still left, it's substantially smaller than the metameric shift caused by viewing the print under different lighting. But yes, it took some perseverance to come that far.

Of course I'm aware that my monitor is not standardized across the net, but I can easily accept that as I don't upload my images. However, viewing all sort of pictures from the net, everything looks perfectly normal on my monitor.