Get a Colorimeter! ASAP!

All I can say is WOW! I've read here that you can get good results with your eyeballs and programs like Quick Gamma from the Norm Koren website, but after playing with that and Adobe Gamma I got myself so screwed up, nothing looked right.

Granted I'm going to be 50 this year and my eyes are getting a little tired, but I decided to spend $220 on the Monaco OptixXR Pro, and did that change things from what I got using Quick Gamma! I finally figured out how to batch process in my new PSE4 program and ran the DryCreek Photo free conversion program using the profile for my local Costco Noritsu unit, and the results are truly eye-popping!

I'm not saying you cannot get decent results with your eyeball 'calibration', but you won't know what you're missing until you have calibration at both ends of your process. I look at what we spend on our gear in the lens and flash forums, and I'll admit I didn't want to spend the bucks on a colorimeter (since getting my digital camera this hobby has become a black hole to throw money into!), but if we're going to spend a couple large on equipment (or more!) I think it's penny-wise but pound-foolish to not get a colorimeter. The results are simply that amazing.

I don't know diddly about brands of colorimeters, Colorvision, Monaco, GretagMacbeth. . .but I suspect it really doesn't matter a lot. Any of these devices is going to improve your enjoyment of your finished prints by several orders of magnitude.

Before your next lens purchase, or studio light, or upgraded 'fancy' camera bag, or extra couple of flash cards. . .do yourself a BIG favor and put that on hold until you get a colorimeter. You'll be happy you did.

I'd be curious to see what other folks experience has been after getting a colorimeter. To you folks that think you're doing just fine without one, all I can say is I thought my prints improved when I used Quick Gamma by eye and the DryCreek profile. But I was wrong!

I was a big film guy and darkroom enthusiast in my youth. As I learn more about digital photography (I'm between ankle and knee-deep, I think), as I go through the pain of learning all the programs and the process--I just cannot imagine anything sillier than not having a colorimeter.

Like they say on the Nike commercials. . .Just Do It!

John

I have done exactly the same thing but using as a printer a local minilab ans converting in Photoshop 7. The results are very good. I ended setting my monitor to 6500 K instead of 5000 and the results are better when comparing the image on the monitor side by side to the print viewed on a proofing booth 5000 K.

Setting your monitor to 6500K would make a big improvement. I got as big an improvement again when I got the Monaco OptixXR and calibrated.

Ive done it too, I also use Costco and have their ICC Printer Profiles... The only difference is I used Pantones ColorVision Spider 2 color calibration unit...

http://www.digitalgrap​hicsresources.com …olorvision&OVMT​C=standard

I am a Monaci Optix XR Pro user also, and swear by it.

send me a few links so i can learn about the product...

Does Optix also some with Adobe Photoshop plugins and printer profiler software? Im looking for an end to end solution...

Monitor profiles, printer, calibration with intergration into photoshop.

Oops, it's Monaco, not Monaci

http://www.chromix.com …8C9890290a33CB5​gNSqC2B56F

what do you guys think of this? Is there a good discount by buying this "kit"

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search

I see it comes with the "free" software for printer profiling... I wanted to get this light meter anyways. But it does not say if it comes with the PocketWizard radio trasmitter module...

What do you guys think? Im really looking for an end to end solution for color management.

Also, if this software for MAC and PC both? Or MAC only?

StealthLude wrote:
what do you guys think of this? Is there a good discount by buying this "kit"

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search

If you price out the light meter and software separately, I think you find that bundle offers a pretty good discount.

The kit comes bundled with a Sekonic L-558R light meter. If you search for just the light meter, you will see that it does include the radio transmitter.

Since you want the light meter, I think this is a great way to get some color management software for a very good price.

I have the Monaco Optix XR too and find it works fine (I'm on a mac).

The real advantage is consistency. You can keep the monitor looking the same no matter what. I wouldn't say it was essential, but it's just one less aspect of colour to worry about.

On the mac, you do have a routine for setting up a monitor (probably on a pc too), but it does ask you to make some colour decisions, which I don't find too easy. I am not sure my screen looks very different after using the optix system, but it's a comfort to know that it is as correct as it can be.

Graham

You can also do the same with the other software. I was pretty much convinced by it. Since its Pantone, which is huge when it comes to color.

I got intrested because of the light meter, and i did want the software too. My only questions is.. is the software PC compatible?

And are you sure the light meter comes with the radio device? I hope its not a watered down version.

Here is a link to the Monaco products. They have videos showing the products being used.

http://www.xritephoto.​com/

The Spyder can be found here.

http://www.colorvision​.com/products.shtml

Frankly, I doubt the brand makes much difference. But having a colorimeter system will make a big difference over eyeball calibration of any kind. There's no doubt about that. Yes, I know results can be acceptable with Quick Gamma and Adobe Gamma. They will never be as good as using a colorimeter, though.

John

The Monaco Optix Pro that I purchased did not come with any printer calibration capabilities. No included color chart to print, noway to scan the printer output, etc. It was purely a monitor calibration tool.
My Inkjet prints images that appear to be virtually the same as the monitor image, and certainly close enough for the proofing I use it for.