Is Color calibration tool like spyder is a must?

I guess it depends how much you want to pay? When I got into photography seriously last year I realised the importance of colour calibration, my other expensive past-time being home cinema, where accurate colour reproduction has always mattered to me.

However, I didn't want to pay big bucks for my own calibration tool so stumped up for a Huey. It's not the finest tool and will not help in accurately setting monitor brightness IME but the colours on my screen now much my prints precisely. For £70/$90 I'd consider it well worth it.

tim wrote in post #7923491
Using software calibration you can get a "good enough" match that your prints will look good. Or pay the $0.50 that a lab charges for color correction if you have a few critical prints. Spending $300 and calibrating every three months isn't really necessary unless you have a need for precise color accuracy.

Yeah... I'll concede that, Tim. I AM guilty of generalizing a bit on this topic, but that's just my personality type-- I'm more of a technician than an artist. My dad was a master machinist and for my first birthday he gave me a micrometer!

tim wrote in post #7922417
It's only important if you want your prints to accurately match your monitor. If you're not a professional I wouldn't worry too much, as you can always pay the lab a few dollars if you really need accurate color in your prints. I rely on my lab to do final color correction for my albums, mostly because it saves me time.

EOS_JD wrote in post #7923114
Maybe because most hobbiests don't want to spend a huge amount of money on something that can be done at the lab.

But I get your point and if you take it seriously (pro or as a hobby) then get a decent hardware calibrator. THe Gretag MacBeth one gets rave reviews but the spyder does a very decent job.

If you want your prints to match, get the proper profiles for the printer/ink/paper that you use.

Monitor profiles for pc are icm files. Printer profiles are icc files.

So how do you guys get those lab techs to know what you want your colors to look like? Let's say I sent an image in that I wanted to be printed a little on the warm side (increasing my WB just a little). The lab tech would likely "correct" the image, yet it wouldn't be what I wanted at all.

Calibration is all about getting prints to match your screen. It has NOTHING to do with getting "correct" prints.

In2Photos wrote in post #7925912
So how do you guys get those lab techs to know what you want your colors to look like? Let's say I sent an image in that I wanted to be printed a little on the warm side (increasing my WB just a little). The lab tech would likely "correct" the image, yet it wouldn't be what I wanted at all.

Well I'd suggest you get the monitor profiled correctly. that way you can send to the lab and request no color correction. You should get back what you send them

In2Photos wrote in post #7925912
Calibration is all about getting prints to match your screen. It has NOTHING to do with getting "correct" prints.

Absolutely right. The use of printer profiles will calibrate yuor printer's output so with both devices calibrated you should get consistent results.

In2Photos wrote in post #7925912
So how do you guys get those lab techs to know what you want your colors to look like? Let's say I sent an image in that I wanted to be printed a little on the warm side (increasing my WB just a little). The lab tech would likely "correct" the image, yet it wouldn't be what I wanted at all.

Calibration is all about getting prints to match your screen. It has NOTHING to do with getting "correct" prints.

I sent prints to my lab showing them how I want my prints to look, they color correct to what I want. This will only happen with high end labs, for me this is Queensberry in New Zealand, I spent a hell of a lot of money with them each year and their service is great.

I don't see the point.
Not many net users calibrate their screens anyway.
As to printing. A camera does a good job processing internally. Except for some sharpening, a little contrast and a touch of saturation, what you take should prety much be what you print.
A screen gives you an idea of major problems like colour cast issues though.

IMO calibration is the only way to get consistency: That way your screen should look the same now as in three years from now...

Colour and tonality is at the heart of photography. Wether it's monochrome or colour. We spend hundreds if not thousands on camera and computer gear and yet try to take shortcuts with something as fundamental as colour and tone?

A good calibrator isn't expensive. It will last for years just like lenses, they should outlast any other IT gear you have.

If you do your own prints or you want control your vision then it's essential that you calibrate your screen. It will save you a small fortune in the long run when printing to expensive media.

Consider another simple fact: Most consumer monitors are optimised for desktop graphics or videos which means bright punchy images not what you want for your photographs.

EOS_JD wrote in post #7926065
Well I'd suggest you get the monitor profiled correctly. that way you can send to the lab and request no color correction. You should get back what you send them

This was pretty much my point. Without calibrating you are at the whim of the lab to get things "correct". But what is "correct"? It is different for everyone so a calibrated screen is a must. This allows each end user to get their desired result.

tim wrote in post #7934606
I sent prints to my lab showing them how I want my prints to look, they color correct to what I want. This will only happen with high end labs, for me this is Queensberry in New Zealand, I spent a hell of a lot of money with them each year and their service is great.

I know you have said good things about your lab in the past. Based on what you said above they seem to have great service. But I don't think this would work for everyone. Again, if you want consistent results use a calibrator AND a good lab.