Colorimeter choices

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Lew, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. Lew

    Lew Guest

    I'm considering the purchase of a colorimeter. My choices seem to be
    Eye-One PM or Eye-One Photo. I'm looking for suggestions about how to decide
    between these two packages based on the fact that I've also become convinced
    that I must purchase a good set of commercial printer profiles.
    If I purchase the profiles in any case, will I still need/can I make
    good use of the additional capabilities provided by the much more expensive
    Eye-One Photo, or will I be able to make do with the less expensive Eye-One
    PM?
    -Lew
    Lew, Oct 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lew

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Lew"

    >I'm considering the purchase of a colorimeter. My choices seem to be
    >Eye-One PM or Eye-One Photo. I'm looking for suggestions about how to decide
    >between these two packages based on the fact that I've also become convinced
    >that I must purchase a good set of commercial printer profiles.
    >
    > If I purchase the profiles in any case, will I still need/can I make
    >good use of the additional capabilities provided by the much more expensive
    >Eye-One Photo, or will I be able to make do with the less expensive Eye-One
    >PM?


    If you stick to the papers offered by the manufacturer then there's a good
    chance you'll find plenty of adequate profiles for the papers. Once you start
    using 3rd party papers you may find you'll need to make your own profiles
    though since some guys provide them and some don't. I'm testing several fine
    art papers for my Epson 4000 right now and companies like Arches (Infinity
    Smooth paper), Hahnemuehle (Photo Rag) and Moab (Entrada) all have ICC profiles
    you can download, but these are fairly expensive papers (except for Moab),
    maybe $6/sheet for 17x22". The cheaper papers generally don't offer this kind
    of support.

    The other thing to consider is "which printer are you using"? The Epson Pro
    models seem to have very good ICC profile support and also they are very
    repeatable from machine to machine so a generic profile should be fine. The
    Epson 2200 and 1280 aren't as repeatable so you'll find more variation between
    what the profile tells you and what you actually get (I have both the 1280 and
    2200 as well as the 4000). I've heard it's very difficult to accurately
    profile the 1280 for example because it will shift after ink changes or even
    after a clean cycle (per digital guru Bill Atkinson, who profiled the Epson
    9600/7600 better than Epson could). Bill also said it was almost impossible to
    correctly profile the Epson 2000 because of the metamerism issues.

    There is less ICC support for the HP and Canon inkjets so if you get one of
    them you might want to get the profile generation package.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    VL's Editor's Choices of 2005 @ Viperlair

    Silverstrand, Jan 3, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    Silverstrand
    Jan 3, 2006
  2. stuart.cameron

    Choices, choices

    stuart.cameron, Jun 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    426
    Surfworx Photography
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Scott

    Choices, choices, choices.

    Scott, Oct 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    403
    Scott
    Oct 4, 2004
  4. Mardon

    Colorimeter Calibration of PC Monitors

    Mardon, May 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    434
    tomm101
    May 19, 2005
  5. Leeland Clay

    Choices, Choices!!!!

    Leeland Clay, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: MCAD
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    331
    David Hearn
    Feb 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page