[StarDust]

I'm getting pretty tired of the results I get when printing at home and I am therefore looking for calibration hardware that will suit my needs. When it comes to my monitor and printer setup, it's nothing fancy and I know that if I pay more I'll get better results, however I know that I can dish out more from the things I've got with some proper calibration.

My goal is to calibrate my monitor and my printer, and be able to create ICC profiles for printing depending on paper, hence the need of a calibrator that can do paper as well as screens. The key word here is low budget. I'm willing to forgo some quality just as long as I get acceptable results, it's not necessary that the photo is an exact replica of the color rendered off the wallpaper in the living room, just that it's close enough. It would be nice to be perfect but... low budget.

What is low budget? Well, I live in Sweden and taxes are higher and all that so a simple calculation is 10 SEK to a USD for electronics. My budget is around 1000-2000 SEK i.e. 100-200 USD. At first glance you can find lots of calibrators for that price, but upon further inspection you notice that many only calibrate screens. This is where I need your help guys, I know just about what I'm looking for but I just can't find it, or perhaps it's not within my price range...

[geomez]

I'm not well versed in calibration, but I recently purchased a Datacolor Spyder 4 Pro, and have used it to calibrate my monitor. As far as I am aware, you don't need a hardware calibrator to calibrate your printer. I calibrated my monitor to sRGB, and loaded the appropriate ICC profiles to my printer, and they look spot on. Maybe I'm wrong and just got lucky.

[StarDust]

I've been using this chart (http://www.normankoren.com/Stepchart_large_HSL.jpg) to test some prints using ICC profiles by the manufacturer and the greyscale has a significant blue shade. In fact all colors have a slightly colder feel to it than one would perceive in reality. I feel my printer needs calibrating.

[Alex645]

Sorry, I don't think there is a printer and monitor calibration tool in your budget. I've used both Xrite and Datacolor and the version you need (like the Datacolor SpyderPrint) presently sells for around $350 in the US. I've used both companies and Xrite is more technical and the Datacolor wizards are easier.

What is frustrating is that CMYK of reflected dyes or pigments on paper is never going to translate the exact same as pixel light RGB from a monitor. Because we start the process with a vibrant monitor, as you calibrate the two, you'll find the CMYK reality to look much lower in contrast, saturation, and tonality. There's also going to be a difference between a 300 dpi print vs. either a standard def monitor at 72 ppi, an HD monitor at 96 ppi, or a Retina display at 220 ppi. Is This Retina? - DPI/PPI Display Calculator

The ambient light and color in your room with the display and printer also affects our perception. I have messed and tweaked with ICC profiles and have come to the conclusion after years of experimentation that the best and most consistent results are the ICC profiles established and tested by the manufacturers. So you start with the best monitor and printer you can afford. For me that's a retina Mac and an Epson printer. Then I would get a sample pack of papers of inkjet paper stock I know I can obtain and afford. I use a color image with a high dynamic range and with more than one skin tone. I also use a black and white image that has all tonal zones from paper white to no detail shadow black.

Before you run the test, I would calibrate your monitor to either the default or to the customized one most monitors come with. On the Mac you can do that in System Preferences.

When you print on the various paper media, make sure you consistently go through the printer settings dialog boxes to select the same quality settings and for color matching, I've gotten the best results using the printer's color settings and not ColorSync. Make sure the media is selectable in the print settings (such as Epson Premium Photo Luster), and if not, download and install that first. Of course for monochromatic images, make sure you've selected black ink only or 'Advanced B&W'.

I did this with over 20 different papers, some cheap, some expensive, different surfaces, manufacturers, different grades of quality. The evaluation will differ depending on the judge and your subjective aesthetic response. For me, the Epson papers outperformed all others including some very expensive non-Epson papers, even though I had their profiles in my print settings dialog box. A lot of my final decision and more to do with how the ink had dried or was absorbed onto the paper in 24 hours. Big difference between coated and non-coated papers. No doubt if I had a Canon printer, Canon paper would have performed better. But there are also tons of specialty papers and again it all comes down to your personal preference, price, availability, printer ink compatibility, and print drivers.

One other piece of the puzzle is Color Space/Color Mode. The default on cameras is sRGB which looks great on a RGB monitor. But I change mine to AdobeRGB because I am going to use Adobe BR, PS, or LR to process my image with the final intent of printing. If I had even better equipment, I would convert everything to ProPhotoRGB for better bit depth.

For me, this process works better than using custom created ICC profiles. I am involved with a book publisher, and although we send our images with ICC profiles (to either a digital printer or offset press), I still have to fly 4,000 miles (one way) to physically inspect during a press check for color as well as black and white density and contrast before we go to press. Sorry for the long response, but if you're still reading, a color calibration tool is not cheap and is not a magic wand. Every step of the process from camera settings to software/drivers/print settings to the printer and media, as well as the ambient color temperature and light level is throwing a curve in achieving your goal.

Back in the day, the photographer had a favorite emulsion/film, a favorite lab, and bonded with that combination. Many photographers still go that route with everything from Costco to Shutterfly to some custom labs like the FINDlab or A&I.

[btnapa]

Sorry, I don't think there is a printer and monitor calibration tool in your budget. I've used both Xrite and Datacolor and the version you need (like the Datacolor SpyderPrint) presently sells for around $350 in the US. I've used both companies and Xrite is more technical and the Datacolor wizards are easier.

a color calibration tool is not cheap and is not a magic wand. Every step of the process from camera settings to software/drivers/print settings to the printer and media, as well as the ambient color temperature and light level is throwing a curve in achieving your goal.

Hi Alex,

Thank you for the very informative reply. I have had a similar experience to yours. I bought the Datacolor some years ago. Although it did what it was supposed to do, I still did not get a perfect match between monitor and printer. I used it with Epson 7500 and HP 36" printers. Most recently I borrowed an X-Rite and tried it on my small (MX920) Canon printer. The reason for doing this is because I use much less expensive after market ink cartridges for the printer. So, naturally I wanted to make sure my colors are more accurate with the new inks. As the colors are more predictable, they are not perfect.

I am glad this post came up because I am getting ready to purchase an Epson 9800 with the same X-Rite I borrowed. Again the printer comes with aftermarket (Non-Epson) ink. I have seen results with profiled prints and they look great.

I will follow your recommendations as you seem to have tons of experience in this area.

For paper, I will use Luster type surface for general output and Canvas for all my photos.

Thanks again and no your post was not long. If anything, it was jam packed with excellent practical and real world information.

Thanks
Boris

[Alex645]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for the very informative reply. I have had a similar experience to yours. I bought the Datacolor some years ago. Although it did what it was supposed to do, I still did not get a perfect match between monitor and printer. I used it with Epson 7500 and HP 36" printers. Most recently I borrowed an X-Rite and tried it on my small (MX920) Canon printer. The reason for doing this is because I use much less expensive after market ink cartridges for the printer. So, naturally I wanted to make sure my colors are more accurate with the new inks. As the colors are more predictable, they are not perfect.

I am glad this post came up because I am getting ready to purchase an Epson 9800 with the same X-Rite I borrowed. Again the printer comes with aftermarket (Non-Epson) ink. I have seen results with profiled prints and they look great.

I will follow your recommendations as you seem to have tons of experience in this area.

For paper, I will use Luster type surface for general output and Canvas for all my photos.

Thanks again and no your post was not long. If anything, it was jam packed with excellent practical and real world information.

Thanks
Boris

Boris,
Glad it was helpful. I also use an Epson 9800, but have no experience with generic inks. I've been happy with the Epson Luster 260, Epson Enhanced Matte papers and even a Kodak Canvas stock. The Epson Glossy 170 prints well, but is easily damaged in handling because it is not very thick. Good luck on this "journey".

[lsimpkins]

I have also been looking at calibration solutions as a method of ensuring printing success. As others have mentioned, I don't think an end to end cal tool will be in your budget (not mine either). I have found the software driven calibration tool supplied with my monitor to be quite helpful in adjusting both monitor brightness and color balance. I believe that there are similar free generic solutions in both the Mac and Windows worlds.

There is at least one other thing, which you may have already addressed, that can make close calibration possible. Make sure that your software and printer are not both set to manage color. It needs to be one or the other. I prefer the results I get when I let Lightroom manage color, rather than my Epson 1430. In addition, LR has soft proofing capability that lets you see on screen a closer approximation of what the print will look like. It takes into account the difference in color spaces between monitor and printer. I am not that familiar with other pp software, but I would not expect this to be a feature exclusive to Adobe products.

Best wishes in getting to output you like.

[StarDust]

It's been a hectic couple of days, business and pleasure combined, but now I've finally had the time to review all these superb comments.

As I feared, getting a dual calibration setup with my budget might not be possible, but you guys say that you can come a long way by only calibrating the monitor.

My number one example of a terrible photo was a tricky lighting situation where I took a photo in a gaziboish house where one subject was exposed to outdoor lighting and the other indoor lighting. Eventually, I kind of got it to blend nicely in Camera Raw but upon printing the indoor subject was green and the outdoor subject was magenta. Is my screen that off or is this one of those situations where I would benefit from a printer calibration?

Alex645
Your response was not long considering the value of the input!

Funny enough I found the Spyderprint for cheaper than you mentioned, it's still 700 kr over my budget though. This is the one you mean, right? Datacolor SpyderPRINT | Japan Photo Sverige

When it comes to color space, I too use AdobeRGB with the intent on printing as the final process.


lsimpkins
I'm using Photoshop (CameraRaw), haven't looked into the possibility of softproofing but I'm guessing if it's there, it will be pretty similar to Lightroom.



A screen calibrator is better than no calibrator at all. I've heard a lot of people mentioning ColorMonki having a nicer color profile than XRite's models. Does anyone have experience between different brands and a little input on how much they differ, or does it not matter for a guy who will probably never buy a screen with a 98%+ gamut? Finally, if I decide on buying a screen calibrator, what do I benefit from buying an expensive one from the same maker compared to the cheap one?

[Alex645]

Yes, the DataColor SpyderPrint is what I was referring to; correct.

Based on your description, I don't believe it's a monitor calibration issue. Is your printer an Epson? When I've had the issue as drastic a mismatch as yours, it was because in the "Print Settings" under "Color Management" submenu ColorSync was selected instead of "Epson Color Control". Usually this makes a big difference.

Also you'll want to try both "Printer Manages Color" vs. "Photoshop Manages Color" and make sure if it's the latter, that you have the profile for the correct printer selected. Usually this is a more subtle issue, but upon close inspection, one or the other will improve the color accuracy.

Your particular photo is a tricky one with mixed WB, so I would start with either a standard color chart or at least an image with normal skin tone as our eyes are very sensitive to incorrect skin tone. You could even just shoot your own arm. Make sure you only have one light source, like a tungsten/incandescent, and that matches the camera's WB setting. Then assuming you're in a room with only tungsten lighting, your target color is with you.

One last thing that is 92% or more unlikely: 8% of males are color blind. In my high school photography classes, I will typically have 1-2 boys with this and amazingly many of them don't know it until they take my class. To them, they see the world perfectly, but with a color blind test, they realize they actually can't see something everyone else is seeing. We are all incredibly egocentric, and even my 90 year old parents are convinced that everyone speaks so softly these days, when in fact, it's their own hearing loss....but I digress....

[StarDust]

You're right, I've fixed that issue. It was actually that ink ran out and the printer didn't tell me until I had printed another eight 4"x6" prints. The prints are as usual now, but still not fully to my satisfaction, I'm mean they are pretty close but I can do better. I'm not color blind, I've passed several tests with flying colors (pun intended).

I'm using a standard Canon printer for my simpler projects and when I want accuracy I order online at the moment. My settings are Printer manages color and I've set the printer to manual intensity where I've adjusted it slightly to correspond to what I see on the screen. It's close, but it can get better!

I'll give the color matching photo tip a try but I'm still quite keen on getting a calibrator, at least for my screen.

[Alex645]

You're right, I've fixed that issue. It was actually that ink ran out and the printer didn't tell me until I had printed another eight 4"x6" prints. The prints are as usual now, but still not fully to my satisfaction, I'm mean they are pretty close but I can do better. I'm not color blind, I've passed several tests with flying colors (pun intended).

I'm using a standard Canon printer for my simpler projects and when I want accuracy I order online at the moment. My settings are Printer manages color and I've set the printer to manual intensity where I've adjusted it slightly to correspond to what I see on the screen. It's close, but it can get better!

I'll give the color matching photo tip a try but I'm still quite keen on getting a calibrator, at least for my screen.

I've been loyal to Epson (and DNP dye sublimation printers), but I've seen outstanding inkjet prints from Canon printers when using Canon paper.

[acoufap]

I think some day every enthusiast photographer thinks about printing photos by himself. So did I. To get a closer look at techniques etc. I bought gulbins/steinmüller's book "Fine Art Printing for Photographers: Exhibition Quality Prints with Inkjet Printers". A very interesting book and I learned a lot. In the end I knew which printer I'd like to buy and what I'd have to care about. And that's the problem: I realized that I wouldn't have the time to do serious printing and it'll cost some (a lot of) money. Especially the thing that these printers have to be printed with at least every second or third week. Otherwise it can occur that drying tint damages the printer head - the most expensive part of the printer.

The book also tells you that the package X-rite color monkey photo can be used for monitor and printer calibration because it is a real spectrophotometer. It's also described how to use it etc. - nice book IMHO (if interested: http://www.amazon.com/Fine-Art-Printing-Photographers-Exhibition/dp/19375382...e+art+printing).

But I fear you can't get this solution for your budget.

[StarDust]

Yes, I'm beginning to realize that. Maybe the best solution for me is to calibrate my monitor and find a good online lab to print my selected photos.

[dansamy]

Yes, I'm beginning to realize that. Maybe the best solution for me is to calibrate my monitor and find a good online lab to print my selected photos.

That's what I've decided for myself. Calibrate my screens. Order prints online.

[Kerrowdown]

I use and can recommend the X-rite product range, for me it's the Colorchecker Passport and i1 Display Pro. I outsource my printing to a pro lab so printer calibration is not a requirement I have.