color vision spyder and print fix

I use the Color Vision Spyder 2. I just bought it a week ago to replace
my other colorimeter which does not work with LCD's.

The Spyder is good. The software is so so. It requires you to visually
set the d-max and d-min points. I prefer Monaco's ez-color which does
that automagically.

I 'haven't tried print fix, though I've read comments that say it is
unreliable and difficult to use.

Here again, I like Monaco EZ-color. With it, I can use my flatbed
scanner and a calibrated card to profile my printer. The results have
been very good with an epson 1270.


--

J

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.urbanvoyeur.com" target="_blank">www.urbanvoyeur.com</a>

william kossack wrote:
 > I've been continually frustrated with adjusting the colors resulting
 > from color prints especially getting the output to agree with what I see
 > on the monitor.
 >
 > Anyone use Color Vision Color matching software and devices? If not
 > what do you use?

--

J

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.urbanvoyeur.com" target="_blank">www.urbanvoyeur.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: color vision spyder and print fix 

UrbanVoyeur <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.org> wrote in news:41D5A324.80708@nospam.org:

 > I 'haven't tried print fix, though I've read comments that say it is
 >

I have tried PrintFIX - and returned it. I might be wrong,
but according to my opinion it is worthless.

The background is that scanner based printer profiling
normally is not working reliable. As a matter of fact I
have not seen anyone that claims it does - except those
few making such systems.

The theory behind PrintFIX is that they callibrate the
callibration for each printer, using special color
patch file. The printed color patches are than scanned with
a known scanner - that they provide. Then they can compensate
for different inks used in different printers.

Here are the reasons why I don't think it works:
- the printed patches are very colorful - nothing gray.
I don't understand how you can callibarate the gray scale.
And this is the most important callibration.
- the print is very light. No dark patches. So - how shall
it be possible to callibarate the dark areas?
- the scanner is extremely cheapish. It is som kind of travel
scanner for small prints that they have relabeled. The
scanning quality is extremely poor - all stripy and full of
graininess.
- the printed patches shall be put in a sleeve. The sleeve
is higly reflective and attenuates the print making it hard
to evaluate the print. So - the scan cannot be all that good.
The sleeve is highly electrostatic - so it is an aggressive
dust magnet. Then the worst of all - there are lots of newton
patterns destroying all possibilities for an accurate scan.
- the two sleeves I got also were badly scratched. And even
if they were not, I cannot understand how to avoid scratching
them.
- the transport of the sleeve through the scanner is not
working reliable. It is stopping now and then.
- what I have written here is reported at several places on
the net. Which I unfortunately saw after I bought the thingie.
But - I got my money back, without any arguments from ColorVision.


/Roland<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: color vision spyder and print fix 

so, what do you use?

Roland Karlsson wrote:
 > UrbanVoyeur <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.org> wrote in news:41D5A324.80708@nospam.org:
 >
 >
  >>I 'haven't tried print fix, though I've read comments that say it is
  >>
 >
 >
 > I have tried PrintFIX - and returned it. I might be wrong,
 > but according to my opinion it is worthless.
 >
 > The background is that scanner based printer profiling
 > normally is not working reliable. As a matter of fact I
 > have not seen anyone that claims it does - except those
 > few making such systems.
 >
 > The theory behind PrintFIX is that they callibrate the
 > callibration for each printer, using special color
 > patch file. The printed color patches are than scanned with
 > a known scanner - that they provide. Then they can compensate
 > for different inks used in different printers.
 >
 > Here are the reasons why I don't think it works:
 > - the printed patches are very colorful - nothing gray.
 > I don't understand how you can callibarate the gray scale.
 > And this is the most important callibration.
 > - the print is very light. No dark patches. So - how shall
 > it be possible to callibarate the dark areas?
 > - the scanner is extremely cheapish. It is som kind of travel
 > scanner for small prints that they have relabeled. The
 > scanning quality is extremely poor - all stripy and full of
 > graininess.
 > - the printed patches shall be put in a sleeve. The sleeve
 > is higly reflective and attenuates the print making it hard
 > to evaluate the print. So - the scan cannot be all that good.
 > The sleeve is highly electrostatic - so it is an aggressive
 > dust magnet. Then the worst of all - there are lots of newton
 > patterns destroying all possibilities for an accurate scan.
 > - the two sleeves I got also were badly scratched. And even
 > if they were not, I cannot understand how to avoid scratching
 > them.
 > - the transport of the sleeve through the scanner is not
 > working reliable. It is stopping now and then.
 > - what I have written here is reported at several places on
 > the net. Which I unfortunately saw after I bought the thingie.
 > But - I got my money back, without any arguments from ColorVision.
 >
 >
 > /Roland<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: color vision spyder and print fix 

william kossack <wskossack DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in news:3FABd.837705$8_
6.106470@attbi_s04:

 > so, what do you use?
 >

Currently nothing.

The Canon i9100 is rather independent of paper choice and
also it is rather good profiled from Canon. So ...


/Roland<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: color vision spyder and print fix