Datacolor User to User Support Group.

On Jun 21, 2009, at 10:56 PM, a1ncsky2 wrote:

>
>
> OK, I installed the PB version of Spyder3 Print and, finally,  
> profiled the Epson Velvet Fine Art paper. A bit more comment about  
> the "finally" below. Results - outstanding! By that I mean the print  
> is about as close as you could hope for between hard copy and the  
> monitor. My monitor, as I mentioned a day or so ago, I profiled with  
> the Spyder3 Elite. Really, the system works, at least with this  
> (difficult in the past) paper, just great.
>
> On the "finally" part what I can offer is just patch measuring  
> learnings by a newbie with the Spectro.
>
> First, after I screwed up 2 or three patch measurement series, and  
> the profiles that went with them, I started to pay attention. Always  
> a last resort - I know. A few observations for those just starting  
> with the equipment.
>
> 1. The recommendation in the dialog to turn the paper sideways is a  
> good one. It just helps with the movement of the Spectro from patch  
> to patch.
>
>
Not only that, but you'll get larger patches. It's more than a  
recommendation, it's a serious
recommendation..:-) The target images are created with a rectangular  
shape so that they'll
better fit the expected orientation of the printed target page (which  
is landscape, or: the
long way). If you print them in Portrait mode, you'll get very small  
patches that will be
difficult or impossible to read.

You should never print any of these targets in Portrait mode. They're  
designed to be
printed in Landscape.

> 2. You have to have the Spectro "snout" aligned better than I at  
> least first thought.
>
>

It also helps to print the patches larger. If you're running a Mac,  
this isn't a problem, because
the Mac printer drivers default to margins that are reasonable  
(around .25"); so you get larger
patches and less white border.

Windows is a different story. The default for margins is 1", which  
produces smaller patches and
more white border.

We will use your margin settings, and remember them, but we can't  
change them for you; the
Page Setup dialog that you're presented with comes from the operating  
system, not from us,
and we can't override the default values and put something in there  
for you.

So: if you're using Windows: in Page Setup, change your margins to . 
25", reprint your targets,
and you should end up with larger patches that will be much easier to  
read.
> 3. A good way to make sure you are aligned properly is to use the  
> supplied "Print Guide Rule" even though, evidently, experienced  
> users don't need it - or maybe they just say they don't?.
>
> When you use it you will be perfectly aligned on the patch row and  
> only need to pay attention to the patch to patch alignment within  
> the row. I finally got the patch to patch alignment right by looking  
> at the "snout" on the paper and after moving it past the nearest  
> white divider between patches then moving it back slightly in past  
> the divider onto the patch, then maybe a little more.
>
> In other words, cover up the nearest white divider of the new patch  
> with the snout and then move back in slightly just past the white  
> divider. It's easy to see that way. Then click the Spectro or hit  
> return as is your preference. I find clicking the Spectro is easier  
> for me.
>
>

That's a different idea; I've never tried that. But I suspect that if  
you print the patches
larger, as suggested above, that you won't need to do this.
> 3. On occasion, after clicking the Spectro, or hitting return, you  
> will get only one audio "click" from the computer, rather than two.  
> I don't know why. In that case with the arrow keys I move the red  
> triangle back and "reshoot" that patch. Maybe unnecessary but who  
> want to take a chance. This happens to me only now and then.
>
>

> 4. So far, for me, I have settled on the "measured" view of the  
> patches during measurement. After coming upon the system described  
> in (2) above I find looking at the measured patches, not the split,  
> and after finishing each row comparing it to the hard copy being  
> measured, tells me if I have shot a good row. On occasion, maybe 3  
> or 4 of the 225 patches I use I will see one that despite your best  
> efforts needs to be tried again. In my very much limited experience  
> it's easier to spot those if you review after each row rather that  
> at the end of the whole thing looking at the whole array of patches.
>
>

That's correct. Using "Measured" mode is better, even though the  
software comes up in Split.
> 5. In reviewing the measured patches as in (4) above, pay little or  
> no attention to the brightness or completely exact color. Often it  
> won't be exactly the same. It's just that if the comparison shows a  
> nonsense measurement you can see it. I think a nonsense read is  
> because of slopping over onto the white divider between patches -  
> but who knows?
>
>

(see notes about larger patches...:-)

> Happy as a clam so far with the Spyder3 Studio. My next step is to  
> redo the Epson Premium Luster profile I did. Did that yesterday in  
> hurry just after installation. The print was ok - acceptable -  
> compared to the display. But this was before I had major issues with  
> my first attempts with the Velvet Fine Art today, then started  
> paying attention with the patch measurements, etc.
>
> I'm sure when I redo the profile for the Premium Luster it'll be  
> even better. It may sound like my little newbie patch reading system  
> is too much but it probably takes maybe 30% more time than doing a  
> sloppy job - which with color profiling is a job not worth doing - no?
>
> Moving right along and happy with the new equipment. And I thought  
> the Spyder2Express was good. It was, but little did I know.
>
>

Glad this is working out so well!




David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor