Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Hi,

I need a printer profiling solution and was directed here because I had heard some good 
things about the Spyder3 Print system. Obviousy the Color Munki has gotten a lot of 
attention since it was released and I have read some of the comments here as well as reviews 
on the internet. I am leaning toward the Spyder 3.

Here's my question. Are there any reviews or articles that compare the Spyder 3 to any of the 
higher priced competitors like the Eye One systems? I have heard that there is some 
information available out there but have had no luck in finding it.

Thanks,

John Arnold

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...> wrote:
>
> Here's my question. Are there any reviews or articles that compare the Spyder 3 to any of 
the 
> higher priced competitors like the Eye One systems? I have heard that there is some 
> information available out there but have had no luck in finding it.

Check out these...ColorMunki does an OK job but Spyder3 is better:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/spyder3print.html
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/colormunki_printing.html

On Nov 7, 2008, at 10:02 AM, John Arnold wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I need a printer profiling solution and was directed here because I  
> had heard some good
> things about the Spyder3 Print system. Obviousy the Color Munki has  
> gotten a lot of
> attention since it was released and I have read some of the comments  
> here as well as reviews
> on the internet. I am leaning toward the Spyder 3.
>
> Here's my question. Are there any reviews or articles that compare  
> the Spyder 3 to any of the
> higher priced competitors like the Eye One systems? I have heard  
> that there is some
> information available out there but have had no luck in finding it.
>
>

Have a look here:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2008/Jul/msg00001.html

Uli Zappe's ratings (I've reordered them so that they start at "5" and  
then work
their way down, and in groups, according to the ratings) are as follows:


CMYKick/dropRGB 5
basICColor print 5

Spyder3Print 4.5 (RGB only)
iColorPrint 4.5
i1Match 4.5
ProfileMaker 4.5
PrintProfiler Pro 4.5

MonacoProfiler 4
ColorMunki 4
SilverFast Profiler 4 (RGB only, only usable with SilverFast scanning  
software, using a scanner as measurement device)

PrintProfiler 3.5

EZColor 3 (RGB only, using a scanner as measurement device)

i1Match Easy 1


********

So according to this: he rates Spyder3Print in a tie with the EyeOne  
systems;
and definitely, above ColorMunki.

Spyder3Print is comparable to the much-more-expensive, high-end XRite  
and Gretag
systems, at a fraction of the price.

Read all of the additional details in his English version and summary  
at the lists.apple.com
link. (Unfortunately, his main site reference from here is in German  
and I've yet to
see an English translation of it).


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:
>
> Have a look here:
> 
> http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2008/Jul/msg00001.html
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> Datacolor

That's the review I couldn't find.

Missed you David at Photo Expo. You were too busy with customers and Mariah Carey and 
Robert DeNiro kept on bugging me!

On Nov 7, 2008, at 12:08 PM, John Vitollo wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> > Have a look here:
> >
> > http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2008/Jul/msg00001.html
> > David Miller
> > Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> > Datacolor
>
> That's the review I couldn't find.
>
> Missed you David at Photo Expo. You were too busy with customers and  
> Mariah Carey and
> Robert DeNiro kept on bugging me!
>
>

Too funny...:-) Sorry you didn't get a chance to stop and say "hi";
like you said, I was completely swamped at the booth for pretty much
the entire 3 days. Not even a chance to get a drink of water or have
anything to eat, it was that busy!


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Have a look here:
> 
> http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-
users/2008/Jul/msg00001.html
> 
> Uli Zappe's ratings (I've reordered them so that they start at "5" 
and  
> then work
> their way down, and in groups, according to the ratings) are as 
follows:
> 
> 
> CMYKick/dropRGB 5
> basICColor print 5
> 
> Spyder3Print 4.5 (RGB only)
> iColorPrint 4.5
> i1Match 4.5
> ProfileMaker 4.5
> PrintProfiler Pro 4.5
> 
> MonacoProfiler 4
> ColorMunki 4
> SilverFast Profiler 4 (RGB only, only usable with SilverFast 
scanning  
> software, using a scanner as measurement device)
> 
> PrintProfiler 3.5
> 
> EZColor 3 (RGB only, using a scanner as measurement device)
> 
> i1Match Easy 1
> 
> 
> ********
> 
> So according to this: he rates Spyder3Print in a tie with the 
EyeOne  
> systems;
> and definitely, above ColorMunki.
> 
> Spyder3Print is comparable to the much-more-expensive, high-end 
XRite  
> and Gretag
> systems, at a fraction of the price.
> 
> Read all of the additional details in his English version and 
summary  
> at the lists.apple.com
> link. (Unfortunately, his main site reference from here is in 
German  
> and I've yet to
> see an English translation of it).
> 

David,

Thank you for the great reference. I didn't realize that this site 
existed and I appreciate your help. 

John

I have both the spyder and munki.  A couple things I like about the the munki is the photocolor picker.  I do reproduction arcade artwork so the color picker

David,

I have a few more questions that have sprung up while contemplating the Spyder 3 Print, 
which by the way is starting to shape up as the winner in my mind. 

1} You made a comment in a dpreview forum recently. You said "Datacolor spectro reads 
much smaller patches, so less ink and paper is used to provide a much greater number of 
patch measurements. It also measures quickly: overall profiling time, even with spot 
measurements, is comparable (or even faster) than other solutions with swiped 
measurements." Can you please elaborate on the "or even faster" portion of your 
comment. The spot measurement feature and time involved measuring has been one of 
the concerns that I have had.

2) One of the participants in the same dpreview forum said that the Spyder is supported in 
most third party applications. Is that true? I wasn't quite sure what the person was 
referring to.

3) I noticed in the Northlight-images review that "saturation" is the default rendering 
intent in the software. Why is that when in most published material these days I seem to 
see "relative" as the suggested rendering intent for photography? I presume that's not a 
big deal either way since you can change it anyway?

4) I have read in Bruce Fraser's "Real World Color Management" that they generally 
recommend reflective spectrophotometers over reflective colorimeters, generally finding 
the former more accurate. Can you comment on that and try to put it in perspective as it 
relates to the Spyder 3 Print as I know Spyder 3 uses a colorimeter?

Thanks again for you feedback.

John

On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:15 AM, John Arnold wrote:

> David,
>
> I have a few more questions that have sprung up while contemplating  
> the Spyder 3 Print,
> which by the way is starting to shape up as the winner in my mind.
>
> 1} You made a comment in a dpreview forum recently. You said  
> "Datacolor spectro reads
> much smaller patches, so less ink and paper is used to provide a  
> much greater number of
> patch measurements. It also measures quickly: overall profiling  
> time, even with spot
> measurements, is comparable (or even faster) than other solutions  
> with swiped
> measurements." Can you please elaborate on the "or even faster"  
> portion of your
> comment. The spot measurement feature and time involved measuring  
> has been one of
> the concerns that I have had.
>
>
The 3.5 software configures the spectro so that it physically
takes measurements more quickly than any of the earlier versions.
There's a "measurement time" associated with every patch; it's the
time that the spectro itself takes for the measurement, and when
you use the software, you'll "hear" this as a small gap between the
two click sounds that you get as feedback when you take a measurement.

In the 3.5 software, the time between the clicks is smaller, because  
the measurement
itself is several times faster.

In practice: this means that the spectro not only "feels" more  
responsive as you
move from patch to patch and measure (either by pressing on the nose,  
or pressing the
Return key)... because you're spending less time audibly waiting for  
the 2nd "click"
so that you can move to the next patch... but that overall, your  
measuring time will
go down overall, because you can move more quickly (still taking care  
not to go TOO
fast).

For example: with 3.0 and earlier software, it would generally take me  
close to 5
minutes to measure the 225 patch target (which admittedly is faster  
than most people
will go, but I measure many of these). The 729 patch target would take  
closer to 15
minutes.

With the 3.5 software, I can measure the 225 patch target in a little  
more than 3
minutes, and the 729 patch target in under 10. To me, that's a big  
difference, and
the speed for the 729 patch target means I'm more likely to simply  
print and measure
that, without worrying about whether or not the extra patches will  
benefit the
profile.

(In fact, the novelty of the faster measurements still hasn't worn off  
for me,
so I actually enjoy measuring the 729 patch target now... the time it  
takes
me to measure 225 patches is so small that it's almost an afterthought).
> 2) One of the participants in the same dpreview forum said that the  
> Spyder is supported in
> most third party applications. Is that true? I wasn't quite sure  
> what the person was
> referring to.
>
>
The Spyder3 (for display calibration) is supported by ColorEyes  
Display from
Integrated Color; this is the best known 3rd party display profiling  
application
and I'm sure that's what they were referring to. If you have an Eizo  
display, it's
also now directly supported by their ColorNavigator 5.1 software.

So it means that if you buy any product of ours that contains a  
Spyder3, there are
certain other software packages that can use it, beyond ours.

For printer profiling, Spyder3Print can export Lab values from patch  
measurements into
a tab delimited text format, so technically it's possible to use it to  
measure color
targets for use with someone else's printer profiling software,  
although I haven't
spoken with anyone who's tried using it that way. A more common "3rd  
party" use is
with QTR (a 3rd party utility for profiling and printing with  
specialty B&W inksets);
Spyder3Print has a "Measure" tool that lets you measure any color, or  
sequence of
colors, that you can touch the nose of the spectro to, so you can, for  
instance, print
QTR's step wedges and export the results to text files that contain  
either Lab or
density measurement values. (In fact, this feature also means that you  
can use the
spectro and Spyder3Print as a densitometer).
> 3) I noticed in the Northlight-images review that "saturation" is  
> the default rendering
> intent in the software. Why is that when in most published material  
> these days I seem to
> see "relative" as the suggested rendering intent for photography? I  
> presume that's not a
> big deal either way since you can change it anyway?
>
>
The way that we build the profile, as far as the Saturation rendering  
intent goes,
is different than most other 3rd party and OEM profiles. They put data  
in their Saturation
intent that's intended to boost colors for business graphics and line  
art, but which isn't
generally well suited for printing photographic images.

In our profiles, we use a different philosophy for the Saturation  
intent. For photographic
images (where the colors are all, or mostly, inside the printer  
gamut), the data in our
Saturation intent makes beautiful prints, so it's perfectly well  
suited for general
photographic printing. For out-of-gamut colors, the Saturation intent  
pushes the print
towards the most saturated colors that the printer driver/paper  
setting/inkset can
produce. This means that you get the best possible saturation in your  
print for out-of-gamut
colors, with little or no mixing of other color inks (yellow, for  
instance, will print with
pure yellow ink, and blue will print with the maximum blue ink mixture  
that the driver
produces based on your paper type setting). For most people, this  
yields the best results,
and that's why we recommend it as the "default" rendering intent with  
our profiles.

If you like, you can choose either the Perceptual or Relative  
Colorimetric rendering intents
as well, which provide some color mixing for the out of gamut colors  
to make the printed
hues more exact, at some expense of saturation.
> 4) I have read in Bruce Fraser's "Real World Color Management" that  
> they generally
> recommend reflective spectrophotometers over reflective  
> colorimeters, generally finding
> the former more accurate. Can you comment on that and try to put it  
> in perspective as it
> relates to the Spyder 3 Print as I know Spyder 3 uses a colorimeter?
>
>
We've got published stats on the accuracy of the Datacolor 1005  
spectrocolorimeter with
respect to other devices:

http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-compare1005.php

The numbers speak for themselves. Also, if you read what Uli Zappe has  
had
to say here:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2008/Jul/msg00001.html

And also, the results of the big "Printer Profiling Shootout" here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/fancy-graphics2.shtml

when you look at the scores and chart in the conclusion at the bottom,  
you'll see
that we scored a 45, compared to the JK3 score of 41. JK3 is the  
EyeOne Pro
with their reflective spectophotometer, vs. our reflective  
spectrocolorimeter.

These two independent 3rd party reviews reinforce the "goodness" of  
the measurements
coming from the Datacolor spectro. If we're doing as well (Uli Zappe)  
or even BETTER
(Gerard Kingma) than the much more expensive XRite/Gretag systems that  
are using
spectrophotometers, we can't be more satisfied than that.
>

David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

1. Yes, it actually takes less time to build a Spyder3 Print profile,  
from more patches, than a ColorMunki profile from fewer patches, since  
the CMunki uses a rather awkward method requiring two passes through  
the process, and two drydowns.

2. Spyder3 is supported in a number of third party applications such  
as ColorEyes, basICColor, and ColorNavigator. Spyder3 Print is  
supported directly by one or two apps, brt can be used indirectly with  
others. The most common 3rd party usage is QTR, and it works great  
with that.

3. Saturation intent is recommended, as something you should try (it  
works great, but the other inrents are fine too), but it's not the  
default.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:15 AM, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...>  
wrote:

> David,
>
> I have a few more questions that have sprung up while contemplating  
> the Spyder 3 Print,
> which by the way is starting to shape up as the winner in my mind.
>
> 1} You made a comment in a dpreview forum recently. You said  
> "Datacolor spectro reads
> much smaller patches, so less ink and paper is used to provide a  
> much greater number of
> patch measurements. It also measures quickly: overall profiling  
> time, even with spot
> measurements, is comparable (or even faster) than other solutions  
> with swiped
> measurements." Can you please elaborate on the "or even faster"  
> portion of your
> comment. The spot measurement feature and time involved measuring  
> has been one of
> the concerns that I have had.
>
> 2) One of the participants in the same dpreview forum said that the  
> Spyder is supported in
> most third party applications. Is that true? I wasn't quite sure  
> what the person was
> referring to.
>
> 3) I noticed in the Northlight-images review that "saturation" is  
> the default rendering
> intent in the software. Why is that when in most published material  
> these days I seem to
> see "relative" as the suggested rendering intent for photography? I  
> presume that's not a
> big deal either way since you can change it anyway?
>
> 4) I have read in Bruce Fraser's "Real World Color Management" that  
> they generally
> recommend reflective spectrophotometers over reflective  
> colorimeters, generally finding
> the former more accurate. Can you comment on that and try to put it  
> in perspective as it
> relates to the Spyder 3 Print as I know Spyder 3 uses a colorimeter?
>
> Thanks again for you feedback.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Oops, I missed number four. The accuracy of the Spyder3 Print spectro  
is equivalent to the EyeOne spectro, so it should be equal or a bit  
better than the CMunki. They all do a good job. The CMunki is just  
very limited in the number of patches per page, number of patches per  
profile, and in terms of adjustments and options, which are pretty  
much nonexistant.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:15 AM, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...>  
wrote:

> David,
>
> I have a few more questions that have sprung up while contemplating  
> the Spyder 3 Print,
> which by the way is starting to shape up as the winner in my mind.
>
> 1} You made a comment in a dpreview forum recently. You said  
> "Datacolor spectro reads
> much smaller patches, so less ink and paper is used to provide a  
> much greater number of
> patch measurements. It also measures quickly: overall profiling  
> time, even with spot
> measurements, is comparable (or even faster) than other solutions  
> with swiped
> measurements." Can you please elaborate on the "or even faster"  
> portion of your
> comment. The spot measurement feature and time involved measuring  
> has been one of
> the concerns that I have had.
>
> 2) One of the participants in the same dpreview forum said that the  
> Spyder is supported in
> most third party applications. Is that true? I wasn't quite sure  
> what the person was
> referring to.
>
> 3) I noticed in the Northlight-images review that "saturation" is  
> the default rendering
> intent in the software. Why is that when in most published material  
> these days I seem to
> see "relative" as the suggested rendering intent for photography? I  
> presume that's not a
> big deal either way since you can change it anyway?
>
> 4) I have read in Bruce Fraser's "Real World Color Management" that  
> they generally
> recommend reflective spectrophotometers over reflective  
> colorimeters, generally finding
> the former more accurate. Can you comment on that and try to put it  
> in perspective as it
> relates to the Spyder 3 Print as I know Spyder 3 uses a colorimeter?
>
> Thanks again for you feedback.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Nov 8, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Cdtobie wrote:

> Oops, I missed number four. The accuracy of the Spyder3 Print spectro
> is equivalent to the EyeOne spectro, so it should be equal or a bit
> better than the CMunki. They all do a good job. The CMunki is just
> very limited in the number of patches per page, number of patches per
> profile, and in terms of adjustments and options, which are pretty
> much nonexistant.
>
> C. D. Tobie
> WW Product Technology Mngr.
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> DataColor.com
> CDTobie@...
>
>

What he said...:-) In far fewer sentences than I
needed...:-)

David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:
>
> 

> The way that we build the profile, as far as the Saturation rendering  
> intent goes,
> is different than most other 3rd party and OEM profiles. They put data  
> in their Saturation
> intent that's intended to boost colors for business graphics and line  
> art, but which isn't
> generally well suited for printing photographic images.
> 
> In our profiles, we use a different philosophy for the Saturation  
> intent. For photographic
> images (where the colors are all, or mostly, inside the printer  
> gamut), the data in our
> Saturation intent makes beautiful prints, so it's perfectly well  
> suited for general
> photographic printing. For out-of-gamut colors, the Saturation intent  
> pushes the print
> towards the most saturated colors that the printer driver/paper  
> setting/inkset can
> produce. This means that you get the best possible saturation in your  
> print for out-of-gamut
> colors, with little or no mixing of other color inks (yellow, for  
> instance, will print with
> pure yellow ink, and blue will print with the maximum blue ink mixture  
> that the driver
> produces based on your paper type setting). For most people, this  
> yields the best results,
> and that's why we recommend it as the "default" rendering intent with  
> our profiles.
> 
> If you like, you can choose either the Perceptual or Relative  
> Colorimetric rendering intents
> as well, which provide some color mixing for the out of gamut colors  
> to make the printed
> hues more exact, at some expense of saturation.

David,

Thank you. Your responses are very informative. I am a bit confused on one point though. 
I am used to choosing the rendering intent in Photoshop. But it appears that the rendering 
intent is actually chosen with the Spyder system at the time of profile generation? I 
probably have it turned around in my head. But I thought the profile had to contain all 
possible rendering intents so that you could choose which one you want in Photoshop and 
then the profile would apply it at the time of passing the information along to the printer. 
Can you please clarify?

Thank you.

John

Intent is chosen at time of use, as you thought. The profile is built  
with multiple intents available for selection later.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 8, 2008, at 4:30 PM, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...>  
wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...>  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> The way that we build the profile, as far as the Saturation rendering
>> intent goes,
>> is different than most other 3rd party and OEM profiles. They put  
>> data
>> in their Saturation
>> intent that's intended to boost colors for business graphics and line
>> art, but which isn't
>> generally well suited for printing photographic images.
>>
>> In our profiles, we use a different philosophy for the Saturation
>> intent. For photographic
>> images (where the colors are all, or mostly, inside the printer
>> gamut), the data in our
>> Saturation intent makes beautiful prints, so it's perfectly well
>> suited for general
>> photographic printing. For out-of-gamut colors, the Saturation intent
>> pushes the print
>> towards the most saturated colors that the printer driver/paper
>> setting/inkset can
>> produce. This means that you get the best possible saturation in your
>> print for out-of-gamut
>> colors, with little or no mixing of other color inks (yellow, for
>> instance, will print with
>> pure yellow ink, and blue will print with the maximum blue ink  
>> mixture
>> that the driver
>> produces based on your paper type setting). For most people, this
>> yields the best results,
>> and that's why we recommend it as the "default" rendering intent with
>> our profiles.
>>
>> If you like, you can choose either the Perceptual or Relative
>> Colorimetric rendering intents
>> as well, which provide some color mixing for the out of gamut colors
>> to make the printed
>> hues more exact, at some expense of saturation.
>
> David,
>
> Thank you. Your responses are very informative. I am a bit confused  
> on one point though.
> I am used to choosing the rendering intent in Photoshop. But it  
> appears that the rendering
> intent is actually chosen with the Spyder system at the time of  
> profile generation? I
> probably have it turned around in my head. But I thought the profile  
> had to contain all
> possible rendering intents so that you could choose which one you  
> want in Photoshop and
> then the profile would apply it at the time of passing the  
> information along to the printer.
> Can you please clarify?
>
> Thank you.
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>
>
> David,
>
> Thank you. Your responses are very informative. I am a bit confused  
> on one point though.
> I am used to choosing the rendering intent in Photoshop. But it  
> appears that the rendering
> intent is actually chosen with the Spyder system at the time of  
> profile generation? I
> probably have it turned around in my head. But I thought the profile  
> had to contain all
> possible rendering intents so that you could choose which one you  
> want in Photoshop and
> then the profile would apply it at the time of passing the  
> information along to the printer.
> Can you please clarify?
>
> Thank you.
>
> John
>
>

No, it doesn't work that way; the rendering intent is -not- chosen at  
the time of
profile generation.

Every printer profile contains data for ALL THREE rendering intents:  
Saturation,
Perceptual, and Relative Colorimetric. There are 3 separate "slots" in  
the profile
to hold three complete sets of data.

So you're correct: each profile has to contain data for each of the  
three possible
rendering intents, so that you can choose which one you want in  
Photoshop (both when
you soft proof, and when you print, through the profile).

And our profiles work that way, just like all printer profiles should.

The only "difference" I'm pointing out with our profiles, vs. how most  
of the
others behave, is that the Saturation intent in ours actually contains  
data
that you would (and will!) want to print all of your images through.  
Because
it's good, it adheres to the philosophy of ours that I described  
earlier (i.e.
that it's designed for photographic printing, AND that it handles out- 
of-gamut
mapping by giving you as much saturation as it can based on the  
printer inks).

And so, we recommend that you use our Saturation intent for general  
printing;
but if you want to, (just as with other printer profiles), you can  
switch to
Perceptual or Relative if you like, and the results for out-of-gamut  
colors
will be somewhat different with those intents.

Or another way to look at it: we provide 3 usable rendering intents in  
our
profiles, while most other profiles really provide only 2 from a  
practical
standpoint.... (Because you would not typically want to print - 
photographic-
images through OEM or other 3rd party profiles through their  
Saturation intents).

Does that clear things up?


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

On Nov 8, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Cdtobie wrote:

> Intent is chosen at time of use, as you thought. The profile is built
> with multiple intents available for selection later.
>
>
>

What he said, again, with fewer words than mine. I should try it
that way sometime...:-)


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:

>

> 
> Does that clear things up?
> 
> 
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> Datacolor
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:
>

> 
> Does that clear things up?
> 

Oops! I hit send to soon on that last post. Yes it does clear things up and thanks for your 
time and information. I have noticed in looking at online sites to purchase the product that 
depending upon whose site I visit the packaging is different. One site shows it in a metal 
suitcase and another shows it as a boxed product. Are those both the same products? I just 
want to make sure that I am getting the right thing. I am assuming that regardless of how 
it's packaged, that its the same thing. Is that correct?

Thanks,

John

On Nov 8, 2008, at 5:05 PM, John Arnold wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...>  
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Does that clear things up?
> >
>
> Oops! I hit send to soon on that last post. Yes it does clear things  
> up and thanks for your
> time and information. I have noticed in looking at online sites to  
> purchase the product that
> depending upon whose site I visit the packaging is different. One  
> site shows it in a metal
> suitcase and another shows it as a boxed product. Are those both the  
> same products? I just
> want to make sure that I am getting the right thing. I am assuming  
> that regardless of how
> it's packaged, that its the same thing. Is that correct?
>
>



Spyder3Studio should -always- come in aluminum suitcase,
as a complete package, regardless of what the picture looks
like online; we don't have any other physical configuration
for it.

David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

S3 Print comes in a box; S3 Studio (Elite plus Print) comes in the  
metal case.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 8, 2008, at 5:05 PM, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...>  
wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...>  
> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Does that clear things up?
>>
>
> Oops! I hit send to soon on that last post. Yes it does clear things  
> up and thanks for your
> time and information. I have noticed in looking at online sites to  
> purchase the product that
> depending upon whose site I visit the packaging is different. One  
> site shows it in a metal
> suitcase and another shows it as a boxed product. Are those both the  
> same products? I just
> want to make sure that I am getting the right thing. I am assuming  
> that regardless of how
> it's packaged, that its the same thing. Is that correct?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Emailing via iPhone does wonders for keeping notes short...

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 8, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:

>
> On Nov 8, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Cdtobie wrote:
>
>> Intent is chosen at time of use, as you thought. The profile is built
>> with multiple intents available for selection later.
>>
>>
>>
>
> What he said, again, with fewer words than mine. I should try it
> that way sometime...:-)
>
>
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> Datacolor
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:
>
>
> 
> Spyder3Studio should -always- come in aluminum suitcase,
> as a complete package, regardless of what the picture looks
> like online; we don't have any other physical configuration
> for it.
> 
>

Yes. But I want to purchase Spyder 3 "Print" and on Adorama's site, I see it in a metal case. 
That's why I am confused.

John

The metal "SuiteCase" only comes with the S3 Studio suite. But it's a  
great deal: you get S3 Elite and the case both tossed in for the  
additional hundred bucks...

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 8, 2008, at 6:20 PM, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...>  
wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...>  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Spyder3Studio should -always- come in aluminum suitcase,
>> as a complete package, regardless of what the picture looks
>> like online; we don't have any other physical configuration
>> for it.
>>
>>
>
> Yes. But I want to purchase Spyder 3 "Print" and on Adorama's site,  
> I see it in a metal case.
> That's why I am confused.
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> The metal "SuiteCase" only comes with the S3 Studio suite. But it's a  
> great deal: you get S3 Elite and the case both tossed in for the  
> additional hundred bucks...
> 

Thanks for clarifying that. By the way, I understand that the way your profiles are 
constructed  that they are optimized to provide the best results when choosing 
"saturation" as the rendering intent. If however, you choose instead to use "relative", does 
the profile respond more or less like any other profile when you choose "relative" or does 
it too have unusual characteristics that would not normally be associated with a relative 
rendering intent. 

In other words, I know that choosing "saturation" with your profiles yields different results 
than what one would normally get with typical profiles. Is the same true of "relative" or 
does it behave more characteristically.

Hope that question makes sense.

Thanks,

John

There is no "typical"; each company uses their own methods. But yes,  
you can get results where out of gamut colors are brought into gamut  
with equal priority to hue, saturation, and brightness by choosing  
Relative Colorimetric.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 9, 2008, at 3:57 PM, "John Arnold" <john.arnold@...>  
wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>>
>> The metal "SuiteCase" only comes with the S3 Studio suite. But it's a
>> great deal: you get S3 Elite and the case both tossed in for the
>> additional hundred bucks...
>>
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. By the way, I understand that the way  
> your profiles are
> constructed  that they are optimized to provide the best results  
> when choosing
> "saturation" as the rendering intent. If however, you choose instead  
> to use "relative", does
> the profile respond more or less like any other profile when you  
> choose "relative" or does
> it too have unusual characteristics that would not normally be  
> associated with a relative
> rendering intent.
>
> In other words, I know that choosing "saturation" with your profiles  
> yields different results
> than what one would normally get with typical profiles. Is the same  
> true of "relative" or
> does it behave more characteristically.
>
> Hope that question makes sense.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> There is no "typical"; each company uses their own methods. But yes,  
> you can get results where out of gamut colors are brought into gamut  
> with equal priority to hue, saturation, and brightness by choosing  
> Relative Colorimetric.
> 

What I understood after reading Real World Color Management is that Relative maps white 
in the source to white in the destination and that it reproduces all in-gamut colors exactly 
while clipping out-of-gamut colors to the closest reproducible hue. Jeff Schewe indicates 
that it preserves the overall tonal relationships better than most other options. So I guess I 
am asking if that is also characteristic of you Relative rendering intent.

I understood in an earlier reply from David Miller that your Saturation intent responds 
differently than most others as it has been optimized for photography. I think that's great. 
I have ordered Spyder 3 Print, so I am just trying to understand a little bit about what's 
going on with the Relative setting as an option, even though I know you recommend 
saturation.

Thanks,

John

On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:29 AM, John Arnold wrote:

> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
> >
> > There is no "typical"; each company uses their own methods. But yes,
> > you can get results where out of gamut colors are brought into gamut
> > with equal priority to hue, saturation, and brightness by choosing
> > Relative Colorimetric.
> >
>
> What I understood after reading Real World Color Management is that  
> Relative maps white
> in the source to white in the destination and that it reproduces all  
> in-gamut colors exactly
> while clipping out-of-gamut colors to the closest reproducible hue.  
> Jeff Schewe indicates
> that it preserves the overall tonal relationships better than most  
> other options. So I guess I
> am asking if that is also characteristic of you Relative rendering  
> intent.
>
>

That's a good generalized description. Yes, with the Relative intent,  
in-gamut colors
map as exactly as possible and out-of-gamut colors are mapped to the  
closest reproducible
hue.
> I understood in an earlier reply from David Miller that your  
> Saturation intent responds
> differently than most others as it has been optimized for  
> photography. I think that's great.
>

The Saturation and Perceptual intents in our profiles also map in- 
gamut colors as exactly
as possible. So with our profiles, the real difference in printed data  
through the
3 intents is what happens with out-of-gamut colors, the in-gamuts will  
always print the
same (as exactly as possible)
>
> I have ordered Spyder 3 Print, so I am just trying to understand a  
> little bit about what's
> going on with the Relative setting as an option, even though I know  
> you recommend
> saturation.
>
>

It comes down to getting more color mixing/blending in out-of-gamut  
colors so that the
hues are "correct". (Our Perceptual intent also has out-of-gamut  
mapping, but less adjustment
of out-of-gamut colors than Relative).

Having printed a wide variety of images on a number of different  
printers and papers through
S3P-generated profiles, I always print through the Saturation intent.


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

>What I understood after reading Real World Color Management is that Relative 
maps white 
in the source to white in the destination and that it reproduces all in-gamut 
colors exactly 
while clipping out-of-gamut colors to the closest reproducible hue.

___

What intents are mostly about how to define that "closest reproducible hue"... 

Colorimeteric should offer equal emphasis on hue, saturation and brightness;

thus the most literal match. Thats what our colorimetric intent does. Thats 

not what makes many photographic users happiest however.

 >Jeff Schewe 
indicates 
that it preserves the overall tonal relationships better than most other 
options.

___

Yup, if you prefer literal to more colorful, its what you want. Not what

most users are looking for from brilliant colors, however.

 >So I guess I 
am asking if that is also characteristic of you Relative rendering intent.

___

Yes, as defined above, it is.

>I understood in an earlier reply from David Miller that your Saturation intent 
responds 
differently than most others as it has been optimized for photography.

___

Well, lets say it was optimized for photography first. The other companies were

sufficiently embarrassed by our superior results that they more recently have 

improved their Saturation intents as well, though I believe ours is still superior.

 >I think 

that's great. 
I have ordered Spyder 3 Print, so I am just trying to understand a little bit 
about what's 
going on with the Relative setting as an option, even though I know you 
recommend 
saturation.

___

I recommend TRYING IT, which most users simply wouldn't do; give its common definition

of being for pie-charts, not photos. I don't recommend one intent over another, each has

its place, I simply recommend trying them, instead of using one recommended by a book, 

especially a book that does not have a good description of how our profiles function.

I consider this a failure of the book to document how the major brands of profiling software

actually function, not a failure of our profiles to act like the books describes.

What I actually recommend is using the softproof and gamut limit functions in Photoshop, 

with your custom printer profile, to determine what colors are out of gamut for your 

printer, ink, and paper, and to bring those colors into gamut yourself, to your own needs 

and artistic intent, instead of throwing them blindly at a profile, and hoping you will

like the way these colors were handled by the selected intent. Not practical for most 

production work, but an important element of fine art printing...

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie  wrote:
>
> There is no "typical"; each company uses their own methods. But yes,  
> you can get results where out of gamut colors are brought into gamut  
> with equal priority to hue, saturation, and brightness by choosing  
> Relative Colorimetric.
> 

What I understood after reading Real World Color Management is that Relative 
maps white 
in the source to white in the destination and that it reproduces all in-gamut 
colors exactly 
while clipping out-of-gamut colors to the closest reproducible hue. Jeff Schewe 
indicates 
that it preserves the overall tonal relationships better than most other 
options. So I guess I 
am asking if that is also characteristic of you Relative rendering intent.

I understood in an earlier reply from David Miller that your Saturation intent 
responds 
differently than most others as it has been optimized for photography. I think 
that's great. 
I have ordered Spyder 3 Print, so I am just trying to understand a little bit 
about what's 
going on with the Relative setting as an option, even though I know you 
recommend 
saturation.

Thanks,

John


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<;*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colorvision_group/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colorvision_group/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:colorvision_group-digest@yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:colorvision_group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    colorvision_group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:
>

> Having printed a wide variety of images on a number of different  
> printers and papers through
> S3P-generated profiles, I always print through the Saturation intent.
> 
Thanks David,

I look forward to receiving the product and taking it for a test
drive. Prior to this I was using Monaco EZ Color. It uses a scanner to
generate the printer profile. I have been very dissatisfied with it
and as a result have relied on the canned Epson profiles with my Epson
R1800. While tonal reproduction with the canned profiles is
acceptable, I periodically detect slight color casts that are annoying
and take extra work to remedy. 

Hopefully the Spyder print profiling solution will provide some relief!

Thanks,

John

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
>
> 
> What I actually recommend is using the softproof and gamut limit
functions in Photoshop, 
> 
> with your custom printer profile, to determine what colors are out
of gamut for your 
> 
> printer, ink, and paper, and to bring those colors into gamut
yourself, to your own needs 
> 
> and artistic intent, instead of throwing them blindly at a profile,
and hoping you will
> 
> like the way these colors were handled by the selected intent. Not
practical for most 
> 
> production work, but an important element of fine art printing...
> 
> 


Thanks for that explanation. I would like you and David to know that
your availability and willingness to answer questions on this forum
played heavily in my decision to go with the Spyer 3 product. 

I really appreciate it and want you both to know that I think it's a
real plus for choosing your product and company.

John

I've been lurking and following this thread with interest too, since  
I'm pretty new to the profiling arena as well and still very much on  
the learning curve (as evidenced earlier in the week). I did want to  
chime in though, and second John's thanks for both David Miller's and  
C. David Tobie's active participation in this and other forums. This  
engagement with the community also weighed heavily in my decision to  
purchase the Studio suite over the ColorMunki setup. I've been very  
pleased with my purchase so far (especially now that I understand more  
about both the process and outcome), and I'm looking forward to  
working more with it in the days to come.

Best regards,
Jeff

On Nov 10, 2008, at 2:34 PM, John Arnold wrote:
>
> Thanks for that explanation. I would like you and David to know that
> your availability and willingness to answer questions on this forum
> played heavily in my decision to go with the Spyer 3 product.
>
> I really appreciate it and want you both to know that I think it's a
> real plus for choosing your product and company.
>
> John
>
>