Colourmunki Photo or Spyder Studio 4

W1HWT

W1HWT

Messages
42
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Help is Needed please,
I would like to buy a Monitor/Printer calibrator, I have read reviews good and bad on two the Colourmunki Photo and Spyder Studio 4.
And now you have guessed it, my brain has now been fried and I'm totally confused to which is the better.

So now I'm going to ask the question to all you experienced photographers who are using one or both of the above to which one and why.

I have an Epson R3000 Printer plus a Dell Monitor, now I would like to take my Photography to another level and print my images.

Looking forward to your reply's.

Thanking you in advance

Ian.
 
I'm using colormunki dispaly (only for the screen). when i print on my epson stylus pro 4900 you just get proper ICC profile for that paper. no complains, very very close match.... also using Dell monitor.
 
I had colormunki photo and could not get on with it so sold it,not worth the money in my opinion. Trying to balance between screen and printer was a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
I had colormunki photo and could not get on with it so sold it,not worth the money in my opinion. Trying to balance between screen and printer was a nightmare.
Click to expand...
Interesting Bazza. I previously used two generations of Spyder (1 and 3) and then changed to a Colormunki Photo for a twin Dell monitor setup and Canon printer and found the balance to be much closer.....expensive as it is.

Bob
 
I use Colormunki and it is the only way I have found to get my two monitors in sync colour wise. I also have the kodak package which allows you to compare a variety of Kodak printed original photos to your monitor's display and to your printer's output.

Colormunki has successfully matched the Kodak originals on the monitor and my printer's output is very very close to them. Overall very pleased with its performance.
 
Colormunki is very decent. This is what I use. However I would suggest to buy i1display Pro (the next step up) since only this one can access hardware calibration settings on the new high end Dells. It is very naughty of them to make these artificial limitations though
 
asaspasas6 said:
I'm using colormunki dispaly (only for the screen). when i print on my epson stylus pro 4900 you just get proper ICC profile for that paper. no complains, very very close match.... also using Dell monitor.
Click to expand...
markmullen said:
I use Colormunki Photo and have been well pleased with it, profiling dual Apple Cinema displays, my Macbook Pro and a Canon Pro 9000 Mk2. It just works well, no messing about. I have it set to remind me every fortnight to recalibrate my screens.
Click to expand...
realspeed said:
I had colormunki photo and could not get on with it so sold it,not worth the money in my opinion. Trying to balance between screen and printer was a nightmare.
Click to expand...
Canon Bob said:
Interesting Bazza. I previously used two generations of Spyder (1 and 3) and then changed to a Colormunki Photo for a twin Dell monitor setup and Canon printer and found the balance to be much closer.....expensive as it is.

Bob
Click to expand...
valb said:
I use Colormunki and it is the only way I have found to get my two monitors in sync colour wise. I also have the kodak package which allows you to compare a variety of Kodak printed original photos to your monitor's display and to your printer's output.

Colormunki has successfully matched the Kodak originals on the monitor and my printer's output is very very close to them. Overall very pleased with its performance.
Click to expand...
daugirdas said:
Colormunki is very decent. This is what I use. However I would suggest to buy i1display Pro (the next step up) since only this one can access hardware calibration settings on the new high end Dells. It is very naughty of them to make these artificial limitations though
Click to expand...


I would like to thank you all for your reply's and I feel the consensus is a colourmunki Photo.

The colourmunki was my choice until a mate said there is a second hand SpyderStudio 4 with very little used was for sale at £249
as you can see why I ask the question and got all confused to which is the better one.

The reason was CM has 100 patches
SS has a lot more patches
More patches = closer profiling?
 
With colormunki be prepared to use a lot of gloss paper if thats what your prints are going to be on. Why? because colou Monki Photo requires a scan twice across a printed colour chart you have to make to make adjustments with. Even then you have to run the scanner at a set speed and pressure for it to work.
Something others havn't mentioned
Even doing that a couple of times a month works out very expensive if you use high quality paper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top