[Chilliman]

Just missed a Colorvision Spyder 2 Express for sale at a bargain price (I think) in the for sale section. I've been considering one of these gadgets for a while now as my prints are never the same as onscreen.
Visiting their website it says it works with Vista though it does'nt say 32 & 64 bit, I've found a lot of websites stating their product works with Vista but fails to mention 32 & 64 bit as does colorvision's site.

Can anyone tell me if it works with 64 bit Vista OS which is what I have.

[silkstone]

Sorry I can't answer your question but AFAIK the Spyder is principally for monitor, not printer, calibration, and the weak link in terms of colour accuracy is usually the printer rather than the screen. I've not heard many good reports about the printer software supplied with the Spyder, but those who've tried it can give you a better idea.

[orangepeel]

the latest version 2.3.5 supports xp/vista 32/64


"Installer for Spyder2express 2.3.5
Requirements: Windows XP, Vista

Features:
If you are running Windows XP x64 and you purchased the retail product that does not include 64 bit support then please download and install this version.

There are no new features in this release.
Fixes:
Added 64-bit Spyder driver to support Windows 64-bit systems.

Compatible with Microsoft Vista."

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by silkstone

Sorry I can't answer your question but AFAIK the Spyder is principally for monitor, not printer, calibration, and the weak link in terms of colour accuracy is usually the printer rather than the screen. I've not heard many good reports about the printer software supplied with the Spyder, but those who've tried it can give you a better idea.

I must have read it wrong, I thought calibrating the monitor created a profile that could be sent to the the printer to match the colour onscreen when printing photos. Is there better hardware/software than Spyder or is it ridiculously expensive ?

[Chilliman]

Thanks Orangepeel

[silkstone]

If you're going down the route of ICC profiles and software colour management, you need a profile for the monitor and another profile for the printer/paper combination.

Once your monitor is calibrated (manually or using something like the Spyder), getting the printer to produce something similar *may* be achieved by using an ICC profile supplied by the paper/printer manufacturer. For example, Ilford offer free profiles for their Galerie range of papers and a variety of printers. A bespoke printer/paper profile is reckoned to be better, but this whole subject of colour management can be a real minefield.

[Dave Canon]

Silkstone's advice is spot on. I use a Spyder 2 Express myself for monitor calibration. I did upgrade the software for Vista but I have only 32 bit and it works fine. Printer calibration requires expensive equipment so it is usually more practical for an amateur to use a printing calibration service. You can obtain a bespoke profile for between £10 and £20 but you need one for each paper/ink combination you use. I have an Epson 1270 and the profile is identical for Epson Premium Glossy and Epson Heavy Matte so I manage with a single bespoke profile. As Silkstone has said, some of the companies that specialise in Inks and paper will supply a profile free. Also remember the profile(s) supplied with your printer may be reasonable if you use the manufacturers paper and ink.

[Chilliman]

Would it be better then to get a calibtration tool for the monitor then and leave the printer problems to the likes of Photobox etc ? I don't mind paying for prints that I have tweaked one way or another. Seems like a lot of work profiling printers.

[silkstone]

Setting up and maintaining a desktop photo printer is more hassle and more expensive than using a good on-line printing service. The main advantages are speed and convenience. If you don't use them regularly, they tend to clog up and you waste more ink in cleaning cycles than in printing. Most of us do have photo printers, but I often wonder why I bother.

Re monitor calibration, I'm in the minority here because I prefer to do it manually, using simple test wedges and calibration charts. I'll say no more on that because I don't want to start an argument.