Dimitri, the 810 happens to be a commonly found unit in the used market, that's why it's popular. Otherwise, as you note, the extra transparency features are not particularly useful - unless you also process your own film and have an interest in calibrating that aspect of your photography. As for the dyes, you are right again: these are densitometers, not spectros and they are meant for photo dyes. But in the case of digital bw printing the 810 is mostly used in so-called "visual" mode, ie. it doesn't report color values but overall density. It is currently cheaper to buy a used 810 than a bw reflective-only densitometer with similar specs; i.e. one that is as consistent in its readings over time, as solidly built and as capable of reading into the deep shadows as the 810. The Eye One is the next step up, perhaps, but at 3 or 4 times the expense. It makes sense if one is also calibrating digital color processes. Antonis --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitri Katsaros" <dcka@y...> wrote: > Hi all, > > I took another look at the specs on the 810 and found that it also > measures transmissive densities. Now, since I assume everyone is > using paper, why would it be a good idea to pay for this extra > functionality? Also, I recently learned that photographic > densitometers are calibrated for photo dyes (CYM) instead of process > dyes (CMY) so doesn't this also present a problem? > > Thanks > Dimitri Katsaros
Message
Re: Is the X-Rite 810 really the best solution?
2003-09-27 by Antonis Ricos
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.