Datacolor User to User Support Group.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "elvissivle77"
<rasianator@...> wrote:
>
> Hello to Everyone,
> 
> I work for  a university photo dept which is in need of print
profiling solution for our Epson 
> printers. We currently have the Spyder2 monitor calibrator,which
seems to work fine, but I 
> think it's time to start creating custom icc profiles for our
printers to fine tune our color 
> workflow. As it stands now we are using Epson profiles, which don't
match up close enough 
> for our liking; a lot of paper/ink being wasted on test strips and
so on. I know that prices for 
> custom profiling software can cost an upwards of few $1000. My
question: does anyone have 
> an opinion as to whether or not the Spyder3 would be sufficient in
creating profiles for this 
> type of environment or would we be better off spending the extra $$
for the higher end 
> systems? For those of you with experience, is there a significantly
noticeable difference 
> between the quality of Epsons canned profiles vs those made with the
Spyder3? Pardon my 
> ignorance on the subject; this is my first venture into custom
profiling and I want to be sure 
> that purchasing a system will be money well spent. TIA
>

Can you get better, most likely.  A lot will depend on what all you
do, and on how many different printers and media are used.  Since it's
mostly photo work, it will work well enough especially since you'll
have work study students to read patches which is not automated.  It
is much better than the canned profiles for most media once you get
away from the Atkinson/Epson combo's.  The only real reason to step up
from this would be if you have the need to profile a lot of media and
often, where an auto reader would be most rewarding.