Are color calibration devices generally a worthwhile investment?
Profiling your monitor is probably the single most worthwhile step you can take towards getting accurate colour. Right at the moment the best devices seem to be the Monaco Optix XR Pro and the GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display. It’s also worth mentioning that CRTs still tend to do a better job of rendering images accurately than LCDs, most particularly in the shadow detail. Profiling your printer isn’t quite so clear cut. Epson provide paper-specific profiles for many of their printers and the quality of these is generally very good, to the point where you’re unlikely to get better results unless you’re willing to make a significant investment in a device such as the GretagMacbeth Eye-One Photo.
when I worked at the prepress house I used to simply print a test photo off the printer then calabrate the monitor to match it as close as possible. We used the carmen fruit hat photo that came with photoshop, Your monitor will never look the same but you might get close, at least try to match the luminosity and contrast. We did that once a week and it worked better than any calibration machine.
Mosch, LCDs are definitely getting better although the only ones I’m aware of that can genuinely compete with the best CRTs are the Eizo CG series. I have one of these – the CG18 – and can certainly vouch for the fact that it shows none of the usual problems I’d associate with LCDs such as poor greyscale linearity or a lack of shadow detail. The new CG220 goes one step further in being the first LCD able to display the full AdobeRGB gamut, but it’s hugely expensive. If you’re interested in the subject it’s worth keeping an eye on the Colour Management forum on Rob Galbraith’s site – discussions around displays and calibration devices turn up pretty often and there are some knowledgeable people (e.g. Ethan Hansen of Dry Creek Photo mentioned above) involved.
