2. You can make SpyderPrint profile to be more accurate, but there will be a small set of colors that will be noticeably off, darker than they should be.
3. Generating a profile in SpyderPrint using the grey patches sheet comes up with good accuracy, except the gamut is very small in comparison. But the tonal curve is very good.
4. In order to generate the best profile in SpyderPrint, you need to start with the "expert" profile without the sheet with grey patches, reset the white point, and manipulate both the brightness and saturation sliders. In other words, you need to carefully edit the profile to a noticeable degree. But no amount of work will improve those outliers. This may be a limitation of the measuring device. The gamut still ends up being smaller than Colormunki.
5. The Colormunki is noticeably more accurate than the default profile created by SpyderPrint, with in gamut and accuracy.
I am thinking using the enhance profile function of Colormunki with the appropriate image. This should enhance the gamut and accuracy which should end up even a better profile. I will try this next. I still am *very* impressed with Colormunki, both gamut and accuracy, considering the two 50-50 patch sheets, and it is a "brain dead" approach to generating profiles. IMO so far I am finding that the generate profile can be as good as or a bit better than the stock profiles supplied for a paper. Then there always is the cryptic and totally manual approach of the AgryllCMS software.
PS: Thank you ColorThink Pro! I still have much to learn. And I did most of my testing with the inexpensive Epson Photo Glossy paper.
Thank you! Just for shits and giggles, I decided to profile my monitor with the Colormunki. The Spyder4Elite did an "OK" job, not as good as I expected for the caliber of my monitor. I am using the Spectraview II software on my NEC PA242W-BK monitor. So I then used the Colormunki Photo with the Spectraview software. The results were very very good. I used to own a Lacie 321 calibrated with Blue Eye Pro. I have never seen, by far, such good calibrated specs from any monitor that I have owned. This software evidently took advantage of what the Colormunki spectrophotometer is capable of. I am now very pleased with my new monitor. If this is any indication, the Colormunki with the right software, like the AgryllCMS, can produce excellent results. Perhaps my thought of a purchase of the i1 Pro 2 may be a bit premature.
Don't forget to try DispcalGUI with Argyll and the ColorMunki, for monitor calibration. It goes into very fine detail and can take a long, unattended, processing time, but the results are excellent and you have control over all the settings.
i1 Display Pro (colorimeter) is very good for profiling monitors. With this instrument I can do a hardware calibration with my Dell U3014. It does only hardware calibrate the Dell U-series monitors with the X-rite software that comes with the monitors. But maybe it's possible to use with other capable monitors but then with other programs. I think you can hardware profile the HP Dreamvision monitor with the Calman software and maybe also other capable monitors (but not the Dell U-series what I know).
I prefer a used i1 Pro spectrophotometer for printer calibration as it comes with a very good slider/ruler. I use ArgyllCMS and scan the patches along the short side of an A4- or Letter size patch. In this way I can get more patches to read with the slider/ruler (that has a mechanical limitation how long patches it can read). I have managed to get very good results on either one A4 or Letter Size, two A4 or Letter Size or one A4 or Letter size with precalibration on one A5 or Halfletter size paper. I have not gone too far with patch size and use a width about 9mm not to get too many misreads (actually usually zero after I've learned a good technique). The results are mostly equal or better in gamut than the paper manufaturers profiles (in one case with SIHL Lustre RC-paper was their profile better according to gamut analyzed with Colorvision). As I use third party ink manufacturers profiles is not an alternative.
I got an i1 Pro without UV-filter. I do almost only use papers without UV-brighteners and it's possible to compensate for the brighteners in software with RC-papers but I've not quite learned yet how to do that with ArgyllCMS. Maybe someone can tell how to do that?
A lot of members here on the forum get excellent results with the Colormunki spectrophotometer with ArgyllCMS but I think it's good (or necessary?) to make a slider/ruler to get reliable results if you want to use more and smaller patches to save papers for profiling. You can find out about that on the forum.
sorry to wake up this thread, @Robert Graham, how do you scan with the spyder print? For my part, I do patch by patch with the 255 patches. I tried the 729 option but I didn't see any noticeable difference. I also use a think non-OBA paper under the target sheet.
Glossy paper is super tricky with the spyder print since it contains OBAs and the spyder print does not have the components to not analyze that correctly. However, on fine art paper for my part, I think it works quite well. (I don't have a color munki, or 1i pro so I can not compare)