I’ve learned to be ruthless on my images over the years. Everything that is technically bad, boring, repeated goes to bin. I might leave some imperfect photos if I don’t have similar technically good ones. That’s before PP. After processing I delete most originals leaving only the processed jpegs. I archive raws only for images I might want to try different processing - king of “artistic” stuff, ones that I processed to BW and like that. Also for paid shoots. In very rare cases I might regret that I no longer have raw for some image - but the overall experience of browsing the archive and backup space required is much better now.

So divide the price (let’s say 2000) by sessions (300) - it’s around 7 per session. If it bothers you - your price is way too low.

Can’t see what exactly do you have there, but that’s definitely quite valuable. That’s a large format Linhof enlarger and probably a Linhof camera - these are NOT cheap. Try to find someone local who could check the condition for a better understanding what you have there.

I’m calibrating monitors for a similar period probably. And I also started with Spyder. These display calibrators age quite fast in theory - you should replace them every 2-3 years. I just started using spectrophotometers instead - but I’m lucky to have them at work. They are much more expensive to buy and have their own shortcommings. As you have similar experience from the beginning - probably this isn’t the issue. Also older Spyders don’t work with wide gamut monitors - not sure if you monitors have wide gamut. Also monitors with TN panels don’t calibrate too well - although I tried some and there was an improvement.

Overall after longer use of uncalibrated monitor calibration always looks dull and sometimes have some tint - it’s just our brain needs to adjust. But the result speaks for itself. I work in print and have access to colour proofing equipment - calibrated screen looks really close to calibrated print. But! It mostly differs from phones, other screens. Also not all printers have colour accurate equipment. By doing calibration you are reducing deviations from your side - but there are a lot of weak links left in the chain. So depending on your needs visual matching to other screens or print (if you can’t access colour accurate printing service) might work better than calibration. Although I prefer to have my screen as the starting point which I can more or less rely to be accurate.

Not sure if all this novel is usefull at all :) Just wanted to share my experience.

What tools do you use for calibration?

Best advice would be to contact the printers and follow their recomendations. Different printers have different level of understanding colour management and different approaches to it. In general best way is to keep things simple - no fancy profiles of colour spaces, just default industry standart ones. Printers will apply what’s needed on their side.