Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers  (Read 5631 times)

nigeldh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
    • http://www.luminousnature.com
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« on: May 06, 2008, 04:16:25 pm »

What I really love about the ColorMunki is how fast it is when doing printer profiles. Just roll the device over the color patch strip.
Versus having to read a bunch of individual color patches. And the profiles that I have done seem to match monitor to soft proof to printed image. I even tried a 3rd pass to optimize one of the profiles for a particular image but it didn't seem to be needed.

While a bunch of folks seem to have issues with the software, as someone who can usually break most software, the ColorMunki has been solid for me.
The only issue I saw was when doing a 3rd printer profile is that there is no option for "test strip has already been printed." So you have to print the test strip again if you clicked on the back button. Also, the Windows Printer dialog box is used so if the printer you are reprofiling isn't the default printer, you have to change the printer.

Maybe if I had enough extra money, spending several thousand dollars on an auto reader for patches like the i1 iO Scanning Table or auto chart reader would be worth it. But right now I will go for the 80% of the functionality for 20% of the cost.

My warts with the hardware is that the sensor dial is hard to grip to turn. So someone with weak hands, or limited mobility, would have trouble using it.
Logged

Scho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
    • http://photos.schophoto.com/
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2008, 04:25:12 pm »

You can also just print to a PDF file to get around the issue of having to re-print a target.  CM doesn't know or care whether you print to paper or a file.

Quote
What I really love about the ColorMunki is how fast it is when doing printer profiles. Just roll the device over the color patch strip.
Versus having to read a bunch of individual color patches. And the profiles that I have done seem to match monitor to soft proof to printed image. I even tried a 3rd pass to optimize one of the profiles for a particular image but it didn't seem to be needed.

While a bunch of folks seem to have issues with the software, as someone who can usually break most software, the ColorMunki has been solid for me.
The only issue I saw was when doing a 3rd printer profile is that there is no option for "test strip has already been printed." So you have to print the test strip again if you clicked on the back button. Also, the Windows Printer dialog box is used so if the printer you are reprofiling isn't the default printer, you have to change the printer.

Maybe if I had enough extra money, spending several thousand dollars on an auto reader for patches like the i1 iO Scanning Table or auto chart reader would be worth it. But right now I will go for the 80% of the functionality for 20% of the cost.

My warts with the hardware is that the sensor dial is hard to grip to turn. So someone with weak hands, or limited mobility, would have trouble using it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

almeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2008, 04:44:37 pm »

Quote
What I really love about the ColorMunki is how fast it is when doing printer profiles. Just roll the device over the color patch strip.
Versus having to read a bunch of individual color patches. And the profiles that I have done seem to match monitor to soft proof to printed image. I even tried a 3rd pass to optimize one of the profiles for a particular image but it didn't seem to be needed.

While a bunch of folks seem to have issues with the software, as someone who can usually break most software, the ColorMunki has been solid for me.
The only issue I saw was when doing a 3rd printer profile is that there is no option for "test strip has already been printed." So you have to print the test strip again if you clicked on the back button. Also, the Windows Printer dialog box is used so if the printer you are reprofiling isn't the default printer, you have to change the printer.

Maybe if I had enough extra money, spending several thousand dollars on an auto reader for patches like the i1 iO Scanning Table or auto chart reader would be worth it. But right now I will go for the 80% of the functionality for 20% of the cost.

My warts with the hardware is that the sensor dial is hard to grip to turn. So someone with weak hands, or limited mobility, would have trouble using it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I re-did a previously made profile, I found that, for the 1st (standard) test strip/page, there was an option like "Test Page already Printed."  That was good, I just re-measured the one I had printed.  Then, the SW seemed to insist that I re-print the second (custom) strip (which of course I had printed when I made the original profile).  I discoverd that if you click as if to print, then Cancel the printer dialog that comes up (on Windows, anyway), it will merrily move on to the next step, allowing you to reuse the 2nd page you had previously printed.
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2008, 05:16:52 pm »

Quote
What I really love about the ColorMunki is how fast it is when doing printer profiles. Just roll the device over the color patch strip. Versus having to read a bunch of individual color patches.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its wicked fast if you are used to a Datacolor PrintFix Pro, that's true but the XRite iSis, DTP70 and iO devices still win for speed and media optimization.

I've been testing the munki targets and color engine for a full year now and we have been using the above mentioned spectros for target measurements before the munki device prototypes were even out. Now that the munki device is out I'd rather keep measuring the targets in ColorPort with a faster spectro and up the patch count a bit.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

almeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2008, 05:49:48 pm »

Quote
Its wicked fast if you are used to a Datacolor PrintFix Pro, that's true but the XRite iSis, DTP70 and iO devices still win for speed and media optimization.

I've been testing the munki targets and color engine for a full year now and we have been using the above mentioned spectros for target measurements before the munki device prototypes were even out. Now that the munki device is out I'd rather keep measuring the targets in ColorPort with a faster spectro and up the patch count a bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do you edit your profiles after creation?  I have been able to edit any profile I've made or bought with Kodak Custom Color Tools (focusing on the soft proof tabels), but it won't work with Color Munki profiles (causes a CS3 have-to-close error at the profile creation step).  Do you know of anything that *can* edit a Color Munki profile?

Al Mecklenburg
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2008, 06:23:51 pm »

Quote
Do you edit your profiles after creation?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I try to avoid profile editing at all costs. If a profile isn't perfect to begin with I'd rather get to the root of the problem than put a band-aid on the problem (ie: edit the profile).
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

almeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2008, 10:21:12 pm »

Quote
I try to avoid profile editing at all costs. If a profile isn't perfect to begin with I'd rather get to the root of the problem than put a band-aid on the problem (ie: edit the profile).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193961\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I edit a profile, it has always been to improve the Soft Proofing tables, never the PCS to Device side of things.  Profiles I've made myself (with Color Munki) and others I've had made (local Pictureline, Cathy's) have printed output that all comes out "reasonable" (e.g., no clearly wrong shades, no tone reversals in a grey scale step wedge, ...).  It's always seemed to me that if I could just get the soft proofed image (on the monitor) to "acceptably" match the print, then I could proceed with confidence in making final corrections to the soft-proofed image I see on the screen (resulting in a print that matches what I saw closely enough that I don't feel compelled to change something and re-print).

However, I've only been at this for a year, and could be looking at things in the wrong way.  Perhaps I am expecting too much from the soft proof.  It would be great to see, on a single canvas, a test image, and a re-touched version that represents what an expert would judge as an "acceptable" difference between a soft-proofed monitor image and the printed output (perhaps the re-touched part is a bit less saturated, maybe the yellows are a bit greener, whatever).

I do try to standardize the lighting conditions for viewing a print, using a home-made, adjustable brightness 6500K light box (parts cost ~$400).  But maybe, as I said, I'm expecting too much.
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2008, 11:51:58 pm »

Quote
It's always seemed to me that if I could just get the soft proofed image (on the monitor) to "acceptably" match the print, then I could proceed with confidence in making final corrections to the soft-proofed image I see on the screen (resulting in a print that matches what I saw closely enough that I don't feel compelled to change something and re-print).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps 1) your display calibration isn't optimal or 2) your lighting and environment isn't optimal or 3) a combination of them both.

Do the white's onscreen match the whites of your paper when viewed under your lighting both in terms of color and luminance? Have you considered inexpensive Solux 4100K lighting?
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

nigeldh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
    • http://www.luminousnature.com
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2008, 01:48:38 pm »

Quote
Its wicked fast if you are used to a Datacolor PrintFix Pro, that's true but the XRite iSis, DTP70 and iO devices still win for speed and media optimization.
....

I agree but there is a big difference between ~$500 and over $3000 for a printer profiling solution. It is nice when you have the customers that will pay for your business to have 60" ink jet printers, high end color monitoring that you run several times a day, etc.
[In the early 1980's I started and ran a film processing lab for a number of years.]
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2008, 02:10:21 pm »

Quote
I do try to standardize the lighting conditions for viewing a print, using a home-made, adjustable brightness 6500K light box (parts cost ~$400).  But maybe, as I said, I'm expecting too much.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you tell us more about the 6500K light box?  What is the light source?  6500K is generally thought to be less than optimum for viewing prints.  Most people prefer a light source between 3200K and 4900K.

Scott mentions the Solux bulbs as the spectral analysis on those is excellent.  You might want to check them out [a href=\"http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/index.html]here.[/url]  The Solux halogen bulbs are reasonably priced.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 02:10:54 pm by rdonson »
Logged
Regards,
Ron

neil snape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
    • http://www.neilsnape.com
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2008, 02:19:50 pm »

Quote
Perhaps 1) your display calibration isn't optimal or 2) your lighting and environment isn't optimal or 3) a combination of them both.

Do the white's onscreen match the whites of your paper when viewed under your lighting both in terms of color and luminance? Have you considered inexpensive Solux 4100K lighting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Aren't the Solux bulb rated at 4700 K?

4100 is too low, 4700 much closer to the reference. I still use Just Normlicht lights supposedly 5000 K but a match to the monitor is more like 5350 K . With most papers I use having OBA, I should be using Solux bulbs. It really takes out a lot of variables in proofing.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2008, 02:39:05 pm »

Hi Neil,

Solux bulbs are available in:  3500K, 4100K, 4700K and 5000K.

Doesn't which one you choose depend on where the print will be placed?  For example, many of the galleries around here have 3500K lighting.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2008, 09:17:03 pm »

Quote
4100 is too low, 4700 much closer to the reference. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As someone with all of the Solux bulbs I find the 4100K bulbs not only provide the best print to screen matching (as Solux recommends) but is neither too cool or too warm. This is a funny conversation to start via text but the lighting color temperature has a psychological influence upon the viewer. When one walks into a room lit with 5000K lighting there can be a feeling like one has just entered a sterile, hospital-like enviournment. When one walks into an inandescent lit room at 2650K one gets a warm and fuzzy feeling that leads to relaxation. This feeling affects the viewer. I find 4100K to be the perfect "happy medium." When poeple enter a room lit at 4100K they have neither of the above described feelings - it just feels right, IMO.

I spent most of the 90s working as a drum scan operator doing critical reproductions for museums under 5000K lighting but have found the move to 4100K to be a welcome change. My expensive 5000K viewing booth doesn't get much attention these days. Try it for yourself! The bulbs are inexpensive.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

neil snape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
    • http://www.neilsnape.com
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2008, 03:04:55 am »

Quote
Hi Neil,

Solux bulbs are available in:  3500K, 4100K, 4700K and 5000K.

Doesn't which one you choose depend on where the print will be placed?  For example, many of the galleries around here have 3500K lighting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay I didn't know that. Roger Breton said the 5000 K bulbs need more voltage something like 13.8 V to attain 4900 K which may be searchable on the Colorsync users forum.
As Scott said, the perception is largely tied to the K temperature so the most pleasing light maybe a long way off the standard reference viewing light.

That said, in a mixed daylight/contone light gallery, 5000 K bulbs would be the closest match albeit the tungsten would be weak in output.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2008, 09:10:39 am »

According to Phil at Solux, they made 5000K more for "marketing" (because people who don't necessarily know better demanded them) than anything else. Solux has never proposed that their bulbs correlate exactly to what folks think they want and often recommend 4100 or 4700K bulbs depending on your goals. I think Phil once suggested for the most pleasing rendering (say large prints you just want to view in a gallery), 3500K are almost always preferred.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2008, 09:19:14 am »

Quote
I think Phil once suggested for the most pleasing rendering (say large prints you just want to view in a gallery), 3500K are almost always preferred.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right! Philip Bradfield (the creator of Solux lighting) recommends 3500K for home and gallery print display and 4100K for work environments where prints are made, compared to the screen and critically judged. I find these recommendations to be very wise.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

almeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
ColorMunki is wicked fast for profiling printers
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2008, 12:41:01 pm »

Quote
Can you tell us more about the 6500K light box?  What is the light source?  6500K is generally thought to be less than optimum for viewing prints.  Most people prefer a light source between 3200K and 4900K.

Scott mentions the Solux bulbs as the spectral analysis on those is excellent.  You might want to check them out here.  The Solux halogen bulbs are reasonably priced.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ron:

The key components in my home made light box are:

Phillips F17T8/TL865/PLUS 17 watt 24 inch lamps (6500K) (2), $13 each
Lutron Dimming ballast for 2 T8 17w bulbs (the one I bought cast about $90)
Lutron SF-10P dimmer (about $60)

I am also experimenting with some 5000K bulbs, but am having other thoughts based on comments by you and others in this thread re using Solux 4100-4700K, either in a box or to light the whole room.  I will definitely give Solux a try.

Al
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up