My Colormunki will not read patches printed on metal?

[dgberg]

My first 2 profiles on photo papers went great.
The third was printed on aluminum and after drying 15 minutes the Colormunki could not get past the first row of patches. Tried it a half dozen times.
The ink could have dried longer but do not think that was the problem.
Any ideas?

[dgberg]

Just got off the phone with Xrite tech support and they tell me it will not work because of reflective issues.
He also said the i1 is no different.
Any suggestions for a work around?
My main reason for the purchase was to profile metals.
Boy I'm glad I did not buy the i1.

[eddysmit]

Maybe you can put a very thin and neutral page of lime paper over the print.

[Greg_E]

I believe you need one of these products:
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?id=250
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?id=251

Call and verify before you purchase and check to make sure you can get the data into your profiling software. COlorport used to support the SP series, but I haven't checked the latest version to make sure it is still there.

[dgberg]

Greg,
Was all excited until I saw the price,$7880.00.
The perfect reason to send my 4 metal samples out for profiling to someone that has one.
Maybe a couple of hundred dollars+ for the profiles and done.

[Ethan Hansen]

Measuring aluminum gets tricky with standard 45/0 geometry spectros. Machines that rely on contrast differences between patches get more confused still. Sometimes it is possible to build your own target with arranging patches to maximize the patch-to-patch contrast differences, but this is neither something that CololrPort can do nor easy to automate without measuring the target colors first. If you want, shoot me an email or PM and we can make you a profile for one of your papers for no charge.

[dgberg]

Ethan,
Sent you an email.
Thanks for the help.

[Victor Engel]

Just an idea here. The problem is not with the color but the reflectivity of the metal. If you were able to modify the reflectivity without modifying the color, perhaps you'd have a solution. Maybe that could be accomplished by imparting a texture to the metal.  Maybe sanding or beating it with a textured surface of some kind. I don't know -- grasping at straws here. The thing is, aluminum oxidizes pretty quickly, and the more texture you apply, the more of it has contact with the air, so you may get a slight color shift. But aluminum oxide is white, whereas pure aluminum is silver, so I'm guessing there wouldn't be a significant color shift. Worth a try? Anodizing the aluminum just right may be just the ticket.

[eddysmit]

Victor, I don't think they listen to solutions if they don't cost a fortune.
I was thinking about taking the reflection away with lime paper, tracing paper or maybe matte spray?
No reaction at all...

[fike]

does this mean that colormunki is a poor choice to profile glossy papers too?  What about pearl papers? If the problem is reflectivity, I would think glossy papers would display the same problem.

[dgberg]

does this mean that colormunki is a poor choice to profile glossy papers too?  What about pearl papers? If the problem is reflectivity, I would think glossy papers would display the same problem.

Good question. If you look at my other post about my first profile comparison between Lexjets metallic oem profile and my munki-Photo chrome paper profile.
Is it a possibility that the munki just cannot do such a great job on these shiny surfaces?
New munki profile is the smaller on.
Sorry in advance,I guess I should have put both of these posts into one.

[Alan Goldhammer]

does this mean that colormunki is a poor choice to profile glossy papers too?  What about pearl papers? If the problem is reflectivity, I would think glossy papers would display the same problem.

I have profiled Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, Museo Silver Rag, Canson Rag Photographique and a couple of others and the profiles are fine.  I evaluate my profiles against the manufacturer's using Jack Flesher's test print.  In each case I find mine superior (Epson 3880).  I don't print on real glossy papers and stay away from papers with lots of OBAs (Epson Exhibition Fibre).

[fike]

I think the questions is more than just will it profile a semi gloss or pearl finish, but whether it's accuracy suffers as the surface becomes shinier. 

Is it optimal for a matte surface, but suboptimal for a shiny surface? Is there more variability or error in the shiny samples?

[Greg_E]

Cost has nothing to do with it, success was the only intention in my suggestion. Check ebay and see if you get lucky in finding a spherical device that is still supported by Colorport. Spherical devices are the only ones that can accurately do this kind of work. This is like asking your reflective spectro to make you a transmissive material (clear film) profile, there are ways to do it and get results, but the only correct way is with a transmissive spectro or a reflective with calibrated light source (Spectoscan/Lino). Also keep in mind that these spherical devices are a single patch at a time device, be prepared for the time it takes to measure a large target.

That said the i1 does a somewhat reasonable job if it is a brushed aluminum surface, a highly polished surface will not work well. The Munki may just be less able to cope with the oddities.

FYI you can get the same issues when you are profiling inkjet printable CD/DVD disks, if the coating is not very thick you get a lot of light bouncing off the mirror back into the spectro which can ruin the profile.

My suggestion would be to find a profile that does a decent job and tweak it to where you are happy.