ColorMunki vs Epson's profiles

[walter.sk]

I'm using the Epson 4900 and have so far tried the Epson Premium Luster, Premium Glossy, and Enhanced Matte papers with the supplied Epson profiles  They seem to be pretty good, after softproofing in CS5 and adjusting the softproofed images to regain as much as possible of the original image.

Has anybody with the 4900 done profiling of Epson paper with the ColorMunki and compared results with the Epson profiles?  While I certainly will use the Munki to profile non-Epson papers I'd rather not spend time and resources profiling Epson paper unless somebody here found the Munki profiles to be better than Epson's.

[dgberg]

My opinion only,others may certainly vary.
Save your time. The Epson profiles are that good. (7900/9900)
When I purchased my Munki I fooled around with making new profiles and comparing them.
Half were about the same and the other half were worse.
Bottom line,put your efforts in another direction.
I use it for monitor profiling and workshop demonstrations.

[simdoc1]

I compared ColorMunki profiles for Exhibition Fiber and Premium Luster with the Epson standard profiles. The results were "different" but not necessarily "better". I liked the ColorMunki Exhibition Fiber result a lot but I think the difference is more a matter of taste than absolute fidelity.

Jeff

[walter.sk]

Thanks, Jeff and Dan for your replies.  I guess I'll stick with the Epson profiles until I see a problem, and I'll save the Munki for non-Epson papers.

[Light Seeker]

FWIW I have found my ColorMunki profiles, when I use the ArgyllCMS to drive it, to be better than the manufacturer profiles (speaking generally and not specifically about Epson profiles). You have to dig deeper technically, and be comfortable with using a command line interface, to use the ArgyllCMS.

Just an FYI.

Terry.

[texshooter]

I compared my Color Munki ICC profile to the canned one on this photo after calibrating my monitor

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/110250/sample-34?inalbum=canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-beta-preview-gallery

Result: The Color Munki print was more true to the orginal as displayed on the calibrated monitor. The CM profiled print was not necessaryily better, but more true to the original photo. Because accruacy is just as important as aesethics, I'm glad I bought the Munki.

[Farmer]

Tex - the discussion is regarding printer profiles, not monitor profiles.  No one here (well, OK, there are a couple I think) would disagree that a properly calibration/profiled monitor is a good thing.  Whether you'll see a benefit with a custom profile done with a Color Munki for your prints compared to the canned profiles (in this case from Epson) is debatable, particularly if the person creating the profiles is less experienced.

[texshooter]

I may be less experienced, but I followed the Color Munki instructions to the letter, and all I'm saying is that the CM print gave different results, albeit minor, than the canned print.  I understand that monitors are inconsequential to printer/paper profiling, but I thought it might be noteworthy to share with the op that my anecdodal experience proved, at least in a subjective way, that CM profiled prints can yield qualitatively more desireable results than vendor icc prints. In my case the CM print was more desirable because it was more consistent with the displayed image. Therefore, while deciding whether to buy the Munki or not, i would consider the role that the monitor plays in this context... unless one is only interested in printing images without creative digital editing.

[Farmer]

Being a closer match to the monitor makes it creatively better how?

I'm not saying don't make custom profiles but I am saying don't assume that they'll be better (however you might define better).

[BobDavid]

I used to make custom profiles for all media with an i1Display Pro for my 7800 and 9800 Epson printers. When I got the 9900, I compared my custom profiles to the canned Epson profiles. The canned Epson profiles are better. My custom profile for Ilford Gold Fiber Silk was better than the ICC profile that I downloaded from the website a few years ago. The Hahn Baryta Photo Rag profile from the Hahnemuhle website is about the same, maybe a tad better than my custom profiles. The canned Epson profiles for the 900 series are damn good.

[GaryBarker]

The ColorMunki is a good product. It seems to me it has a place when one needs to build a profile and timing is the critical factor. It also is nice when you are needing profiles for older generation printers that the paper manufacturer may not have access to. It produces a good profile.

Epson uses more precise and higher quality devices to build their profiles. There is a difference and often it is noticeable. The ColorMunki technically speaking would be a step down in terms of overall profile quality.

Again, the ColorMuniki is a versatile device and creates an often acceptable profile but definitively it is not superior to Epson's profiles. We offer custom profiling as well to our customers and these profiles or ones created similarly would also exceed the output potential of a profile created with a ColorMunki.