Differences in monitor calibration btwn ColorMunki Photo and ColorMunki Display

[dwnelson]

I own a ColorMunki Display and I rented a ColorMunki Photo to make some printer profiles. When I tried calibrating my monitor with the ColorMunki Photo the white balance calibration is comparable, but the luminance values are incredibly different! The ColorMunki Photo monitor profile is much darker. I am using a 2011 iMac 27" and when I use the profile from the ColorMunki Photo I have the brightness up to the max level, while with the ColorMunki Display profile I have to turn it down to about 50%.

Anyone care to explain the difference? With such similar products I'd expect some more consistency in the luminance values.

Here's a wild guess: Maybe the ColorMunki Photo profile is darker so that the users won't complain about their prints coming out too dark when they crank up the brightness settings? This may not be the case for the ColorMunki Display because it does not generate printer profiles.

I think the technology is different as well, so perhaps that has an influence as well (the terms "spectrophotometer" and "colorimeter" are floating around in my head but I can't remember which has which - someone who is more knowledgeable in this regard, feel free to correct me .

[neil snape]

The Photo is a spectrophotometer working in a radio mode measuring emissive light.

The Display is a hi tech recent colorimeter with very modern matrixes for the best of LCD screens.

Yet the reported measurement s have to be correlated to a user set point or default lum value.
If your lum values are vastly different it is in this software setting or in a worst case scenario one of the two devices.

Since I have worked with both of these devices I cannot see much variation between devices, nor with an i1Pro.

If there is anything I could suggest is to throw out all preference files for the apps and try again.

You did calibrate them as designed before making the screen profiles?

[dwnelson]

I used the "Easy" calibration mode for both, so I didn't specifically change any defaults of the calibration. I have since returned the CM Photo, so I no longer have an opportunity to fiddle with it. Maybe I will call customer support. I had never previously calibrated my screens.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "You did calibrate them as designed before making the screen profiles?"

I can think of another couple of factors. I think the CM Display measures ambient light in the room while the CM Photo doesn't. I was working in a mostly dark room though, so that would probably favor less luminance in the CM Display profile.

Another option is that the CM Photo isn't designed for the LED screen of the most recent iMac?

[Wayne Fox]

perhaps one was doing ambient light correction and the other wasn't?  This can affect luminance quite a bit.

[dwnelson]

perhaps one was doing ambient light correction and the other wasn't?  This can affect luminance quite a bit.

The CM Display measures ambient light in the Easy Mode, but I was in a relatively dark room. The CM Photo allows for ambient light correction in the Advanced Mode, which I didn't use. (Being new to monitor calibration, I chose the "Easy" mode for both CM Display and CM Photo.) This would make me think that, if anything, the CM Display profile would result in less luminance than the CM Photo profile. I got the opposite result.