Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Henry Goh on September 11, 2008, 04:32:14 pm
-
I'm considering buying a calibrator for profiling my Epson. Is the Colormunki ready because earlier on I read a few negative posts about it, including Andrew Rodney's unhappiness with the software. I really need to get something simple for this task. As for monitor calibration, I've got the old Eye One display and it works fine for me.
Thanks for any fast replies.
Henry
-
no one using Colormunki?
-
Hi,
Mine is working perfect...
Erik
I'm considering buying a calibrator for profiling my Epson. Is the Colormunki ready because earlier on I read a few negative posts about it, including Andrew Rodney's unhappiness with the software. I really need to get something simple for this task. As for monitor calibration, I've got the old Eye One display and it works fine for me.
Thanks for any fast replies.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Not sure about if the bugs have been resolved or not...i have been using mine for the past couple months on Tiger with no issues. Done several profiles that are really really good ones...
People may still have issues with either leopard or Vista though. I am happy with it.
-
Thank you both. I've ordered one from B&H a few hours ago.
-
Please let us know whether you think it makes high quality profiles.
-
Not sure about if the bugs have been resolved or not...i have been using mine for the past couple months on Tiger with no issues.
Ditto, on this end, Leopard.
-
UPS was late today so they will deliver tomorrow morning. I should be able to run the software for the first time tomorrow night. So far I have installed the software but without activating it, I won't know if there is any problem yet.
-
I have just calibrated my Dell 2408 LCD panel with Colormunki. It went without a hitch. I tried both the EASY and ADVANCED modes and both are as straightforward. I next profiled my Epson Stylus Pro 4000 with Premium Luster 250 paper. I found the process simple and fast. The resulting prints are also much better than the prints I made with Epson's canned profiles.
The only thing I look forward to is for X-Rite to polish their software further. Small improvements like allowing me to move the target area for the spectro would be nice since OSD for some monitors don't allow you to position the display off-centre and can be a little inconvenient when making adjustments. Other than that, I'm most happy for what I have bought. I had for so long wanted to buy the Eye One Photo to do this profiling but found prices to be high and read that scanning back the printouts from the printer to be tedious and slow.
I'm doing this on a PC running Windows XP SP3, Quad Core on ASUS P5Q-E, with 4Gb RAM, for those worrying about running Colormunki on Windows.
-
Henry, thanks for that report. It's very encouraging.
Mark
-
No problems here also.
Instal was smooth, did 6 print profiles, haven't tested them yet but I'm sure they will be better than the canned profiles from the paper manufacturers. Running on 10.5.5.
Mike
-
Mike, once you've tested them please let us know your observations.
Mark
-
Mark,
Will do. I hope to have a few hours for myself this weekend and I'll lock the door of the studio and indulge in my twin pleasures......... Printing and Jack Daniel's........
Mike
-
I've done a couple of prints this afternoon using the profiles I made with the ColorMunki.
First up was Hahnemuele Bamboo, never used this paper before so I've nothing to compare it to but the print was outstanding. Very happy with the result.
Next I used Ilford GFS, I have used quite a bit of this paper and had lots of problems with it. The profiles on Ilfords site (for the 5000) do not work well with the 5100 but a couple of forum members sent me the profiles they had made (Tom and Josh) which proved that the problem was I'm a tight Scottish b...... anyhow, the result is that the output using the profile made with the ColorMunki is excellent.
More testing later, time for the JD.
Mike
-
Mike, many thanks for taking the trouble of posting these results. It's beginning to sound better and better. I also work mainly with Ilford GFS these days and got a custom profile made, eventhough Ilford's profile for the Epson 3800 is not bad. Please do let us know your next set of results. I'm particularly interested in observations about how well it reproduces shadow detail and how reliably the colour and tonality of the prints compare with the display under soft-proof, assuming you are using a calibrated and profiled display at appropriate brightness level.
Mark
-
I have just finished profiling Epson Enhanced Matte paper. I have always found the dark tone in this paper to be too sudden. The dark tones jump to black quickly so you cannot get gradual darkening with the canned profiles. After the CM profile was made, I printed a low key portrait and found the print to be much better and I'm getting nice gradual dark tones. Although I rarely use this paper, I now have renewed urge to use this paper for some images.
Hope this is news worthy for some of you.
-
Mike, many thanks for taking the trouble of posting these results. It's beginning to sound better and better. I also work mainly with Ilford GFS these days and got a custom profile made, eventhough Ilford's profile for the Epson 3800 is not bad. Please do let us know your next set of results. I'm particularly interested in observations about how well it reproduces shadow detail and how reliably the colour and tonality of the prints compare with the display under soft-proof, assuming you are using a calibrated and profiled display at appropriate brightness level.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
My display is calibrated with an i1D2 but as its an iMac even on minimum brightness its still too bright. However I do feel a very good match between the display and the final print, not perfect but very good.
Like Henry said above I feel the prints I have done have a better transition to pure black (I mainly do B&W printing, film photographer here). On my monitor I can see detail in the dark areas that I want to preserve and now its there on the prints. Previously most of this was lost. As stated above the monitor is super bright so there is a slight difference here when soft proofing.
Over the next couple of day's I'll do tests with the other papers I have, Innova Smooth Cotton High White and Harman FB Al and I'll dig out some old transparencies for scanning to check the colour performance.
Mike
-
I have just finished profiling Epson Enhanced Matte paper. I have always found the dark tone in this paper to be too sudden. The dark tones jump to black quickly so you cannot get gradual darkening with the canned profiles. After the CM profile was made, I printed a low key portrait and found the print to be much better and I'm getting nice gradual dark tones. Although I rarely use this paper, I now have renewed urge to use this paper for some images.
Hope this is news worthy for some of you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, thanks Henry.
-
Mark,
My display is calibrated with an i1D2 but as its an iMac even on minimum brightness its still too bright. However I do feel a very good match between the display and the final print, not perfect but very good.
Like Henry said above I feel the prints I have done have a better transition to pure black (I mainly do B&W printing, film photographer here). On my monitor I can see detail in the dark areas that I want to preserve and now its there on the prints. Previously most of this was lost. As stated above the monitor is super bright so there is a slight difference here when soft proofing.
Over the next couple of day's I'll do tests with the other papers I have, Innova Smooth Cotton High White and Harman FB Al and I'll dig out some old transparencies for scanning to check the colour performance.
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sounds great - looking forward to your next set of results.
-
Yes, thanks Henry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And yet, you and I have had discussions with associates that claim there's no way such quality could result from only 100 patches..... <G>
-
Yes, there have been those discussions. I think this is one of those situations where seemingly well-reasoned logical premises need to be checked against actual field experience, why I'm so interested in the results which the early adopters are achieving with it. If we've now really got such a good profiling tool for around 500 bucks it opens up a lot of possibilities.
-
I have just calibrated my Dell 2408 LCD panel with Colormunki. It went without a hitch. I tried both the EASY and ADVANCED modes and both are as straightforward. I next profiled my Epson Stylus Pro 4000 with Premium Luster 250 paper. I found the process simple and fast. The resulting prints are also much better than the prints I made with Epson's canned profiles.
The only thing I look forward to is for X-Rite to polish their software further. Small improvements like allowing me to move the target area for the spectro would be nice since OSD for some monitors don't allow you to position the display off-centre and can be a little inconvenient when making adjustments. Other than that, I'm most happy for what I have bought. I had for so long wanted to buy the Eye One Photo to do this profiling but found prices to be high and read that scanning back the printouts from the printer to be tedious and slow.
I'm doing this on a PC running Windows XP SP3, Quad Core on ASUS P5Q-E, with 4Gb RAM, for those worrying about running Colormunki on Windows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Henry,
Really glad to hear you're getting a good run on your CM with XP.
I'm having no end of trouble here in OZ and not sure if it's one of the early releases.
My S/N on the base of the device is 0819-01001735.
Could I trouble you to post yours in my attempt to hassle the supplier about getting a later version?
Much appreciated if you have a moment.
Terry Hunter
-
Terry,
My CM that I bought in the states has a S/N of 0823-2xxxxx
Mike
-
I managed to do some more printing today using Ilford GFS and the profiles I had made with the CM. First though I examined the B&W prints I had made yesterday, I always feel the prints look better the day after and sure enough I could see in the two prints I did yesterday that there was an improvement in the shadow detail, very subtle but I've found this will all the prints I've done.
Today I printed some colour images (Ilford GFS/Velvia 100F) and immediately felt the prints had the wow factor that the image had on screen.
I happened to come accross some prints I had done on Ilford GFS with the profile Josh sent me for his iPF5100. Profiles were made with a Gretag MacBeth Spectro on a robot arm.
Comparing the prints (same image) done with Josh's profile and the one made with the CM (B&W image... this one... (http://www.thefieryscotsman.com/index.php?showimage=276)) there is absolutely no difference, well none that I can see.
On the colour image (same image again printed with Josh's profile and then with profile from CM.... this one.... (http://www.thefieryscotsman.com/index.php?showimage=168)), the one with Josh's profile looks a tad duller, the CM one is just a bit brighter and closer to the on screen image.
Now, I do realize that the profile Josh sent me was for his printer and not mine but I'm just posting this for comparison. I actually forgot I still had those prints and came across them by accident.
For me, I feel the CM is very good value for money.
-
I'm not 100% sure but if I were you guys who have not activated the CM on 3 computers, I would not post the serial number of your device on a forum because you may risk someone using your serial number to activate their device. In any case I'm not putting my numbers on this thread.
Terry: I'm sorry that you are still having issues with your unit and it could just as well be what you suspect but I have my theory about what may be a possible cause so if you are inclined to hear my suggestions, PM me offline.
The one thing I noticed with CM is you need to be quite careful when you use it as a colorimeter to profile your monitor. I have since re-profiled mine with my faithful old i1 display and use the CM for printer profiling. This has to do with better control over brightness settings.
Have fun
-
Henry,
Good point, I've modified my post.
Mike
-
I managed to do some more printing today using Ilford GFS and the profiles I had made with the CM. First though I examined the B&W prints I had made yesterday, I always feel the prints look better the day after and sure enough I could see in the two prints I did yesterday that there was an improvement in the shadow detail, very subtle but I've found this will all the prints I've done.
Today I printed some colour images (Ilford GFS/Velvia 100F) and immediately felt the prints had the wow factor that the image had on screen.
I happened to come accross some prints I had done on Ilford GFS with the profile Josh sent me for his iPF5100. Profiles were made with a Gretag MacBeth Spectro on a robot arm.
Comparing the prints (same image) done with Josh's profile and the one made with the CM (B&W image... this one... (http://www.thefieryscotsman.com/index.php?showimage=276)) there is absolutely no difference, well none that I can see.
On the colour image (same image again printed with Josh's profile and then with profile from CM.... this one.... (http://www.thefieryscotsman.com/index.php?showimage=168)), the one with Josh's profile looks a tad duller, the CM one is just a bit brighter and closer to the on screen image.
Now, I do realize that the profile Josh sent me was for his printer and not mine but I'm just posting this for comparison. I actually forgot I still had those prints and came across them by accident.
For me, I feel the CM is very good value for money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mike, most interesting, and many thanks for sharing these observations.
First - an observation on looking at the prints the morning after. Indeed, they do look better the next day. Reason: when you just get them out of the printer, they appear just slightly "glazed" because they are not fully dried and the non-matte ones especially are "out-gassing". Once the ink is really dry the full tonality of the image is revealed properly.
Second - I just received my copy of the September edition of Photoshop User (NAPP), wherein on page 109 there is a review of the ColorMunki Photo. First let me say that on whole I've not been overly impressed with their product reviews - it's the weakest link in an otherwise very good publication. But that said, here's what the reviewer said about the ColorMunki: "ColorMunki's profiles came up short. Neutral tones had a slight color cast and shadow details were a little blocked up. I believe the ColorMunki software would produce better results if the printed targets had more color patches to sample."
This raises a number of questions:
(1) You guys using this device - do your results in any way confirm his? (Sounds like *no* from what you say, but please elaborate).
(2) Could he have been testing a slightly defective unit?
(3) Was the manner in which he was using it correct in all respects?
What makes me a bit suspicious of this review is that I can't imagine a firm like X-Rite marketing such a product with the obvious defect of not reproducing neutral greys, because it is the first and most obvious thing any knowledgeable photographer (including their alpha/beta testers) would look for. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time well-established companies make mistakes. So I wonder...........
-
Oh - further on this review - his last sentence I quoted above seems to me speculative unless he has enough background in this branch of the mathematics of colour imaging to make such a statement. This business of the minimum acceptable number of patches for "accurate" profiling is a tired debate - not because it may not have merit - but because very likely most of the people engaging it probably don't have the necessary technical background in the higher mathematics needed to really understand it, and in some cases may not have done the empirical homework correctly enough to argue confidently from observed outcomes.
Bottom line for me: I'm interested in a wider sampling of knowledgeable users' actual experience.
-
Mark,
My display is calibrated with an i1D2
I've been lurking and following this post. There are no issues with using a different colorimeter with the ColorMunki? Any thoughts or experience with using the Colormunki in combination with the Optix Xr?
-
Second - I just received my copy of the September edition of Photoshop User (NAPP), wherein on page 109 there is a review of the ColorMunki Photo. F
This raises a number of questions:
(1) You guys using this device - do your results in any way confirm his? (Sounds like *no* from what you say, but please elaborate).
No. Just the opposite.
(2) Could he have been testing a slightly defective unit?
Anything is possible. It could be user error. And he could have scanned more patches! That's an option albeit not necessary one in all my tests.
-
I've been lurking and following this post. There are no issues with using a different colorimeter with the ColorMunki? Any thoughts or experience with using the Colormunki in combination with the Optix Xr?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No reason you can't use the OPTIX for display calibration and CM for the printer.
-
"Colormunki Photo" is the correct name of this product we have been discussing. I say this because there is also a "Colormunki Design".
Colormunki is a package comprising hardware and software. The software only recognizes it's bundled hardware. In other words, the software does not see my i1 display and hence you cannot use the software to profile the display using i1 display colorimeter. Hence when I say my display is now profiled using i1, I mean I'm using iMatch 3.6.2 with the puck (colorimeter) and not with the Munki.
I can profile the monitor with other colorimeter and software and when done, I can work on printer profiling using the Munki but only using the printer profiling option which entails printing out a target that will be allowed to dry and then scanned or read back using the Munki and its software.
Now, back to concerns about color accuracy with lesser patches: I'm no color scientist but I'm coming to my first level conclusion (which I reserve to change later on with more experience). I think by using this small number of patches, X-Rite can get a printer profiled reasonably well such that it will give you "pleasing colors" and good tonal reproduction. I'm now doing the second leg of getting more accurate printer profiles which is called Optimization of a profile. Colormunki allows you to read in an image so that it extracts the colors in that file. you get to see a thumbnail of the image while it reads. Then you are asked to print out another target to scan in. The software says that to get more accurate colors, you would want to read in more images so that each iteration yields more accurate colors. I'm now doing this while my second generation target dries before scanning.
I will post more when I get results. Hope that puts minds to ease that the initial small number of patches is not going to get you there.
-
MarkDS,
I realized about 15 or so years ago that magazines existed for only 1 reason.
To sell copy.
Magazines never give a product a bad review, they will bum up the good side of the product but gloss over the bad side.
All they are interested in is the advertising revenue.
So the next time you read a magazine review, read between the lines. The truth is out there........... lol
Mike
-
MarkDS,
I realized about 15 or so years ago that magazines existed for only 1 reason.
To sell copy.
Magazines never give a product a bad review, they will bum up the good side of the product but gloss over the bad side.
All they are interested in is the advertising revenue.
So the next time you read a magazine review, read between the lines. The truth is out there........... lol
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mike,
What we are dealing with here is the reverse. Firstly, Photoshop User isn't just a magazine. It's a membeship in an organization, of which the magazine is one benefit amongst many others. I don't know whether or not you are a member of NAPP and receive the magazine, but in case you don't know, they do publish critical reviews. They have nothing to gain or lose here except their credibility with their members. If they publish glowing reviews of everything they will not thereby increase membeship in NAPP. And in this particular case, I would have to think that the comment I quoted from their review is quite critical - perhaps undeservedly so - and that is my main issue with reviews in this particular publication - whether the quality is always adequate. It's fine to be a bit cynical about the motives of commerce these days, but we also must be discerning and relevant.
-
Mike,
What we are dealing with here is the reverse. Firstly, Photoshop User isn't just a magazine. It's a membeship in an organization, of which the magazine is one benefit amongst many others. I
I've been a proud member of NAPP for years and get the mag. It does accept advertising. So while I think Mark you're points are well taken and more accurate than Mike's, Mike does make a point in terms of the separation of reviews and ad revenue.
There are magazines that have no such advertising (two that come to mind that I get are Consumer Reports and Cooks Illustrated). Both provide reviews. Without an ounce of advertising, I feel they can be a tad more honest in their reviews (not that others are being dishonest, but there is a fine line to walk). Any mag that has reviews and advertising has to.
-
Mark,
Yes, I'm a cynical old fart but back to the issue of neutral B&W prints. I can see no difference between the prints I made with the profile Josh sent me and the one I made with the CM.
-
I've been a proud member of NAPP for years and get the mag. It does accept advertising. So while I think Mark you're points are well taken and more accurate than Mike's, Mike does make a point in terms of the separation of reviews and ad revenue.
There are magazines that have no such advertising (two that come to mind that I get are Consumer Reports and Cooks Illustrated). Both provide reviews. Without an ounce of advertising, I feel they can be a tad more honest in their reviews (not that others are being dishonest, but there is a fine line to walk). Any mag that has reviews and advertising has to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure - in general, where any potential conflict of interest is avoided there is no fine line to walk, but we shouldn't flaggelate *Photoshop User* in this case, because the review was obviously unbiased by any concern about advertising. In fact, it would be interesting, Andrew, if there were some discussion with the reviewer about exactly what procedures led him to the findings he published.
Back to the main course here, I think Mike's comparative results are very encouraging.
-
I'm going to write a review on the CM as soon as I get time.
I'm not paid one cent for doing so, nor do I have anything to sell on my site etc.
Yet am I biased? Of course who isn't. Fair though of course, and more important open to all others opinions.
Now here's what I found while making the first profiles with the CM on a MAc (don't have time yet to see if Windows is still buggy).
The first profile set (first page, then second extrapolated patch set), went very well. The little thing is so easy to use. I didn't imagine it to be that easy considering my first spectro was a LightSource Colortron.
I then compared the generated profile from this to other profiles with factory or Profile Maker 5.08 for the same paper , same i1 Pro, same calibrations.
In overall volume it comes up slightly ahead of others. The shape of the repartition of colours shows slightly more green in PM profiles, but so slightly more red in the CM profile. Dmax is about the same with no deficiencies on either. PRoblem is I don't have the license for Monaco any longer, nor can I use command line for Argyll. So the two better profilers are not available for my tests.
The curves in the CLUTs are smoother with a TC9.18 chart and PM. I expect that the greens are different because of the nature of the spectrum of the LED produces for measurement data, over the Tungsten bulb in my rev A i1.
No proofing the first profile (s).
It seems the CM profile lacks a bit of red in the yellowish / orange image areas. Overall there is less saturation or better said brighter rendering of deep saturated colours. Greyscale on step wedges perfect. No colour cast, no banding, just perfect.
Overall the images printed with number 1 profile are very well balanced, very very close to the PM profiles and much more than acceptable. I had an idea it would be good but didn't expect with two letter sized prints a profile could be this good.
Now optimising the profiles. Seems nothing is stated in the docs that the colours in your image to be used for optimising the profile are sent as raw rgb numbers. Make an experiment, convert a rich image to sRGB and the same to ProPhoto. Toggle between these in ColorMunki and you find the colours extracted will be much more intense on the sRGB image.
My optimizations hardly changed a thing in the profile in the greens I was trying to extend. The patches extracted are not what I think corrected for populating the chart patch creation. I tried 3 or 4 different images and the printed charts had many white or black patches. I suppose then you must make your own palette to use as a chart patch builder to optimise as you like.
So there you go first tries done.
PS The monitor calibrations and profiles are about equal both the i1 D2 and Match on Easy mode, and the CM. They are different, both good, but i1 Match and the i1 Pro was better (well on my MacBook PRo LED.
-
Terry,
My CM that I bought in the states has a S/N of 0823-2xxxxx
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Mike,
not sure what this means but I'll use it at the retailers when I return mine.
My whole system has been unstable since trying to use the CM. Maybe it's related, maybe it isn't.
I've tried to delete the program but the system is still actng funny.
Thanks again for your effort.
Terry
-
A. In overall volume it comes up slightly ahead of others. The shape of the repartition of colours shows slightly more green in PM profiles, but so slightly more red in the CM profile. Dmax is about the same with no deficiencies on either.
B. The curves in the CLUTs are smoother with a TC9.18 chart and PM.
C. It seems the CM profile lacks a bit of red in the yellowish / orange image areas. Overall there is less saturation or better said brighter rendering of deep saturated colours. Greyscale on step wedges perfect. No colour cast, no banding, just perfect.
D. Overall the images printed with number 1 profile are very well balanced, very very close to the PM profiles and much more than acceptable. I had an idea it would be good but didn't expect with two letter sized prints a profile could be this good.
E. My optimizations hardly changed a thing in the profile in the greens I was trying to extend. The patches extracted are not what I think corrected for populating the chart patch creation. I tried 3 or 4 different images and the printed charts had many white or black patches. I suppose then you must make your own palette to use as a chart patch builder to optimise as you like.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Neil,
I extracted bits from your most informative post and labeled them for ease of reference, as these raise some questions:
Let's start from the premise that the key objective for colour management in printing photographic images is the reliability of perceptual results moving from display to paper (allowing for the inherent limitations due to differences of gamut and light between the two).
(1) So, turning to your comment "A" on the difference of the red/green balance between CM versus the comparator: which would be a more accurate rendition on paper? Will you be testing for that?
(2) Is there any contradiction between "A" and "C" insofar as in "A" the profile seems to produce less red in yellows and oranges?
(3) In "B" you say the curves are smoother with PM, but in "C" you say the greyscale step wedge is perfect. Is there any contradiction between these observations? When you print the image using the CM profile, is there visually less smooth tonal gradations on paper from a CM profile?
(4) In "D" where you say the profiles are "much more than acceptable", have you had a chance to rank them against say Epson's latest series of canned profiles for their recent crop of professional printers, or a custom profile generated by the HP Z3100?
(5) Re "E" I simply don't understand the meaning of this paragraph. Probably because I don't own a CM (yet) so I'm not familiar with its optimization routines and therefore I don't have an idea of what they are supposed to be doing. Grateful if you could elaborate these observations in case there are also other interested parties in my situation.
Mark
(Edited to change back from program-induced smileys to the actual letters I intended to show here!)
-
Hi Neil,
I extracted bits from your most informative post and labeled them for ease of reference, as these raise some questions:
Let's start from the premise that the key objective for colour management in printing photographic images is the reliability of perceptual results moving from display to paper (allowing for the inherent limitations due to differences of gamut and light between the two).
(1) So, turning to your comment "A" on the difference of the red/green balance between CM versus the comparator: which would be a more accurate rendition on paper? Will you be testing for that?
(2) Is there any contradiction between "A" and "C" insofar as in "A" the profile seems to produce less red in yellows and oranges?
(3) In "B" you say the curves are smoother with PM, but in "C" you say the greyscale step wedge is perfect. Is there any contradiction between these observations? When you print the image using the CM profile, is there visually less smooth tonal gradations on paper from a CM profile?
(4) In "D" where you say the profiles are "much more than acceptable", have you had a chance to rank them against say Epson's latest series of canned profiles for their recent crop of professional printers, or a custom profile generated by the HP Z3100?
(5) Re "E" I simply don't understand the meaning of this paragraph. Probably because I don't own a CM (yet) so I'm not familiar with its optimization routines and therefore I don't have an idea of what they are supposed to be doing. Grateful if you could elaborate these observations in case there are also other interested parties in my situation.
Mark
(Edited to change back from program-induced smileys to the actual letters I intended to show here!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I better start off clarifying ; this is the first set of profiles, both monitor and printer by no means extensive, nor exhaustive . Rather quickly done in between other things, I'll add.
1} Yes I will test everything the way I usually do. It is a bit too bad that I didn't beta test with Andrew and others. We all seem to find things and share our findings. Without that support I'm surely going to miss things that were shared on beta testing.
The colours I saw that were not right are on the hue angles pure zones as seen in ColorThink 3D graphing.
The colours I see in the print are more an overall perception of hues outside of say pure red, in between, same with the saturation of most colour.
The prints show things like skin tones that are a bit too red in the image as less red, and reflections in hair that should be blonde with some red, are towards cyan /green.
PAtches in the Fogra MW are lighter than they should be, I didn't measure the strip yet, didn't print to full scale yet either.
I would attribute this to both the LED spectrum of the CM, and the paper and ink being used. The paper is HP Advanced Glossy, with the HP pigments. A lot of OBA, and HP inks are quite prone to bronzing. So I think the bigger fault would be HPs inks and media with a spectro quite different than an i1 non LED. PErhaps the CM soft takes into account UV in a different way than PM.
2} Yes and no. Colorthink is good but the graphs only represent where the grid points create a volume within the hue angles (well a*b* plots to be more precise). The colours on the print are proof of application so I prefer to reference the print to monitor rather than assume too much from a 3D plot. I'll test more soon and really look at the colours and measure them too.
3} True the CM profile has a bumpier curve than PM5 for grey builds. Yet they are well handled in the profile, and seem to fit well in the LUTs. So less patches causing a few meanders in the grey build where they are aligning data samples to grid points hasn't seemed to create problems in greyscale printing. Again I'll have to print some large long tone prints to see for sure.
4} Hmmm. Form what I have, what I've heard, what I've read the Epson profiles are very good, and I think I saw that Epson USA made profiles with X-rite soft. HP use an internal custom program with some interesting quirks. their APS program is PM/i1Match hybrid with the Logo 6.x libraries so essentially PM5 with tweaks for the IsIs LED spectro. I made better profiles with PM and hand measuring a 918 and PM 5 than APS in the Z. But marginally so!
So no I don't think the 1st profile I made is as good as PM5, nor the quality of the recent Epson profiles, but close enough for professional use. The differences are not any greater with the CM than there is between other profile apps, and other spectros. Hence being thrilled with the quality, (sincerely I didn't expect it to be all that good) for a one off, first time profile that makes a very good screen to print match with 2 letter sizes pages, it is really incredible. A trained eye will pick out the differences but a vast majority of users wouldn't, nor should they as there seems to be little fault with my first try.
5} Yes I'm in the same boat. Actually anyone who uses a CM will be. X-Rite are doing themselves harm with oversimplification in the UI. IF they put the right options in and explained a bit about the options , users would step right up to the solution they need. UI design is still good, it's the missing options, and lack of details that take away from the max potential of the device.
Optimisation is adding a new page of patches (nodes if you like) to the first iteration of the profile. It is done by loading a jpg or tiff of any image, or a color palette already made in the color picker application. So if your greens are out, you load a landnscape and it builds a set of patches from the image and you print and measure.
The nodes are calculated and somehow incorporated into the profile. I don't know if they are added as grid points, or if they are moved , extrapolated, concatenated with previous existing points. Form what I did, the new prints were near the same as the old first profile. IT therefore looks like it simply over-samples and makes corrections to the first profile grid points but Andrew probably knows.
What is surprising, ; you print a page that you measure so fast you wonder if it really can work at all. It creates a subset, you print, measure , it calculates the profile and your done. You get a profile that is near large sample chart measured with much more expensive devices, and software costing much more. I'm impressed. I want to make some more. This little thing is fun. IT is what the Colortron should have been. Yet it couldn't have. I suppose with a bug fix update, possibly an upgrade this can only get better. A suivre.....
-
Mark,
Regarding (E) the Optimization process, is intended to "smooth out" any problem areas. I had an image with that showed banding orange/yellows both in the soft-proof and the print. On my XP Pro box it took me approximately 25 attempts to arrive at the end of the process. I experienced application crashes and hang-ups. The new profile did fix the problem though, and I find the others I have built to also be very good.
I can not advance very far through the process again, just for testing purposes not because any other profiles require it. Has anyone else had this problem?
ColorMunki Photo 1.0.2, Windows XP Pro, Windows Vista Home Premium (laptop).
Dave
-
I guess no one else is experiencing the issues with the optimization process that I am or don't see the need to use it. I'll move on.
Dave
-
Mark,
Regarding (E) the Optimization process, is intended to "smooth out" any problem areas. I had an image with that showed banding orange/yellows both in the soft-proof and the print. On my XP Pro box it took me approximately 25 attempts to arrive at the end of the process. I experienced application crashes and hang-ups. The new profile did fix the problem though, and I find the others I have built to also be very good.
I can not advance very far through the process again, just for testing purposes not because any other profiles require it. Has anyone else had this problem?
ColorMunki Photo 1.0.2, Windows XP Pro, Windows Vista Home Premium (laptop).
Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David.
I haven't had the chance to use it on Windows yet.
I will just to try it for users on PC.
Is this happening on both XP and Vista or is it a Vista only problem?
-
Neil,
It happens on both XP and Vista. It is a nice feature to have, the ability to easily tweak the profiles if necessary.
Dave
-
Version 1.0.4 has been released and at least one fix I am aware of is the crashing problem I was having. X-Rite support was able to duplicate the crash with a profile I sent them and appear to be treating reported issues as fast as they can. Handy little device.
Dave
-
B&H currently has a 100.00$ rebate on the Color Munki, which brings it down to 349.00$
-
B&H currently has a 100.00$ rebate on the Color Munki, which brings it down to 349.00$
Ah then it really comes down to what you will use them for; the Spyder for it's versatility and control beyond the CM software, or the shear pleasure of using the CM being so darn easy and fun.
Personally I have never had more fun making profiles than with the CM. Wish everything was so easy in desktop publishing!
-
Hi Neil, very informative post.
I found slightly different results with my CM, just purchased one week ago. I profiled Ilford paper (Classic Glossy and Pearl Smooth) with my Canon Pro9000 and what I get, compared to Ilford profiles provided for that printer:
- much better color match, Ilford profiles are yellowish and too saturated
- but unfortunately much darker and muddy shadows. It is like if it applies a contrasty S-curve but just to the shadow part (highlights are not increased). Ilford profiles are much more "open" in the shadows. This is clearly visible also in the soft proof, the image keeps same monitor colors but get darker in the shadows.
This is bearable or even nice for landscapes, but pretty bad for portraits...
Why don't they add few simple adjustments to the profile, like contrast/brightness/saturation of single colors/shadow opening?
I will try to "tweak" the profiel by sampling some darker image and close portraiture to see if it gets better with the CM profile refinement functionality.
any experience so far?
g
-
This is actually a problem of the profile using a rendering called Colorful. It pushes the contrast and can cause blocked up shadows.
Normally it should be in these cases better to use relative colorimetric.
The reason they came out with this is because dye printers had a tendency to make certain greens and reds in the shadows go mushy. It cured the problem but creates others. Profiles made on other applications like Monaco, have much smoother graduations, thus shadow rendering is not compromised, yet you still may have flatness in certain areas.
I don't know if the optimization of a dark image with no highlights might tweak the darks for the Canon 9000.
Please note; there is an update to the software at X-Rite. Not sure what has changed.
On my pigment printer, and on the Epson at school, the shadows are just as good as any other profile custom or canned. I do have a dye printer here, so I must try this when I make the review....
-
Thank you Neil.
Although my comments was made in comparison with the Ilford profiles that on the very same printer (dye ink) and paper which is showing much more open shadows, without loosing all that contrast in the end...
It's a pity because colors are really "true"...
I'll do other attempts during the w-e and let you know.
g
-
Hi Neil, very informative post.
I found slightly different results with my CM, just purchased one week ago. I profiled Ilford paper (Classic Glossy and Pearl Smooth) with my Canon Pro9000 and what I get, compared to Ilford profiles provided for that printer:
- much better color match, Ilford profiles are yellowish and too saturated
- but unfortunately much darker and muddy shadows. It is like if it applies a contrasty S-curve but just to the shadow part (highlights are not increased). Ilford profiles are much more "open" in the shadows. This is clearly visible also in the soft proof, the image keeps same monitor colors but get darker in the shadows.
Hi,
I just ran across this thread and am most interested in the ongoing discussion. I am considering purchasing the ColorMunki and have read a lot of mixed results so it's good to hear some positive. The comment in this post regarding darker and muddy shadows is something that I have run across in other forums but not with any consistency. On the other hand, today I talked to a very knowledgeable photographer who uses both the ColorMunki at one work location and the more expensive i1spectrophotometer with profile maker at another. He says that he feels that they are quite comparable and made no mention of problems with shadow detail.
Does anyone know if Andrew Rodney ever posted any post-beta test results. I read his comments on the trials he ran with the beta version but was under the impression that he was going to do some follow-up tests after the product was released. I have searched the internet but have not seen any more recent comments of his other than on this thread. I am assuming that he did some further testing and that I just haven't found the results. Is that true?
John
-
This is actually a problem of the profile using a rendering called Colorful. It pushes the contrast and can cause blocked up shadows.
Normally it should be in these cases better to use relative colorimetric.
The reason they came out with this is because dye printers had a tendency to make certain greens and reds in the shadows go mushy. It cured the problem but creates others. Profiles made on other applications like Monaco, have much smoother graduations, thus shadow rendering is not compromised, yet you still may have flatness in certain areas.
I don't know if the optimization of a dark image with no highlights might tweak the darks for the Canon 9000.
Please note; there is an update to the software at X-Rite. Not sure what has changed.
On my pigment printer, and on the Epson at school, the shadows are just as good as any other profile custom or canned. I do have a dye printer here, so I must try this when I make the review....
I have the same Canon 9000 and am wondering if the Color Munki does a good job with dye printers, too.
I'm very interested in your test results of the CM regarding this printer.
-
I will do some more test this week-end. Namely I'll re-profile the Smooth Paper using longer drying times (probably the 10minutes proposed by the CM software are too little, and the ink still has brighter appearance than the one it would take after few hours).
I will also refine the profile with other pictures
The only think I can say is that for sure all color casts have been eliminated and colorwise the appearence is very similar to the monitor when soft-proofing. It's just that even in the soft-proof the picture get darker in the shadews and partially mid-tones than with the Ilford profiles
Let's see
g
-
I have the same Canon 9000 and am wondering if the Color Munki does a good job with dye printers, too.
I'm very interested in your test results of the CM regarding this printer.
I have just profiled my old Epson 1280 today and will be looking at the results and will post back tomorrow. I don't have any negative issues with muddy shadows on the papaers I have profiled on my R2400.
Dave
-
I just printed a few test prints through the 1280 on Premium Glossy with the ColorMunki profile. Color prints are quite good, gone is the pink cast mine had with the canned profile. Greyscale images are surprisingly neutral, not exhibiting the slight cast shown in a step-wedge. Viewed in ColorThink (3D gamut map) the CM's profile shows greater gamut volume than the canned profile for that paper (it was built years ago though). This has just breathed new life into an old printer!
Dave
-
I did some test during the w-e with my CM. This is what I learnt
Ilford Classic Glossy:
- the process of refining existing profiles DOES improve the profile. It's clearly visible by eyes (at least well trainined ones). I did get nicer portraits and better balanced colors in other pictures
- the profiles created with CM are slightly darker than the ones provided by Ilford. I cannot see less details in shadows but they are darker. Soft proof is pretty accurate
Ilford Smooth Pearl
- canned profiles were way out (yellowish)
- CM created very good profile colorwise but it seems to try to open up shadows too much, loosing a bit of contrast in mid-dark tones. Not a real issue for landscapes, but dark / low-key protraits lose a bit from this.
I also learnt that profiling for portraiture is way more difficult that getting nice landscapes/ cityscape profiles where a slight color shift do not really arm the whole picture.
I learnt that the 10minutes dryout time for patch charts are way underestimated for most paper
Finally my impression is that CM is wonderful at color profiling, less so at calibrating tonal curve. A good solution would just be to provide in the software a tool to adjust the curves, but this is just dreaming I guess since they clearly state that this tool is fully automatic and if you want more control you should upgrade to the higher system!
g