Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: David Mantripp on March 11, 2009, 05:14:13 pm
-
I've been using a Color Munki for a while for print profiles. It has been working fine, creating profiles which generally improve on the canned profiles. However, I've just profiled two papers - Epson Traditional Photo Paper, and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, and in both cases, the resulting prints are way too dark with blocked up shadows, whereas the canned profiles are actually pretty good. The color charts look ok, and the device itself seems to be working fine. So I'm a bit baffled. Does anybody have any clue as to what could go wrong ?
(Mac OS X 10.5.6, PPC, Color Munki Photo 1.0.5)
-
Did you use the same Media Type settings for the prints that you used to print the targets?
-
Did you use the same Media Type settings for the prints that you used to print the targets?
Yep. Double checked. Triple checked. This paper isn't cheap....
-
And, if you soft proof does the preview/soft proof show this same thing happening?
-
And, if you soft proof does the preview/soft proof show this same thing happening?
No... the Epson TTP profile I made, for example looks fine, and quite close to the Epson profile. I repeated the Color Munki profiling, leaving the prints to dry overnight, just in case. Same thing. However, when I look at the gamut plots, the Epsom gamut is *much* more extended in greens and blues. With other papers, the Color Munki gamut is only marginally different to the Color Munki one. I'm officially baffled.
-
Don't know the Munki, but could be it be something as perverse as a piece of drit in the sensing aperture?
Does the Munki run off USB power? Maybe you have too many power-sucking USB devices plugged in at the same time.
-
You might actually want to try altering the media settings. Or you could in theory profile over Color Controls instead of No Color Adjustment if that behavior is just too nonlinear. You'll lose some color gamut in the trade.
-
It could be a problem with the lens or light in the color munki. If it is it should pass the calibration but who knows.
The reason I asked if it soft proofs dark is : it tells you if it is the profile attempting to darken the image on print.
There are so many reports of Colorsync being broken with certain print drivers these days one also has to look at what preferences are set where.
Someone was even saying that if printing from CS4 you need to set the default profile to the one you created otherwise the prints are dark.
Hope there is an easy solution.
-
Thanks, I'll try these suggestions and report back. It is a pity that the problem is happening with possibly the two most expensive papers on the market :-)
-
Thanks, I'll try these suggestions and report back. It is a pity that the problem is happening with possibly the two most expensive papers on the market :-)
Well, I tried reprofiling. I made sure the sensor was clean and unobstructed. I plugged it directly into a port on the Mac (previously I was using the display hub, which is USB 1.1, and I though that might have some effect). And I re-profiled.
Same result, dark and heavily clipped gamut. The Gold Fibre Silk profile I downloaded from Ilford is pretty good (as are most factory profiles on the Epson 3800).
Next step is to reprofile a paper which worked well and see if it still works well. If not, reinstall and try again. Actually, I'm beginning to form a strong impression that the ColorMunki is, by and large, a POS. It is _very_ average for display profiling (the eyeOne 1 is better, and the Spyder 3 is in a different league) and it doesn't seem terribly reliable for printer profiling either. Expensive mistake ? I'll give it one last chance.
-
Next step is to reprofile a paper which worked well and see if it still works well. If not, reinstall and try again. Actually, I'm beginning to form a strong impression that the ColorMunki is, by and large, a POS. It is _very_ average for display profiling (the eyeOne 1 is better, and the Spyder 3 is in a different league) and it doesn't seem terribly reliable for printer profiling either. Expensive mistake ? I'll give it one last chance.
Well based on the profiles I've built to the same printer, the quality has rivaled Spectrophotometer's costing 8X what the Munki does. I really think you should try playing around with the media settings. No instrument will "fix" really piss poor linearity which might be the issue. What about profiling other papers, perhaps like I did, Epson papers whereby you know the correct media setting to use. I really don't think its the instrument or software.
The EyeOne IS better for display profiling when it comes to measuring very dark areas (patches) but not so good if you're working with a wide gamut display or some exotic backlight. Not unless you've got one of the newer EyeOne Displays with custom filter matrixes.
-
Well based on the profiles I've built to the same printer, the quality has rivaled Spectrophotometer's costing 8X what the Munki does. I really think you should try playing around with the media settings. No instrument will "fix" really piss poor linearity which might be the issue. What about profiling other papers, perhaps like I did, Epson papers whereby you know the correct media setting to use. I really don't think its the instrument or software.
Andrew, have you profiled the papers I'm having trouble with ? (Ilford GFS and Epson Trad. Photo Paper) And if so, with what media settings ? I'm using the media recommended by the manufacturers - particularly in the Epson case, I can't see that accounting for the _huge_ gamut clip / shift I'm seeing. We're not talking fine-tuning here.
If I know it _can_ be done then I'll be more inclined to spend more time on it!
-
Andrew, have you profiled the papers I'm having trouble with ? (Ilford GFS and Epson Trad. Photo Paper) And if so, with what media settings ? I'm using the media recommended by the manufacturers - particularly in the Epson case, I can't see that accounting for the _huge_ gamut clip / shift I'm seeing. We're not talking fine-tuning here.
I believe I have. I say believe because these are profiles for customers and they don't always provide the exact paper used and should if they've followed my instructions used the NCA setting. I have no idea what media settings they used, they either have to test this using my Ink Density test file or go by the recommendations of the paper manufacturer. I see at least two spectral data files that are labelled Illford Gold Silk and Fiber Silk. Again, I have no idea if these are the same or different papers. Its whatever the customer jotted down for the profile name.
-
Well, I've now reprofiled another paper, some old Innova F-Type Gloss I have lying around.
The print is a disaster, very dark, badly clipped. Using the first profile I made some time ago for the same paper, however, is fine (well actually it is a little under saturated, but whatever). None of this shows up in soft proofing. Clearly something has gone badly wrong with the profiles the Color Munki (well named ...) is making. So next step is to trash the software and try again.
Why oh why did I just not cough up for an ImagePrint license....
-
I have a similar problem drm, and I ended up just giving up and using canned profiles after burning through about 10 square feet of media.
Paper: Harman Matt FB Mp Warmtone (made by the people who abandoned the illford gallerie)
Printer: Canon iPF 8100
ColorMunki on Mac OS 10.5.whatever
I tried on a couple different paper settings and always ended up with less gamut than the paper could handle. The prints (black and white) shifted towards the purple/blue spectrum and I wasn't getting as deep of blacks as I did with the canned harman profile. I've had other issues with the paper too but I find I'm getting acceptable results with recommended paper type and canned profile. I know I could squeeze out an extra 1% if I tried though.
I have also used the Munki to profile other papers with great success and I continue to profile the new papers I start using with the Munki and compare to the canned, almost always the Munki wins after initial profile without having to tune it (though that does help).
I know I'm not really adding anything to the solution I just find it odd that it struggles with this kind of paper.
-Tyler
-
The print is a disaster, very dark, badly clipped. Using the first profile I made some time ago for the same paper, however, is fine (well actually it is a little under saturated, but whatever).
It is sounding like you should get X-Rite to swap this unit out for a new one. Its worth a try before you throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
I wonder about the long term stability of these low end print profiling devices. They must have some sort of internal light source, do those dim out after a while? Do the sensors deteriorate or drift enough that automatic calibration no longer works right? Should we leave them plugged in all the time or only when we plan to use them?
But for now I'm very happy with the Spyder3 Print. Just made the same test print on BC Chromata, the newly ugly-surfaced Epson Premium Canvas Matte, and Inkjet Art's Illuminata Matte, all profiled with the Spyder. Pre-coating you have to look really, really hard to see any difference at all between the prints. Trust me, that was NOT the case with the canned profiles. After coating...now that's a horse of a different color.
-
I wonder about the long term stability of these low end print profiling devices. They must have some sort of internal light source, do those dim out after a while?
Not the same. The light source in the Munki and iSis are LED based. There are differing light sources in differing products.
Most manufacturers recommend and provide a recalibration and certification option whereby you send your unit to them at a cost. At least X-Rite/Gretagmacbeth do (can't speak for DataColor). That said, I can't say for most users its necessary unless your unit is broken or in need of service.
There is a utility for some X-Rite devices that provides diagnostics. And these devices have to be calibrated at each use, if the results were really off, you'd expect it to pop an error. Expect being the key word here.
-
Most manufacturers recommend and provide a recalibration and certification option whereby you send your unit to them at a cost. At least X-Rite/Gretagmacbeth do (can't speak for DataColor).
Datacolor have a re-calibration and certification service.
A bit of trivia. Datacolor is owned by my local brewery, Eichhof (http://www.eichhof.ch/)
-
Datacolor is owned by my local brewery, Eichhof (http://www.eichhof.ch/)
A few swigs of Eichhof might be just the thing to get one through reading the 729 sample Spyder target! Click, click, click, click.........................
-
It is sounding like you should get X-Rite to swap this unit out for a new one. Its worth a try before you throw the baby out with the bath water.
Easier said than done, in this part of the world (Switzerland)... Even if it is "Swiss Engineered" I actually had to order it from the UK. I suppose the supplier would assist me (Colour Confidence) but if it has to go back to them, then I have hassles with customs and import / export paperwork. Oh to be in the EU.
by the way, Tyler, I had no problem with Harman Gloss FB AI. Go figure.
-
Easier said than done, in this part of the world (Switzerland)... Even if it is "Swiss Engineered" I actually had to order it from the UK.
Well I can say that unless things have changed in the last year, since the merger, all the GMB products were build in Regensdorf! I don't know about the Munki however, might be made in the US under X-Rite.
Don't you have a warranty? Contact the reseller and tell then you need an RMA and want to get a new unit. Any decent reseller, or X-Rite should stand behind the product, even if that means swapping your unit with a new one, its what they should do to make you a happy customer.
Considering that a good profile was built in the past and now its hosed, it sure sounds like a hardware issue. Even if not, until you try a newer unit, there's no sure way to know if its the hardware or the software, or some other issue until the hardware is eliminated from the equation.
-
Well I can say that unless things have changed in the last year, since the merger, all the GMB products were build in Regensdorf! I don't know about the Munki however, might be made in the US under X-Rite.
Don't you have a warranty? Contact the reseller and tell then you need an RMA and want to get a new unit. Any decent reseller, or X-Rite should stand behind the product, even if that means swapping your unit with a new one, its what they should do to make you a happy customer.
Considering that a good profile was built in the past and now its hosed, it sure sounds like a hardware issue. Even if not, until you try a newer unit, there's no sure way to know if its the hardware or the software, or some other issue until the hardware is eliminated from the equation.
I'm not criticising X-Rite or the seller. The issue is it is very difficult to get hold of "pro" photography gear in Switzerland, even stuff that is built here. I was unable to find a reseller for the ColorMunki here, so I had to order it from the UK. If I have to send it back, I have to export it and deal with customs duties. And I'll be liable for import duties in the UK. And then I'll have to pay for the reimport. And it will take _weeks_. I may be able to recover some of the costs by filling in forms and writing letters to people in uniforms, but I've got better things to spend my time on....
I have just reinstalled the software, reprofiled the Innova paper, and the profile sucks.
So yeah, it seems that the device is screwed up. Either it goes in the trash, or I try to get it examined.... Or, actually, I face up to the fact that factory profiles are pretty good these days, at least those from "pro" suppliers, and all of this is actually an excercise in futility.
-
I know this is a stupid question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
<straw_clutching>
Is there any way that there could be some interference between Color Munki Photo and ColorEyes Pro, at system level, which is having an effect on the ColorMunki printer profiling ?
As far as I'm aware, there is no coupling between display profiling and printer profiling as such, but maybe something the ColorEyes does might have an impact on CMP's profile generation ...
</straw_clutching>
-
I know this is a stupid question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
Is there any way that there could be some interference between Color Munki Photo and ColorEyes Pro, at system level, which is having an effect on the ColorMunki printer profiling ?
Shouldn't be the case. However, I do recall that with DDC capable displays like the NEC that support ColorMunki, you have to disable the ColorMunki software in some way to get it to work in the other environment. I suppose its possible the other direction but can't imagine how it would affect print profiling. Only way to know for sure, and its a stretch, is to remove ColorEyes and try again. But I really doubt that's it. Just doesn't make sense that it would affect how the ColorMunki reads color patches to build a profile.
-
Shouldn't be the case. However, I do recall that with DDC capable displays like the NEC that support ColorMunki, you have to disable the ColorMunki software in some way to get it to work in the other environment. I suppose its possible the other direction but can't imagine how it would affect print profiling. Only way to know for sure, and its a stretch, is to remove ColorEyes and try again. But I really doubt that's it. Just doesn't make sense that it would affect how the ColorMunki reads color patches to build a profile.
Ok, thanks. I've just had one last try, profiling some Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper. Same result, extremely dark and clipped. So I'm going to return it, somehow.
What I don't understand is why I'm only seeing this on prints. Soft proofs look fine. It really is a black art. Next time I'm over at Amazon I'm going to add your book to my cart, Andrew. Partly to say thanks for yiur help, but mainly because I think I need it!
-
What I don't understand is why I'm only seeing this on prints. Soft proofs look fine.
I've seen cases where the soft proof shows some banding but not on output so this is very odd.
Do you know anyone nearby with a ColorMunki who could measure the targets to confirm that the issue is with your unit?
Have you tried using the iteration process whereby you can create additional targets (more patches) after building the first profile? Its possible the 100 patches are insufficient to produce a good profile. I've yet to see this, but I can't say I've tried more than a few papers with the Munki. Try to sample some of the problematic colors and use them such the software will build a new target to add to the existing profile.
-
I've seen cases where the soft proof shows some banding but not on output so this is very odd.
Do you know anyone nearby with a ColorMunki who could measure the targets to confirm that the issue is with your unit?
Have you tried using the iteration process whereby you can create additional targets (more patches) after building the first profile? Its possible the 100 patches are insufficient to produce a good profile. I've yet to see this, but I can't say I've tried more than a few papers with the Munki. Try to sample some of the problematic colors and use them such the software will build a new target to add to the existing profile.
Unfortunately I don't know anybody else anywhere near me with one. Honestly I don't think that we're in iteration territory here. Also, the fact that I got a good profile from the Innova F-Type some months ago, but now I can't repeat it, tends to indicate something is wrong now that was ok before...
Looking at the gamut plot clearly shows the issue, so why it is not showing up in soft proofing is just weird.
If I get time, I'll try print off a couple of examples using the Quato test target, scan them, and post them. Obviously a lot will get lost in translation, but the scale of the shift should be evident.
Good thing I'm not doing this for a living :-)
I've raised a ticket with Colour Confidence, the reseller, so maybe they'll come up with something.
-
Well, guess what? I'm an idiot. ColourConfidence support pointed me at this support note from XRite:
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx...;SupportID=4676 (http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1115&Action=support&SupportID=4676)
And I had been overlooking the Color Matching setting. It was defaulting, and it seems, reverting, to ColorSync. Since this isn't even exposed in the Aperture print dialog, which is where I do all but my final printing from, I just completely forgot about it.
Actually, it seems totally bizarre to me that when set to "ColorSync", the Printer Settings dialog is active. But what do I know.
Thanks for everybody's input, especially Andrew - whilst feeling very embarrassed I though it was only right to 'fess up :-)
-
And I had been overlooking the Color Matching setting. It was defaulting, and it seems, reverting, to ColorSync. Since this isn't even exposed in the Aperture print dialog, which is where I do all but my final printing from, I just completely forgot about it.
Yup, first time you mentioned printing out of Aperture. Should not have assumed you were using Photoshop.
-
I've been using a Color Munki for a while for print profiles. It has been working fine, creating profiles which generally improve on the canned profiles. However, I've just profiled two papers - Epson Traditional Photo Paper, and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, and in both cases, the resulting prints are way too dark with blocked up shadows, whereas the canned profiles are actually pretty good. The color charts look ok, and the device itself seems to be working fine. So I'm a bit baffled. Does anybody have any clue as to what could go wrong ?
(Mac OS X 10.5.6, PPC, Color Munki Photo 1.0.5)
Hi
when you print a step-wedge, when do you first see a separation between the steps? I have been profiling these papers with iOne Pro Proof kit, using iMatch software, and I am not seeing any separation before 12-18 (on a 0-255 scale). I am having to apply a fine tune to my images before they go out to suit the printer/paper/ink combo
can you show us some before and after?
Henrik