Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Color Munku problems  (Read 8981 times)
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« on: March 11, 2009, 04:14:13 PM »
ReplyReply

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)
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2009, 04:25:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Did you use the same Media Type settings for the prints that you used to print the targets?
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2009, 04:31:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjlphoto
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....
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2009, 12:24:34 PM »
ReplyReply

And, if you soft proof does the preview/soft proof show this same thing happening?
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2009, 04:36:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: neil snape
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.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2009, 05:59:14 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2009, 06:00:57 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2009, 01:52:39 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2009, 02:44:43 AM »
ReplyReply

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 :-)
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2009, 02:14:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drm
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.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2009, 02:23:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drm
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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2009, 03:26:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
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!
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2009, 08:28:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drm
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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2009, 04:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

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....
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
tyleerb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2009, 04:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2009, 06:11:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drm
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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2009, 11:00:20 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2009, 11:09:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2009, 12:25:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
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
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2009, 02:00:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GregW
Datacolor is owned by my local brewery, Eichhof
A few swigs of Eichhof might be just the thing to get one through reading the 729 sample Spyder target!  Click, click, click, click.........................
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad