Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Munki People, Short Question  (Read 4368 times)
Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« on: April 04, 2011, 05:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Does the software with the Colormunki allow you to tweak the profiles after the fact or is it a matter of what you get after the scans is all you get?

With the Datacolor Spyder you could load and tweak the profile, which is very useful in getting color casts out of B&W for example, but my kit bit the dust in a recent move so I am looking at alternatives.

Tom
Logged
howardm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2011, 05:02:25 PM »
ReplyReply

there is a facility to improve the profile but I haven't tried it so I can't tell you how good it is for tweaking (my hunch is that if it's like the rest of the Munki s/w, it's pretty limited WRT 'flexibility')
Logged
kevk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2011, 05:10:05 PM »
ReplyReply

The "tweaking" in the Munki software is called "optimization" - the following text is an excerpt from the online help in the ColorMunki Photo application...

>>>
If you have already created a printer profile and want to increase the color accuracy, select "optimize existing profile." This process will increase the accuracy of the printer profile based on colors automatically extracted from the image of your choice. This kind of optimization will improve the accuracy of the key colors and color regions extracted from your image. However, the overall profile improvements will be noticeable on all images containing similar colors. Profile optimization is completely safe for all images and can be repeated using different images to achieve even greater profile accuracy.
Optimization can only be performed on ColorMunki profiles and requires that you print and measure an additional color test chart.
...
Optimizing an existing profile:
Select "Optimize Existing Profile."
Select the printer profile that you wish to optimize.
Load the image containing the colors or color regions you wish to improve.
<<<

Kevin
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2011, 05:24:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Profiles from CM are very good and I find it hard to fault this approach.  I've compared Munki profiles using a standard test print and the color rendition is spot on.  Could a more expensive set up give a more refined profile; perhaps but it would be difficult to tell the difference using the naked eye test.  I have use the optimization feature on a couple of images and can't tell that there is much difference.  I'm a very satisfied user.
Logged

Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 08:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the info.

Looks like the Munki is pretty severely handicapped when compared to the other lower priced option... another set from Datacolor.  I will just go with the Spyder3Studio SR this time.  I had the older model print calibrator only and am used to the way it works already.  Great control, just tedious reading those patches.

Oh well, I was trying to save a few bucks, especially with the Munki rebate going on now but from the reading I have done in the past two days, the Munki is pretty much intentionally crippled by X-Rite and the reviews I have read have a LOT of negative comments about X-Rite's customer service regarding the Munki.  Not worth saving a few bucks over that.

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

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 10:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like the Munki is pretty severely handicapped when compared to the other lower priced option... another set from Datacolor. 

How so? The hardware itself is far more capably than the Datacolor product (it actually is a Spectrophotometer!).
Logged

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

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 12:07:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I have used the Datacolor Spyder Print 3 print profiling system for some time.

I greatly prefer the profiles I get form it to any of the manufacturers' profiles I have used on my last three printers.  However, I do have to slightly modify the "color balance" of the profiles using the profile editor that is available in the Datacolor Spyder3Print software.  The unmodified profiles seem too warm for my liking, especially along the red axis.  It is certainly possible that this may reflect failings in other parts of my overall system, but it must be done.

But for better or for worse, Datacolor does offer rather extensive "profile editing" in its software.  Of course I have to wonder if this merely reflects their opinion that such is a thing is required for their puck!  Not really qualified to cast the first stone on that one, but I have my suspicions.  But I am more or less satisfied with what I've got.

Would be curious to hear some opinions about other low to medium cost printing profiling systems beyond Spyder and Munki.

Here are the Datacolor Advanced and Basic profile editing screens.  The white and black points are from a OBA canvas.


Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2011, 12:10:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Profile editing is useful in about three situations IMHO:

1. You have a poorly built profile. Don’t build poorly built profiles! Profiles from ColorMunki don’t need to be edited because they are good profiles.
2. For proofing situations, its sometimes useful to edit the white point tag. If you don’t understand what this means, if you don’t do cross rendering, then you don’t need to do this kind of editing.
3. You get paid by the hour and are editing profiles on someone else’s media and you are trying to squeeze blood from a rock.
Logged

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

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 12:40:40 PM »
ReplyReply

...you are trying to squeeze blood from a rock.

Well fine art photographers have so well developed that particular skill that anything else seems suspect!

So, Andrew.  Looks like the Munki is a pretty good way to go for quite a few of us.  Could to describe what sort of printing person would want to have something better, and what would be an example of an outstanding better thing?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2011, 01:07:55 PM »
ReplyReply

So, Andrew.  Looks like the Munki is a pretty good way to go for quite a few of us.  Could to describe what sort of printing person would want to have something better, and what would be an example of an outstanding better thing?

Well for one, there are additional options for building a perceptual table with higher end products, you can measure an illuminant and build that into the profile (instead of assuming D50 viewing). For devices that are not well behaved, you can output and measure more patches (but Munki’s optimization should handle that too). If you wanted an automated Spectrophotometer, you’d be spending a lot more money.

There isn’t much in terms of RGB output profiles for well behaved, modern ink jets.
Logged

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

Posts: 54


« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2011, 01:19:38 PM »
ReplyReply

How so? The hardware itself is far more capably than the Datacolor product (it actually is a Spectrophotometer!).

So what?  I don't care what it IS, I care what it DOES and how it does it.  And having wonderful hardware with crippled software sorta defeats the purpose here, eh?  (That is Canadian for Huh?, I'm multilingual Smiley )

I have seen a bunch of your posts dating back to 2008 or so (I have been searching a lot on this stuff Wink ) and you mention that as if having a spectrophotometer is some magic wand.  That's great but it seems that X-Rite took the magic wand and regressed it into a plain old stick.  I duly noted all the semantics wars that went on when DataColor called their sensor a "Spectrocolorimeter".  Seems like a lot of people got their panties in a wad back then... amusing reading but again, so what?

If the Munki hands you a profile with a warm cast (just for an example) in B&W prints and you cannot go back and adjust that, then it is worthless to me.  If I have this all wrong, please set me straight on the follow-on adjustment capabilities.

Last, the Munki software limitations verge on the ridiculous.   We have multiple printers here and having to keep the program running just to get follow-on scans read is hilarious.  Seemingly because X-Rite is scared sh*tless you might actually read an off-the-plantation scan.

The Munki looks like a perfect tool to do quick profiles.  And if you are happy with the hand it automatically deals you, fine.  Trouble is, you can't discard and draw to the two pair you are holding to turn the hand into a full house.

Tom

PS:  I note that B&H will not take returns on the Munki.  Interesting, eh?  But Amazon will.  And they are the same price.  If I have this all balled up let me know. I would be perfectly willing to buy a Munki from Amazon and test it out.  Then no worky, returny. Smiley
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 01:34:09 PM by Shark_II » Logged
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2011, 01:24:40 PM »
ReplyReply

So I have been waiting for the new i1photo pro,should I just save my money and get a Munki?
What kind of printmaking studio runs without a spectro?
Actually I am quite happy with every single oem paper profile I print with.
Metal is another story.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 02:18:20 PM by Dan Berg » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2011, 01:31:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So what?  I don't care what it IS, I care what it DOES and how it does it.


Because spectral data is necessary to build good ICC output profiles. Otherwise, the instrument and software have to make a lot of assumptions (you know the old saying about assumptions right?), the “fix” being you having to edit profiles.

Quote
And having wonderful hardware with crippled software sorta defeats the purpose here, eh?  (That is Canadian for Huh?, I'm multilingual Smiley )

Crippled how?

Quote
I have seen a bunch of your posts dating back to 2008 or so (I have been searching a lot on this stuff Wink ) and you mention that as if having a spectrophotometer is some magic wand.  

Since I never said that, and you are now making assumptions, I suggest you learn about using the proper tools for the proper job at hand.

Quote
That's great but it seems that X-Rite took the magic wand and regressed it into a plain old stick.

You continue to misunderstand this process, make more assumptions and IMHO look foolish in the process. Since only you have defined this product as both a magic wand and plain old stick, I suggest you clarify what it is you are trying to convey.

Quote
I duly noted all the semantics wars that went on when DataColor called their sensor a "Spectrocolorimeter".


Because its a made up word (and device) for this task.

Quote
Seems like a lot of people got their panties in a wad back then... amusing reading but again, so what?

Its the so what comments about magic wands and the like, along with made up names for instruments by marketing folks that serve little purpose here.

Quote
If the Munki hands you a profile with a warm cast (just for an example) in B&W prints and you cannot go back and adjust that, then it is worthless to me.


Is that your experience or just your worry?

Quote
If I have this all wrong, please set me straight on the follow-on adjustment capabilities.

You seem to have a lot wrong but its difficult to read you correctly because you seem to make so many assumptions.

Quote
Last, the Munki software limitations verge on the ridiculous.   We have multiple printers here and having to keep the program running just to get follow-on scans read is hilarious.
 

You do not have to keep the software running all the time. You do have to build a complete profile before moving on to another. If that’s a huge burden do you, pony up for another product which will make you measure a lot more patches (and depending on who’s instrument, slower with additional profile editing).

Quote
Trouble is, you can't discard and draw to the two pair you are holding to turn the hand into a full house.

Can you perhaps clearly explain yourself and stay OT?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 01:39:10 PM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2011, 01:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

So I have been waiting for the new i1 pro photo,should I just save my money and get a Munki?

Wait till tomorrow, then we can talk about the new i1Profiler which I’m told will replace i1Match (i1 Photo Pro appears be the name of this replacement, maybe that’s what you mean).
Logged

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

Posts: 54


« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2011, 02:14:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Um, forum will not allow multi-quoting.  So this will be a bit of a patchwork.

Quote
You continue to misunderstand this process, make more assumptions and IMHO look foolish in the process. Since only you have defined this product as both a magic wand and plain old stick, I suggest you clarify what it is you are trying to convey.

Um, allegories are pretty much lost on you... OK, I will be clearer and simpler.  I have been reading reviews for two days now.  The people that are happy with what the Munki hands them on the first deal... oops, let me simplify that... what it hands them on the first scan or with the first scan and "optimization" scan seems like they love the thing.  That is very good news if you are amongst that group.  If I were there I would be deliriously happy too.  My concern is that I might not be so lucky and want to adjust the profile.

Quote
Because its a made up word (and device).

Sorry, but you are now going off into the ether on me here.  If a "made up" device produces good profiles, and has a lot of flexibility in the process, then a "made up" device is fine with me.  I take it X-Rite does not "make up" the Munki?

If your meaning is instead that the "made up" device is not capable of producing good profiles because it (a) has a name that irritates you or (b) is just a crap device for making profiles, then say which one you mean.

By the way, I gave an example of when adjusting a profile might be handy (tones in B&W) which I note you did not address and responded:
Quote
Is that your experience or just your worry?

Since you did not care to answer the question I'll just have to muddle along with what all the other reviewers have written about the Munki... which is "no, you are pretty much stuck with what it gives you".  Again, if I am wrong, please let me know how the Munki adjusts this.

Last, as for the software limitations I have been reading the last two days, I'm sorry but I am not going back and cutting/pasting them all here.  Seems I even saw some of your comments in all that data that were not so rosy either but I could be mistaken.

Tom





Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2011, 02:34:50 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, I will be clearer and simpler.  I have been reading reviews for two days now.  The people that are happy with what the Munki hands them on the first deal... oops, let me simplify that... what it hands them on the first scan or with the first scan and "optimization" scan seems like they love the thing.  That is very good news if you are amongst that group.  If I were there I would be deliriously happy too.  My concern is that I might not be so lucky and want to adjust the profile.

Oh yes, so much clearer. So you don’t have the product. You’ve read reviews from others. They seem to say they get good results. You are worried what happens IF you don’t?

Quote
Sorry, but you are now going off into the ether on me here.  If a "made up" device produces good profiles, and has a lot of flexibility in the process, then a "made up" device is fine with me.  I take it X-Rite does not "make up" the Munki?

Your idea seems to be, if there are more options, in this case, options that are necessary to produce a good profile, more work for the user, with an instrument not designed for the process discussed, that’s a better solution for you? If so, by all means, go that route.

Quote
If your meaning is instead that the "made up" device is not capable of producing good profiles because it (a) has a name that irritates you or (b) is just a crap device for making profiles, then say which one you mean.

BS marketing names and poor quality profiles with a need for editing doesn’t irritate me, I don’t use such products. YOU have to decide if that’s something you want to deal with. You seem to feel that more sliders and more work to produce something unnecessary with a competing product is useful to you. If so, you should go that route.

Quote
By the way, I gave an example of when adjusting a profile might be handy (tones in B&W) which I note you did not address and responded:

I thought I made my feelings about post editing profiles clear.
Logged

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

Posts: 255


« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2011, 03:03:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I used the Datacolor Spyder Print for a number of years. I too found the profiles very warm, and inappropriately so. I used to spend time editing the profiles, but it was necessary. Back when I was more naive I did this under inappropriate lighting, and my edits ended up adding a different colour cast to my prints. You really don't want to be doing this by eye, as your eye so readily adapts to the white point of the lighting you are viewing in. To add to this I had instrument issues, and I no longer trust my Spyder for colour measurements. It is still fine for measuring shades of gray for my work with QTR, and very easy to use for that work.

I purchased a ColorMunki a year ago. It's simple, straightforward and it works. There is no need to edit the profiles, and I prefer this. When you optimize a profile it will extend the gamut in a range of colours, such as skin tones, greens, etc. When you view the profile you can see the difference, but it's relatively small.

Still, I like to tweak, and to get the most out of my printer. For that reason I've started using my ColorMunki with the ArgyllCMS. With Argyll I can measure a much larger number of patches, which has improved my profiles. Argyll's perceptual table generation is very good, and I have other areas where I can customize. However, the ArgyllCMS is a command line product, and you have to be comfortable working this way, and digging a bit deeper into colour management.

I also use my CM with the ArgyllCMS to measure the ambient lighting in my workspace. It's very handy to be know the ambient light level and temperature to ensure appropriate alignment with monitor brightness.

If I were purchasing today and my budget were small I would buy the ColorMunk. The CM is also well suited if you don't want to dig deep into this stuff (i.e. keep it simple). The CM with the ArgyllCMS raises the bar another level, but adds complexity. This is because the instrument is good, and the ArgylCMS improves on the CM software. The next step up would be a higher level X-Rite product, where you are working with a more accurate instrument.

That's been my journey, and what I've found, fwiw. I do wish you all the best in navigating though these sometimes murky waters.

Terry.
Logged
Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2011, 03:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I used the Datacolor Spyder Print for a number of years. I too found the profiles very warm, and inappropriately so. I used to spend time editing the profiles, but it was necessary. Back when I was more naive I did this under inappropriate lighting, and my edits ended up adding a different colour cast to my prints.

Terry, that warmth has been my experience also.  But it was so easy to fix I just did the fix and moved on.  And yeah, lighting is the "forgotten" key in this to a large number of people.  My booth was not an insignificant investment either.

Quote
I purchased a ColorMunki a year ago. It's simple, straightforward and it works. There is no need to edit the profiles, and I prefer this. When you optimize a profile it will extend the gamut in a range of colours, such as skin tones, greens, etc. When you view the profile you can see the difference, but it's relatively small.

Still, I like to tweak, and to get the most out of my printer. For that reason I've started using my ColorMunki with the ArgyllCMS. With Argyll I can measure a much larger number of patches, which has improved my profiles. Argyll's perceptual table generation is very good, and I have other areas where I can customize. However, the ArgyllCMS is a command line product, and you have to be comfortable working this way, and digging a bit deeper into colour management. .

I just noticed that software in my most recent searches and it sounds like a winner.  And no, command line does not bother me a bit.


Quote
I also use my CM with the ArgyllCMS to measure the ambient lighting in my workspace. It's very handy to be know the ambient light level and temperature to ensure appropriate alignment with monitor brightness.

I like my ColorEyes/DTP94 setup for my main color monitor (30"HP) so the Munki would be excess to requirements there but nice to have if the DTP puck ever bit the dust.


Quote
That's been my journey, and what I've found, fwiw. I do wish you all the best in navigating though these sometimes murky waters.

Terry

Thanks for a most helpful post.  And thanks to Kevin (kevk) earlier who also responded with a direct reply to my OP.  I am guilty of "thread creep" even in my own thread. Smiley 

Plus it it entertaining setting hair fires amongst those so easily ignited. Wink

Tom
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2011, 03:33:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Does the software with the Colormunki allow you to tweak the profiles after the fact or is it a matter of what you get after the scans is all you get?

With the Datacolor Spyder you could load and tweak the profile, which is very useful in getting color casts out of B&W for example, but my kit bit the dust in a recent move so I am looking at alternatives.

Tom

Tom, you didn't say whether you want to build profiles for dye-based inkjet or only for pigmented inkjet printers. I ask this question because I think the Datacolor system is reasonably well suited for both in terms of low-cost profiling options, whereas the Colormunki's iterative target making process is only well suited to pigmented inks. Pigmented inks "dry down" to accurate color state relatively fast. Dye-based systems can sometimes take days to reach an accurate color state (depends on media, temperature, and humidity). If you jump the gun and measure the second dye-based image target required by the Colormunki approach within an hour or so after the first target measurement, any debates about instrument accuracy (ie., is a "spectrocolorimeter" as accurate as a spectrophotometer?) becomes a moot point.  The image dyes are still diffusing and print color can drift by several delta E in some color patches after a few hours or sometimes days.

In my tests comparing two different Datacolor Spyderprint 3 units to measurements made on my two venerable Spectrolinos over several hundred patches, the worst patch discrepancy was approximately 5 delta E in a vivid green patch and with 95% under 2 dE and all neutral patches less than 1.0 (except in whitepoint on high OBA content papers...which has to do with UV content in the device illumination), hence closer instrument agreement than the the considerable dE drift caused by continuing dye diffusion after initial printing.

Lastly, I would add that with any hand held device, operator fatigue/error is quite common such that one or two color patches out of hundreds may be off by 3-5 delta E or worse if you really mess up. Only way to make sure these errors don't get baked into the profile is to measure all patches at least twice, compare both sets of measurements, and for better accuracy, then average if the two independent measurements agree to within normal instrument error. Instrument error is generally far less than 1 dE on most photographic media, may between 1 and 2 on more strongly "textured" or high gloss media. And yes, both software packages undoubtedly have internal checks for operator error since they know roughly what color to be expecting for any given patch number, but that type of built-in error checking only works when the patch measurement misses by a mile Shocked

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2011, 03:53:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Mark, very informative.  We use Canon large format printers, pigment inkset BTW.

Tom
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad