Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Your experience with the Color Munki  (Read 5525 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009


« on: December 11, 2012, 02:00:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I read a lot of it on the photography blogs, but I'm sceptic if one rather low-priced device can do it all.

I have the feeling it will give you a so-so screen calibration and a so-so printer profile, OK for the undemanding user, but a waste of money and time for the professional user.

But I may be wrong.


I'll be printing from a Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II.

Alternatives to get good paper profiles:

1. calibrating a NEC-PA-271W with either SpectraviewII or Basiccolor, and then use canned profiles and softproofing.
Canned profiles - I'm sure they were built using high end profilers, so they should be better than the Muni profiles... or are different batches of paper as different as the old darkroom Baryt papers used to be?

2. I heard that you could do test prints on your printer, and mail it to a color management specialist to get a good profile. But, again, if the batches are different, you are just ending up with a different canned profile - at a higher cost.

Buying expensive profiling solutions is out of the question right now.

So, what would be the best option to get the best performance out of the printer?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2012, 02:11:18 PM »
ReplyReply

On the well behaved (OK, pretty well behaved such as Epson's and Canon ink jet) printers I've used the Munki on, it holds it's own very well in terms of printer profiles. I recently built a 1728 patch plus additional 2500 optimization on a printer and compared actual prints to a profile made with 100 patches on the ColorMunki. Mine was better but the differences were shockingly small considering I was using an iSis Spectrophotometer and i1PROFILER software (which shares the same color engine technology). You don't have a lot of control and options which for this market is a good thing.
Logged

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

Posts: 1009


« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2012, 08:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Andrew.

So it would work as a printer profiler.

But as an all-in-one? Wouldn't it fall back compared with the i1-pro for the use on a NEC pa271w?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2012, 09:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Ideally you'll use a Colorimeter for the NEC. The ColorMunki can calibrate and profile a display fine, but it's a Spectrophotometer and it doesn't do quite as though a job measuring dark emissive colors. But the single device will get the job done just fine.
Logged

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

Posts: 1009


« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2012, 09:28:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Comparing test results, especially in the delta e result for color distinction, the i1 display pro is even better than the i1 pro.

So I decided to get this device first and then see if I get the Munki Photo for the printer. It's more expensive this way, but the test results of the Munki Photo were just acceptable for screen calibration, but everybody said it did good printer profiles. So it looks to me - as you also hinted - that it's more a printer profiler pushed towards being an all-in-one.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4118



« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2012, 02:45:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Ideally you'll use a Colorimeter for the NEC. The ColorMunki can calibrate and profile a display fine, but it's a Spectrophotometer and it doesn't do quite as though a job measuring dark emissive colors. But the single device will get the job done just fine.

Drifting a little from the original topic (and I'll happily start a new thread if appropriate), what calibration device would be good (that is, a combination of effectiveness and reasonableness of price) to calibrate the new 27" iMac screens? I'm planning to get one next month and I think I've moved past the Huey I bought about five years ago. I print with a 3800, using manufacturers' profiles, if that has any influence.

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

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2012, 09:05:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Drifting a little from the original topic (and I'll happily start a new thread if appropriate), what calibration device would be good (that is, a combination of effectiveness and reasonableness of price) to calibrate the new 27" iMac screens?

An EyeOne Display be fine.
Logged

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

Posts: 4118



« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2012, 01:34:59 PM »
ReplyReply

An EyeOne Display be fine.

Thanks, Andrew. Would it be better than a ColorMunki Display?

Jeremy
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1860



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2012, 02:53:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Andrew. Would it be better than a ColorMunki Display?

Jeremy
The i1 Display Pro and the ColorMunki Display are pretty much equal and I use those instead of my ColorMunki Photo for calibration and profiling my displays. The i1 Display Pro has some additional software features you may or may not need or find useful and is faster than the ColorMunki Display. Both the i1 Dispaly Pro and the ColorMunki Display are far better toolsets than the older i1 Display 2 for newer tech displays you are using.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2012, 04:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

agreed
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2012, 06:01:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The i1 Display Pro-2 and the ColorMunki Display are identical hardware with the later being purposely slowed and with crippled software. I'd pass on the ColorMunki Display for that reason.
Logged

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

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2012, 06:06:00 PM »
ReplyReply

How so? I get virtually indistinguishable results on my Color Munki Display as I do on my friends i1 Display Pro.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2012, 06:14:00 PM »
ReplyReply

How so? I get virtually indistinguishable results on my Color Munki Display as I do on my friends i1 Display Pro.

How so what? The hardware as I said is identical. The software is a big, big difference. If one provides a preset like the other, you'll get the same results. If one doesn’t provide the same options (and that's exactly the case, the Munki software is terribly crippled in target aim point options), you'll get different results. IF you need to set the target calibration to get a visual match, one lets you do this with control over white point, luminance etc, the other doesn't. So you're getting screwed in the long run because the hardware is the same, you can't upgrade to the better product and you're getting a slowdown in reading to make you feel better about the money you saved that you should have invested in the first place.
Logged

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

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2012, 07:09:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just trying to understand your point. I know that you know allot more about this than I do. I am just a lowly full time professional photographer for the last 35 years trying to make a decent product for my clients. So if I am getting identical results (I bought the CM before I heard anything about it being deficient-which I think was from an earlier post by you and then tested it against a friends i1 Display Pro). And my clients are happy with the files and my printing soft proofing is pretty good, what have I lost with the inferior calibration software? If I am really missing something I'd really like to know as I really don't get it.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2012, 07:16:15 PM »
ReplyReply

So if I am getting identical results (I bought the CM before I heard anything about it being deficient-which I think was from an earlier post by you and then tested it against a friends i1 Display Pro). And my clients are happy with the files and my printing soft proofing is pretty good, what have I lost with the inferior calibration software? If I am really missing something I'd really like to know as I really don't get it.

IF you have to set the WP to something that produces a visual match to prints (and that can mean multiple targets), but the software doesn't provide such a setting, you're not going to get the match. Read the piece on this site "why are my prints too dark".

As for the two being identical, you may think that but I suspect:

A. You didn't measure the two to see if the same reference values produce the same Lab values
B. The two displays you are comparing are in differing locations. So I don't know how you can say they are identical unless you view them side by side (better, measure them).
C. You think the two are the same (identical) and even if the targets were identical, bet you if I examine the two profiles, they are quite different.

How happy your clients are with your prints have nothing to do with this subject.

My point is, having full control over setting the target calibration is the meat and potatoes of calibrating a display! If some preset works, great. But don't count on that being the case. Otherwise why would the software offer you a few options or in terms of the better software product, a huge number of options? One size (a dozen sizes) don't fit all!
Logged

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

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2012, 08:16:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks. Just to be clear. I am calibrating the same display in the same space and flipping back and forth between the old (CM) profile and the new (i1 Pro) and determining that they are virtually identical. This was a few months back. I suspect why this simple approach works for me is that I rarely print color (I just have no interest and little demand)-only b&w printing for my gallery and museum shows and that all my commercial work is color but only delivered as files (who knows what the receiving client has calibrated on their monitors).
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Paris1968
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2012, 09:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I can confirm what Digitaldog posted earlier, that the differences between a Color Munki profile of ~100 patches, and a much larger patch set, if everthing works well, is smaller than what you would expect. I used to use a Color Munki, but, like Digitaldog, I  now use an isIs automated patch reader and i1Profiler. 3098 patches is the limit of practical return for me at least, printing with the Epson 7900 and the Canon iPF6300. I can see a difference between that and 1680 patches, but it is very small.  Likewise, the difference between the best Color Munki profiles and isIs profiles built on 1680 patches is small, but there to be seen, if you look closely.  My problem with the Color Munki is that, for some reason, I could never measure the patches smoothly, and I probably did not have the patience for it anyway.  With the isIs you simply load in the chart (and yes, there are feed problems with the isIs) and in less than twenty minutes you can have a profile built on 3000 patches, including a UV compensation.  The trade off for all that is the horrific price of an isIs.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 09:16:08 PM by Paris1968 » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2012, 09:50:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I think we are talking apples and oranges. I was soley referring to display calibration.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2012, 08:59:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I think we are talking apples and oranges. I was soley referring to display calibration.

So am I. The hardware is identical as pointed out. The software is vastly different.

A Porsche Cayenne Turbo S isn't the same as a Cayenne Diesel even if they appear very similar. Under the hood, big differences. If your goal is 0-60 under 5 seconds, one can do it, the other can't. The same is true of the ColorMunki Display and i1Display-2. Under the hood, the software is vastly different.
Logged

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

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2012, 09:04:52 AM »
ReplyReply

THat response by me was to the poster immediately above my post.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad