So far, I'm pretty impressed with my new Colormunki unit.
For those of you who don't know, the Colormunki is a calibration system for both monitors and printers. The big advantage that Colormunki has over most of the other units out there in its price ballpark is the ability to scan print samples, and generate ICC profiles for specific paper/printer combinations.
My previous calibration unit was a Spyder2Express.
With the ICC profile from the CM unit, I'm able to get about 50-75% closer to the finished print product on screen.... generally, the vibrance on screen is still a little higher, but we're definitely in the ballpark. I anticipate that it will lower the number of test prints I'll have to make before being satisfied with a final image. For those of you who print yourselves, it seems like the CM is really worth considering. Its definitely by FAR the most cost effective color management system out there that includes print-profiling capabilities.
I got one when the rebate was going on, haven't set aside the time to run the printer profiles yet, how long did it take? Seems like a tedious process but have been meaning to do it.
What kind of printer do you use Evan?
The very first print I ran off my new printer was dead bang on to the screen color - the canned profiles are awesome, no further monkeying required.
I was fully prepared to go nuclear with color profiles for all the different papers, but it was not necessary (yay)!
CarminaF wrote:
What kind of printer do you use Evan?
The very first print I ran off my new printer was dead bang on to the screen color - the canned profiles are awesome, no further monkeying required.
I was fully prepared to go nuclear with color profiles for all the different papers, but it was not necessary (yay)!
Epson 3800.
I've found the canned profiles to be alright in most situations.... I've certainly done alright with simply running a calibrated monitor, but it often required a number of test prints/strips before I was completely satisfied.
I don't believe any calibration tool or profile can substitute for test prints, because an illuminated screen is just not the same as looking at it on paper.... but the Colormunki gets me a little closer. All I can say is that I can clearly see the difference in the canned ICC profiles for various papers, and the results I'm getting with the Colormunki. Its subtle, and most clients would struggle to tell the difference.... but its definitely there.
My big wish is that I could create ABW-specific profiles for my duotone prints. Colormunki, out of the box, only profiles for color imaging.... there are hacks and ways around, but they are probably outside of my technical ability.
I've got an HP Z3200 printer and it in conjunction with my calibrated monitor (via Spyder2Pro) produces prints very very close to what's on my monitor. The printer has it's own scanner/calibration so I can profile papers quickly and easily. Helps that the monitor is a kickass Dell 3008WFP too. Great combo.
I've used the Colormunki for about 6 months, and am very impressed with it.
It takes about 30 minutes to profile a specific printer/paper combination, mostly due to the 10 minutes of drying time that you spend on each of the two sheets of calibration squares.
Minor tweaking after that, and I'm printing better images than I could have possibly hoped for.
cbres00 wrote:
Evan, why did you switch from Spyder?
The precipitating factor was the addition of a second cinema display to my system... the express version of the Spyder can't run two screens. However, given that I needed some kind of upgrade, the print profiling capabilities of the Munki were what sold me on that.
I've been printing for many years now rarely having anything done in labs, my icc's are all built by a pro cm guru who can nail each paper, ink density and maximum gamut to get what I need.
Enter the Colormunki will it cut it on monochrome prints that's the biggest hurdle in print workflow, normally I need special profiles built to get the cleanest prints.This year I've been trying out more papers and the ability to craft a custom profile appeals and for £300 it appears ridiculously cheap my fear is it's aimed at less than photographer printers who may not see subtle errors in prints.
I'll probably buy one and give it a run over the holiday break.
William Wilson wrote:
I've been printing for many years now rarely having anything done in labs, my icc's are all built by a pro cm guru who can nail each paper, ink density and maximum gamut to get what I need.
Enter the Colormunki will it cut it on monochrome prints that's the biggest hurdle in print workflow, normally I need special profiles built to get the cleanest prints.This year I've been trying out more papers and the ability to craft a custom profile appeals and for £300 it appears ridiculously cheap my fear is it's aimed at less than photographer printers who may not see subtle errors in prints.
I'll probably buy one and give it a run over the holiday break. ...Show more →
William,
Probably the biggest limitation to the CM system is its current inability to create purpose-driven monochrome profiles, unless you're willing to go to the trouble of printing with a dedicated RIP and hard-coding profile response values.
I still maintain that the best one can hope for with ANY profiling system is to get close: no monitor can really replicate the look of a paper print. The question is, how close can one get for a reasonable fee and amount of trouble. For me, the ColorMunki gets me about as close as one could hope for without spending a ridiculous sum or huge amounts of hassle. Test-strips and experience still fill the gap.
QTR is one route for superior monochrome prints, my workflow is reasonably satisfactory as each step to improve takes a lot of effort and little return in the terms of percentage, law of diminishing returns.
When I try a new paper with a canned profile I throw a monochrome file at it and study the various tones looking at the underlying hues if it looks clean I go for a custom if it has a hideous colour cast I don't go any further as it's a waste of time. Presently I'm going through the Innova papers and these are definitely coming up trumps, trying a ColorMunki would be an interesting experiment for me as I enjoy printing.
Instead of ditching the Spyder2Express, I bought the ColorEyes Display Pro software and have never since felt the need to profile my prints as they are spot on. The difference between the calibrated screen according to the Spyder software and ColorEyes was quite astonishing...
I'm actually looking forward to trying out a spyder in the near future. I don't trust myself to do the "in screen" calibration with apples custom software... but I guess that it's okay
I've had my Color Munki for about 6 months now. I re-profiled the canned profile for Epson's Ultra Premium Luster paper just to see if the difference was worth the hassle. Well, I noticed the difference right away, and just like Evan said, whatever gets me closer to the final print is worth checking out. I print on an Epson R1400.
I hate to Hijack, but how much should I plan on spending to get something to simply calibrate one monitor? I don't print from home. I just want my pictures to look right when I send them off to the lab to be printed.
those of you who send outsource your printing...do you acquire custom
profiles from you lab and use those in combination with your
calibration devices?
