Hi,

Like so many others, I have color management issues.

Although I hope to upgrade my computer soon, probably to a new 27" iMac when they become available, I now do my photo editing (usually in a dim basement office) on a 15" Mac G4 PowerBook. I have been calibrating the laptop screen regularly with an original PanTone Huey unit. Although laptop screens don't have terrific reputations for color accuracy, and the Huey is obviously an inexpensive device, I have had large prints made by professional labs from files generated by my computer - without any need for color adjustments. I must be doing something right, at least now and then.

Until recently, I have been making prints on an Epson 1280 printer, but that experience hasn't been a lot of fun. The print colors never matched the screen display, usually running too red and too dark. As a work-around (and I've learned to hate work-arounds), I have been letting the printer, rather than Photoshop, control the printing. By adding a fixed set of printer color adjustments (to lightness and contrast, among others), I have been able to make prints that resemble my screen displays. But I would prefer my printer to make prints as I saw them in Photoshop.

Curiously enough, I have made some letter-sized prints on a really cheap Canon printer, a $60 IP1800 from Office Depot, letting Photoshop control the printing process. These prints look almost exactly like the monitor! Maybe I just have an Epson allergy.

Within the last few days, I have installed a new Epson 4880 printer. Although I'm still learning to use this complex machine, my first few small test prints, once again, don't match the screen display. They're too dark and probably too yellow; areas that appear as real red on the screen (and in printer-controlled prints from my 1280) look brownish-red on the prints.

So I've decided to find a calibration device that will adjust the monitor and the printer output. I have read a lot of reviews here and elsewhere online about various calibration devices, and I've been attracted to the X-Rite ColorMunki for its versatility and, frankly, its price; with a current rebate, it's under $300 on Amazon. I'm sure that photographers with larger budgets than mine would consider this device less than ideal, but many online reviewers have had good results with it.

Of course there are other solutions on the market, and I'd rather make the right choice now than buy an "almost" product, be frustrated again, and have to start over a few weeks down the road.

I would appreciate your thoughts on what works for you. Thanks!

Jim Quinn

With a properly calibrated monitor and the proper ICC paper profiles, any monitor calibration system will do the job. The colormunki adds the ability to calibrate projectors and make custom paper profiles. If you do not need the last two items, the cheaper monitor systems ($100 - $150)will do the job. Typically though darker prints are a symptom of a bright monitor so keep that in mind.

I was in the same boat and purchased the ColorMunki. I have just used it for the screen and prints are so much better. I have not tried the print profile yet as I do not do much in the way of printing. It did make a difference. I am using a Mac Pro and Dell 2408 screen.

For screen calibration, I prefer the Spyder3. For printer calibration (and if you use a projection screen perhaps), the ColorMunki does work as designed. It's a little tricky to get the printer calibration figured out at first but once it's done for a paper and ink type, it's not something you'll have to mess with again for some time.

Some time ago I posted some thoughts on the two here: http://modifiedphoto.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/screen-calibrated-tests-results/

I attended a photo expo here in Seattle recently and asked the Spyder sales rep if I should update from Spyder2 to Spyder3. I was shocked when, after asking what monitor I was using, he said the Spyder2 was just as good as the Spyder3.

He suggested the Spyder3 upgrade only for a very glossy monitor (I use the Apple Cinema, matte).

Jim, I can't recall how to set up the Epson printer driver but check that your monitor calibration is not set too bright, as that will make prints look relatively dark. You want around 90-100 Cd/m2 but that is impossible to achieve on iMacs except by throwing away half of the tonal range offered by the graphics card - those monitors are just ridiculously bright.

I have only just got a Color Munki but haven't installed it yet. As it turns out the Software that came with my new NEC Spectraview monitor is incompatible with the ColorMunki and so I cannot fully utilize the internal 16-bit look-up table for profiling. Keep that in mind when considering buying the ColorMunki for whatever monitor you are likely to get.

In general I think any colorimeter is better than none, as they all do a reasonable job of profiling monitors (newer ones are needed for LCDs vs CRTs) for most colours, but the better ones do a better job of managing the more subtle corrections for grey tones and dark or bright areas. None can overcome a lack of colour gamut in the screen.

- Alan

Alan,
I was just at the photo show and stopped by the NEC booth.
I asked the if the Munki would work with their monitors.
They said that you have to disable the munki software then it would work.
It's in the settings control on a Mac don't know where it would be on a PC.

I used to have a Spyder, I found it awfuly slow.
I rented an iOne with the printer calibration hardware, and it worked great.
Better monitor display and more importantly better prints.
So I bought the munki, it works great.
Prints match the monitor, it's fast, and it even reminds you to calibrate every so often.
My specs:
Mac pro 8 core
23" cinema display( soon to be retired, that's why I talked to the NEC people)
Epson 3800
a variety of papers

I hope this helps
mdr

nathanlake wrote:
I attended a photo expo here in Seattle recently and asked the Spyder sales rep if I should update from Spyder2 to Spyder3. I was shocked when, after asking what monitor I was using, he said the Spyder2 was just as good as the Spyder3.

He suggested the Spyder3 upgrade only for a very glossy monitor (I use the Apple Cinema, matte).

The Spyder 2 will also not work on the new generation of wide gamut monitors. 1 month after buying one, I swapped to a Dell 2408 and found the unit useless. they were less than sympathetic. Never buy them again.

Switched to a Color Munki - great product , fast and good profiles with the latest s/w. Printer ones are especially fast to do and as good as anything the spyder did for me previously.

mdelrossi wrote:
Better monitor display and more importantly better prints.
.
.
.
.
Prints match the monitor

Ive never owned a calibrator, I think I understand the differences between monitor/printer calibration but can you just clarify something for me?

Regarding your remark above, "better prints" and "prints match the monitor"......is that due to your calibrating the printer?

Other than brightness/darkness issues, I cant see how calibrating a monitor [alone] will improve printed images, say, like misrepresented colors within a print?

you always want/need to use a printer profile when printing. most/many paper mfgr's supply standard profiles for their papers. So having a custom print/paper profile will *improve* how close your calibrated monitor and real print match each other. Most people are content w/ std. paper mfgr profiles but a custom one gets you that much closer.

XFBO wrote:
mdelrossi wrote:
Better monitor display and more importantly better prints.
.
.
.
.
Prints match the monitor

Ive never owned a calibrator, I think I understand the differences between monitor/printer calibration but can you just clarify something for me?

Regarding your remark above, "better prints" and "prints match the monitor"......is that due to your calibrating the printer?

Other than brightness/darkness issues, I cant see how calibrating a monitor [alone] will improve printed images, say, like misrepresented colors within a print?


If you do not have a profiled monitor you do not know what the image actually looks like. This is true for tones and colors.

With a calibrated monitor you see the real image and by using the correct printer profile (printer and paper) you will get the true colors and tones in print..

Ok thanks for clarifying.

Is it safe to say that if one plans on using 3rd party inks and a less popular paper that finding profiles will be difficult, making the purchase of a printer calibrator more logical?

Work with me here I need to justify the purchase to my other half.

Seriously tho, do I have that right, it would make me feel better if my understanding of color management is getting better.

XFBO wrote:
Ok thanks for clarifying.

Is it safe to say that if one plans on using 3rd party inks and a less popular paper that finding profiles will be difficult, making the purchase of a printer calibrator more logical?

Work with me here I need to justify the purchase to my other half.

Seriously tho, do I have that right, it would make me feel better if my understanding of color management is getting better.

Correct. Go for it !

Love my Munki.

Thats exactly right. You're not likely to find profiles for 3rd party ink or oddball papers. You could have someone make them for you and the price varies from $20 - $100 per profile so if you like experimenting, it'd probably be worth it but otherwise, not so much.

I am using www.cathysprofiles.com with my Epson 3800 and could not be happier, and for $35 it is a great value.

what version of Photoshop?

Herb...

Jim Quinn wrote:
Until recently, I have been making prints on an Epson 1280 printer, but that experience hasn't been a lot of fun. The print colors never matched the screen display, usually running too red and too dark. As a work-around (and I've learned to hate work-arounds), I have been letting the printer, rather than Photoshop, control the printing. By adding a fixed set of printer color adjustments (to lightness and contrast, among others), I have been able to make prints that resemble my screen displays. But I would prefer my printer to make prints as I saw them in Photoshop.

I'm very happy with the outcome from using a ColorMunki for calibration.
I use third party inks in a CIS, requiring me to profile unless I wan't to use one of the few papers the ink vendor supplies profiles for.

I use the printer for proof sheets and I have a good match to the wet process prints from my local lab I use as final product.

I also profiled my color laser, allowing me to do quick rough "how it looks on paper" proofs, thought it's gamut is quite different and more limited to the inkjet and wet process prints.

It's also very fast and easy to use, both for screen calibration and printer profiling.

nathanlake wrote:
I attended a photo expo here in Seattle recently and asked the Spyder sales rep if I should update from Spyder2 to Spyder3. I was shocked when, after asking what monitor I was using, he said the Spyder2 was just as good as the Spyder3.

He suggested the Spyder3 upgrade only for a very glossy monitor (I use the Apple Cinema, matte).

Performance may be similar but the Spyder3 is said to be better for wide gamut displays and it has a larger sensor aperture which is said to make it better for very deep colors. They used to have a comparison on the website but it doesn't seem to show Spyder2 products at all anymore.

Hi

I have had the ColoMunki since just after it was available and I very pleased. I am sure there are more in deph units, but it does the job for me.

BTW ColorMunki makes me think that US spelling is the sxxxx. Color should be colour and munki monkey...

Martin

ps for progress also go metric