Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 06 Apr 2011 (Wednesday) 12:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

X-Rite ColorMunki vs ICC

 
tvphotog
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,093 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 37
Joined Aug 2007
Location: New York City
     
Apr 06, 2011 12:57 |  #1

I've got a new Epson R3000, for which Ilford, Hahnemuhle and Innova will soon have ICC codes for their various papers.

Are these enough to produce accurate renditions of my Spyder 3 Pro-calibrated monitor colors, or is the ColorMunki better at accuracy?

It's an expensive gadget which I would get only if the ICC codes don't do the job.

I'm asking because I found that with my Canon ip5200 Pixma, the ICC codes for various papers were fine at reproducing the monitor image.


Jay
Ireland in Word and Image (external link) Jay Ben Images (external link)5D IV | 5DS/R | Powershot S100 | 24-105L | 100-400 IIL | 16-35 f/2.8 IIL | 24 T/S f /3.5L II | 17 T/S f/4L | 50mm f/1.2L | 35mm f/1.4L | 70-200 f/2.8L II | 580 EX II | 600 EX-RT | Feisol 3441T/Markins Q3T lever QR | Gitzo 3542L Markins Qi20 BV-22 | Gitzo 5561T RRS MH-02

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ChasP505
"brain damaged old guy"
Avatar
5,566 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
     
Apr 06, 2011 14:44 |  #2

tvphotog wrote in post #12170374 (external link)
Are these enough to produce accurate renditions of my Spyder 3 Pro-calibrated monitor colors, or is the ColorMunki better at accuracy?

First of all, take your monitor out the equation. It has absolutely no affect on the quality of prints. If you print a standardized printer test image on Epson paper, using a canned Epson profile, it will print the same whether your monitor is calibrated or not.

Epson profiles are reputed to be excellent and you may or may not find a difference between a paper manufacturer supplied profile and one created by the ColorMunki.

I'd suggest holding off on investing in a ColorMunki until you do some printing. But always judge from a print of a standard test image, not one of your own.


Chas P
"It doesn't matter how you get there if you don't know where you're going!"http://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10864029#po​st10864029

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tvphotog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,093 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 37
Joined Aug 2007
Location: New York City
     
Apr 06, 2011 15:07 |  #3

Chas,

I have found that for my calibrated monitor, using a Kodak ICC code for their paper on my Canon printer, I was able to reproduce the colors on my monitor exactly. I understand that the printer will print the same each and every time, regardless of whether my monitor is calibrated or not.

I will wait and see how the new ICC codes from each paper company work on each of their papers, using my new Epson printer. I assume that they should reproduce what I see on my calibrated monitor. I'll hold off on the ColorMunki til then.

Thanks.


Jay
Ireland in Word and Image (external link) Jay Ben Images (external link)5D IV | 5DS/R | Powershot S100 | 24-105L | 100-400 IIL | 16-35 f/2.8 IIL | 24 T/S f /3.5L II | 17 T/S f/4L | 50mm f/1.2L | 35mm f/1.4L | 70-200 f/2.8L II | 580 EX II | 600 EX-RT | Feisol 3441T/Markins Q3T lever QR | Gitzo 3542L Markins Qi20 BV-22 | Gitzo 5561T RRS MH-02

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Apr 06, 2011 18:26 |  #4

Whether the colors will be exactly the same is debatable. If the monitor has a wider color gamut than the printer as does the image, then the "missing" colors will not be the same. Prints also have less contrast than monitors so that will also not be the same. Same for dynamic range and general "brightness". Adjusting the luminance on your monitor to match prints may be necessary.

With all that said, it is amazing how close you can get, if everything is set up properly.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChasP505
"brain damaged old guy"
Avatar
5,566 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
     
Apr 07, 2011 08:36 |  #5

tvphotog wrote in post #12171149 (external link)
Chas,

I have found that for my calibrated monitor, using a Kodak ICC code for their paper on my Canon printer, I was able to reproduce the colors on my monitor exactly.

Jay, your print color management thinking is totally backwards. The purpose of a high quality icc printer profile is NOT to make the print match the monitor display but to optimize the output of the specific printer-paper-ink combination. But, the purpose of a well calibrated monitor is to provide a reasonably reliable PREDICTION of how your print output will look.

Right now, when you print a standard test image on a common Epson paper like Premium Lustre, using the icc profile installed with your R3000, do you get a good match between the print and the softproofed display on your monitor? If not, you need to go back and review your entire color managed print workflow, starting from the monitor calibration.


Chas P
"It doesn't matter how you get there if you don't know where you're going!"http://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10864029#po​st10864029

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Matt ­ M.
Senior Member
Avatar
573 posts
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Eastern Washington
     
May 21, 2013 16:17 |  #6

tvphotog wrote in post #12171149 (external link)
I have found that for my calibrated monitor, using a Kodak ICC code for their paper on my Canon printer, I was able to reproduce the colors on my monitor exactly. I understand that the printer will print the same each and every time, regardless of whether my monitor is calibrated or not.

I will wait and see how the new ICC codes from each paper company work on each of their papers, using my new Epson printer. I assume that they should reproduce what I see on my calibrated monitor. I'll hold off on the ColorMunki til then.

I'm a bit confused about this. If you have a "calibrated monitor," that would indicate to me that you've used some sort of calibrating device in the recent past. If so, you wouldn't also need the ColorMunki... would you?


Matt
6d, T3i, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L[COLOR="Black"], 28-80mm, f/2.8-4L, 24-105mm f/4L , 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 II, 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II, 600EX-RT, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mavgirl
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Dallas area
     
May 21, 2013 17:23 |  #7

tvphotog wrote in post #12170374 (external link)
I've got a new Epson R3000, for which Ilford, Hahnemuhle and Innova will soon have ICC codes for their various papers.

Are these enough to produce accurate renditions of my Spyder 3 Pro-calibrated monitor colors, or is the ColorMunki better at accuracy?

It's an expensive gadget which I would get only if the ICC codes don't do the job.

I'm asking because I found that with my Canon ip5200 Pixma, the ICC codes for various papers were fine at reproducing the monitor image.

When I spend the extra money for Hahnemuhle paper I want my print to be right on the first try. For me that means ICC profiles AND accurate monitor calibration with a calibration device. That paper is too expensive to waste with a bunch of test strips and off prints.


6D/50D/350D with too many lenses
Calumet 4x5, Pentax SV 35mm, Canon A-1, Rebel G and many more toys...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark ­ Vuleta
Goldmember
Avatar
4,146 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 51
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
     
May 22, 2013 01:30 |  #8

Mavgirl wrote in post #15954319 (external link)
When I spend the extra money for Hahnemuhle paper I want my print to be right on the first try. For me that means ICC profiles AND accurate monitor calibration with a calibration device. That paper is too expensive to waste with a bunch of test strips and off prints.

You always print with an ICC profile, weather it is the correct one for your printer/ink/paper combination under the lighting conditions expected or a generic profile.

Even the paper supplied profile will generally benefit from a tweak via printer proofing/profiling and this must be done on the paper you want to use, necessitating "waste with a bunch of test strips".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark ­ Vuleta
Goldmember
Avatar
4,146 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 51
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
     
May 22, 2013 01:32 |  #9

Matt M. wrote in post #15954122 (external link)
I'm a bit confused about this. If you have a "calibrated monitor," that would indicate to me that you've used some sort of calibrating device in the recent past. If so, you wouldn't also need the ColorMunki... would you?

The Spider 3 Pro is a monitor calibration device, a different device is used to proof & profile printed output.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mavgirl
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Dallas area
     
May 22, 2013 13:35 |  #10

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #15955545 (external link)
You always print with an ICC profile, weather it is the correct one for your printer/ink/paper combination under the lighting conditions expected or a generic profile.

Even the paper supplied profile will generally benefit from a tweak via printer proofing/profiling and this must be done on the paper you want to use, necessitating "waste with a bunch of test strips".

I should have been more clear. I mean the correct ICC profiles for the paper and having my monitor calibrated as close to my printer output as I can get it. I'm not saying you won't have to make very minor adjustments or run a couple test strips. With the generic ICC profiles and an uncalibrated monitor you can use several pieces of paper up for test strips before you get it right. With the correct ICC profile and a monitor calibrated to your printer you will waste a lot less trying to get it right. And once you get set up for a specific paper on your printer you should get it right on the first try most of the time after that.


6D/50D/350D with too many lenses
Calumet 4x5, Pentax SV 35mm, Canon A-1, Rebel G and many more toys...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Matt ­ M.
Senior Member
Avatar
573 posts
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Eastern Washington
     
May 22, 2013 13:48 |  #11

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #15955549 (external link)
The Spider 3 Pro is a monitor calibration device, a different device is used to proof & profile printed output.

If I have a calibrated monitor (via Spyder, Colormunki, etc), and the correct ICC profiles for the printer and paper, I should be able to print photos that are very, very close to the image that I see on my screen, shouldn't I? What other calibration is necessary?


Matt
6d, T3i, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L[COLOR="Black"], 28-80mm, f/2.8-4L, 24-105mm f/4L , 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 II, 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II, 600EX-RT, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,637 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 513
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 28, 2013 14:49 |  #12

Matt M. wrote in post #15957205 (external link)
If I have a calibrated monitor (via Spyder, Colormunki, etc), and the correct ICC profiles for the printer and paper, I should be able to print photos that are very, very close to the image that I see on my screen, shouldn't I? What other calibration is necessary?

I suggest running some small test prints and then soft-proofing your images, comparing them soft-proofing with the actual prints and doing any fine-tuning needed, and saving the resulting adjustments as print-specific presets in Lightroom or actions in Photoshop.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,566 views & 0 likes for this thread
X-Rite ColorMunki vs ICC
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CanucksFan
562 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.