Home >> Photography >> Digital

X-Rite ColorMunki Photo review - Profiling Printers
December 14, 2009

It used to be in the early days of photo-quality inkjet printing, that creating a custom profile was the only way to achieve a semblance of a match between our prints and a calibrated and profiled monitor.

If the printer company offered profiles, it seemed like those profiles were an afterthought and just did not provide much quality. Back in the day, dye based printers were the norm and the inks were another variable fraught with issues, especially if you used the wrong paper type.

I cannot speak to other printer brands such as Canon and HP, but for Epson users, I think the 2200 desktop printer is when Epson finally started to get the bugs and wrinkles ironed out. The R2400 model really nailed it as far as being able to produce consistently good prints and the canned profiles offered by Epson are actually pretty good and you did not risk wasting money on paper and ink by using them.

It’s probably no coincidence that when the quality of inkjet printing really hit its stride is when pigment inks took over from dye inks – notwithstanding the huge teething pains of the first pigment printer with its brutal mesmerism issues (the Epson 2000).

Given how good canned profiles are today and given that third party paper makers also offer profiles for use with the major printer brands, do we really need to go through the expense and process of creating our own paper/printer profiles?

The second question for me is how good is the ColorMunki relative to its older and more expensive brother, the Eye One Photo? First, let’s go through the steps of creating a printer profile with the ColorMunki.

Starting with the introductory screen again, we select Profile My Printer

Make the appropriate selections for the printer and how you want to name the profile - I make sure that my profiles have the printer model and paper brand and type in the name

The software will prompt you to print the first test chart - this is a standardized test chart

The software recommends at least a 10 minute drying time

The software shows you the five strips to be measured - measuring a strip is simply gliding the ColorMunki over each strip and there is no need to measure patch-by-patch, although the ColorMunki is capable of spot measuring a color patch. The strips are large enough so that you can be a bit sloppy with the process.

As you measure each strip, it brightens and moves onto the next strip for measuring

All five strips measured

The software then calculates what the second print target should be based on the reading of the first print target

After calculating, the software prompts you to print the second chart, wait 10 minutes, then repeats the measuring screens

After the second chart has been measured, the software creates the new profile and prompts you to save it

When finished, you can enable the profile to be applied by your other applications - I did not choose this option

Some differences between the ColorMunki and the Eye One Photo processes
The Eye One Photo makes printer profiling very efficient. When using the large chart process, you print out the over 900 color patches on two sheets of letter-sized paper. The color patches are standard and you can print them anytime you want, let them dry overnight and then restart the Eye One Match software to finish off the profiling process at your leisure.

ColorMunki 's 100 patches versus the over 900 from the Eye One Photo >>

The ColorMunki does not offer that flexibility and convenience because only the first color chart is standardized for printing. Before you can print off the second color chart, you need to measure the first chart, which the ColorMunki software will analyze to determine the color patches for the second chart.

After printing out the second chart, you need to wait a recommended 10 minutes to allow the second chart to dry before resuming the profiling process. Each individual profile must be completed in whole before moving onto the next paper and profile. However, the benefit of the ColorMunki process is that the second chart is specific to the qualities of the paper and printer combination being profiled.

It’s not a standardized chart as with the Eye One, so in theory, the quality should be an even better match. I observed this in action when a clogged head in the R2400 printer resulted in dramatically off color patches compared to the 4800 printing on the same paper. More on this in the operational issues section near the end of the review.

As mentioned already, the ColorMunki only requires 100 patches to be measured, with 50 patches per sheet. The five strips per sheet are very wide and do not require a ruler or straight edge during the measurement process, although that did not stop me from flubbing at least one strip per sheet for each profile during the measurement stage. I know it’s user error, but there did not seem to be rhyme or reason for why some strips would be measured properly and others would not even though my reading technique seemed consistent.

The Eye One Photo offers 918 patches and these patches are very small squares compared to the massive color patches from the ColorMunki. You must use the ruler platform that comes with the Eye One Photo in order to read the patches properly. The sliding ruler platform makes the measuring stage very fast and easy to complete.

Print evaluation
I created new profiles for three glossy papers that I have on hand:

• Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper – not a paper that I use all that much, but I do use the 4x6 sized sheets to knock off quick prints for the family
• Ilford Smooth Pearl – a mainstay paper, because I like the finish, the cost is good and the backside does not have “Ilford” all over it like Epson papers do with “Epson”
• Ilford Gold Silk – for higher quality printing jobs, this is a thick but delightful paper and it does not cost as dearly as similar papers from other brands, such as Hahnemuhle. It’s a problematic paper for use with the 4800 though due to its thickness, as it constantly jams up if using the paper tray. Trying to manually feed the sheets in the 4800 is such an exercise in frustration, I’ve given up trying to print with the current batch of paper and the 4800. My friend Rob, who came by to look at the prints and see how printer profiling works offered that my batch of Golf Silk paper has the grain running landscape wise whereas the sheets need to feed into the 4800 portrait wise and that by feeding the paper against the natural flow of the grain may be causing the paper jams. Quite an interesting observation and one that I would have never had an inkling of (Rob has some experience with printing in a production environment).

The two Epson printers are the R2400 and the 4800, both now superseded by newer models that use the Vivid Magenta ink for an increase in print quality and color gamut. However, I’m still a very happy user of these two printers and since I’m not as flush as I used to be, I will likely continue to use them for several more years to come – assuming that Epson continues to make the regular magenta color cartridges for the 4800.

I only created a profile for the Premium Glossy Paper for use with the R2400, as I had a low supply and as I generally do not use this paper with the 4800 printer. For both Ilford papers, I created profiles for both printers during the brief time that the 4800 would actually feed Ilford Gold Silk properly. I also downloaded the profiles provided by Ilford for both printers to compare to the custom profiles.

I also used my existing custom profiles created with the Eye One Photo for comparison. Since these profiles are only about a year old, I did not feel the need to re-create the profiles again. The only new profile I created with the Eye One Photo during this session is for the R2400 and Ilford Smooth Pearl, as I discovered that I did have one in my collection of printer profiles.

Most of the serious print evaluation was with the prints made with the 4800 printer and the Ilford Smooth Pearl paper due to the printing problems encountered with the Ilford Gold Silk paper. I made the R2400 prints to check for consistency of quality of the ColorMunki profiles.

My test images are described below:

Family portrait
This family portrait was taken outdoors on top of Burnaby Mountain during the last glowing light of the setting sun. The family wanted a fall foliage scene and I wanted them in a position where the sunlight would fall on them. The rock that they are sitting on just happen to be in the light of the glowing sun and it provided a beautiful and natural light. I printed a 16x20 for them and since it was the last portrait I photographed, it was a natural to pull it out for the print comparison. For privacy reasons, I'm not posting the photo.

I printed this photo the most and was able to get the 4800 to print on Ilford Gold Silk before it decided that it had enough of the thick paper and jammed up on subsequent print jobs.

From the 4800 with both Ilford papers, there is no meaningful difference to note between the ColorMunki and Eye One Photo profiles. Both are subtly better than the downloaded Ilford profile.

Waterfall
The waterfall is in Squamish, midway between Vancouver and the ski resort of Whistler. The Stawamus Chief rock face is just outside of the town and Oleson Creek, flows down near the rock face. You cross this waterfall on the hike up the Chief. This photograph was taken during my two-week review period of the Nikon D3X. It’s been edited with Nik Color Efex software to saturate the colors and add an electric blue color to the water.

It's the blue color in the water that revealed the Eye One Photo and ColorMunki profiles as being more true to the monitor view than the Ilford profile. However, the X-Rite profiles still fell short in matching the saturation of the blue as seen on the monitor.

Fall colors - Overhead trees
This photo was taken after I finished an engagement photo session in a park, When the couple left, I stayed in the park for another hour and took photos of the fall color leaves overhead. This is another of my photos where I go over the top for color saturation, so much so that I need to edit in 16-bit mode with ProPhoto RGB in order to bring out the gaudy colors.

In the comparison, the deeper orange colors at the lower left of the photo comes out the best with the two X-Rite profiles compared to the Ilford profile.

Marine Building
This is the detail above the main entrance of the Marine Building, a famously old building on Burrard St. It’s a photo where I’ve kept my saturated tastes somewhat in check, but the edit is still an enhancement over the muted reality.

In the comparison, none of the prints match the blue seen on the monitor, but the X-Rite profiles come closest.

Post-apocalyptic Wanderers
When I posted this photo as the home page photo of the week, I called it “Eerie” because, well, it is eerie. It’s a group of statues found outside the Kansas City Art Gallery and the location, in between the old and new Art Gallery buildings, gave the statues a wandering sort of look. The side lighting throws a long shadow and adds to the idea that these are lost souls, the last of humankind, wandering to find new hope. What really finishes off the image is when I adjusted the blue sliders in Lightroom to turn the background blue sky black, which gives the photo an ominous feel to it. It’s a bit of a weird photo, one that I should probably finesse a bit more by cropping on the left side, but it grows on me the more I look at it.

In the print comparison, none of the prints match the monitor's cool grey tones, but as a B&W image, I expected that. This image was thrown in as an out-of-left-field, variable to see how custom profiles would cope with a B&W image.

Print evaluation conclusion
Folks, we’re talking about niggling differences that require very close scrutiny to tell the differences. This indicates that all the prints came out looking just fine no matter which profile I used, from the ColorMunki to the Eye One to the Ilford and Epson profiles. However, after much scrutiny, my evaluation indicates that the ColorMunki and Eye One profiles are still superior to the profiles offered by Ilford and Epson.

As for the differences between the ColorMunki and the Eye One Photo prints, there are some, but they are so subtle as to be largely meaningless when stepping back and just enjoying the photograph. There is at least a doubling of price between the ColorMunki and the Eye One Photo package I own, but there is not a doubling in difference in quality. The more I think about it the more I get annoyed at the large discrepancy in cost for results that are essentially, indistinguishable.

I think that’s pretty huge that you can get the quality that used to only be available in $1000 plus printer profiling packages for $600.

Operational issues
I did encounter some problems when trying to create the printer profiles. Anytime I flubbed reading a strip, I found the ColorMunki essentially stalled and unable to read a strip until I disconnected the USB cable and then reconnected. Once reconnected, I was able to resume where I left off.

It was quite annoying, because I always seemed to flub at least one strip on all the charts I measured. However, I discovered that this operational issue had nothing to do with the ColorMunki, but with the USB port I used, which is part of an unpowered hub on my 30-inch Dell LCD. After connecting the ColorMunki directly to one of the computer’s rear USB ports, the ColorMunki worked perfectly and no stalls or hangs occurred when I had to re-read a strip.

Based on this experience, I would recommend that no matter which calibration package you use, to connect it either directly to a powered USB hub or directly to a USB port on the computer. For PC users, to play it safe, I would only use one of the USB ports at the back of the computer, which are direct from the motherboard.

Another incident with creating printer profiles was with the R2400 and Ilford Gold Silk paper. I created the profile for the 4800 printer first and already had the two color charts, so I was very surprised to see the first chart coming out of the R2400 to be noticeably different from the 4800’s chart.

While there are differences between the two printers, they should not be huge, as both use the same Epson K3 inks. However, I went through the process of reading the first color chart and when I finished and retrieved the second chart from the printer, I knew that something was wrong, because it was grossly off compared to the 4800’s second chart.

At right are ColorMunki charts for Ilford Gold Silk from the Epson 4800 and R2400 - the bottom chart is from the R2400 with two clogged nozzles >>

Although I had run a nozzle check prior to doing any printing, I did a nozzle check again and found the Light Magenta to be spotty, but the Light Light Black was completely absent. After cleaning the heads, I started the profiling process over again and this time, the color charts were very close to the charts from the 4800.

I also encountered a hiccup with calibrating the monitors, as the ColorMunki did not seem to be measuring anything as the software pulsed through the brightness and color tests. A window shows up in the top left part of the screen to indicate what the brightness level is as you adjust the monitor’s controls, but at first, I had nothing.

Turned out that I did not have the ColorMunki seated properly in its case, which blocked the ColorMunki’s sensor, as shown at right >>

Another dumbass pilot error and to reiterate, all of these are my mistakes or issues having to do with my computer and printer, not with the ColorMunki.

Conclusion
This is a very good time to be involved in digital printing. The state of the art printers now offer color gamut that surpass the long-time standard of Adobe (1998) RGB and I hope that it will not be too long before we enjoy some of that quality at lower prices. The prospect of an Epson 3990 makes me drool and I would very quickly try my damnedest to get such a printer if it ever shows up.

The profiles that come standard with every enthusiast level printer are very good nowadays as printer companies now use proper tools to create the profiles and the printers and inks are of suitable consistency and quality that one will receive very good prints with them.

Even if your penchant is with third party papers, most of the major paper companies offer profiles for the major printer brands. Thus, it may seem silly to buy a printer profiling package. However, it may be that your specific printer is not supported by your choice of paper company; maybe your printer is older and the paper you like is newer. Or, maybe you don't have an enthusiast level printer that comes with an assortment of profiles, e.g. I think only certain better and more expensive Epson printers come with specialized profiles.

If it were $600 for only printer profiling then I might agree, but I’m not the best person to really ask since I spent a lot more on the Eye One Photo. However, since you can also calibrate and profile monitors too, that makes the CAD $600 ColorMunki a much better deal.

The ColorMunki is an easy tool to utilize with plenty of instructional videos available every step of the way. You essentially get much of the fine Swiss engineering that went into the very highly regarded Eye One Photo package distilled down to its essence with the ColorMunki for a much nicer price.

To be objective, the ColorVision package is also sub $1000 and the profiles its produces are also very good, so you do have a choice if you’re looking for an all-in-one color management package.

If you need a color management package, the ColorMunki is very definitely recommended! I plan to purchase the review sample so that I can continue using the ColorMunki to calibrate and profile my monitors.

Page 1, introduction

Page 2, monitor calibration and profiling

Correspondence & About this website     Copyright © 1998-2010 Edwin Leong