Which Monitor Calibration Tool

[wingspar]

I’ve decided to replace my 10 year old monitor calibration unit. These three are at the top of my list after re-reading this old thread from a few months ago.

I woke up this morning with the intentions of ordering today, but I thought, since I don’t really need to order today, I would see what the thinking on these 3 are today. No need to suggest any others. It will be one of these 3. Comments on setup, interface, and how easy yours is to use would be welcome.

 

[TonyW]

Did not vote as there is a little more to this question I suspect than at first sight!

Any of the calibration tools you list are capable of doing a good job of calibrating and profiling your monitor. In theory the best is probably the i1 Display Pro but the colour engine in the ColorMunki and Display pro is the same. Display Pro runs calibrates much faster than ColorMunki and offers many user choices not available in the Munki but is also due to this perhaps more complex to use?

So if you just want a wizard driven device as an easy to use solution the ColorMunki Display may be the better choice. Similarly the Spyder 4 is I believe another good choice.

The reason I did not vote is that from memory of a previous thread (not sure where!) you stated you had a Lacie monitor with Blue eye software and although your monitor was wide gamut you were still using Spyder 2?
If this is still the case then I think you should consider the fact that it is possible that the Lacie can be hardware calibrated i.e. the Lacie software can communicate directly with the monitor electronics and calibrate the monitor electronics directly which is IMHO a much better route to calibration and profiling. This functionality can only be achieved using the manufacturers software (in this case Blue eye?) and will require a specific calibration device to work.

In considering this route you will need to establish with Lacie exactly what models of calibrator the software will support and if your software is up to date. This way you will not need to use the mnfctr. calibration software at all as you will be using Lacie app. for direct comms. In fact it may save some money if you want to use Spyder 4 in that you could just buy the calibrator in its least expensive entry level package and ignore the software.

 

[Growltiger]

ColorMunki Photo, assuming you want monitor and printer calibration.
So I voted for the ColorMunki, meaning the Photo one, not the Display one.

 

[wingspar]

Did not vote as there is a little more to this question I suspect than at first sight!

Any of the calibration tools you list are capable of doing a good job of calibrating and profiling your monitor. In theory the best is probably the i1 Display Pro but the colour engine in the ColorMunki and Display pro is the same. Display Pro runs calibrates much faster than ColorMunki and offers many user choices not available in the Munki but is also due to this perhaps more complex to use?

So if you just want a wizard driven device as an easy to use solution the ColorMunki Display may be the better choice. Similarly the Spyder 4 is I believe another good choice.

I’ve watched YouTube videos on both the i1Display and the ColorMunki. It seems like the simpler interface of the ColorMunki would be all I need for what I’m doing these days. I don’t know if speed is all that important. I usually leave the room while the monitor calibrates. I’ve never timed it.

The reason I did not vote is that from memory of a previous thread (not sure where!) you stated you had a Lacie monitor with Blue eye software and although your monitor was wide gamut you were still using Spyder 2?
If this is still the case then I think you should consider the fact that it is possible that the Lacie can be hardware calibrated i.e. the Lacie software can communicate directly with the monitor electronics and calibrate the monitor electronics directly which is IMHO a much better route to calibration and profiling. This functionality can only be achieved using the manufacturers software (in this case Blue eye?) and will require a specific calibration device to work.

In considering this route you will need to establish with Lacie exactly what models of calibrator the software will support and if your software is up to date. This way you will not need to use the mnfctr. calibration software at all as you will be using Lacie app. for direct comms. In fact it may save some money if you want to use Spyder 4 in that you could just buy the calibrator in its least expensive entry level package and ignore the software.

You have a good memory. That thread is here.

I have the LaCie 324 monitor and I have been using the Blue Eye software with an old DTP94 measuring device. I took the software off in order to try some things which included using the profile that came with the monitor and getting ok results. Eventually, I installed the latest version of the software which I downloaded from LaCie, and it would not recognize the DTP94, so I took the software off and left as is with the factory monitor profile. I do think my problem was probably something on my old XP machine that was corrupt, as I had other problems not related to photography at all. I just got frustrated with it all and let it go. I never had any of those problems when I first bought my printer and started calibrating my monitor.

I now have a new computer build up and running, tho I lack some software I need to really start using it full time, so it sits on another desk and gets used as much as possible so I can get used to the Win 7 interface. I should have the rest of the software this week. My thoughts were to start from total scratch with a new calibration system. One that was designed from the get go to calibrate wide gamut monitors.

When you open the Blue Eyes software, you have a choice of, if I remember correctly, 4 calibration units with the DTP94 being one of them. I don’t remember what the others are. I would probably have to get in contact with LaCie support to find out what calibration units will work with the Blue Eye software. That’s a thought.

 

[wingspar]

ColorMunki Photo, assuming you want monitor and printer calibration.
So I voted for the ColorMunki, meaning the Photo one, not the Display one.

No, I meant the ColorMunki Display. Guess I should have been more specific with the poll, or given more time to think before posting it. Doubt I can change it now. Having software to calibrate the printer would be nice, but might be overkill for what I do these days, and it might be more complicated to use than I might want to deal with. I’m looking for a simple solution to make me happy with my prints again.

On the B&H site, I don’t see a ColorMunki Photo One, but I do see the ColorMunki Photo Color Management Solution. Is that the one you mean? At more than twice the cost of the ColorMunki Display, I really think it’s more than I want to do these days.

 

[TonyW]

From what you have said then the ColorMunki display is likely to fit the bill very well and I would agree that calibration and profile speed is for most not that important whereas accuracy is.

Thanks for reminding me of that thread I had assumed it was monitor related and could not find it to check the facts.

Starting from scratch with a calibration device suitable for wide gamut monitors is important and this has been the case with Spyder 3 onwards and the new X-Rite devices.

In your situation using the 324 I would hope that Lacie could advise both the suitability of your proposed calibration device and the version of software needed. Then you can make an informed decision which is the best way to go which I maintain is likely to be hardware calibration as long as the financial implications make sense.

 

[Growltiger]

No, I meant the ColorMunki Display. Guess I should have been more specific with the poll, or given more time to think before posting it. Doubt I can change it now. Having software to calibrate the printer would be nice, but might be overkill for what I do these days, and it might be more complicated to use than I might want to deal with. I’m looking for a simple solution to make me happy with my prints again.

On the B&H site, I don’t see a ColorMunki Photo One, but I do see the ColorMunki Photo Color Management Solution. Is that the one you mean? At more than twice the cost of the ColorMunki Display, I really think it’s more than I want to do these days.

I think that will be the one, I would expect it to cost twice as much. The display only ones are simple colorimeters, the Photo one is a spectrometer. It is very easy to use.

 

[frdjohns]

Gary,

I also didn't vote, as this is not quite so simple a question. I used to use the DTP94 with X-Rite's EZ color suite. This would allow you to calibrate both monitor and printer. I found when I moved to Windows 7 (64bit) that the DTP94 is not supported. X-Rite did provide an upgrade of the software that ran, but no windows drivers for the device. There are some drivers that are supposed to work to be found out on the net, but many people report the BSOD when attempting to install them. They crashed my machine as well.

I ended up buying the I1-display pro software and device. It runs quickly, does a great job and comes with an easy wizard-like interface and a more complex advanced interface. If you only want to calibrate your display, this is a great choice. If you want to calibrate your printer as well, it will not. Actually, the software does support printer calibration, the device does not. You must buy X-Rites next level device for that, which costs in the neighborhood of $1300.00.

If you want to calibrate both monitor and printer, then the Color Munki Photo is the only one of these choices that will do that.

 

[wingspar]

From what you have said then the ColorMunki display is likely to fit the bill very well and I would agree that calibration and profile speed is for most not that important whereas accuracy is.

Thanks for reminding me of that thread I had assumed it was monitor related and could not find it to check the facts.

Starting from scratch with a calibration device suitable for wide gamut monitors is important and this has been the case with Spyder 3 onwards and the new X-Rite devices.

In your situation using the 324 I would hope that Lacie could advise both the suitability of your proposed calibration device and the version of software needed. Then you can make an informed decision which is the best way to go which I maintain is likely to be hardware calibration as long as the financial implications make sense.

I appreciate your help. The ColorMunki Display seems to be top of the list right now. Contacting LaCie to see what current calibration unit will work with the Blue Eye software is probably worth asking, but I’m thinking the ColorMunki Display will be fine for me. Just don’t want to make a hasty decision. Having all the YouTube videos out there reviewing these units makes it nice to see how they work before buying.

 

[frdjohns]

No, I meant the ColorMunki Display. Guess I should have been more specific with the poll, or given more time to think before posting it. Doubt I can change it now. Having software to calibrate the printer would be nice, but might be overkill for what I do these days, and it might be more complicated to use than I might want to deal with. I’m looking for a simple solution to make me happy with my prints again.

On the B&H site, I don’t see a ColorMunki Photo One, but I do see the ColorMunki Photo Color Management Solution. Is that the one you mean? At more than twice the cost of the ColorMunki Display, I really think it’s more than I want to do these days.

While having the ability to calibrate your printer may be more than you think you want - don't be so quick to dismiss this. Calibrating your printer measures the colors your printer can print, just as calibrating your monitor measures the colors your monitor can display. Just because your monitor is calibrated and is displaying the proper colors, does not ensure that your printer can print them.

Having both monitor and printer calibrated made a difference for me, and now what I see on the screen is what I get on the printer.

 

[wingspar]

I think that will be the one, I would expect it to cost twice as much. The display only ones are simple colorimeters, the Photo one is a spectrometer. It is very easy to use.

I’ll probably stick with a monitor only device, but I appreciate your feedback. A printer calibration device is certainly worth looking at, even tho the cost may be a bit much for what I do. It would be nice to be happy with my prints again. I’ll see what kind of info I can find out about the ColorMunki Photo Color Management Solution on YouTube. That would tell me just how complicated it would be to use.

 

[wingspar]

Gary,

I also didn't vote, as this is not quite so simple a question. I used to use the DTP94 with X-Rite's EZ color suite. This would allow you to calibrate both monitor and printer. I found when I moved to Windows 7 (64bit) that the DTP94 is not supported. X-Rite did provide an upgrade of the software that ran, but no windows drivers for the device. There are some drivers that are supposed to work to be found out on the net, but many people report the BSOD when attempting to install them. They crashed my machine as well.

I ended up buying the I1-display pro software and device. It runs quickly, does a great job and comes with an easy wizard-like interface and a more complex advanced interface. If you only want to calibrate your display, this is a great choice. If you want to calibrate your printer as well, it will not. Actually, the software does support printer calibration, the device does not. You must buy X-Rites next level device for that, which costs in the neighborhood of $1300.00.

If you want to calibrate both monitor and printer, then the Color Munki Photo is the only one of these choices that will do that.

Wow. That is excellent info about the DTP94 and Win 7. Thank you. Why should that not surprise me. So, my DTP94 is now officially retired.

I’ll have to do more research and thought before I make a decision about printer calibration. You guys now have me seriously thinking about that.

 

[wingspar]

While having the ability to calibrate your printer may be more than you think you want - don't be so quick to dismiss this. Calibrating your printer measures the colors your printer can print, just as calibrating your monitor measures the colors your monitor can display. Just because your monitor is calibrated and is displaying the proper colors, does not ensure that your printer can print them.

Having both monitor and printer calibrated made a difference for me, and now what I see on the screen is what I get on the printer.

I had a custom profile built for my printer a few years ago. Made a big difference. The info I needed to gather to have the profile made was very complicated, so I ended up with the thoughts that profiling the printer would be above my head. Part of why the ColorMunki Display is at the top of the list right now. The KISS principle seems best for me.

Before I had the custom profile built, the paper profiles from the Epson site seemed to work pretty well. I will watch some YouTube videos on the printer profiling aspect to see how the software works before I make a decision.

 

[frdjohns]

Gary - Printer profiling is not very complicated - no worse than monitor profiling. It takes a bit longer. You have to print color samples on the paper you plan to use, then allow sufficient time for them to dry completely. Then you have to scan the color samples using your device and allow your software to create the profile using the colors produced by your printer.

If I had to do it again, I would buy the color munki photo instead of the i1 display pro. Right now I am using printer profiles created by my old software and monitor calibration created by the new i1 display pro. I am not willing to spend 1300.00 to get X-rites next level device to allow my i1 display software to calibrate my printer. I should have done more research before buying...

 

[wingspar]

Gary - Printer profiling is not very complicated - no worse than monitor profiling. It takes a bit longer. You have to print color samples on the paper you plan to use, then allow sufficient time for them to dry completely. Then you have to scan the color samples using your device and allow your software to create the profile using the colors produced by your printer.

If I had to do it again, I would buy the color munki photo instead of the i1 display pro. Right now I am using printer profiles created by my old software and monitor calibration created by the new i1 display pro. I am not willing to spend 1300.00 to get X-rites next level device to allow my i1 display software to calibrate my printer. I should have done more research before buying...

I found this video on the ColorMunki Photo. I guess I have to think about it for a couple of days, then watch the video again. I still think it might be a bit much for what I’m doing these days, but I’m leaving the option open for now.

 

[Growltiger]

I originally bought a Spyder, which only did monitors. I then realised I needed one that did printers too. So in the end it all cost more because I wasted the money on the Spyder.

The print profiling is easy but takes an hour because of drying time. It also costs two sheets of paper.

You need to calibrate for each combination of Printer + Paper type + Ink type(if you use more than one).

 

[wingspar]

Well, I’m just not sure I need or want to go the print calibration route for what I’m doing these days. Yes, I’m aware that you must profile for each paper. I’m still thinking on this.

 

[TonyW]

Well, I’m just not sure I need or want to go the print calibration route for what I’m doing these days. Yes, I’m aware that you must profile for each paper. I’m still thinking on this.

To add my 2 cents to the question of do you need a calibrator to profile your printer. I think you need to ask yourself some basic questions and understand what making your own profiles may bring to the table and when this route will be most useful.

The single most important thing you need to do in colour management is calibrate and profile your monitor to a known standard (this is not sRGB or Adobe RGB!) with an instrument that is capable of accurately measuring monitor output (the calibration process) and then producing an accurate profile that describes your monitor behaviour and in your case will only be achieved (accurately) with a unit that has been designed for wide gamut monitors. A good monitor profile is the only way you will have a chance of seeing an accurate representation on screen of your image files. Without this you are going to end up chasing colour management in an effort to match print to screen including the potential to build custom printer profiles to correct for what is really a monitor profile issue.

Finally to the printer and what is referred to as ‘calibration’ is really related to producing paper profiles as stated in this thread for each paper you use and for the particular inks in use. It can be argued that you are not actually calibrating your printer unless you include such things in your printer driver e.g. head alignment, nozzle clearing etc which physically adjust the unit. Whereas in making a paper profile you are attempting to accurately describe in the profile the behaviour of the printer with a particular ink and paper combination – which can and will vary wildly between different papers and inks.

IMO the most compelling reason to buy:

• You are intending to use other than Epson papers and there are no profiles available for your printer or the profiles are poor

• You are going to be using a third party ink

• Your existing profiles do not accurately enough reflect your particular printer characteristics. Be aware that this can also be caused by poor/wrong monitor profiles.

Reasons not to buy?

• Additional cost – Budget monitor profile only device est $100. Print and monitor device est $300.

• The supplied canned profiles from Epson, Canon etc are usually very good indeed. Although they are based on testing of several printers they cannot take into account any variations from ‘standard’ which your printer may exhibit.

• If you are sticking with Epson paper and ink then it may be more economical to purchase a custom profile from a third party if/when needed. Be aware that you will need to turn off colour management in PS to get a proper profile and you cannot do this in PS with versions later than CS4 (I think). In that case you will have to get hold of the Adobe application that allows you to produce a print with no colour management.

 

[wingspar]

To add my 2 cents to the question of do you need a calibrator to profile your printer. I think you need to ask yourself some basic questions and understand what making your own profiles may bring to the table and when this route will be most useful.

The single most important thing you need to do in colour management is calibrate and profile your monitor to a known standard (this is not sRGB or Adobe RGB!) with an instrument that is capable of accurately measuring monitor output (the calibration process) and then producing an accurate profile that describes your monitor behaviour and in your case will only be achieved (accurately) with a unit that has been designed for wide gamut monitors. A good monitor profile is the only way you will have a chance of seeing an accurate representation on screen of your image files. Without this you are going to end up chasing colour management in an effort to match print to screen including the potential to build custom printer profiles to correct for what is really a monitor profile issue.

Finally to the printer and what is referred to as ‘calibration’ is really related to producing paper profiles as stated in this thread for each paper you use and for the particular inks in use. It can be argued that you are not actually calibrating your printer unless you include such things in your printer driver e.g. head alignment, nozzle clearing etc which physically adjust the unit. Whereas in making a paper profile you are attempting to accurately describe in the profile the behaviour of the printer with a particular ink and paper combination – which can and will vary wildly between different papers and inks.

I really do understand monitor calibration and paper profiles for the printer. I did have a custom profile made for the paper I use about 100% of the time, and it was great. However, sometime after that, I believe something on my computer got corrupted. What, I never figured out. I had a new hard drive I was going to install so I could start fresh as I did years ago when I started calibrating my monitor and had no problems what so ever using the Epson paper profiles. Before I got to that, I decided to build a new computer, so I am starting fresh, and I’m pretty sure a new monitor calibration device along with the Epson paper profiles will work. If not, and I decide to go with the ColorMunki Pro, I could probably give someone on the forum a good deal on the ColorMunki Display (if that’s what I decide on) and go for the ColorMunki Pro wile recouping some of my costs from the ColorMunki Display.

IMO the most compelling reason to buy:

• You are intending to use other than Epson papers and there are no profiles available for your printer or the profiles are poor

• You are going to be using a third party ink

• Your existing profiles do not accurately enough reflect your particular printer characteristics. Be aware that this can also be caused by poor/wrong monitor profiles.

I only use Epson Papers. I never use 3rd party ink. Before something on my computer became corrupt, I was happy with the Epson Paper Profiles.

Reasons not to buy?

• Additional cost – Budget monitor profile only device est $100. Print and monitor device est $300.

• The supplied canned profiles from Epson, Canon etc are usually very good indeed. Although they are based on testing of several printers they cannot take into account any variations from ‘standard’ which your printer may exhibit.

Display only options are $150 to $200. Display and printer profiling around $380 and up.

• If you are sticking with Epson paper and ink then it may be more economical to purchase a custom profile from a third party if/when needed. Be aware that you will need to turn off colour management in PS to get a proper profile and you cannot do this in PS with versions later than CS4 (I think). In that case you will have to get hold of the Adobe application that allows you to produce a print with no colour management.

Can’t turn off color management in later versions of Photoshop than CS4? Why in the world would they do that? I was planning on installing CS5, but sounds like I might hold off on that. There really isn’t anything I want to do that I can’t do with CS3.

 

[Growltiger]

Be aware that you will need to turn off colour management in PS to get a proper profile and you cannot do this in PS with versions later than CS4 (I think). In that case you will have to get hold of the Adobe application that allows you to produce a print with no colour management.

The ColorMunki Photo program takes you through the printer calibration step by step, you don't use Photoshop for this. Then when you have the profile installed, you use it in any version of Photoshop, or any other program that can use printer profiles.

So, Tony, I don't understand why you would want or need PS not to use colour management?