thanks for the helpHi, I think what you are doing with the Munki is making ICC color profiles, not actually "calibrating" the printer, per se. Your profiles should continue to be fine down to the last bit of ink in a cartridge.
You probably already know this, but each color profile you make with the Munki is only good for the exact paper/ink and print driver settings you used to make the test print(s). For example, if you are using some sort of "unsupported" paper type you might have to try a couple of different printer driver setting to find one that works better (ie, it lays down enough ink but doesn't soak the paper). Then you use your Color Munki (with software) to generate an ICC profile. If you then want to try a print driver setting that lays down a different amount of ink, then you would want to make another color profile for that paper and driver combination.
should be OK after replacing with new ink cartridges of the same kind too?Hi, I think what you are doing with the Munki is making ICC color profiles, not actually "calibrating" the printer, per se. Your profiles should continue to be fine down to the last bit of ink in a cartridge.
.
I have successfully calibrated monitor and printer with my Color Munki Photo;worked well but, now I'm wondering.I calibrated the printer with all fresh ink cartridges; will the calibration still be good at various ink levels, or does it need to be done at a variety of ink levels?
should be OK after replacing with new ink cartridges of the same kind too?
Like Bill we always used a reference image that had a colour checker good fleshtone and in our case we made the image with a grey background that was lit so there was a continuous gradation from black to white. This wasHi, yes, it should continue to be ok.
Of course there will be minor variations, even between successive prints. But these should not be noticeable to the human eye, even if the instrument can detect slight variations. In fact, if you take multiple readings of the same prints, you'll probably find a slight discrepancy here and there; it's not unlike using a densitometer on a negative - you might read a test patch at 1.51, but the next reading is 1.52; it's "on the fence," so to speak, and might fall either way.
Probably the best way for a photographer to keep an eye on things is to have a "standard image," and to make an initial reference print. If you ever think that something is amiss then make another print and compare critically against the reference. In our business we did all portrait work, so we used a portrait-type of image, including a Macbeth color chart; this allows spot readings if you want to check. (I'm presuming that the ColorMunki allows this; my experience has been either with i1 Pro units or a couple of automated strip readers.)
I appreciate all the information sharing;thank you all;I wish there were standard standard-image!Hi, yes, it should continue to be ok.
Of course there will be minor variations, even between successive prints. But these should not be noticeable to the human eye, even if the instrument can detect slight variations. In fact, if you take multiple readings of the same prints, you'll probably find a slight discrepancy here and there; it's not unlike using a densitometer on a negative - you might read a test patch at 1.51, but the next reading is 1.52; it's "on the fence," so to speak, and might fall either way.
Probably the best way for a photographer to keep an eye on things is to have a "standard image," and to make an initial reference print. If you ever think that something is amiss then make another print and compare critically against the reference. In our business we did all portrait work, so we used a portrait-type of image, including a Macbeth color chart; this allows spot readings if you want to check. (I'm presuming that the ColorMunki allows this; my experience has been either with i1 Pro units or a couple of automated strip readers.)
As a note, if you DO find noticeable color changes with a new set of ink cartridges this is a deficiency in the maker's quality control, not something that you should be expecting. FWIW, I don't know if the Munki software allows it, but the fancier software packages allow averaging multiple sets of target readings, so if you had several different (same model) printers you could average all and make a single color profile that is a "good fit" for any of them, and this would sort of accommodate production-line variations.
You're right; it seems to be fine!Hi, yes, it should continue to be ok.
Of course there will be minor variations, even between successive prints. But these should not be noticeable to the human eye, even if the instrument can detect slight variations. In fact, if you take multiple readings of the same prints, you'll probably find a slight discrepancy here and there; it's not unlike using a densitometer on a negative - you might read a test patch at 1.51, but the next reading is 1.52; it's "on the fence," so to speak, and might fall either way.
Probably the best way for a photographer to keep an eye on things is to have a "standard image," and to make an initial reference print. If you ever think that something is amiss then make another print and compare critically against the reference. In our business we did all portrait work, so we used a portrait-type of image, including a Macbeth color chart; this allows spot readings if you want to check. (I'm presuming that the ColorMunki allows this; my experience has been either with i1 Pro units or a couple of automated strip readers.)
As a note, if you DO find noticeable color changes with a new set of ink cartridges this is a deficiency in the maker's quality control, not something that you should be expecting. FWIW, I don't know if the Munki software allows it, but the fancier software packages allow averaging multiple sets of target readings, so if you had several different (same model) printers you could average all and make a single color profile that is a "good fit" for any of them, and this would sort of accommodate production-line variations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?