![]() ![]() However, the Spyder5Elite resulting profiles I get are too warm (pinky/yellow). The Spyder5Elite recommends 120 cd/m2 with my blinds drawn, lights off and 200 cd/m2 with my blinds open and lights on. Using the OEM software, I have issues with the ambient light monitor on the Colormunki – regardless of whether I have my blinds drawn and lights off or blinds open and lights on, Colormunki tells me my ambient light is very low and recommends cd/m2 of 80. The Displa圜AL profiles come out almost identical to the factory iMac profile. OEM software profiles differ very much from those produced using Displa圜AL. Bad news, still no nearer sorting it out!įirstly, I cannot get a consistent monitor calibration using either the Spyder5Elite or the Colormunki Display. Here’s my update … the good news is I have been seriously cramming on color management issues so I’m much more familiar with the terminology and diagnostics to try and work out what’s going wrong with my workflow. In your shoes I would first make sure that your print settings are correct (=seek support from Adobe if you print through Photoshop and possibly Canon), and when you have verified that and still get a vastly different result to what you see on screen, try to find a printer profiling service where you can send a printed target that they make available to get a custom-tailored profile for your specific printer+paper+ink combination measured from the exact batch of ink/paper and printer you’re using. There’s also things that can go wrong in the print pipeline even if the printer and monitor profiles are accurate, print settings and buggy printer drivers being a possible culprit for example. In a print-to-screen matching situation, the monitor is usually the lesser concern when it’s properly calibrated and profiled (although for best possible visual match the document white when soft-proofing should produce a close match to a white sheet of the paper you’re using when illuminated by the light you view the prints under). The general problem with any vendor printer (or rather, printer+paper+ink combination) profiles, which includes the Canon supplied ones, is that they are at best a snapshot of the batch they used at the time with a specific single (if you’re lucky, an average) printer that matches your model, and you have no real way to evaluate how accurate those profiles are for your specific printer unless you have the equipment (spectrometer) to measure it (at which point you could also create printer profiles yourself). I printed the image that I’m having problems with on Canon Pro Luster paper (given what you said about third party profiles) I don’t know what the issue is … Colormunki, ICC profiles, or it could well be something I’m doing fundamentally wrong (this I well accept and worry about :-/). I’ve been at this for 9 hours now, and I’m no nearer sorting out my calibration issues, so I think a large glass of wine is in order at this point … LOL! I flicked through my Display profiles and found the closest match on screen to my printout is sRGB IEC61966-2.1 which is the same profile I have assigned to the image. By normal, I mean a small studio with good daylight and supporting LV spotlights (not directed at the screen). I’m comparing under normal lighting conditions. But, the Canon printout was still nothing like I see on screen. I’ll take that up with their support dept tomorrow. I think there is an issue with the Red River Profiles because compared to the Canon paper, the print out is very red. ![]() Then I printed the image that I’m having problems with on Canon Pro Luster paper (given what you said about third party profiles). Very similar to the iMac factory profile (just slightly less saturated in my opinion). The resulting profile was identical in appearance to the first one. ![]() I darkened the room (don’t know if that makes a difference) and chose Auto for the correction drop-down. I ran another calibration, just to double check for consistency. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |