Color Munki created Profile VS one made with the Canon Color Management Tool

[jtoolman]

After having created a Canon PRO-100 profile for the Canon PRO Luter paper using Precisioncolors new ink set with the Canon Color Management tool & Colormunki Photo and showing that it was actually somewhat better in several parameters than the canned profile included in the driver, I was asked to perform the following test. ( phew all in one breath )

Create a matching profile but using only the Colormunki and its software. Then match it against my Canon Color Management tool one.

Well, here are my results!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9sjh2355EQ

Joe

 

[3dogs]

Excellent presentation and explanations Joe....top effort again

Thanks

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I think it's good to see how close those profiles are, that gives assurance that these profiling packages do a good job overall.

 

[paulcroft]

Hi Joe
I enjoyed the video, especially the way the icc comparison tool you use compares the two profiles. While it's nice to see the theory the only way I have of comparing the differences is in the print quality itself. Like you I created two different profiles, one using the ColorMunki system and the other using the Canon system, and when I compared the output result both were very similar and far superior to the canned profile that came with the Pro-100. However, I found one clear difference which has resulted in me choosing the CM profile in preference to the Canon profile - where there is a very subtle shade of grey the Canon profile causes this to be printed slightly darker than the image I see on screen whereas the CM version results in a perfect match. In the test print I use (from Native Digital) this is most evident where the number 250 is printed in various 'strengths' on a white background (see attached). I wonder if this is in any way connected to your result which shows the Canon profile extends 'further down into the dark areas' for want of a better explanation. The theory suggests, to my uninformed mind, that the Canon profile should be more accurate here but the results I see don't bear this out. I shall be very interested to hear of your results when printing using the two different profiles.

 

[jtoolman]

Remember that I am using Precision Colors newest inks set for all of these comparisons and experiments.
Also YOUR monitor calibration may...no... is very likely slightly different to mine! So your results and mine will not perfectly match.

My results are that with the CM profile I get great color. But using the particular standard test image I used, I can not separate the first two steps in the black to white ramp which in the image are designated as zero and two. They blend as black. With the Canon Tool Profile I can see the difference between the same two steps!
To further aid in seeing this you have to lay the print over a light source.
If you print letting the printer handle color, you loose about 4 such steps. They blend into a solid purplish color.

I just finished the video comparing the CM profile for Pro -100 PRO luster and PC inks against the same profile BUT optimized through the CM software using the same standard test image as the source.
The results were totally unexpected!
I'll post the link when it is done processing.

Joe

 

[rodbam]

Enjoyed the video Jose & like you say maybe not a lot in it but I will redo all my print profiles with the Canon color management tool to see if I can squeeze just a tad more out of my Pro9500 IS inks combo.

 

[mikling]

rodbam, since you were one of the first ones to get the IS 9500 Magenta issue a couple years or so back, I thought that I'd point you to this solution that you might be strongly interested in.

http://www.precisioncolors.com/C10A.html