ColorMunki Photo Settings?

[kcrossley]

I just installed a ColorMunki Photo to help with color control for commercially printed projects, like business cards, letterhead, brochures, posters, etc. I followed Jeff Lazell's YouTube video and I believe I have everything setup properly. As Jeff suggested, I used the Advanced display settings and selected a 120 luminance and a D65 target white point. In order to achieve the 120 luminance, I had to reduce my LH 34UM95 monitor's brightness from 100 to 35. To me, that seemed rather extreme. In terms of brightness, my work environment is not stable.

Due to several large windows, my office is very bright during the day and much lighter in the evening. I'm wondering if I should have set the ColorMunki Photo to adjust automatically for ambient light conditions. Although my display and printed output seems to match, my display is now extremely dull, especially during the day. This makes it a little uncomfortable to use. I've read some articles that suggest that I'll get used to the lower brightness over time.

Then I read this article, which suggest that the brightness be set from 90-120 cd/m2 for print and 200 cd/m2 for work that will be viewed on a monitor (i.e. websites, email blasts, social media ads, etc.). The theory is that most people who own digital devices don't calibrate them, so in order to match those devices more closely it's best to stick with a higher brightness setting.

So now, I'm more confused than ever.

First, both X-Rite and the article seem to suggest that luminance and brightness are the same, but are they? And second, if the article is correct, do I need to setup separate display profiles for print and web work?

Any suggestions or advice regarding this subject is greatly appreciated.

[D Fosse]

Fixed numbers are not useful here. What you want is that monitor white should be a visual match to paper white. Since this depends so much on ambient light, print viewing light and even the application interface, you should never trust these recommendations. Trust your eyes.

Get them to match visually, and nevermind the numbers. If you end up with 170, so be it, if you end up with 75, that's fine too. The temperature/color likewise. It doesn't have to be D65, it doesn't even have to be 6500K (those two are not the same thing). You may need to adjust the monitor white point towards green, or towards magenta. Get it to show paper white, whatever the numbers.

Once you have that, look at black point/contrast range. It should match max ink density for the paper you're using.

The recommendation to use separate targets for web and print...I don't buy that. How badly people choose to set up their systems isn't really your problem, is it? Let them figure it out. You get the file right on your end, that's the end of that.

[kcrossley]

Thanks for your advice D Fosse.

While I totally get what you're saying, the reason I'm going through this color calibration exercise is because I tend to use a variety of commercial printers (both online and locally) and I want to make sure what I see on my display matches, as close as possible, the printed pieces they produce. I do understand that there may be some color variance, especially with larger online printers that gang jobs, but my goal is to try to get as close as possible to limit any surprises (i.e. brochures being too dark or saturated.)

To further complicate matters, some of my clients prefer printed proofs. So now I've added yet another variable into the process by using our in-house Epson printer to simulate a brochure that will ultimately be printed on a much more advanced and expensive commercial or digital printing press.

[D Fosse]

Well, you can't do much about paper white. That's your reference throughout, whatever the printer used. Spend some time and effort here, it's well worth it. As long as the white point and the black point are in line, the rest tends to fall into place by itself. But you should try to maintain consistent conditions as far as possible.

However, if you want an excuse to buy an Eizo, this is your golden chance. In Eizo ColorNavigator you can set up as many different calibration targets you like, precisely to match different output conditions, different paper stock and so on, and switch between them with a single click. No other calibrator can do that as easily, or at all.

Unless you compare side by side, small color variations tend to go unnoticed. It's much more important that you can preview and proof larger-scale gamut clipping, for instance if you receive RGB material and provide printed proofs. But this is handled with the different printer profiles.

[kcrossley]

Unfortunately, I love my LG 34UM95. And even if I wanted a similarly sized Eizo monitor, I really couldn't afford it.

As you probably know, Epson papers tend to be more neutral in terms of shade, which makes sense in terms of color accuracy. But most printers tend to use house stocks that are loaded with optical brighteners, which gives everything a blueish cast.

Since paper white is my reference point, does it make sense to select in-house proofing papers that are similar in shade to what my printers use? Also, do you have any experience with Red River Paper? I've heard they have really nice inkjet papers, including papers that have inkjet coating on both sides, which would be great for proofing brochures and other two-sided projects.

[D Fosse]

kcrossley  wrote

Since paper white is my reference point, does it make sense to select in-house proofing papers that are similar in shade to what my printers use?

Yes, that sounds very sensible indeed.

We use a regular printer and I'm familiar with the different paper stock in question there (no optical brighteners). I'm not up to date on inkjet papers, I have an Epson for proofing and use Epson papers for that.

[D Fosse]

Oh, BTW:

Due to several large windows, my office is very bright during the day and much lighter in the evening. I'm wondering if I should have set the ColorMunki Photo to adjust automatically for ambient light conditions.

This is a common problem. I have actually gone so far as covering two windows in my office with thick black felt. My coworkers joked about it for a while, you know, upside down crosses and so on, but nobody ever questioned the necessity.

Avoid automatic adjustments. It's just visually confusing no end, and mainly a marketing gimmick.