Can one of you tech wizards answer this.
I have a HP 845c printer on my PC. Every few weeks, the paper size changes from A4 to Letter, then I have to change it back. Can I permanently delete any reference to American media sizes on my system, on the grounds that I shall not ever buy it during the lifetime of my system.
Another point.
Today, I wanted to print a montage created in Photoshop7. But the dialog box said the image would be clipped. Moving the individual layers did not help, so I printed it anyway. It looked good. Only later did I realise that the A4 paper size WHITE background layer was the problem. Though it's white it is still classed as image even though no ink is squirted!
Printing problem
-
HairyHarry (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:01 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Printing problem
I have no idea about the change of paper size although it really should take if you push the "apply" button as a paper size default.
Photoshop 7 is giving you the oversized image error? Hmm. Really the only thing that would ever do that, as a layer is being treated as a vector image. Delete the white layer, the image size is ok.
tal
Photoshop 7 is giving you the oversized image error? Hmm. Really the only thing that would ever do that, as a layer is being treated as a vector image. Delete the white layer, the image size is ok.
tal
Re: Printing problem
I don't know about the paper-size-change-thing for the Canon printer, but you should ALWAYS check your image size layout and page setup before you even think about hitting PRINT. PRINT WITH PREVIEW and of course SCALE TO FIT MEDIA are good things to do. I've often found with home printers that the paper size seldom stays where you put it.
I've noticed in Photoshop 7 that if the image is exactly 8.5x11 and sent to a piece of LETTER size paper, it will say it's going to clip. Same thing for 11x17 size. Just remember that most printers don't offer 100% page coverage, so a print at 11x17 won't BE an 11x17 when it's done; it will have a 1/4" border, usually.
And yes, background white canvas will register as image size. If you scale a 2.5x3.5" wallet into a 4"x6" print, you still have a wallet print, but on a 4x6 area. Image size and canvas size are not always the same thing.
Also, if you're printing digital pictures at home, you're an idiot and losing money doing it. Take them to a real photo lab, lest they fade away in 5 years. Epson lies. So does Kodak. I use neither.
If they're too racey pics, contact ME.
Yes, spam spam spam...haha!
Just teasing...
I've noticed in Photoshop 7 that if the image is exactly 8.5x11 and sent to a piece of LETTER size paper, it will say it's going to clip. Same thing for 11x17 size. Just remember that most printers don't offer 100% page coverage, so a print at 11x17 won't BE an 11x17 when it's done; it will have a 1/4" border, usually.
And yes, background white canvas will register as image size. If you scale a 2.5x3.5" wallet into a 4"x6" print, you still have a wallet print, but on a 4x6 area. Image size and canvas size are not always the same thing.
Also, if you're printing digital pictures at home, you're an idiot and losing money doing it. Take them to a real photo lab, lest they fade away in 5 years. Epson lies. So does Kodak. I use neither.
If they're too racey pics, contact ME.
Yes, spam spam spam...haha!
Just teasing...
-
_g (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 12:03 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Printing problem
clip.....
Any Dye Based ink will fade. Any Glossy Ink Jet Photo paper can Yellow. I've had one of my framed photos sitting in a shops southner window for over a year (two summers) and it looks just like the day I printed it. It was printed on archival coated mat inkjet photo paper with pigmented inks using a Epson C-80. I haven't seen any other output from HP, Lexmark, Canon, or the Epson Dye Ink printers survive this test without fading. Infact I have not seen any fading on anything I've printed with the Epson C80 or C84 printers I've been using, but the flag that was printed using the Epson 740 after 9/11 faded before the summer.
It cost me about $1.00 to print an 8X10 photo in ink only, and the paper glossy is runing about $.20 per sheet it is cheaper to use the online Photographic Services for any thing larger than small size prints (wallets) but printing 8 by 10 or larger it is cheaper to print them your self but if you are not using pigmented inks the prints WILL FADE.
_g
Paolo wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:02 pm Also, if you're printing digital pictures at home, you're an idiot and losing money doing it. Take them to a real photo lab, lest they fade away in 5 years. Epson lies. So does Kodak. I use neither.
If they're too racey pics, contact ME.
Yes, spam spam spam...haha!
Just teasing...
Any Dye Based ink will fade. Any Glossy Ink Jet Photo paper can Yellow. I've had one of my framed photos sitting in a shops southner window for over a year (two summers) and it looks just like the day I printed it. It was printed on archival coated mat inkjet photo paper with pigmented inks using a Epson C-80. I haven't seen any other output from HP, Lexmark, Canon, or the Epson Dye Ink printers survive this test without fading. Infact I have not seen any fading on anything I've printed with the Epson C80 or C84 printers I've been using, but the flag that was printed using the Epson 740 after 9/11 faded before the summer.
It cost me about $1.00 to print an 8X10 photo in ink only, and the paper glossy is runing about $.20 per sheet it is cheaper to use the online Photographic Services for any thing larger than small size prints (wallets) but printing 8 by 10 or larger it is cheaper to print them your self but if you are not using pigmented inks the prints WILL FADE.
_g
-
HairyHarry (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:01 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Printing problem
Thanks everyone for the helpful advice, but I still don't know about the resetting of the paper size.
Paolo: I only print images at home because they are required by the tutors who set my assignments. The ink and paper costs come out of the course fees.
Thanks for the offer to help with the 'racy images', but I usually on view such images on screen, saved onto CD-R.
Paolo: I only print images at home because they are required by the tutors who set my assignments. The ink and paper costs come out of the course fees.
Thanks for the offer to help with the 'racy images', but I usually on view such images on screen, saved onto CD-R.
Re: Printing problem
LAMINATION will help, yes, and home printing is good for the "instant total gratification" aspect. Face it, Grandma may not have another trip to the photo place left in her after the kid's birthday...you better print her a copy NOW!
The main reason that I refuse to believe ANY media maker's claim to longevity is the notorious Kodak Copy-Station / Image Maker / Creation Station lie. Kodak assured the buyers & lab owners that this wondrous new way to make prints from prints - and later, prints from slides and digital files - was the wave of the future. They claimed a 100+ year lifespan via radiation testing. The prints looked great, and eventually, the printer was able to crank out a GREAT 8x12 in 90 seconds. The only problem was the $3/8"-sheet production cost.
HOWEVER, prints made of my nephew when he was in Kindergarten are now faded, useless junk. He's in the 7th grade now, and they started to 'go south' on me about two years ago.
So, when anyone comes along and says something like, "Our product will last and last...," I reply with something like "The chemical process that was around during the Civil War made prints that are still fine. You weren't around then. Call me in 100 years or so, and I'll buy it."
Sadly, Kodachrome is now processed in only ONE lab in the USA, and E6 slide processing is rapidly on the way out. BW darkroom art is soon to follow, I fear. It's a shame to see a whole form of art, a tried and proven method, become extinct by a technology that still needs several centuries of evolution before it can even come close to the quality.
Funny how something so fantastic, that costs so much more and takes so much more time, produces prints that are of lower quality. You'd think your finished product would look better...
The main reason that I refuse to believe ANY media maker's claim to longevity is the notorious Kodak Copy-Station / Image Maker / Creation Station lie. Kodak assured the buyers & lab owners that this wondrous new way to make prints from prints - and later, prints from slides and digital files - was the wave of the future. They claimed a 100+ year lifespan via radiation testing. The prints looked great, and eventually, the printer was able to crank out a GREAT 8x12 in 90 seconds. The only problem was the $3/8"-sheet production cost.
HOWEVER, prints made of my nephew when he was in Kindergarten are now faded, useless junk. He's in the 7th grade now, and they started to 'go south' on me about two years ago.
So, when anyone comes along and says something like, "Our product will last and last...," I reply with something like "The chemical process that was around during the Civil War made prints that are still fine. You weren't around then. Call me in 100 years or so, and I'll buy it."
Sadly, Kodachrome is now processed in only ONE lab in the USA, and E6 slide processing is rapidly on the way out. BW darkroom art is soon to follow, I fear. It's a shame to see a whole form of art, a tried and proven method, become extinct by a technology that still needs several centuries of evolution before it can even come close to the quality.
Funny how something so fantastic, that costs so much more and takes so much more time, produces prints that are of lower quality. You'd think your finished product would look better...
-
_g (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 12:03 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Printing problem
Paolo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:43 pm LAMINATION will help, yes, and home printing is good for the "instant total gratification" aspect. Face it, Grandma may not have another trip to the photo place left in her after the kid's birthday...you better print her a copy NOW!
Instant total gratification is happening in all fields of indenver. You can see it in bisness moving jobs over seas and not looking at the long term.
Paolo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:43 pm The main reason that I refuse to believe ANY media maker's claim to longevity is the notorious Kodak Copy-Station / Image Maker / Creation Station lie. Kodak assured the buyers & lab owners that this wondrous new way to make prints from prints - and later, prints from slides and digital files - was the wave of the future. They claimed a 100+ year lifespan via radiation testing. The prints looked great, and eventually, the printer was able to crank out a GREAT 8x12 in 90 seconds. The only problem was the $3/8"-sheet production cost.
Totally agree. New always costs more than the old and tried way.
Paolo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:43 pm HOWEVER, prints made of my nephew when he was in Kindergarten are now faded, useless junk. He's in the 7th grade now, and they started to 'go south' on me about two years ago.
The negatives degrade also, but not as fast as the prints. I was able to digitize a 25 year old color negative and get a very nice good quailtiy print from it.
Paolo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:43 pm So, when anyone comes along and says something like, "Our product will last and last...," I reply with something like "The chemical process that was around during the Civil War made prints that are still fine. You weren't around then. Call me in 100 years or so, and I'll buy it."
The was about two years ago a magizine article about this. The only printers that had long lasting prints where the printers that used pigments instead of dyes.
Paolo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:43 pm Sadly, Kodachrome is now processed in only ONE lab in the USA, and E6 slide processing is rapidly on the way out. BW darkroom art is soon to follow, I fear. It's a shame to see a whole form of art, a tried and proven method, become extinct by a technology that still needs several centuries of evolution before it can even come close to the quality.
Yes the Darkroom is going away. It takes less time to use digital solutions than doing the same operation in the dark room. Time is money and the John Q public is not willing to pay the price for real darkroom art. John Q public will buy the cheapes frames, carmeras and like and complain about the price for the good stuff.
Paolo wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:43 pm Funny how something so fantastic, that costs so much more and takes so much more time, produces prints that are of lower quality. You'd think your finished product would look better...
Just think that to get the quality of 35mm film you need 14-16 mega pixels! This only becomes an issue when printing large prints. But for most they only want 4 by 6 prints and the 2 mega pixel carmera will do this just fine. With digital cameras you just reprint the photos if they fade and the print is just as good as the orginal print or better with a better newer printer.
_g