PDA

View Full Version : Photo output quality (or lack of it)



billybobski
06-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Hello.

I run an Intel iMac, OS 10.4.9., Quark 7, outputting to a Canon Pixma M800 'bubblejet' printer.

Is there any way I can enhance the output of photographs (printing on proper Canon high-gloss photopaper with proper Canon ink). All the colours are a bit washed-out, even though the printer is only a few months old, and hasn't had a lot of use, yet.

I haven't tried outputting through Photoshop instead, but a quick glance does seem to show 'extra' output settings.

Any ideas?

Allen, London.

ricks
06-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Unfortunately, what you see is not always what you get. You may have to do some ColorSync work to get profiles that give you good color. The hardest part of printing is getting the print to look like the monitor displays.

I have never done it with a Canon, but with the Epson Printers I usually have to go download the profiles from Epson and use Colorsync to balance things. Calibration of your monitor is important as well. I also haven't done a calibration in at least a year, so maybe we'll get someone who is more current to post any shortcuts or tips.

Rick

billybobski
06-15-2007, 02:00 AM
Thanks Rick, trying that, and I suppose it is largely a matter of trial and error.

On a related point, is there any way I can make my Photoshop NOT try and load IE for net-based help pages? OS 10.4.9 and IE just don't get on well together, and I can't find an obvious way of switching to Netscape or Safari as a default.

(I used to work in 'the print', but the CMYK/RGB is now strangely confusing. The Canon printer I've got has CMYK(+K) inks, but it seems I have to treat it as an RGB device. Odd).

All I'm after is for my lovely digital pics to print with truer colour rendition than at present!

Allen, London.

billybobski
06-15-2007, 09:28 AM
Hello.

Got an email telling me that there was a reply from 'eric' (as below), but no reply appears on screen.

(eric has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Photo output quality (or lack of it) - in the The Graphics Studio forum of MacGurus Technical Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.macgurus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23752&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote---
On a related point, is there any way I can make my Photoshop NOT try and load IE for net-based help pages?
---End Quote---
I think you're using an older version, i.e. pre CS, that I no longer have installed. But look inside the Photoshop folder, and there's probably a 'Help' folder. Find one of the web-pages, usually ending in .html. Select it and 'Get Info'. In the section 'Open with' in the info window, select a different browser, then click the button 'Change all...'. Logout and log back in.

That change makes a global change for all files that have the .html extension (so not just the Adobe help pages), which you should see once you log out and log back in.
***************)


Anyway, thanks for that, Eric, and it has worked just fine. I'll see if the Photoshop help pages thus revealed can assist with this one.

Cheers.

Allen, London.

eric
06-15-2007, 12:54 PM
Allen,

Yeah I posted that reply, then I deleted it because I wasn't sure I interpreted your original post correctly.

What I posted was meant for local help files (written in html for a browser) that are stored on your computer. But you mentioned 'net-based' help pages, which I thought was for stuff on Adobe's site -- so I wiped my post.

It's been awhile, but I seem to recall that some of Adobe's help pages were written in html, stored on your computer, and you used the browser to read them. If that's what you were taking about, then what I posted (and later deleted) should work. That associates a particular (and different) application for html files.

I seem to recall doing the same thing some versions back with PS, setting it to use Mozilla.

billybobski
06-15-2007, 01:43 PM
Well, that's sorted out then! Thanks, Eric - and it DID work.

On the outputting photos front: I'm concentrating on ColorSync (making sure Quark and Photoshop default to it) and 'perceptual' as the output mode. Seems to be making a difference, but I'd still welcome further advice.


Allen.

Nicolas
06-15-2007, 04:19 PM
Hello,

QXP is PrePress stuff so, it outputs PostScript.
If you do your output on a non PS (PostScript) printer you get only 72 DPI Screen resolution. For the high resolution output you still need a PS capable printer. What you see on your prints are 72DPI (not the full resulution of your images), washed out colors , pixelated prints.

2 things to solve this:

1. buy a PS printer

2. Make your Canon PS ready with a Software RIP (Raster Image Prosessor)
The most favorable way is using Printfab:
http://www.printfab.net/

Regards

Nicolas

billybobski
06-16-2007, 01:55 AM
Nicholas:

Viel Dank.

I've downloaded the 30-day trial version of PrintFab, as it looks just what I need. I'll play with it for a while now, and report back later.

Thanks again.


Allen.

eric
06-16-2007, 11:47 AM
I was about to add or follow up on Nicolas' point but you posted in the meantime.

If in fact your problem was a PS/RIP problem, then one way to verify is to create a pdf. You can export a pdf from within Quark for example.

Then print the pdf using Acrobat -- you may or may not need to use the 'print as image' option in Acrobat (even Reader has this).

In effect creating the pdf and print with Acrobat you're doing the software RIP.

Granted this is pretty painful as far as workflow goes because everytime you want to print at a higher level of quality (as oppposed to the low-draft quality you were getting), you have to create a pdf, then print the pdf.

It's ugly workflow, and it's what I do at work -- I have only occasional need to do some DTP be it Quark or Indesign. The color lasers we have at work (even to just to get an idea of the output) aren't PS. Ugly. I made one request when researching a replacement color printer for the terrible non-PS Dell -- I want PS!

billybobski
06-16-2007, 01:42 PM
Hello Eric.

Have a look at the Printfab link Nicolas posted.

a) you can download the 30-day version for nothing;

b) the real version is only about 50 US dollars, which for a software RIP has got to be a bargain, and you would have Postscript, and less ugly workflow!

Oh, and first results with the RIP are excellent - just being able to up the output to 2400 makes so much difference. Nice little program.


Allen.

Nicolas
06-16-2007, 04:10 PM
PostScript is the key!

without a PS capable printer you won't get high end prints out of QXP.
The only workaround is creating a PDF and printing it as an image via Acrobat as Eric suggested.

Nice to see it worked for you Allen!

EDIT:
As long as you don't need CMYK colormatching with paper simulations (like you need a profile for coated and uncoated paper) you can go with the HomeL, cuz your printer can print on legal size (216x365mm) which is larger than DinA4 (210x297mm), version of PrintFab.

But if you need a "near proof" quality go with PrintFabPro and let them do a paper profile for you on that paper you are using most of the time and on the Pro version 1x profile creation is within the package.

About the fromats/versions:
PrintFab Home: DIN-A4 (210x297mm)
PrintFab HomeL: Din-A3+ (324x458mm)
PrintFabPro (with full CMYK and profile color management, 1 profile measurement/creating): DIN-A3+ (324x458mm)
PrintFabProXL (with full CMYK and profile color management, 1 profile measurement/creating): DIN-A1 (594x841mm)
http://www.printfab.net/

Regards

Nicolas

unclemac
06-16-2007, 09:26 PM
Sage advice on an often misunderstood and mysterious subject. This is now a sticky thread so it does not get lost.

Nicolas
06-17-2007, 12:18 PM
I was about to add or follow up on Nicolas' point but you posted in the meantime.

If in fact your problem was a PS/RIP problem, then one way to verify is to create a pdf. You can export a pdf from within Quark for example.

Then print the pdf using Acrobat -- you may or may not need to use the 'print as image' option in Acrobat (even Reader has this).

In effect creating the pdf and print with Acrobat you're doing the software RIP.


Well there is only one point the PDF created with QXP is not the same as the PS-file QXP creates. The only workaround here is writing a PS file, using Acrobat Destiller to write a PDF from it and Print it as Image from Acrobat.

Regards

Nicolas

billybobski
10-03-2007, 09:30 AM
Eric, Nicolas.

As I've been having trouble with PrintFab, I came back to this thread and tried (or almost) what you suggested.

I saved a QX file (containing an .eps) as PDF, then opened it in Preview (not having Acrobat), and output to printer.

The quality was almost as good as the best I'd had on PrintFab running at 2400dpi.

Can you explain why, and how the quality shot-up so much, when the actual print came through the printer at high speed (i.e. didn't print slowly, as it does through high dpi PrintFab settings).

Alternatively, point me towards a website explaining the process. I'm not complaining, just puzzled.

Oh, and why don't Photoshop PDFs work as well, even with the Quality & Media option in play?

Thanks.

(As you might have gathered, I'm working on abandoning PrintFab).


Allen, London.

Nicolas
10-03-2007, 01:32 PM
Hello,

the color maybe look the same but the details should not be in it!
(if the image has enough details not like the jpgs you attached in the last post)

If you print a highly detailed picture that way (normal quality=NQ=fast mode in the printing dialog) then again print it with HQ settings you will se the difference ;)

If you look via a linen tester to both of the prints you will see a more rough printing screen on the print made with the NQ setting.

But if the quality is good enough for your purpose go that way.

It always depends on the "For which purpose?" Question.
Most people don't see the difference between home, semi pro and pro printings at first sight. Also they do find the home prints better because most low cost printers are adding more contrast to the images and this also removes details. BUT they are crying as a child if the same image is been printed on a High-End press or CLC because then, they'll see all the flaws of the original images (resolution, contrast, sharpness etc).

And the material which you are using for the print is also critical!
Same input same software same printer BUT different printing material and you'll have the feel that the images are completely different!
From a balanced good print on one paper to something washed-out, color blurry awful on the other paper.

Regards

Nicolas

billybobski
10-04-2007, 07:59 AM
Nicolas.

I was asking about PDF files, and the difference between a QX-created PDF file and the Photoshop PDF. I get better output results from the QX PDF, and I wondered why.

A subsidiary point is this. I haven't got Acrobat, so I output my QX PDF through Preview instead, and the result seems fine. Would I see an improvement if I were to output the QX PDX through Acrobat?

(I purposely didn't post my question relating to PrintFab problems in this thread, as I thought it best to leave it free for general discussions on output quality and reasons. As it happens, my PrintFab problems were ones of unexplained CHANGE in quality and colour when all factors remained the same).

I will make comments relating to my PrintFab problems in the other more specific thread, 'PrintFab gone wrong'.

Allen.

rwm
10-04-2007, 12:58 PM
I haven't got Acrobat, There is a free or trial version of this I believe. It may or may not have all the functionality you need/use. Nicolas or Unc use/understand these type of apps faaaaar more me. :rolleyes:

billybobski
10-04-2007, 01:30 PM
Thanks, rwm, I'll look into that, but very gingerly (in the light of unclemac's ticking off about downloading and updating...).

Same question still applies, though. Is Preview as good as Acrobat, or has Acrobat got things that Preview hasn't got? I have only used Preview for opening incoming PDF files (from the www, for example), and only recently tried the output to print more seriously.

Allen.

rwm
10-04-2007, 04:43 PM
I think what Unc and Nic are trying to say is... You will need to download certain items. Via Software Update your going to get every little change to the OS or any Apple iApp such as... iPhone, iLife's, iWork's and a BUNCH of other applications you don't need on a production computer. Keep it clean with the most basic OS X your applications need. AND when you do an update, FIRST, BackUp your operating system to another drive/partition and let it sit then update your system and after a few days, weeks or a time period that will test ALL your needs and if stable you are good to go. If you have problems then you have a good working" saved backup to use.

Also many people like to download the specific file from Apple's downloads (I save them) rather than SU and install at their connivence.. I prefer to do this and leave the computer while it is updating. AND always download from a reputable dealer/ISP etc.

Alright, I am just an ordinary Joe, and certainly no computer geek or guru, but it does make me wonder how many thousands of other ordinary Joes there are out there merrily clicking 'Install new software' every few weeks, and NOT KNOWING that it can screw up all sorts of apparently unrelated things in your system. A bunch that run basic applications that 99% of people do and they rarely conflict because Apple took more time and I am sure did some extra testing. ;)

This entire post is my opinion nothing scientific.

Nicolas
10-08-2007, 06:39 PM
Nicolas.

I was asking about PDF files, and the difference between a QX-created PDF file and the Photoshop PDF. I get better output results from the QX PDF, and I wondered why.


Allen, just a suggestion ;)

Because you don't have the same ICC-Profiles in QXP as in PS different colorprofiles = different output.

Regards

Nicolas