I'm having a bit off difficulty getting my printer to print at exactly the correct size. When I print 21.9 width, it comes out about 5mm wider?
On the Image Size screen here is what is showing......
Pixel Dimensions
I'm testing Image Ready and need to know how to define exact size of slice when I make slices of banner? is this possible to do with Image Ready?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a batch of 500 jpg images all in different sizes 732 KB, 634 KB, 664 KB etc.
I need to compress / save for web down to 130 KB the entire batch. I've managed to create an action which compresses them lower than 130 KB at different sizes depending on how light or dark the images are, but still not to an exact number. Is there a way to create such an action or script? I'm working off of Photoshop CS5, iMac 10.5.8.
I have hundreds of scans all from one book and I am trying to straighten and crop them all out to the same pixel amounts. For example, I have a bunch of scans that are 1000x1000 pixels with overscan on all sides, they are also all at an angle. In the end I want a folder with all the pages at 800x800 nice and straight.
So, when I open the first one, I crop and straighten it to 800x800 and then I make a custom specification at 800x800. The problem is, when I go to the next one and hit crop and pic my specification, I find out that that specification is actually for an aspect ration, not a particular dimension. I want it to automatically put the crop window to 800x800, not just restrict the crop to that aspect ratio. If this could be done it would significantly quicken my work flow.
I have resized the image in Photoshop CS5 using Perfect Resize. The image dimensions are 20.00 inches x 13.33 inches. In the Lightroom print module, I chose these settings: cell size to 20.00 in x 13.33 in. All the margins are set to 0.00. "Zoom to Fill" is not checked.Page Setup: 17 x 22 paper. Manual - rear-borderless (retain size) .The size printed is 20.5 in x 13.75 in..What should I be doing to get the print size to match the cell size of 20.00 x 13.33?
View 8 Replies View RelatedIllustrator CS6 won't let me enter an exact number into the height and width fields. For instance, if I create a circle and enter 9mm into each field, it gets resized to something like 8.993. If I create a square and enter 144mm x 63mm, Illustrator changes it to 144.005 and 62.999.
Â
I have Snap turned off.
I was using Ghostscript and CorelDRAW X5 and it worked great, now have a new computer and dont see it loaded anymore, but does CorelDRAW x6 ( which I have now) have a Ghostscript built into it?what are the exact steps to print halftones? I have a HP P2055dn laser printer
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a rectangle that is the correct width (X) but the wrong height (Y). How can I stretch it so the height is exactly 200? I think I know all the features of the stretch command. I can select the right nodes using a crossing polygon and stretch it an arbitrary amount with the cursor. I can also add an exact displacement to the size it was before.
The trouble is that all changes are based on the existing size. And it wasn't an exact size in the first place.
So how can I set the height to exactly 200? The SCALE command is no good as it scales X and Y the same amount.
The obvious work-around is to draw another rectangle the correct size on top of the old one. But that's an admission of failure. Am I missing something, or is there really no way to stretch something to an exact size?
I want to produce images that are exactly 4" x 6" to use as masters to make 4" x 6" borderless photo prints. I use Resize > Canvas Size > Absolute Size > 4.00 width > 6.00 height. When I save a print the resulting images are not exactly 4" X 6" so they do not produce useful borderless photos. Different photos have produced different size images using those same settings. The only way I have been able to learn that they are not the exact size that I need is to print and measure them.
Is it realistic to expect Paint.net to produce images that are exactly 4" x 6"?
Is there a better way than printing and measuring them to determine that the images are the desired size?
I am making a website on Illustrator 1,200 px 1,200 px. When i export it to .PSD i open it as a much larger file in pixels than this and with a whole Canvas/ Artbord white area which i don't need.
Â
Is there any way to keep the page size like the final ouput without the white canvas area in the export?
Can i scale a 2D object to an exact length and width that i need to fit into a space?
Ive been reading around online and they say use scale/ref, however i noticed by giving the ref length, it does lengthen the object to the ref length, but the height's off!
I'm trying to resize my artboard to an exact mm size via a script so then I can add this to a batch i'm trying to achieve.
Â
I've been trying to use the following, but i cant work out how to add the size I want in mm?
 Â
#target illustrator
var doc = app.activeDocument;
var docVB = doc.visibleBounds;
   var myVisibleBounds = doc.visibleBounds; //Rect, which is an array;
   myVisibleBounds[0] -= 20; //left coordinate (use negative values to add artboard)
   myVisibleBounds[1] += 20; //ltop coordinate
   myVisibleBounds[2] += 20; //right coordinate
   myVisibleBounds[3] -= 20; //bottom coordinate (use negative values to add artboard)
   doc.artboards[0].artboardRect = myVisibleBounds;
I am using photos for a slideshow. How do you resize a photo or video on the overlay track to the exact size on the timeline? I know you can use the resize handles but is there a faster way?
View 14 Replies View Relatedhow do i match on screen document size to view print size? when i create a new document and put in its dimensions when i press view print size it appears alot smaller on screen
View 4 Replies View RelatedI'm using Photoshop 7. I create a new document 8.5 x 11 inches at 150 pixels per inch.
I draw a circle 1" from the top of the image. The circle is 3" in radius.
When I print the circle is nearly .25" smaller in radius and slightly less than 1" from the top.
Why is the output not in the same placement and proportions as the image on the screen?
I have CS5.1 on a Macbook Pro.I have an incredibly frustrating problem.   I've seen similar questions, but not an answer that has resolved this for me. I have an image I have sized to fit an 8.5 x 11 inch paper. Canvas and image size all indicate my image is sized at 7.33 x 11 inches. It is at 300 dpi. Print size view indicates full space is utilized on either side….BUT…
Â
When I go to print, I click "scale to fit media" (which is an 8.5 x 11 paper sitting in printer) image prints smaller with a bar on one side. .
When I uncheck STFM,
I get:
scale - 92.67%,
[code]...
The rule of thumb for traditional illustration work is to do the original about 1/3 larger than it will be printed to allow for some tightening up. My question is, when working in photoshop at 300 dpi, is there any reason to work larger than the print size?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have just bought and installed Lightroom 5 and need to set my print size to A3 and in the future even bigger. I do not have the facility at home and need to have them sized correctly for the print shop so they do not have to waste time resizing them. I am at a loss how to do this. I cant find any settings for this size print. A3 is roughly 42 x 29.7 cm.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a template with layouts of different sizes that had been working fine with a previous Xerox 6204. My D size and E size automatically oriented with the 36" side parallel to the roll feed. I have since moved to a job that got a Designjet T2300. On this machine the D size orients the 24" side parallel. This wastes 1' of paper on the left and uses 1' extra as it runs the 36" side perpendicular. I have been unable to rectify the problem. I have tried printing in portrait, that actually cut off some of the image. I have tried all types of rotation within the driver and layouts. Tech support had me going into the machine settings and set rotation to 90. Nothing. There is a warning that "HP utilities" is not installed. Could this be a remedy? When the tech came to set up the printer he installed the necessary drivers but mad no mention of this utility.
AC2012, HP desighjet T2300
Our supplier sent us some wierd size pdfs that are not full size or half size. I am trying to resize them to full size pdfs (Arch D) but am unable to figure this out in Acrobat.
My work-around is to insert them in AutoCAD and scale them based on known dimensions, then print to pdf. Unfortunately the resulting file is collosal and the quality degraded.
I want to create a template whereby I can make a series of images that I can save as jpgs, upload to my blog, and people can print them. When they print, I want them to be one quarter of a sheet of paper (fit four to a page).
I tried creating a new image using the "inches" specification and those inches seem to have no bearing on inches in real life once printed.
So then I figured that a sheet of paper is 8.5 by 11 and I want a resolution of 300 dpi.
So 8.5 times 300: 2,550 pixels. Times that by 0.25 to get a quarter of it: 637.5 (which gets rounded to 638 pixels).
11 times 300: 3,300 pixels. Times that by 0.25= 825 pixels.
So I put in for 638 pixels by 825 pixels and 300 dpi. I created my image. I saved it as a jpg at full resolution. I uploaded it to my site and tested out the printing.
It took up most of a sheet of paper. Not even close to being a quarter of a sheet.
I've been using 2.6 and created a template for multiple business cards on a standard 8.5 by 11 sheet. [URL]
However the later versions ... 2.8 cause distortions when I try to print. ( Canon MG 2120) The standard 8.5 by 11 mysteriously converts to 7.997 by 10.349 inches .... and a weird 318.870 ppi appears. This obviously distorts my template and the 2 by 3.5 inch cards become odd sizes. When I open the template in 2.6, it works perfectly.
What has happened to the later version? i can't reset to inches and even using the 2559 by 3300 pixils with the 1050x600 card sizecan't be printed accurately So I'm now creating in 2.8 and opening in 2.6 to get my sizes correctly.
I love the expanded tools for drawing in the 2.8 ... but this feature is a nuisance ... along of course with the terrible sizing scale for the brushes. SO hard to calibrate the smaller and moe common sizes. Another bad feature.
Have I missed some adjustment somewhere. Using the same printer, same download gives two different prints sizes in 2.6 and 2.8.
I know Photoshop can do this but is there anyway to make the pixel size not change if im messing with the print size of a photo?
View 6 Replies View Relatedlately I've been started working on Illustrator, since I've always loved the vector pen tool in Photoshop, but I've notice something...
let's say I want to work on an A4 page. I start a new PRINT document, and set the A4 size at 300 DPI. If I do that on Photoshop, I'll get a huge white page that at 100% goes way out my screen, but if I start a document with the same size in Illustrator, I get a page that's smaller than my screen (at 100%).
I guess it's normal because those programs might work in different ways, but I'm concerned about it because this way, in Illustrator a 1pt size brush will always be bigger than in Photoshop.
I go through a lot of sketch stages to get to a final picture, and I sometimes print on legal paper. My Brother printer does fine at that with Apple Pages, MSWord, Acrobat, and Illustrator, but with Photoshop there's a problem. I set up a legal-size image in PS, go through all the settings I can find for printing to a non-letter-format sheet, hit print, and what I get is a letter-size patch of image on a legal-size sheet. Clearly, either I am missing something or PS is missing something.
View 3 Replies View RelatedIn another thread it is mentinoed pre-sizing image data to prepare it for best printing.For a long time it's been "standard advice" to resize images so that the ppi is an even division of the printer's dpi, because some years ago occasionally one would run across printers that would produce poor results if you didn't - you might see jaggies in straight edges for example.
Â
Thing is, computers have (not so) quietly been getting more powerful over time, and printer makers have been competing with one another to try to make their printers produce better results than the other guys. One way they've done this is by improving the quality of the algorithms in the printer drivers. Use of mega storage and high accuracy math, which was once taxing on older computer systems, is now standard practice.
Â
Making a few assumptions about the many variables (what printer, what OS, what version of drivers, what application being used to print) , there seem to be several questions here:
Â
1. Can the image resolution be too high, causing the printer driver to make bad decisions about what ink dots to lay down where on the paper?
2. Does it matter if the image PPI is an even division of the printer's DPI?
Â
As I have done in the past, I set out to do some actual testing, to see if I can actually SEE anything to answer these questions.I created a sharp image to be printed at 3 x 2 inches:Â [URL]...
Then I printed it at 6 different resolutions (1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, and 100 ppi) by resampling the image, labeling it, printing from Photoshop CS5, and feeding the same sheet of HP Premium Plus photo paper through my older HP 932c inkjet printer 6 times. The printer was set to its highest quality settings, including 2400 x 1200 dpi mode. This was the result:
Â
I then looked critically and as objectively as I could at the different images. Here are my observations:Naked eye:
Â
The four highest resolution images (1000, 720, 567, and 300 ppi) all seemed to have an equivalent high level of crisp detail.I could not detect the inkjet dots. Smooth objects look smooth.Â
I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720.At no resolution were any jaggies or evidence of aliasing visible.The inkjet dot pattern was plainly visible, and it does differ between the different prints. But it was not possible to say whether one was "better".Things seem to have a little more texture in the 1000 ppi print vs. the 720 and 567 ppi prints.Â
Lacking a high resolution scanner, I took photographs of the 6 different prints. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to set up with my best lighting and lens combination, so I got some reflections off the glossy paper, and and at this resolution I can't really see the inkject dots in the photos. I want to repeat this when I can find more time to do it better. As I did these photos hand-held, I believe the variances between them could be slightly influencing the results. But I'm going to post them anyway, for you to see.
Â
I could see ever so slightly more detail in the 720 ppi print vs. the 1000 ppi print, though from the size of the tiny dust/light reflections I think it may have just been the better focused. Note that this observation is not supported by direct observation through the jeweler's loupe, above.The 1000 ppi and 567 ppi prints seems to have slightly more noise or texture than the 720 ppi print.Â
Again, this might be issues introduced by the photography process, though I did note a possible increase in texture in the 1000 ppi print with the jeweler's loupe as well.Beyond just the blurring, I could see some evidence that straight lines are not quite as straight in the lower resolutions (300 ppi and lower). This seemed more apparent than with the jeweler's loupe examination, and I wonder whether the Photoshop downsampling process could have introduced it.Â
Â
Left to right, top to bottom:Â 1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, 100:
Conclusions:
Â
Printing to my HP 932c inkject printer on Windows 7 x64
Â
300 ppi is not sufficient to coax the best possible detail out of an inkjet printer. It appears a number in the vicinity of 720 or more is better, and this number could be much higher with modern very high resolution printers (mine's old). Speed was no different in printing any of these - a modern computer can process a huge amount of data in the blink of an eye.When a sufficiently high resolution image is printed (in this case 567 ppi or higher)
I saw virtually no evidence that a particular ppi value is superior, for example an even division of the printer's dpi, though in hindsight I realize I should have prepared a 600 ppi image (duh). I will add a 600 ppi image before I re-photograph the results.It's possible ever so slightly more texture becomes visible at 1000 ppi than 720 ppi, but it might be just noise.Practically speaking, from looking critically at the results I could not see a reason to pre-size the image for a specific ppi value.Â
I've done a photo merge and am working on it at a size of 12cm (h) x 57cm because my poor old mac is able to save changes faster at this size.
The real size I want to print it at is much, much bigger - a banner. When i choose print size, it looks pretty good (about 30%), but if I zoom it to 100% its really jagged. Which do I believe in terms of print quality? Will it print how it looks at 100%?
just started printing shots from my Canon A620 on my HP Photosmart 8450, using Elements 4, With help from Scott Kelby’s book “The Photoshop Elements 4 Book” I reduced the size of a shot down to 83 X 62 mm in Photoshop, but when I printed it out on the 8450 on HP 6 X 4 Tabbed paper, it actually came out as 88 X 65 mm!
In previous 6 X 4 prints I thought I had lost a little,
I am editing and saving pictures from a original size from the camera width 2623 pixel( 8.73in) X 4166 pixel(13.887in). I need to make prints as 5x7in and 4x6in. It seems that no matter how I size them in adobe CS6 they will not print in correct size at either URL.... which I use for prints. I also have pictures from my new camera, canon 7d and it's picture size is 3456 poixel(48in) X 5184 pixel(72in) , also can't get these sized correctly.
View 3 Replies View RelatedWhy would images print significantly smaller than designed (I'm referring to the ruler size, NOT the screen size) when the pixel aspect ratio in Photoshop is set to square pixels and 300 dpi? Does Premier or AE reset PhotoShop pixel dimenions on the sly in the Master Collection?
Â
We have a summer intern designing business card size (3.5" x 2") inspiration cards on an old laptop that was used for video production with with the CS3 Master Collection and a CS4 Production Premium upgrade.
Â
The 3.5 x 2.0 cards print out at about 3 3/8" by 1 15/16" on every one of the half dozen different printers we've tried them on, including FedEx Office locations and several different Lexmark office printers. Image size is 1050 px by 600 px, i.e., 3.5" by 2.0"
Â
When we lay out a number of cards on an 8" x 11" sheet and save it as a pdf, and then open the pdf in Photoshop and measure the image sizes, each card clearly measures 3.5" by 2" but still prints in the distorted 3 3/8" by 1 15/16" size.
Â
The smaller print problem persists if we save the images as tif, jpg or bmp. Opening the files and resaving them in CS5.5 doesn't work either. It's a problem with both the CS3 and CS4 versions of Photoshop on that laptop.
Â
It looks like something is forcing the pixels into a smaller rectangular shape but I don't know where else to look to try to fix it.
Â
Our CS5.5 Master Collection Photoshop is doing the same thing, only not as much. I'd like to be able to print the cards close to actual size. The problem persists for 5.5" x 8.5" bookcover designs too.
Where is view at print size in the latest version of photoshop?
View 10 Replies View Related
