Printing question

Using Win98, Epson 820. When printing photos taken with my digital camera, the colors look perfect on screen, but no matter what setting I use to print, the fleshtones print out too light. Any ideas welcome.

Easiest thing to check would be your ink – is your printer running out of red?
Second, is your color management setting set up? (both for Photoshop and the printer…)
Is the file your trying to print RGB or CMYK?

n8

Using Win98, Epson 820. When printing photos taken with my digital camera, the colors look perfect on screen, but no matter what setting I use to print, the fleshtones print out too light. Any ideas welcome.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:05:47 -0500, "n8 skow"
wrote:

Easiest thing to check would be your ink – is your printer running out of red?
Second, is your color management setting set up? (both for Photoshop and the printer…)
Is the file your trying to print RGB or CMYK?

Which brings up another question; Which is better for printing? RGB, or CMYK?

"E. Barry Bruyea" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:05:47 -0500, "n8 skow"
wrote:

Easiest thing to check would be your ink – is your printer running out of red?
Second, is your color management setting set up? (both for Photoshop and

the

printer…)
Is the file your trying to print RGB or CMYK?

Which brings up another question; Which is better for printing? RGB, or CMYK?

Plenty of ink Management is set up. Printing RGB

wondering, after you edit an image and you merge the layers visible…are you suppose to use the ‘flatten’ command before print or does it matter ? After all this time I have never flattened before print and wondering if i should be.

Jodi,

I have done it both ways, and haven’t been able to see any difference. However, if you are planning to send your images to a commercial lab for processing, I think you would be wise to flatten them. I read in another thread where someone didn’t get prints back from the lab if the image had multiple layers.

Jodi, AFAIK in the Netherlands, most non professional labs require JPEGs as reading TIFFs takes too much time. To produce JPEGs you will have to flatten your images.
Pro labs however prefer TIFF files as they don’t want to compromise on quality.

I suppose this won’t be different in the USA.

Leen

well, this is for home print…so are you saying that flattening the image makes it a JPEG ??? I don’t want that…no way…guess there was a good reason that i never flatten before printing ! Thanks…phewwwww

Jodi

Flattening an image doesn’t make it a JPEG but making it a JPEG flattens the image.

Grant

Thank you Grant.
Women……phewwwww.
😉

Leen

Leen

I think it should read

Women……too phewwwww. 😉

Grant – a man that likes the fairer sex

Jodi

Don’t be so hard on yourself after all you are talking to the guy that said APS are the initials for
adobe.photoshop.elements

g.

ok ok so that was stupid of me…i knew that much…you caught me being an idiot…i hate that when that hppens 😉

I don’t have Elements on this computer, so I don’t remember…. But if you "Merge Visible" with all layers visible, doesn’t that have the same effect as "Flatten Image?" If memory serves, I think Flatten Image is grayed-out in the Layers menu after you Merge all layers. I may be wrong.

I’ve also noticed no effect on printing non-flattened vs. flattened images. I thought flattening was only necessary prior to executing certain commands and to save file size.

Marshall

na it’s still there…otherwise i would not have bothered with the idea 😉 aren’t I terrible ? 🙂

Been following this thread and putting previous information together in my mind. I just want to make sure that I have these concepts straight…so let me make a couple of statements and you all can tell me if I’m right or wrong:

1) If you want to make a jpeg directly from a psd file with multiple layers, all you have to do is save it as a jpeg and the resulting file is automatically flattened. It’s not necessary to flatten it first. The original psd is unchanged.

2) Flattening a file merges all the visible layers and discards the hidden layers, so if you have a psd file in which all layers are visible you would get the same results using the Merge Layers command as you would using the Flatten Image command.

3) Following the logic in #2 above, using the Merge Layers command only merges visible layers but does not discard the rest. Therefore if you have a psd file that contains hidden layers, you could get very different results using the Merge Layers command as opposed to the Flatten Image command.

Whew! I think I strained my brain!

Dave,

Your printer won’t include any information which is in "invisible" layers though.

Understood, Nancy. I wasn’t really thinking in terms of print results, but was just trying to make sure that I understood what was happening during different possible scenerios of using Flatten Image vs Merge Layers. Thanks.

Ah, I jumped to conclusions in thinking for printout.

Jodi,

Flatten compresses everything into a Background Layer, with all the properties of such (does not support transparency, can’t be moved or transformed). Merge combines all of the merged layers into a single layer that is the same as a Layer 0 (i.e. supports transparency, can be transformed, is a layered document, etc.)

Does that help?

Rich

Oh Richard, just seeing your name on my thread helps me 😉

no really though…thank you.

Ah, very interesting – and useful – and short and clear. Thank you Rich!

In clarification to Dave’s Question #3 above….

"3) Following the logic in #2 above, using the Merge Layers command only merges visible layers but does not discard the rest. Therefore if you have a psd file that contains hidden layers, you could get very different results using the Merge Layers command as opposed to the Flatten Image command"

"Merge Layers" only combines the selected layer with the layer listed immediately beneath it in the Layers List.

"Merge Visible" combines all layers designated "visible." The resulting image looks the same as was displayed prior to the merge.

"Flatten Image" gives you the option to discard invisible layers excluding them (or their effect) from the final flattened image.

I guess this isn’t really a question for this group, but I don’t know where else to go. I have one computer, and I have three printers. One is a firewire connect, so that’s okay, but I also have two USB connect printers. Since you can’t have two printers connected via USB, is there an A/B type of switch that will allow me to switch between the two USB printers?
Every switch that I can find is designed to be used with one printer and two computers. I need the opposite. I just ordered the Kodak 1400 Pro, and since it is a USB connect, I need to get something that will allow me to use it with my existing USB printer. Short of just running a USB cable extension, and unhooking one printer cable to connect the other, is there a more convenient way to accomplish this?

Talker

I guess this isn’t really a question for this group, but I don’t know where else to go. I have one computer, and I have three printers. One is a firewire connect, so that’s okay, but I also have two USB connect printers. Since you can’t have two printers connected via USB, is there an A/B type of switch that will allow me to switch between the two USB printers?
Every switch that I can find is designed to be used with one printer and two computers. I need the opposite. I just ordered the Kodak 1400 Pro, and since it is a USB connect, I need to get something that will allow me to use it with my existing USB printer. Short of just running a USB cable extension, and unhooking one printer cable to connect the other, is there a more convenient way to accomplish this?
Talker

Not sure if this helps, but I use two printers for one computer..one for one purpose, and the other for a different application… anyway, they both use the older type connectors…. (24 pin I believe)….It will hold one more printer, but I don’t have th eneed for t hird….. so I would think someone would be making a similar switch box for usb printers….. have you tried radio shack or a computer supply house? or even someone that is a computer consultant (if you know of any)?? Anytime I need a computer gadget, I always ask the guy that keeps mine up and running. He usually knows whats out on the market….

Hope this helps in some way…

Fwed

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:11:08 -0400, Talker wrote:

I guess this isn’t really a question for this group, but I don’t know where else to go. I have one computer, and I have three printers. One is a firewire connect, so that’s okay, but I also have two USB connect printers. Since you can’t have two printers connected via USB, is there an A/B type of switch that will allow me to switch between the two USB printers?
Every switch that I can find is designed to be used with one printer and two computers. I need the opposite. I just ordered the Kodak 1400 Pro, and since it is a USB connect, I need to get something that will allow me to use it with my existing USB printer. Short of just running a USB cable extension, and unhooking one printer cable to connect the other, is there a more convenient way to accomplish this?
Talker

I must have missed the memo, as I have two printers running on USB-2; an HP 5550 Ink Jet & a Samsung Laser, connected through a hub.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:33:44 -0400, "fweddybear" wrote:

Not sure if this helps, but I use two printers for one computer..one for one purpose, and the other for a different application… anyway, they both use the older type connectors…. (24 pin I believe)….It will hold one more printer, but I don’t have th eneed for t hird….. so I would think someone would be making a similar switch box for usb printers….. have you tried radio shack or a computer supply house? or even someone that is a computer consultant (if you know of any)?? Anytime I need a computer gadget, I always ask the guy that keeps mine up and running. He usually knows whats out on the market….

Hope this helps in some way…

Fwed

Hi Fwed! Well, I live in a small town, and while there is a Radio Shack here, I wouldn’t go there unless I knew what I needed. The clerks there aren’t too knowledgeable.
There is a large computer store in a neighboring state, so I’ll give them a call and see if they can help me. I was hoping to find something online, but I haven’t had any luck so far.
Thanks for the suggestions.

Talker

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:21:00 -0400, E. Barry Bruyea <damnsummerhas

wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:11:08 -0400, Talker wrote:

I guess this isn’t really a question for this group, but I don’t know where else to go. I have one computer, and I have three printers. One is a firewire connect, so that’s okay, but I also have two USB connect printers. Since you can’t have two printers connected via USB, is there an A/B type of switch that will allow me to switch between the two USB printers?
Every switch that I can find is designed to be used with one printer and two computers. I need the opposite. I just ordered the Kodak 1400 Pro, and since it is a USB connect, I need to get something that will allow me to use it with my existing USB printer. Short of just running a USB cable extension, and unhooking one printer cable to connect the other, is there a more convenient way to accomplish this?
Talker

I must have missed the memo, as I have two printers running on USB-2; an HP 5550 Ink Jet & a Samsung Laser, connected through a hub.

I know, I was surprised when tech support told me that. But he was right, as soon as I disconnected my HP from the USB port, and connected it to the Firewire port, everything worked fine. I’m wondering if your setup is working because one printer is going through a hub. I don’t know how that would make a difference, but maybe it does. Tech support said that with two printers connected via USB, the computer can’t tell them apart, it just tries to communicate with a printer on the USB port and having two connected, it doesn’t know which one to address. Going through a hub might alter that process so that the computer has to communicate with the hub first.
I didn’t think to ask if two printers will never work connected via USB, or if it’s a sometimes only thing, depending on each computer.
I don’t know how it all works, so I’m just grabbing at straws. Since your system works fine, I may try and hook them both up and see what happens. If it doesn’t work, at least I’ll know why.<g> I should have the new printer by Tuesday, so I’ll find out then. Anyway, thanks for your comments, because if you hadn’t posted, I would just assume that they wouldn’t work, and wouldn’t even try to connect them both to USB ports.(I could get a hub and connect it that way.<g>)

Talker