Printing is Photoshop is limited to 30,000 pixels max. You can go over 30K but it disables the print.
wrote in message
I have not found this problem(if it is one) reported anywhere yet, so I’m looking for some help here.
This problem has existed since the birth of Photoshop. They are going to have to do something about it soon or lose sales to more printer friendly applications.
The only two workarounds I’ve had any joy with are:
1. Use Corel Draw with every colour issue set to sRGB. Import your file and print it.
2. Use a Print manager like "Qimage" which might be slow but it will print the file. I know of no way to get Photoshop to print it other than rely on the printer’s own native driver to satisfactorily interpolate the file up to the size your printer uses.
This may be a viable alternative. All inkjet printers interpolate the print image up to or down to the native resolution of the printer. Forget all that 4800dpi stuff and realize the native print resolution of a wide format Epson is in multiples of 360 dpi. These are relatively easy to interpolate.
So try creating your image at something less than 30,000 pixels, trying at the same time to restrain it’s print resolution to (for example) 180 dpi. Send the file (under 30,000 pixels) to the printer and see how well the printer drive handles it. The actual print will be made at an interpolated resolution equal to the printer’s native resolution but you won’t see any of it happening.
Sometimes big files "printed" as in sent to the printer driver at 180 dpi look no different to a 360 dpi images. Interpolation is a sophisticated means of increasing the resolution of a printer and enlarging digital images.
JA
—
Posted via a free Usenet account from
http://www.teranews.com
I really don’t think this is the answer. I read on Adobes site that photoshop is capable of 300,000×300,000 pixels while acrobat is limited to 30,000. My 90 inch and 120 inch panoramas are also only 11 and 14 inches high. The file size is really not that large. One approaches 150mb the other 210mb. I cannot be reducing the quality any further. I’m not making images for the web today @ 92 inches. This is print work. Where high resolution and high file sizes are common.
So, do I now need to purchase another companies software to handle larger scale print jobs? These are prints we had no problem doing before. I’m not using an epson so it is not the issue I see everyone else having. I’m not limited to illustrator’s maximums. I’m using photoshop, supposedly the king of images, which it always has been. And now your saying its locked down to 30,000 pixels for printing? So, if this is right, and that is why I can’t print a 92×11 inch panorama or even tile it onto multiple smaller sheets, then someone at adobe needs to tell me that photoshop needs a complimentary printer software now to go with the CS3extended yet "locked down" version so I can go get one. Any suggestions? Do I need to get billboard strength software to print a measly 92×11 inch print?
Even if you were printing at 300ppi (and there really is no need to go that high for a pano which will be viewed at three or four feet away) you file would still only be 27,600 pixels long.
I suggest you might have a problem with the printer driver. Try downloading the latest drivers from the maker’s web site. They may have been updated for CS3. You could also try resetting Photoshop’s Prefs file as detailed in the FAQs just to rule out possible corruption there.
On the subject of the ppi required for print work: It has been determined that based on the 20/20 vision of a 20 year old person, the human eye can resolve the following detail at given viewing distances.
12" – 300 ppi
18" – 240 ppi
24" – 180 ppi
36" – 100 ppi
48" – 72 ppi
Anything higher is clearly beyond "the best" human perception. "Average" human perception will actually be a lot lower.
If the closest you are going to view a "poster sized" print was 36 inches, you could therefore achieve a massive 300 inch long print and remain inside Photoshop’s printing limitations.
The 30,000 pixel limit is only a problem for people who insist on the "overkill" 300ppi requirement for print files.
If you buy the Colorburst RIP or ImagePrint RIP, or other similar RIP (raster image processor) you can print as long as you want and get around Ps pixel limit.
True. But look at the table in post #4. Are Jon’s 120" panos going to be viewed by 20 year olds with 20/20 vision at a distance closer than 18"?
Why spend money if it is simply not neccessary?
I really don’t think this is the answer. I read on Adobes site that photoshop is capable of 300,000×300,000 pixels while acrobat is limited to 30,000.
Jeff knows of what he speaks. Photoshop can use 300,000 x 300,000 images, but printer drivers can only print the 30,000 x 30,000 format.
At this point, I will be going the RIP solution until psCS3 is hopefully patched. I will also be re-installing CS2ps, however reluctantly, because as of last week (using CS2ps) we were printing 115-200 inch prints. Thanks for the RIP suggestion Peter.
Although some of the large size work we do is meant for art and detail viewing(which would still require 300 minimum), the specific work we are doing right now is in the engineering realm. These are stitched images of 100 to 600ft dock images aligned above the same length underwater sector scan stitched images. In the end the files are not very Tall in height. We are talking about 8 to 14 inches in height while being 90-200 inches in length. These images will be viewed while laying on a table/desk and great attention is given to details.
While I appreciate your time putting thought into this matter, Chris, I too often hear people playing down the importance of print resolution. There are multiple instances and areas of print work where I do need extreme resolution. 300 is the absolute minimum for anything in smaller print sizes from 5 to 25 inches when your handing files to a production printer. Ask them. Higher resolutions should be used for smaller outputs below 5 inches. As for these uniquely long yet somewhat short-in-height prints, I cannot allow the loss of anymore pixel detail then was already lost from the digital camera or that will be lost to printer dot patterns. Too many people that come from the "design only for web" field or even the "billboard" fields gasp at the resolutions many of us work in daily. But if you actually worked with our specific needs, you could open your mind a bit to this resolution issue. Photoshop has always been our solution, and a quick solution when no RIP was needed. We will now attempt the RIP, add time to our outputs and fall back on CS2 if we have to. But hopefully this can be patched and I can go back to enjoying all of the other great new features of this CS3 upgrade.
Interestingly, many of these short but long prints seem to be just above this new limit that CS3ps is showing. I can shrink them a bit, by even an inch in some cases, and the print will be allowed. But then I will change scale and almost start to double my time dealing with these files in the longterm. And just for your knowledge. I will never print a standard size poster from a file that is 72dpi. I don’t care if the viewer is figured to be 48" or 96" back. You will see the difference. When I start enlarging graphics for use on a billboard or reusing graphics from a print job in a web page, then we’ll drop the resolution as needed. Until then, "overkill" 300 is the defacto visual standard for quality no-visual-pixelation prints in my experience.
Thanks Don, for the reassurance in Jeff’s knowledge. While I am not claiming that this 30,000 limit of printer drivers is not the actual problem in some part, I am claiming that it was possible as of last week. I will now try to get any updated drivers for each of our various printer devices to rule that out. That will not however fix the fact that I cannot even make a low res pdf of these files since I cannot even get to the print dialog to choose acrobat distillar8. Wednesday of last week, we printed a 115" file directly from psCS2 to an HP color dyejet. We also printed a 185" file to acrobat distillar that was then printed from acrobat(7) to a b/w low res KIP production printer. Neither of these are now possible now that we have just CS3 installed. So if your 30,000 pixel limit is reality for windows today, as it was last week, then what was in photoshop CS2 that is not in CS3 this week to allow these print jobs?
Chris…ppi, dpi… printer’s and file’s resolutions are not quite the same.
printer’s and file’s resolutions are not quite the same.<<
No, and printer dpi doesn’t come into this problem at all. No-one is suggesting you are using too high a printer resolution, but you’ve certainly had some bad advice about required image resolutions in the past.
<<but you’ve certainly had some bad advice about required image resolutions in the past.>>
(a bit off-topic, but useful information to me)
Care to elaborate a bit Len? My lingo may be incorrect and maybe that is where you are seeing something wrong. But i’m willing to rethink my current process here a bit if I am wrong and am still able to achieve non-"pixelated" outputs. But you find me a professional level printshop that expects or wants a 72ppi file from you for them to make an 11×17 poster on a press and I’ll definitely eat my words. Chris’s table of standard viewing distances of 20 yr-old 20/20 vision audiences may be useful if one is displaying something in a gallery where you can control or at least where estimating the viewing distance is possible. But for many practical situations this table doesn’t apply at all. I understand those saying I’m working at too high of a file resolution. But there is a clear and evident difference between poster size files created @ 72ppi or created @ 300ppi and printed on a quality dyejet at 100% size, even from 36" away. Also, creating something @300ppi, then dropping down to 72ppi will drop pixels if you don’t scale the physical file size down at the same time. Which, without a third party software like Fractals, would then require you to let the printer driver scale up a 72ppi file to the 100% size.(not a good idea) Am I incorrect in any of this thinking?
I realize that once you get to a certain point in output size, resolution and viewing distance change the whole scheme of things. At that point I leave my propensity for high detail pixels by the wayside. But lets not start filling the world with posters created at 72ppi and then output on a high quality printer, my eyes just couldn’t bare it. And let’s also not be designing everything for 20 yr-old 20/20 vision people. I know I’m not 20 anymore, and though my vision is still 20/20, the rest of our audiences are seeing through different eyes.
The point of the original user support topic was to help me find a way to continue to do what we were able to do up to last week with prior versions of photoshop. If it’s not possible, and I have to rethink my process or have to purchase other output software, I am willing and hoping to hear of other suggestions. But in all honesty, I’m not willing to make web quality raster graphics for print output jobs.
I know that ColorBurst has a fully functional 15 day demo of their RIP, which includes profiles for many papers, plus they have a pretty good forum on their website. When I’ve used their rip, it was as a standalone application andit worked very well. www.colorburstrip.com
ppi, dpi… printer’s and file’s resolutions are not quite the same.
Nobody even suggested they were. I referred only to ppi – the file resolution being input to the printer.
fall back on CS2 if we have to
CS2 had the same 30,000 pixel limitation for print jobs.
Chris’s table of standard viewing distances of 20 yr-old 20/20 vision audiences {snip} for many practical situations this table doesn’t apply at all.
Oh please, don’t give me the credit for that. This is scientific fact, verified by the late great Bruce Frazer – Who I gather knew a thing or two about optics, resolving power and digital imaging. If I remember correctly, Jeff Schewe also refers to this somewhere on one of his Adobe PDFs – and I think he’s getting the hang of this digital malarky too 😉
Thank you Peter, for the Rip software and brand name suggestions. I will be trying one of them soon.
You were correct Don, Jeff; the 30,000 pixel limit is right for CS3ps prints. I’m now trying to figure out how prior versions were capable of so much more. Has adobe given up on large format capabilities to allow some other software maker to handle this? And does no one bother Tiling large images with small sheets anymore. Will we have to manually slice everything up now?
And thanks for the suggestion to update printer drivers Chris, I’m in the middle of that now.
Jon,
Care to elaborate a bit Len?<<
Required image resolution first depends upon the method of printing.
If we are talking about conventional half-tone screening (am screening), then the required image resolution is dependent upon the linescreen used. Many ‘sources’ will say that a resolution of 2x linescreen is required, but that is way overkill. In fact the minimum image resolution is an oversampling 1.14 the linescreen being used (normally upped to 1.2 for simplicity). This for a 150lpi linescreen an image resolution of 180ppi is all that is required, and for a 175 lpi linescreen, 210 ppi. (see the Forum FAQs FAQ#52 –
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.ef7d043)
Now with stochastic screening (fm screening) as used by inkjets and a few imagesetter/offset press combinations, the considerations are different. The actual maths points to the required image resolution being dependent upon the jet size of the heads (which manufacturers only quote in picolitres which is not particularly helpful). The printer’s ouput reolution has little influence other than higher output resolution printers tend to have smaller jets. However, certanly with desktop printers, any image resolution over 240 ppi at an absolute maximum is totally wasted, and with most images, no improvement will be visible for any image resolution above 150 ppi.
For photographic reproduction methods (such as the lightjet) best possible reproduction will be from an image resolution of 304.8 ppi where no interpolation will take place on output.
All the above refer to images at 100% of the final output size, of course.
Thanks for the updated info on lines-per-inch capabilities of am screen printers and stochastic fm screen printers. But you had said that I obviously learned a few wrong habits when it came to file size and resolution. I was hoping to get some elaboration on that from you and hopefully at the same time get a better workflow from it.
Instead we have once again delved into a discussion on possible printer resolutions in an attempt to prove that 300ppi is useless in actual digital files. They are separate issues, and the printers capability being less then our digital files should not preclude you from working in higher resolutions. I still attest to my opinion that there is a clear and obvious visual difference in pixelation of artwork and images when you create files below or above 300ppi. Whether or not the printer can handle such resolution is mute if the file is already showing pixelation due to lack of resolution (amount of pixels) in the file before it even gets to the printer. If your seeing pixelation in your file onscreen while viewing between 100% to 200%, that will translate to viewable pixelation on your prints if printed on high quality inkjet/dyejets and professional presses. Yes, we should be aware of the lpi of your intended printshop victim’s press, there are tricks to be played in this realm to get what you want. And yes, we should be trying to guess the distance of our viewers and take that into account. But that doesn’t mean we should be creating pixelated garbage on our screens, that will translate to the printer and be outputted with an undesired effect on the imagery. Yes some of that pixelation will be ‘eaten’ up by the lack of ability of a printer, but it will certainly show in the clarity and distinction between shapes, colors, etc. As you work in lower resolutions, each pixel is a larger portion of your image, yet each pixel is a single color, or aliased portion of a color blending into another. With less of these individual pixels comes less detail of your original image or design. Maybe you choose printers with lower qualities to solve the issue when designing in lower resolutions… Maybe pixelation and less detail is your daily design style. In print, I choose to use it on purpose, when my solution calls for it, and never else.
This is always an interesting discussion. Thanks.
I think you are perpetuating a lot of misconceptions.
Having tried the simple experiment of printing a file six times, in six versions, set to six ppi values, from 150 to 600, on an good quality inkjet, I can only bear out what Chris and Len said.
If your seeing pixelation in your file onscreen while viewing between 100% to 200%,
??? you will always see pixelization appear when enlarging the view like that
Jon,
If your seeing pixelation in your file onscreen while viewing between
100% to 200%, that will translate to viewable pixelation on your prints if printed on high quality inkjet/dyejets and professional presses.<<
That is where you are making your real mistake. That statement is totally untrue.
<< I think you are perpetuating a lot of misconceptions. >> Again, I know I’m beating my head against a wall of designers that spend all their time designing at 72dpi for web, but this is for print so here goes..
Yes John, if you are taking a file made(created) at 150ppi… using photoshop and its very capable interpolation functions to change the resolution from 150 to 600 will yeild very minimal changes on your output.(some blurring will be seen as colored pixels are doubled/tripled, but yes it won’t show too much on your desktop inkjet) Especially so if you started with a file that was totally created at 150ppi or worse. *INSTEAD* If you start at 600ppi for let’s say, a 10"x10" file with lots of detail and text, and print it. Then use photoshop and decrease to 150ppi and print it at the same 10"x10" size and tell me you can’t see the difference. The file has just had thousands of little pixels of visual information torn right out of it. The change is less from 300 to 150, but you are the one saying 600 to 150 is the same. And when you send that to press, it will be more evident even though the screen of the press will hide some of the hideous pixelation. (the intended image suffers)
I sometimes will drop a large file created at 300ppi to 150/180 for final output depending on which printer i am using and the graphic itself.
Cybernetic, You will not always see pixelation when enlarging your (view on screen) from 100 to 200%. As long as you started creating the file at or above 300 and don’t have any low res images included within it, you should be able to get to 200% without seeing any serious pixelation. If you are starting at 150 or below, yes you will see pixelation at 200% on screen. I’m serious now. This is an excellent and easy test for you to start using to get quality prints. It’s not rocket science and won’t work every time/situation. But in general, if it looks smooth at 200% on screen, it will print clearly as well.
Subject to be printed: Sure, a solid square of orange slightly overlapping a solid circle of blue will see less issues when created and printed at lower ppi settings. But a file with detailed photos, text, linework, etc mixed together will certainly need more then 150ppi to look good in print.
Try starting at 300ppi, scan any images to be included at a minimum of 300dpi(output setting),try not to use images from your phone’s camera.
Add some text using decent fonts. Add some linework made in illustrator.(key to test) and print this file. Then do the same with a new file started at 150ppi. Don’t use PS to convert down to 150, create a new one. Then print that. Then look at your difference. Then imagine the differences being even more pronounced when outputting to a press. Keep in mind, these differences are more severely pronounced when output size is larger, which is where this topic started.
<<That is where you are making your real mistake. That statement is totally untrue.>>
Len, it is not totally untrue. It may not always be the case, but I offered it as a tip for some to use to try to avoid pixelation in the output. It is not scientific, by any means. And yes, screens and lpi capabilities of a press will affect this. But I don’t think variable printers and their settings are the real discussion here. It’s general working ppi values and the effect they have in general output.
I know I’m beating my head against a wall of designers that spend all their time designing at 72dpi for web
Actually you are not. The majority of the people giving you advice here are professionals who deal in high quality imagery all the time, and know what they are talking about.
You will not always see pixelation when enlarging your (view on screen) from 100 to 200%.
Of course you will. The "pixelation" will be created by the screen pixels having to use a block of four to represent one image pixel. It matters not a jot about the original image. Example: take a diagonal line which viewed at 100% steps down one pixel at a time. View the same line at 200% it will "appear" pixelated due to the bigger steps as each image pixel is now represented by a block of four screen pixels. This has nothing at all to do with the image resolution. It is the way the screen represents the image at this magnification.
I know I’m beating my head against a wall…
Carry on beating I’m out of here. I don’t like discussions with people who only listen to their own point of view. 🙁
John, if you have a solution to printing detailed images at long lengths while using low enough resolutions that the new CS3 can handle, please chip in. Your ‘simple test’ was clearly not going to prove anything helpful.
Chris, your attempting to teach me something I totally agree with and understand. Honestly, what you just said in no way argues with that simple "final check" trick I use to check for preventing pixelated outcomes, no matter how incorrectly i tried to convey it to you. But nothing anyone is offering has convinced me that printing in lower resolutions as low as 72 or 150 is going to get me detailed enough prints to use for my 100 inch files. They simply will lose detail from loss of usable pixels within that 100 inch space. The files are 100+ inches wide while being only 7-9 inches high. I cannot print smaller at resolutions like 150 because the printer will not be capable of any visible detail within small spaces like 3 inches high. At least, we will not be able to physically see the detail we need. If I work and print at 150 when source images were higher then that, then I lose detail. I can work in low res with long prints all day and print them, but I won’t have the detail needed. One pixel of one color will cover the space that 3 or 4 once held with four possible colors. Over the span of 100 inches…thats alot of lost detail.
topic closed as far as im concerned.
A big thank you to those that helped with the original topic. Solution: use RIP or old CS2 and wait for a cs3 patch.
Thank you for your time and info, Chris, Peter, John, and Jeff.
I realize this doesn’t settle all disputes regarding printer resolution, but I did a test that shows a big difference between 180 and 360 ppi and between 360 and 720 there is a lesser difference that is noticeable as to lines and type, barely noticeable as to a scanned image, and little difference as to photographic images. I scanned in an image at 720 ppi, added a bit of a photograph, and added some text and vector shapes. Flattened and printed at 720 ppi on my Epson 2200 on glossy paper set to 1440 dpi. I scaled the 720 ppi image down to 360 and repeated it, printing on the same paper at 360. I then scaled the 720 ppi image down to 180 and repeated, printing on the same paper at 180. Then I scanned the composite print job in at 1200 ppi, added labels, and posted to pixentral as a PNG-24 to avoid compression artifacts.
<
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1nvjJPRroNXpMlIbIp dRnTjWzZopG> To the naked eye, from a few inches away, the 180 is clearly inferior, but the other two are pretty much indistinguishable. Looking at the high-res scan at 100% you can see a slight difference between the other two.
Pixentral doesn’t like your test image Michael! 🙁
Michael,
If you re-sample an image (up or down) then of course you are going to see a quality drop. Dropping pixels is less damaging than adding them but it is still damaging…
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:38:25 -0700,
wrote:
I realize this doesn’t settle all disputes regarding printer resolution, but I did a test that shows a big difference between 180 and 360 ppi and between 360 and 720 there is a lesser difference that is noticeable as to lines and type, barely noticeable as to a scanned image, and little difference as to photographic images. I scanned in an image at 720 ppi, added a bit of a photograph, and added some text and vector shapes. Flattened and printed at 720 ppi on my Epson 2200 on glossy paper set to 1440 dpi. I scaled the 720 ppi image down to 360 and repeated it, printing on the same paper at 360. I then scaled the 720 ppi image down to 180 and repeated, printing on the same paper at 180. Then I scanned the composite print job in at 1200 ppi, added labels, and posted to pixentral as a PNG-24 to avoid compression artifacts.
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1nvjJPRroNXpMlIbIp dRnTjWzZopG> To the naked eye, from a few inches away, the 180 is clearly inferior, but the other two are pretty much indistinguishable. Looking at the high-res scan at 100% you can see a slight difference between the other two.
I was editing some pictures for a friend of mine, and printing them out as 5x7s for him. I was using my HP 7550, which prints at 600 dpi, with the option to print at 1200 dpi. On several prints, I noticed very fine banding. I tried various ways to get rid of it, but couldn’t.
I decided to try printing them out at 1200 dpi, and that solved the problem. I don’t usually print out at that resolution because I’ve always felt that it just wasted ink, but in this case, there was a visible difference. I haven’t had the need to print anything else at 1200 dpi, but at least I know that it can eliminate banding problems.
Talker
Len, the main issue in this thread was whether there would be a noticeable difference in a printer’s output when the data sent to it is various ppi resolutions, for the same image. The original poster had a file at high resolution that he was unable to print (pixel count too large for the driver), and some posters said that he should downsample and print, since there would be no noticeable difference, while he maintained the opposite, especially if it is viewed up close.
Carry on beating I’m out of here. I don’t like discussions with people who only listen to their own point of view. 🙁
Same here
I would say the main issue is the image was *created* at a resolution that produced a file that was never going to be printable in the first place, and that that was done due to the poster’s misapprehension that a far higher resolution was required than is the fact.
There is bound to be a difference between doing things correctly in the first place and trying to bodge the thing as an afterthought.
Len,
Michael just explained perfectly what this issue is. Earlier, his tests showed what I was talking about. Just as Chris had done Len, you assume you know what detail I need in my output files. And worse, you still maintain that I cannot see the major difference between files output from a workflow maintaining 150 or 300 from the start. But as least Chris provided some facts that support his claim and we know that he was stating that for certain viewing experiences and for certain printer capabilities, only a certain detail is necessary. Furthermore, when I explained that these would be viewed up closer and with more acute viewing then the generalized table Chris had proposed, everyone started saying that we would lose the ability to see that detail or certain resolution when the file is output from any printer. That assumption depends on your printer entirely, but I still maintain that there is a clear difference in quality of image from start to finish depending on whether you start at 300 and 150 or less. That is true for just about anything you go to print with. If you want to stand up and claim that you have graphics created from start @ 72 which are basically made for web use that you will now print on your personal little inkjet, at your local prof. printshop or a decent roll printer and get the same quality detail needed to do the work I do, then do so. But I’ll be the first in line to tell you that your blind. CS3ps has made a large claim recently about being better for architects and engineers. While the added tools I’ve seen may be a wonderful addition, the serious restrictions added to print functions, be it physical or virtual(to file), is a major drawback in these fields.
Yes, for some things you don’t need 300ppi. But for the majority of items being worked on in photoshop that will be intended for print and that require fine lines and detail, 300 is the minimum to start at. If you’re only working with one image at any size, you may not need to be any higher then what your image is already. But if your combining items from both high and low resolutions, including vector and raster items, 300 is a decent minimum. That is what I maintain. When preparing a large scale file to print, it is often possible to flatten and then downsample to say, 150 and still get a decent output. But if the best possible clarity of detail is needed, downsampling isn’t a great idea and there is a clear and evident difference in output. There is also clear and evident difference in quality if you start at 150ppi and start combining items from illustrator, photos and such into one file. 150 is too far a drop from illustrators vectors that are sharp between 600 and 800. Tight thin lines close together will blur into one unselectable mass with little ability to discern line weights, rough edges will appear where smooth curves once lived and all kinds of visual garbage is created. A 300ppi starting point is a decent place to start in print, to maintain o.k. quality without getting too big in filesize. The problem here is, were talking about large scales and spending the time necessary to maintain quality. We use to be able to spend the time and get it. Now we can’t with photoshop alone.
Your constant negative statements about my misapprehension and incorrect theories about me proliferating bad habits are not proof of anything. The fact that you are well known as someone who spends time in this forum means nothing in proof to me that you know what your talking about. There are plenty of people using this software that output garbage everyday. You should agree, you think I’m one of them. I have not looked at anything you have made, knowing it was yours at the time. So I will not make that judgement about you. But I am starting to be able to imagine what your entire portfolio would look like at 150.
If this workflow, including large prints with major detail, is not your cup of tea, then just stay out of it. I came here looking for insight from others that may also being doing work like this or have enough imagination to put themselves in my position to try to help. Others here have helped me on this very topic. They understand. Using there suggestions I have just printed two very large, quality prints. The addition of time from using a RIP and the fact that photoshop is totally removed from the printing process is very different for me. But it is working. I now know that I don’t need your opinions Len. They are not coming from a high level of experience in this area, regardless of any position you’ve lucked into or project you think you’ve handled correctly in the past. And if people like you are the ones affecting the upgrades to photoshop and CS3, then it starts to become easier to see why changes in the print options have gone so completely awry lately.
Goodbye Len, and please choose to not read any further posts or topics of mine. At least don’t feel compelled to chip in. I’ll be sure to gloss over any of yours, I’m all out of salt.
