If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow
panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
On 2017-04-03 07:59:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. OK. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. However, the borderless selection negated that "fix". Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? The message is, it is sometimes worthwhile experimenting with wide aspect ratio crops. I have used 16:9 quite often, I had just never seen 2.39:1 suggested before. That I found interesting, and since you were talking about a pano with what might have been a wide aspect ratio, I thought the idea proposed might interest you. I guess I was wrong. Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. It has nothing to do with borderless printing. It has to do with using wide aspect ratios where they can evoke an immersive effect is some scenes. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. So it resizes for you. Break out your ol' TI or HP and reverse engineer it and you'll know that what you will get! :-)) Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? I guess that the writer of the article means that cropping can replace wideframe cameras using 35mm filmlike the Fujifilm TX: http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/28/9...1_2906ce70.jpg Sold by Hasselblad after the Swiss takeover as XPan to replace the SWC, BTW... I do not replace the Widelux though: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=widelux&iax=1&ia=images&iaf=size%3Am Not sold new these days. But these a http://www.peleng8.com/horizon-cameras.html Don't have that one but a Peleng 8/3.5 that I'm quite happy with. You can se some pictures taken with it in the gallery of my blog: http://wp.me/P3strj-4O Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. -- teleportation kills |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:38:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2017-04-03 07:59:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. OK. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. However, the borderless selection negated that "fix". Yep. That was the message. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? The message is, it is sometimes worthwhile experimenting with wide aspect ratio crops. I have used 16:9 quite often, I had just never seen 2.39:1 suggested before. That I found interesting, and since you were talking about a pano with what might have been a wide aspect ratio, I thought the idea proposed might interest you. I guess I was wrong. I'm interested. It's just that I couldn't see the relevance to 'Borderless'. In any case, my crops are done by eye rather than to any particular ratio. Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. It has nothing to do with borderless printing. It has to do with using wide aspect ratios where they can evoke an immersive effect is some scenes. Consider https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz0tey0tiad5ixk/LR-.jpg?dl=0 for which I claim no particular merit. I dare you to tell me it is oversharpened. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:46:19 +0200, android wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. So it resizes for you. Break out your ol' TI or HP and reverse engineer it and you'll know that what you will get! :-)) Teach your grandma to do something or other with eggs. But first you have to know that there is an effect to reverse engineer. Talking of reverse engineering, I'm a fan of reverse polish notation. Does that help? Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? I guess that the writer of the article means that cropping can replace wideframe cameras using 35mm filmlike the Fujifilm TX: http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/28/9...1_2906ce70.jpg Sold by Hasselblad after the Swiss takeover as XPan to replace the SWC, BTW... I do not replace the Widelux though: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=widelux&iax=1&ia=images&iaf=size%3Am Not sold new these days. But these a http://www.peleng8.com/horizon-cameras.html Don't have that one but a Peleng 8/3.5 that I'm quite happy with. You can se some pictures taken with it in the gallery of my blog: http://wp.me/P3strj-4O Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:46:19 +0200, android wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. So it resizes for you. Break out your ol' TI or HP and reverse engineer it and you'll know that what you will get! :-)) Teach your grandma to do something or other with eggs. But first you have to know that there is an effect to reverse engineer. Talking of reverse engineering, I'm a fan of reverse polish notation. Does that help? There's a 15c in my desk... When you're ready for the Mac: http://rpnscientific.freehostia.com/ Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? I guess that the writer of the article means that cropping can replace wideframe cameras using 35mm filmlike the Fujifilm TX: http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/28/9...1_2906ce70.jpg Sold by Hasselblad after the Swiss takeover as XPan to replace the SWC, BTW... I do not replace the Widelux though: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=widelux&iax=1&ia=images&iaf=size%3Am Not sold new these days. But these a http://www.peleng8.com/horizon-cameras.html Don't have that one but a Peleng 8/3.5 that I'm quite happy with. You can se some pictures taken with it in the gallery of my blog: http://wp.me/P3strj-4O Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. -- teleportation kills |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
On 2017-04-03 09:39:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:38:26 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-03 07:59:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square. I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594 x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized. What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the print file. When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available. Then I pushed the 'Print' button. With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'. OK. I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what you want. Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing. I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original post in this thread. However, the borderless selection negated that "fix". Yep. That was the message. Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints. Or at least check first. Yup. BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio and the overall effect is very interesting. https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/ I got bogged down. What actually is the message? The message is, it is sometimes worthwhile experimenting with wide aspect ratio crops. I have used 16:9 quite often, I had just never seen 2.39:1 suggested before. That I found interesting, and since you were talking about a pano with what might have been a wide aspect ratio, I thought the idea proposed might interest you. I guess I was wrong. I'm interested. It's just that I couldn't see the relevance to 'Borderless'. In any case, my crops are done by eye rather than to any particular ratio. Some of my tries with something old. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing. It has nothing to do with borderless printing. It has to do with using wide aspect ratios where they can evoke an immersive effect is some scenes. Consider https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz0tey0tiad5ixk/LR-.jpg?dl=0 for which I claim no particular merit. I dare you to tell me it is oversharpened. So, how was the, ...er, beverage on that trip? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A trap for a not so young player.
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: What are the actual dimensions of the Pano? 594 x 131. pixels? that's tiny. you don't need borderless for that. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trap Focus with manual lens | Sandman | Digital Photography | 0 | September 4th 13 07:02 AM |
Focus trap with manual lens | Sandman | Digital Photography | 17 | August 31st 13 04:50 PM |
'Earth From The Air' on BBC i Player | Paul[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 30th 08 08:41 PM |
.avi files on DVD player | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | May 31st 06 10:59 AM |
Picture CD for DVD player | Robin | Digital Photography | 16 | August 27th 04 04:08 AM |