The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Epson R3000 leaves last 1/4" blank on 13x19 prints (screenshots added)

tom in mpls

Active member
I have started to make 13x19" prints on my Epson R3000. However, the printer leaves the last 1/4" blank. I believe I am loading the paper properly, using the front manual feed tray with the front edge of the paper lined up with the groove that is close to the forward edge of said loading tray. I am printing on Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper. Btw, aside from this problem, I love the prints. This is the only paper for which I have used the manual feed tray. I have had no problems with 4x6 or letter size prints which are loaded from the top feed slot.

For some reason, when I print from PS5, there are 2 different choices on the drop-down paper size choices for "Super B (13x19)" and each has sub-choices listed. Which should I use? Should I use "Retain size" or "Auto Expand"? The photos are cropped in PS5 to 13x9 size.

Why does the photo not fill the paper fully? Any suggestions will be appreciated.
 
Last edited:

robertwright

New member
I don't have the 3000, I have the 3800 and when I choose different page options in Page Setup dialog, (this is in Lr but should be the same for Ps) it shows the printable area below the chosen paper size. Could be that you have made the image 13x19 but the printable area is not 19 even for borderless options from manual sheet feeder. I'm just guessing.

You should be able to use the sheet feeder also which might solve the problem of borderless not working as you would expect from the front loading. Ex fibre is not that stiff.
 

tom in mpls

Active member
You may be on to something there. This does remind me that I am puzzled about how files are printed; even though I have chosen a size to match the paper, funny things still happen on the way to the printer. Also I will consider using the top paper feed as you suggest.

Here is the dialog box that I would normally use:



And here is how that dialog box looks if I choose the "Scale to fit media" box. Hmm, I thought I had already cropped the photo to fit exactly.

 

robertwright

New member
when you choose the paper in print settings take moment and hover on the selection of paper and you get a tooltip that shows the actual size and printing margins.

When I select super A/B3 I get a paper size of 13.31x19.41 and no margins (this is borderless auto expand on the 3800) which means if you make the image 13x19 then it is too small.

I print out of Lr all the time and never see any of this bc Lr fudges all that. I suppose I miss stuff on the edges of my prints but like a rangefinder on film, I never notice:)

by fudge I mean that there is no print "size" in Lr, it just scales the print to fit whatever paper and borders you select.
 

raywest

Member
Hi Tom,

Adobe is not too clever when it comes to printing. You may find this article useful -http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/april-2010-understanding-your-photo-printer/

Fwiw if you can be bothered to get your head around the rather unusual interface, then when it comes to printing, you have to pay a lot more money to get the control/print quality that Qimage provides.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Thanks for the link, Ray. I agree that Adobe could make printing more straight forward and intuitive.

I've often wanted to try Qimage. Too bad there is no Mac version.

As I am coming to see the issue now, I should resize my prints to a fraction of an inch (0.1"?) over the actual size of the paper, e.g. 13.1x 19.1", then choose "13x19 (retain size)" for the paper size. Does this sound correct for borderless printing?
 
Last edited:

raywest

Member
Hi Tom,
A number of folk use qimage on Mac, running parallels or similar, iirc.

Anyway, to summarise what happens, the printer normally will not print to the edge of the paper so there will often be an uneven unprintable border area. The actual printable area will be displayed somewhere, possibly in the driver, maybe by Adobe. If you want to print up to the absolute edge of the paper, then you need to select borderless in the driver. Maybe Adobe does that for you. It will expand the print data to print up to the edge of the paper, and beyond (overspray).

Depending on the paper feed, you may still get a thin, often tapered, white edge. When it comes to cropping/scaling, you need to ensure that the ratio of the sides of the image are the same as for the actual area you want to print over. In borderless printing, you will be unlikely to get the edge of the image _exactly_ on the edge of the paper.

In order to save time/materials, try it on the smallest, cheapest sheet size your printer will accept. You've only got a few settings to play with (borderless in print driver, borderless in adobe, scaling, cropping, etc). Write down the various combinations and try them all out, then you'll find a combination of settings wrt. sizing that suits your needs. You can then simply use the same settings for the larger sheets you need.

A lot of confusion is caused by using incorrect terminology - dpi is printer related, not image - for example.

Best wishes,
Ray
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Sure I understand using Parallels. But I don't like that solution. Maybe. I'll think about it.

As to DPI, I want to assure that the final output will be a DPI that will be an even multiple of the printer's output. Eg, if the printer has 1440 DPI, I want to use 180 or 360 DPI, not 177 or 355. I believe that using the "odd" numbers forces the printer to make interpolation, whereas the "even" numbers make interpolation unnecessary. Am I correct in this?
 

raywest

Member
Hi Tom,

wrt printing at native resolution, another explanation by the same guy - http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/march-2010-smart-photo-printing/ then go to the third link at the top (old, archived quality test), read it all and download the files and see if you, or anyone else can see the difference.

If you're using Adobe for printing, the differance in results you see for most images by just letting the printer driver get on with it compared to the hoops you will need to jump through with the upsizing algorythms provided by Adobe to get to 180, 360 or 720ppi, will probably be unjustified.

If you intend doing a lot of printing, it may be worth thinking about using a cheap pc as a dedicated print server, you wouldn't need parallels then, (but you would need to get into running a small mixed network :confused:).

fwiw, Mike has stated that the market share for Macs is not great enough for him to provide a version for that platform, plus, of course, his favourite language and development tools do not exist there, either.

If you've solved the borderless thing, then I think improving the image quality is really another topic, if you are sticking with Adobe for printing ;).

Best wishes,

Ray
 

tom in mpls

Active member
...or print from Lr and forget about all of this. It is what it was made for.
Robert, have you used Qimage? It sounds like lots of hype to me, but I can't speak from experience.

Also, I am looking at my copy of LR2 that I have never really used. Paper size options are the same as those shown in my reply #2. If I crop to 13x19 and choose "Borderless Retain Size", should I expect to see my print fill the paper without any white borders?
 
Last edited:
Top