Epson L1800

[Ink stained Fingers]

I don't know how familiar you are with Windows if you use a Mac otherwise as your normal computer, install Windows and the Windows driver and get familiar with it and with Lightroom you already know before you start with Qimage, you'll either like it or not, the user interface is pretty much different to other programs , the logic, the settings of parameters and options require some knowledge about them, don't do everything at the same time.

 

[oroblec]

I don't know how familiar you are with Windows if you use a Mac otherwise as your normal computer, install Windows and the Windows driver and get familiar with it and with Lightroom you already know before you start with Qimage, you'll either like it or not, the user interface is pretty much different to other programs , the logic, the settings of parameters and options require some knowledge about them, don't do everything at the same time.

Well at windows i'm expert so i need to learn more on mac lol but winfows is not ready yet, i will continue using during this week mac and ligth room.

 

[oroblec]

Looks this at 600 ppi it says could cause memory issues lol.

 

[oroblec]

The result of prints yesterday with this epson are greats, i have some quetions, human eyes can notice diference of 360 ppi vs 600 ppi ??

For people that uses ligth do you use print sharpening and if the answer is yes what for is that and the intent : perceptual or relative what is the meaning of this in ligth room software ??

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

you may look up 'rendering intent' and you get lots of explanations what is intended with this function, like http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm
It has nothing to do with print sharpening

- yes, I use a small amount of print sharpening in Qimage , depending on the output print size and the noise level in an image which you won't like to emphasize and the image itself, whether it has
contrasty details or only smooth transitions.
So if you have an image with enough pixels delivering an effective720dpi output, yes - you then would see a difference to a print limited to 360dpi, specifically if that would be small text or details in a map or similar

- Perception of small details depends on several factors - a correct eye correction of the viewer's eye for the intended viewing distance , whether small details are relevant for the image at all, or rather the motive, the color composition etc. And whether your source file is even able to deliver finest details at the magnification you are printing the image. So if you by a calcuation like the one above only get 200dpi effective resolution you won't need a print resolution of 600/720dpi at all, it just slows down your system a little bit and creates a bigger spool file for nothing.

- But please don't get get too much a hangup on these pixel/dpi numbers, go and test it with the images you
want to print, in the format you intend to use and check it yourself, and let some other people
compare as well some prints with varying parameters. So you may as well use some settings as
default values because they give you overall good output, but you wouldn't go off to test if
some lower value would give you the same just for this one image.
Part of the discussion is purely technical, you may not see all of this in your printouts if you vary
some of these parameters slightly. So 360dpi in Lightroom may be a good compromise for the time
being.

 

[apetitphoto]

you may look up 'rendering intent' and you get lots of explanations what is intended with this function, like http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm

Thanks for this reference. More information to throw into hopper...

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Thanks for this reference. More information to throw into hopper...

Sometimes we take all this information far to seriously, and just sometimes it should be thrown in the garbage and not the hopper.

Consider the following point which you will rarely see discussed by the colormetric men of science, and incidently by my reckoning I fall in that category:

ICC color management is about color perception which is the accurate measurenent of individual colours. IE measuring a colour checker or similar step wedge type chart - each value to be a known measurable value and reproduced on screen or print as accurately as possible.

It is not about colour appearance which is the comulative colorimetric effect of all the image's colours based on adjacent colours modifying the visual effect processed by our brains. (IE What we really see)

Simply stated ICC colour management has no concept of colour in the context of an overall image. It does not measure the modification of adjacent colours affecting the overall visual effect when processed by our eyes and brain. (The "lying eyes" syndrome)

The purists recommend soft proofing, which does show colour in context, but is basically a trial and error methodology which cannot even indicate the best rendering intent for an image because it varies based on the COLOUR APPEARANCE of that specific image.

Colour Managanent heretics believe we should forget all this mumbo jumbo and JPI (Just Print the Image)

Get it, Got it, Good!



rs

Didn't somebody once say something about being able to hold two conflicting theories indicates an understanding of the subject. - They lied!

 

[apetitphoto]

Sometimes we take all this information far to seriously, and just sometimes it should be thrown in the garbage and not the hopper.

Consider the following point which you will rarely see discussed by the colormetric men of science, and incidently by my reckoning I fall in that category:

ICC color management is about color perception which is the accurate measurenent of individual colours. IE measuring a colour checker or similar step wedge type chart - each value to be a known measurable value and reproduced on screen or print as accurately as possible.

It is not about colour appearance which is the comulative colorimetric effect of all the image's colours based on adjacent colours modifying the visual effect processed by our brains. (IE What we really see)

Simply stated ICC colour management has no concept of colour in the context of an overall image. It does not measure the modification of adjacent colours affecting the overall visual effect when processed by our eyes and brain. (The "lying eyes" syndrome)

The purists recommend soft proofing, which does show colour in context, but is basically a trial and error methodology which cannot even indicate the best rendering intent for an image because it varies based on the COLOUR APPEARANCE of that specific image.

Colour Managanent heretics believe we should forget all this mumbo jumbo and JPI (Just Print the Image)

Get it, Got it, Good!



rs

Didn't somebody once say something about being able to hold two conflicting theories indicates an understanding of the subject. - They lied!

Yes, I realize that information overload is a real danger, but I always seem to find a nugget or two in whatever is headed to the garbage. (I'll admit to a tendency to be a pack rat... I also strive to hold at least three conflicting theories.)

I believe that if it looks good it is good. But I also try to understand why it looks good or doesn't.

 

[The Hat]

I believe that if it looks good it is good. But I also try to understand why it looks good or doesn't.

Or if it looks perfect to you, then...
It’s all in the eye of the beholder, good, bad and truthful...

I’m a selfish Bast*&^...

 

[oroblec]

Sometimes we take all this information far to seriously, and just sometimes it should be thrown in the garbage and not the hopper.

Consider the following point which you will rarely see discussed by the colormetric men of science, and incidently by my reckoning I fall in that category:

ICC color management is about color perception which is the accurate measurenent of individual colours. IE measuring a colour checker or similar step wedge type chart - each value to be a known measurable value and reproduced on screen or print as accurately as possible.

It is not about colour appearance which is the comulative colorimetric effect of all the image's colours based on adjacent colours modifying the visual effect processed by our brains. (IE What we really see)

Simply stated ICC colour management has no concept of colour in the context of an overall image. It does not measure the modification of adjacent colours affecting the overall visual effect when processed by our eyes and brain. (The "lying eyes" syndrome)

The purists recommend soft proofing, which does show colour in context, but is basically a trial and error methodology which cannot even indicate the best rendering intent for an image because it varies based on the COLOUR APPEARANCE of that specific image.

Colour Managanent heretics believe we should forget all this mumbo jumbo and JPI (Just Print the Image)

Get it, Got it, Good!



rs

Didn't somebody once say something about being able to hold two conflicting theories indicates an understanding of the subject. - They lied!

We can understand that at the end is just print And errors but sometimes tou have a good machine with poor seeting configuration and the result is not the best that the machine can gives specials when u prints goes to ur family.

How big i can go ??? I onow interpolations sometimes can makes the work but if i have picture how i know how big i can go and my biggest print is 12 x 12. Wha i need to see in image size to know it .