Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 3up 8x10's on 24" paper  (Read 780 times)
mstevensphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« on: February 11, 2013, 08:19:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not having any luck searching for this and am wondering if anything has changed. I find myself needing to print a bunch of 8x10's on my ipf 8300 and my paper of preference is moab exhibition lustre which does not come in a 10" roll.

if I canvas my images 3 across by however many tall in photoshop and tell it to print borderless the whole canvas is enlarged to account for the borderless printing and I end up with two images less than 8" wide and one more than 8" wide. can I make it work so I can use my whole roll width and have my 8x10's be exactly 8x10?
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2013, 09:03:47 AM »
ReplyReply

That's the tradeoff - borderless scaled printing without margins or actual size printing with margins. Sounds like your problem really likes with paper selection and fitting. 10" rolls would be ideal and might warrant a paper change. Perhaps another orientation would better optimize placement? 2 wide in landscape orientation on a 24" roll for example...

Otherwise getting 3 wide on a 24" will require some tricky math where you size the images a little smaller and then print with borderless to get the actual size. That's a complicated road to go down and makes for an ugly workflow...

Also, if you're doing a decent volume, you might consider a nesting solution like that from ImageNest, Qimage or even the Free Layout that comes with your 8300. Photoshop is a slow dog for volume work.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 09:35:50 AM by Onsight » Logged

mstevensphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2013, 10:33:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I currently do 8x10's end to end (taking 20" of paper) or sometimes match them along the tall side and stick in 5x7's as I have them. it's a pain.

with the layout software, does that get me three across or am I still leaving swaths of unused paper?

I'm open to suggestions on 10" rolls. I have the Kodak and find it to be ok, but not nearly as nice as the Moab.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2013, 10:37:19 AM »
ReplyReply

with the layout software, does that get me three across or am I still leaving swaths of unused paper?

The one's I quoted all use the driver so the same limitations apply. Potentially a RIP could solve your problems but I'd hate to see you go that route. Again a different roll would be far more elegant.

I'm open to suggestions on 10" rolls. I have the Kodak and find it to be ok, but not nearly as nice as the Moab.

Canon and Epson both sell excellent 10" rolls of luster/satin last time I checked.
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2013, 12:58:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Use a 17" x 100' roll and toss an inch.  Will save a borderless mess and your little blue switch dealies will thank for it.
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 828



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2013, 06:59:44 AM »
ReplyReply

To get perfect 8x10s on my 10" rolls I had to fool the printer a little.  I'm sure this would work on larger rolls as well.  I created a custom paper size of 10.25" and set the printer for borderless printing "Retain Size".  I then made the image 10.25" wide as well.  Perfect 8x10s.

With larger rolls, you'd may have to set the outer 8x10s a little larger and the inner 8x10 as is.  A bit of a pain, but could work.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad