 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3]
|
|
31
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2014.229 issues/comments
|
on: June 04, 2014, 05:54:11 PM
|
|
Hi Guys,
Many thanks to the three mouseketeers. Mike, Fred and Terry for your support and help on this website.
Although mainly a lurker, I have benefited immensely from the many comments, tips and user advice that appears here.
Am particularly excited about the new nozzle check feature. I have a Canon Pro 100 and am paranoid about nozzle checks after having two Pro9000 print heads permanently clog a couple of years back.
One comment is that my pro 100 printer seems to bring up a dialog box more suited for the Pro9000. For example it mentions the green and red that are not used on the Pro 100, and ignores the two greys that are included in the Pro100.
Is there a work around?
Thanks again guys for all the support work.
Roy Sletcher
I shoot people with my big Canon for fun, often cutting off their heads and limbs!
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
Technical Discussions / Printers / Re: Suggestions for R2000 refilling
|
on: March 30, 2014, 06:23:59 PM
|
I'm going to be buying an Epson R2000 soon to replace my R1800. I don't do enough printing to justify a CISS, so I plan to refill on my own. With my R1800, I first tried refillables, which proved unsatisfactory, moved to a CISS, which worked wonderfully when it did work, then went to refilling Epson OEMs, which seemed to give the most consistent results. The main problems I encountered with the refillables and CISS were what most people refer to as "clogs", but I have come to the conclusion that the problem wasn't really "clogs", but rather that ink was flowing onto the printhead as a result of poor venting control, and blocking the nozzles from expelling their ink onto the paper. I came to this conclusion after trying refillables again (from two different suppliers) and noticing that when I moved my printhead out of the way to clean the parking pads, I wound up with puddles of ink that dripped out of the printhead and onto the sponge under the paper path. I replaced the wiper and things cleared up for a while when I used refilled OEM carts, but the problem "clogs" instantly returned when I switched back to the "China carts". Does anyone have suggestions for refilling, or refillable, cartridges for the R2000? Right now I'm looking at a set with ARC chips from InkOwl.com: http://www.inkowl.com/?S=25&B=3&product=6316&p=product ($38.95) Refilling is not for everyone, but it does work and can produce reliable results equal to, or some claim better than, OEM inks for about one tenth the cost. Try this site to find if it is for you. Incidentally quite a few QI users amongst the faithful who are regulars at Printer Knowledge. http://www.printerknowledge.com/Roy Sletcher I shoot people with a big canon and frequently cut off their heads and limbs. Don't make me mad! or the RATF (Reset All To Full) set from Inkjetcarts.us: http://store.inkjetcarts.us/epson-r2000-damper-refill-system-p6346.aspx ($65.95). I also have a lot of bulk ink from my R1800 refilling days and was wondering whether it would be compatible with the R2000. I see that the R2000 has orange instead of the R1800 Blue, but still uses the CMY, Matte and Photo Black, as well as Red and GLOP, the same as the R1800. I realize that the R2000 uses the Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss 2 inkset, but since I will be profiling anyway, would it hurt to use the R1800 inks along with only orange bulk ink for the R2000. Thank you in advance. |
|
|
|
|
33
|
Mike's Software / Qimage / Re: Recommended workflow for consistently sized signature watermark
|
on: March 10, 2014, 11:02:12 PM
|
Hi Roy, Am I missing something, or fallen into a pitfall. I have sent you a personal message via the forum with my email address so you can send your signature files to me for "diagnosis". Also, download and check my samples and additional information here - select "original size" before downloading http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/qu_signatures. Terry Hi Terry, Thanks for speedy reply and help. Fortunately I re-read the help files and manged to figure it out. I think ;-) I guess RTFM really does work! Hopefully I will not have to bother you again, but as a serial lurker, I am very impressed with the time you and Fred take to help users with difficulties. It is much appreciated, and I have learned a lot from the comments you both post. Regards. Roy Sletcher |
|
|
|
|
34
|
Mike's Software / Qimage / Re: Recommended workflow for consistently sized signature watermark
|
on: March 10, 2014, 05:04:13 PM
|
|
Hi Terry,
Have been following this thread with interest as I want to try to ad a copyright/watermark or signature file to certain images, but instead of printing to file, I want to output to printer.
When following your instructions to go to <HELP> and then on to copyright/signature, the relevant text is headed "Copyright/Signature (only available in Studio Edition)"
I am using QI ULTIMATE, and it does not seem to work the same as written in the text referred to above.
Am I missing something, or fallen intoa pitfall.
Thanks
Roy Sletcher
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Problem setting up a canvas wrap in QI ultimate.
|
on: February 11, 2014, 04:00:42 AM
|
|
Thanks for the help Terry,
It is late here, so I will give it a try in the morning.
It is always the small things that cause the problems. ;-)
I made several canvas wraps a few months ago, so I know it works. Just have to get the correct settings, and don't want to waste too much paper doing it.
Also think I was working using he net image size of 9 x 12. Will adjust it to 12 x 15.
Roy Sletcher
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Problem setting up a canvas wrap in QI ultimate.
|
on: February 09, 2014, 07:08:03 PM
|
|
Hi Fred, Terry, or anybody who can help,
I am a long time user, but mainly a lurker having learned much from this forum. Now I have a problem and am looking for help.
Since the instruction videos were published showing how to set up for a canvas wrap the interface has changed somewhat, and there appears to be several places to enter parameters. Some parameters don`t seem to stick, or change on the fly for no apparent reason.
Could you briefly review the procedure because I am trying to setup for a 9 x 12 image with .75inch mirror border on side and .75inch mirror border on back.
For some reason I get the image size reduced from 9 x 12 to 9 11.25 inches, and all the border margins, images and sizes are screwed up.
Have included couple of screen shots of my settings to help explain. I am running QU 2014.137 on Windows 7. Pretty sure I am the problem, but cannot figure out correct sequence and procedure.
Last time I did this was probably about a year or so ago and it worked with no problem. To day I have wasted 4 sheets of wrap stock and over 2 hours trying to get it right. Can`t figure out what I am doing wrong.
Any help or guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks
Roy Sletcher
PS: Having trouble getting the site to accept my iamge files illustrating the problem - will try again in separate message.
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
Technical Discussions / Computer Software / Re: profile conflicts all of a sudden
|
on: May 22, 2013, 01:42:15 AM
|
|
WOW Fred, I am in awe of your dedicated Qimage support!!!
I don't want to "muddy the waters" or increase the confusion but what about going back to a previous restore point.
The original post refers to the problem starting following a system change or software installation. If recent means in the last couple of weeks, then there is a good chance that a window restore point has been created, and can be used to restore the system to a previous setting.
This has got me out of a jam more than once with Windows 7. Microsoft is in the habit if sending out automatic updates almost weekly, and each update creates a restore point.
Just sayin'
Roy Sletcher
---
For fun I shoot people with a big Canon, and frequently cut off their heads and limbs.
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Studio Edition (archived) / Re: Hot News!
|
on: May 08, 2013, 11:05:08 PM
|
|
Fred,
Some of the photography forums are experiencing an Tsunami of objections referring to Adobe's new policies.
Many are looking for information on alternatives to PS. Especially for reliable raw processors.
Questions have been asked about Qimage.
May be worth your while to mosey over to dpreview.com. Especially the OPEN TALK and RETOUCHING forums. You may be able to give some informed comments on questions being asked.
Roy Sletcher
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
Technical Discussions / Printer Media / Re: Help for Canon Paper ID
|
on: July 08, 2011, 02:04:05 AM
|
|
Wow Fred,
Add mental telepathy to your Superhero Status.
I have just asked on two other print related sites for this information. Got a reply which was useful, but nothing like the comprehensive information you have uncovered with your message. I is very timely for my printer/printing requirements. I should have inquired here first.
Thanks
Roy Sletcher
Grumpy old man
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
Mike's Software / FlashPipe / Re: FlashPipe settings not remaining as set.
|
on: January 26, 2010, 01:45:13 AM
|
Hi, I am getting the same problem as DdeGannes, every time I restart Flashpipe, the automatic rename buttons are checked. If I uncheck them (which I prefer to use) and then re-open Flashpipe, it reverts to its default setting, which I do not want. If I close down Flashpipe using File exit, the buttons again revert to the default setting. However, if I close Flashpipe using the x in the top righthand corner, they remain unchecked when I reopen. This may help to track down the problem.
Regards,
William
I too am having this same problem. Thanks for the tip about closing with top right X. Works for me and I had not discovered that. For the record - still running XP. Roy |
|
|
|
|
42
|
Mike's Software / Qimage / Re: Soft Proofing simulates paper white?
|
on: January 26, 2010, 01:36:20 AM
|
Roy, A printer profile is there in the first place to translate you image gamut as good as possible to the gamut possible with the inks and paper it is made for. That print will build on the paper white physically available. In profile creation there is often a choice to keep the image neutrality absolute or starting from the paper white, the last is almost never neutrally white. In both cases the profiling compensates (subtracts)the physical existence of the paper white in the gamut but differently. That sums up the printing device side of the profile. For soft proofing another, related part of the profile is used. In the profile the paper white spec is available too and has to be used (added) for paper white simulation. If the soft proofing feature of the application doesn't try to simulate the paper white on the display then that doesn't tell anything about how good the profiling to the print works. In advanced profile editors the two profile parts can be edited separately to get the display and print more related. Something that should only be done when you have done everything to get your display and printer/print media properly calibrated and profiled. If Qimage does a white paper compensation by default it is very little if compared to the difference in the whites Photoshop creates on the switch between original and softproof with paper white compensation on. I do not see it. Select a profile for a warm paper like German Etching. Select a profile assigned image and switch between original and softproof with space and keep your eyes on an RGB 255 area. I prefer print proofs anyway. As far as I know soft proofing doesn't have a standard and it is the developer who has to brew the mix. met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/Hi Ernst, Thanks for your patient and well written explanation. I have learned much from this and your previous posts about other subjects on this site. However, the one point that still bothers me is the fact that the profile is made from a STANDARDISED TARGET print which theoretically includes and bias in paper colouration. For example if the paper had an exceptional warm tone, this would be included in the readings made by the spectro tool when calibrating the values for the profile of that specific paper. Hence the need for additional paper white setting appears redundant as this would have been allowed for in the calculation of the profile values. Having said that, I should mention I have no specialised knowledge in this area, and was relying primarily on logic and common sense. This usually stands me in good stead, and oftentimes deep water. This may be one of those occasions. The fact that my custom profiles reasonably well match the Qimage soft proof may be more ignorant luck than skill. Then again my print workflow always includes a couple reduced size test image on critical colour/tones. Thank you for the Yahoo printer link. I will spend some time digesting the content. Roy |
|
|
|
|
43
|
Mike's Software / Qimage / Re: Soft Proofing simulates paper white?
|
on: January 25, 2010, 01:59:55 AM
|
|
I don't know the definitive answer to this question, but it begs the question:
What value a profile for a specific paper that is not made using the specific paper profiled? Logically it would seem that an accurate profile MUST take the colour or shade of the paper into account else the profile is of limited value.
However I am frequently wrong, and events are not always logical, so await the definitive word from Mike on this issue.
Roy Sletcher
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Mat cutting
|
on: October 26, 2009, 01:05:50 AM
|
I need to cut a mat with four apertures. I don't want to mess up boards working out how to do it, anyone help?
Dave.
Hi Dave Maybe a little more information would help. Do you have a mat cutter? Are you familiar with the procedure for cutting a single aperture mat? I cut most of my mats using a Logan mat cutter, so far mostly single mats, and occasional double mats. If you need four apertures cannot envisage it being a problem. Are you talking the size and borders (ie the geometry of the cuts), or more the technique and procedure? Willing to help if I can add something useful to the discussion. Roy |
|
|
|
|
45
|
Technical Discussions / Computer Hardware / Re: Dell offerings
|
on: August 11, 2009, 12:27:53 AM
|
|
Be aware that Dell offering an operating system upgrade for cost of shipping may not be a great a deal.
I purchased a Dell Desktop 2½ years ago with XP and Free upgrade to Vista - just pay shipping and handling.
The upgrade disk finally arrived in a lightweight sleeve with skimpy one sheet instructions. It did not permit a fresh install, had to be loaded on top of the existing XP, and took an inordinate amount of time to load and configure
I was billed C$30.00 for the shipping and it had been shipped from a Dell facility a mere 10km away.
The final straw was when I had computer problems, reinstalled the XP operating system and was unable to get it to accept the upgrade disk.
Still running XP on that machine.
Your mileage may vary.
Roy Sletcher
---
Still shooting and blowing up things with his Canon
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
