Roger that.
Thanks

I think the Prism software is doing its job well and the results will only be as good as the target and its calibration file. The status of Faust is now iffy at best, but they seemed to have produced good results in the past. The previously mentioned UK supplier is very responsive, but I question the accuracy of their data files. It would seem the best answer is a scan of the specific target you're using and that would appear to be available here- https://www.chromix.com/colorgear/product.cxsa?toolid=434

IT-8 targets aren't that easy to get. The Silverfast/Lasersoft target from B&H appears to be a new style target and I suspect that's not compatible with Prism unless Mike says otherwise.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1667496-REG/lasersoft_imaging_la1208_silverfast_3_93_x_5_90.html

More in the distant future if I can get both my old and new targets rescanned. At this point I think it would be cheaper if I just bought the extra large 152-count box of Crayolas and made my own. :-)

The ruler shows what the driver gives it.  There's no ambiguity as to what the driver is doing with Qimage: just look above the preview page and Qimage will list "Page: " followed by the size of the page as defined by the driver.  23.766 is a typical width for an Epson using 24 inch paper if you don't have borderless enabled.

Regards,
Mike

I will watch the video after breakfast. :-) Although I 've already looked at most of the videos I could find.

Could be printer driver issues. I can't remember when we upgraded Q Image and when we purchased new Epson 9570 printer. The older version of Q Image had no problems, but we were also on a Epson 9880 Pro.

Question, what is the reason for the ruler at the top of the edit page, not showing 24 inch, or 36" etc. Whatever paper size is chosen. You can see the full ruler on the left.

Thanks,
George

It sounds like you are fighting the printer, driver, and what is physically possible when trying to print edge to edge especially on canvas.  This video covers all that:

https://youtu.be/15G1AWZTVwo

Instead of using 36 inch paper, why don't you just rotate the prints 90 degrees so that the 20 inch side prints on the 24 inch width and the 24 inch side prints on the length?  Even though that would leave 4 inches not used on the width, it gets rid of the myriad of issues that come with being forced to use borderless and trying to print exactly 24 inches on a 24 inch roll and the printer not being exact enough to do that.

Regards,
Mike

This topic has been moved to Qimage Ultimate.

https://ddisoftware.com/tech/index.php?topic=4696.0

Having trouble figuring out how to print a 20x24 canvas print ( 16x20 with 2" mirrored border)  on 24 inch roll paper and get the full 24inch width. One side ( the 24" width) always comes up short by approx 1/4 inch. It even appears the ruler at the top does not show the full 24 inches. Looks like 23.75 inches. I tried printer and settings paper width 24 and paper length 20.5 with specifying a print size of 20x24 and somehow that ended up extending the image length by 1/4 of and inch. This method produced a 16x20.25 ( inside the mirrored part) image on a 20x24 print. This is no good.

Borderless setting does not work with shrink compensation as it produced a larger image. I use precut stretcher bars 1.75 width, hince the 2" mirrored border. 

This happens on all paper roll widths when I'm trying to print edge to edge on canvas.

The only other work around was to use 36" paper, but this is a big waste of material.

Would like help figuring this out.

Thanks,
George

https://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u

2025.102    Apr 18, 2025

Priority: Low

v2025.102 includes:

• Printer settings: New ability to find/recall printer settings by printer, media type, and/or media size via saved setups or job log. See video: https://youtu.be/sadOjGjhMsw
• Color management: Updated color management engine to LCMS 1.17 with improved gamut warning in soft proofs.
• Optimization: Faster thumbnail rendering and refresh operations.
• Unclog/purge sheets: Fixed a bug where checking only violet ink caused a "check at least one ink color" error.
• Print crops: Fixed a bug that was causing some cropped prints to lose their crop after editing the image in the image editor.

Mike

https://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u

2025.102    Apr 18, 2025

Priority: Low

v2025.102 includes:

• Printer settings: New ability to find/recall printer settings by printer, media type, and/or media size via saved setups or job log. See video: https://youtu.be/sadOjGjhMsw
• Color management: Updated color management engine to LCMS 1.17 with improved gamut warning in soft proofs.
• Optimization: Faster thumbnail rendering and refresh operations.
• Unclog/purge sheets: Fixed a bug where checking only violet ink caused a "check at least one ink color" error.
• Print crops: Fixed a bug that was causing some cropped prints to lose their crop after editing the image in the image editor.

Mike

I will watch for .102!

Thanks for this explanation of how Auto makes a judgement call.

One of the two images definitely fits "bright saturated colors":   the image has women at an Indian vegetable street market, and they are wearing gorgeous sarees, with some deep hues (think purple that looks black) that were not in the center of the image but on the periphery.   The sarees were the point of the image, but all around the circle, not in the center.

The other image is just a puzzlement to me.  The image is of an skyscraper with an unusal twisted design in bright sunlight, so it glows in different angles on the screen.  But it doesn't have that glow on the print.   A little better in perceptual but still not like the illuminated-from-behind screen.   I can't make it look right.    There are other smaller shadowed darker (brick) apartment buildings around, and those just look dull in RC, while perceptual brings them up a bit in luminosity.    The nice thing about this image is that the colors shifting a bit from RC to P isn't a big deal.

I run every image through Auto soft proof to see if it tells me Perceptual.   Rarely it says P (1 in 20?) but it does happen.

Anyway, thank you again for the exp, and for Qimage.   I have  a hundred photographers who swear I get better results than the professional printing houses (and I've seen the work from those shops and the photogs are right), and I tell them it is one program I depend on!