[Steve SpotOn]

I'm running an early iMac with OS8.6, linked to a Epson 740 ink jet. When I print my scanned photos from Photoshop they look great... but I can't get them to print in an accurate position on the page. So I put them into Quark which is great for positioning, but when I print they look really bad - low resolution with lots of pixels.

I've messed with what print settings in Quark I can (most seem to be grayed out and untouchable), I've re-installed the printer software, but no improvement.

Anyone any ideas?

[derbs]

You need a valid PPD file to un-grey those print options in Quark. A PPD is a Postscript Printer Description, and Quark relies on these pretty heavily to print. Unfortunately, your printer isn't Postscript, so no output will look very good.

At work we got a big epson printer, but it's got ethernet and a �1000 Postscript interpreter running on a G4, so it outputs ok.

You'd be best off printing your photos from Photoshop, using "Print with preview" in the file menu. That way you can drag and resize your photos on the page, and they'll print ok.

[Steve SpotOn]

Thanks for that.

I would still like to get better print out of Quark ... any views on the software RIP's that you can buy. Would this improve the quality of printing photos or is it mainly aimed at smoothing text?

However I fear the Epson 740 isn't compatible with a software RIP as it's not listed on their web site. Hmmmmm

Steve

[buddhabelly]

If you want full res output from Quark, your going to need a Postscript compatible printer. If your thinking of buying some kind of RIP as an interim, I gurantee that it will cost you LOTS more that if you just buy a Postscript capable printer. I can't see justifying that cost to print on that kind of desktop printer and I don't think that printer is supported by any kind of RIP.

[scottiB]

Epson sells a RIP software (Epson Stylus RIP, I think)--my girlfriend and I bought it for Quark and a Photo EX.

[arrested502]

I used to run something called Adobe StyleScript, which is (or was) a fairly cheap PostScript emulator. This always worked very well with my Epson 800, but I'm not so sure if I really even needed it. If I recall I was able to get pretty decent prints from my Epson without it. I wish I could remember what I did, but my Printer died ages ago, and I've not botherred to replace it.

I don't know what else to tell you except, make sure the image you're importing into Quark is either a CMYK TIFF or EPS and that the resolution is decent. When you go to print, make sure you use the page set-up (this should take you to the Epson Page Set-up) then make sure you pick a high resolution for output.

I believe this is all I really needed to do with my Epson 800. Even though I bought the StyleScript PS emulator, I don't recall getting too much use out of it.

Keep in mind, however that all the above was performed under OS 9.2.2 and below. I couldn't advise much if you're running OSX.

[derbs]

we've used StylusRip before. Doesn't look like the 740 is listed though

http://www.epson.co.uk/options/print...script/rip.htm

It's rather expensive, but the quality of prints from Quark will be way better. A lower-end solution is PowerRip2000. This would definitely work with your printer, and improve Quark quality. I think you can download a demo as well:

http://www.iproofsystems.com/epson/epsonhomepage.htm

[Corys]

if it's something you are going to be doing just a few times, you could also create a PDF (assuming you have distiller), and print from Acrobat..would be something to get you by until you can find a perm solution.

[T Allen]

It sounds to me like the photo isn't 'linked' or being seen by the Quark file. So what's being printed is screen image from the document.

You may need to copy and paste the contents into a new document and save it with a new name.

[chris v]

Look on Versiontracker for a utility called PrintToPDF. It creates a virtual desktop printer that you can select in the cooser, which will save your whole file as a PDF, and it's cheaper than the full version of Acrobat.

CV

[Nathan Adams]

Another option would be to use Freehand or Illustator to position your images on the page, if that's all you're after.
Provided you have one of those programs that is.

Although i know FH prefers PostScipt too - all my printouts come out great regardless on my inkjet - you just lose a couple of useless features like PS fills and junk like that.

[Burn]

Nonononono

What the hell are you guys talking about?

The only reason a PPD or Postscript printing option is required - is if he is printing eps's. An image placed in Quark should print fine.

Quark should print absolutely fine to an Epson 740. Just make sure you save any images as tiff files. If they were scanned as eps's, open in Photoshop or something and save as a tiff.

Don't place it in Illustrator or Freehand.

Double check all your print preference settings within Quark. Specifically the large panel with tabs that pops up after you hit "Print". Make sure your output is composite cmyk and not grayscale or b/w. Also click on the options buttons on the bottom of that panel for access to options that allow you to fine tune your output.

Did you move either the image or Quark file after you placed the image in it? Quark doesn't like that. Look in one of the furthest right menu's in Quark - for a menu item names "Usage". Click on that - up pops a window that allows you to see what fonts and what images you have placed in your Quark file. Make sure your image is linked properly - by clicking on update.

You should print fine after these steps.
I hope you haven't spent too much time trying to figure out that Postscript shiat - bad bad advice.

Goodluck.

[andi*pandi]

I did the exact same thing--old imac, epson 740, tons of pix, expensive photo paper that I didn't want to waste so I wanted to gang em.

In a way, the folks above were right, the reason the pix weren't printing well is because you don't have postscript emulation. Fine. But the reason, is that you have saved your pix as EPS (encapsulated POSTSCRIPT), and quark has lousy EPS preview, and yes, epson 740 is not postscript.

As suggested above, saving your pix as .tif or .jpg will allow them to print much better. Also, I found that although I could resize in quark without penalty in image quality (down of course) rotating the pix was sure to give me a bad print.

Damn expensive photo paper.

I had a software app that is supposed to make ganging pix simpler, but it didn't work. Perhaps there's another one at versiontracker.

I wouldn't bother with Stylus RIP or Acrobat RIP unless you are trying to print a design layout.

[Burn]

In a way - the folks above are all wrong, but I am not here to argue.

Steve SpotOn never mentioned he was using eps in the first place (everyone just assumed I guess) - I don't know where the hell everyone was pulling that shiat from?! Could be that he was trying to print an image at 72 dpi? who knows.

Suggesting he buy Distiller as an interim solution?? huh? Do you know how much distiller is? and to suggest as an option here is really funny.

What are you doing saving images as an EPS anyway? For printing of any photographic type material - go Tiff all the way.

Only time to bother with anything eps is out of Illustrator or Freehand (which are basically vector based illustration tools). Simply placing an image in one of those apps - will not allow it to print on a non PS printer either. If you have in fact created something in these apps and can't print properly to a non PS printer - do as suggested, save as PDF right out of Illustrator or FH, then print that.

Anywho - I guess since this was gone over a while ago - Steve has found his solution!

[derbs]

Burn, do you try to be an arrogant arsehole, or does it come naturally?

[Burn]

derbs and group,

Meaning no disrespect at all, the information supplied to this gentleman was wrong.

Solutions were offered that would end up costing Steve more than it was worth.

He just wanted to print a cpl photographs and ppl start suggesting he look into StylusRIP (a $500-$1999.99US option) or purchasing Acrobat Distiller (a $300US option)??

I have printed to a milion nonPS printers using Quark and none of this software is needed. UNLESS printing specific EPS or PS information - which Steve SpotOn isn't (read - shouldn't be). Now - if he were trying this with Adobe's InDesign, we'd have a completely different situation, but Quark isn't THAT MUCH of a bastrd (well yes it is ;-) )

Selecting the most simple colour setting in Quark while using the appropriate file formats should give Steve exactly what he needs. No extra expense necessary. No extra ppd's other than what Epson has installed. No industry level crap to deal with at all. Open Chooser, select printer, open file, hit 'print' that is it.

Sorry if I sounded arrogant - I wasn't trying to be.. sometimes my technical side overrides everything and it comes off like that.

My apologies if I pissed ya off, maybe I need to add more smilies to my post?

[arclight]

Seems like all designers have their inherent opinions as to Quark and it's preview/printing capabilities. Everyone has their own way of doing things, this is my solution to gang and print photos:

Using Photoshop, create a new document that is slightly smaller than the paper size your printing(for letter size, I usually use 8x10). Open up the photos you would like to gang & print and drag them into the new document . This will allow you to resize and move them around in the "printable" area of the paper you're using. I use this method in Quark too, with Stylus RIP ($129) to print color swatches before I print large format prints to the "really expensive papers". This allows me to re-use the same scrap of paper and move the color test swatches slightly to print side by side as I tweak the printer settings. It works great when your reds are printing orange and your blues are purple.

It's definitely a hillbilly workaround but it works like a charm and you lose very little paper to bad prints. You can get outstanding prints from an inkjet at 150dpi or higher(I use 300dpi as a minimum beause I'm just like that). Many of the other solutions offered will work just as well, this just happens to be the way I choose to do it.


And on a sour note:

For the record, Freehand sucks.

And for all you CIA graduates out there who think it's a page layout program:

Take a Quark class so you can get a job.

I feel better now,

[Nathan Adams]

excuse me, but I swear by Freehand.
Granted it's not a dedicated DP program like Quark - but it sure as hell does a good enough job for small jobs. Besides - Quark is an awful hideous program - If I can get away with Freehand, I will.

Nice of you to link program knowledge to jobs though - call me old fashioned, but this is a business about ideas and how to communicate them - these are only tools. I would much prefer to see good designers who don't know the difference between a pen and pencil tool, then a bunch of mouse jockies pushing shite design all day long.