PHWinfo - Afficher un message

01/03/2008, 14h31

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:26:37 GMT, "Mike Russell"
<RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:

>The default is wrong (you can press ctrl-shift-K and change this) Convert
>them to the working space.
>
>> Having no idea what this means, I've been letting the default make the
>> decision. I tried one test print with choice no. 1 and could see no
>> difference. Whatever this is appears to have the resolution frozen at
>> 234 dpi. I pumped the resolution up to 2400 dpi and couldn't see any
>> difference with a jewelers loupe.
>
>Ignore the dpi setting - this is an internal number that normally does not
>change the quality of the result.
>
>BTW - you didn't tell us the problem you are seeing with the pics.
>---
>Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

My friend s response:

> have a CD-R from the newspaper full of photos of last years Little
> League championship game that my grandson won. I had promised to make
> him an album and a display with his jersey.
>
> It may not be the printer driver that's responsible for the poor
> results I'm getting. Photoshop is displaying a message new to me:
> This document has an embedded color profile that does not match the
> current RFGB working space.
>
> Embedded: Nikon Adobe RGB 4.0.0.3000
>
> O Use embedded profile (instead of the working space)
> O Convert document's colors to the working space
> O Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage) THIS IS MARKED
> BY DEFAULT

The default is wrong (you can press ctrl-shift-K and change this)
Convert
them to the working space.

Duh. Or just click Option 2, which still didn't allow adjusting
resolution. This comment suggests that the incomprehensible term
"working space" means "Photoshop's tools for manipulating color."
That's not an issue. These shots require only cropping and histogram
density adjustment.

> Having no idea what this means, I've been letting the default make the
> decision. I tried one test print with choice no. 1 and could see no
> difference. Whatever this is appears to have the resolution frozen at
> 234 dpi. I pumped the resolution up to 2400 dpi and couldn't see any
> difference with a jewelers loupe.

Ignore the dpi setting - this is an internal number that normally does
not
change the quality of the result.

BTW - you didn't tell us the problem you are seeing with the pics.

The 4x6 test photo I'm using utilizes about 1/3 of the image area. The
dots are plainly discernable with (my) unaided eye at normal viewing
distance. The shot intended for the jersey display will be 8.5x14. The
dots will be huge. Anyone who doesn't recognize 234 dpi as a serious
quality problem doesn't deserve to have Photoshop CS.

These shots are Nikon lens sharp. I can count the stitches on the
baseball in the test photo on the monitor in high resolution with
"working space" enabled. What I see is not what I get. The Alps
printer produces resolution comparable to 1200 dpi.

I'm down to two likely causes:
1. The Nikon camera locked in the 234 dpi resolution at the moment of
exposure, in which case there is no improving it, or
2. The downloaded XP driver --- Alps last driver was for Me --- is
deficient.

This mystery may be solved when I manage to get the Win98SE Alps
produced driver unzipped. I had forgotten how unstable Win98 is. It's
driving me nuts. I hadn't seen a BSOD in years before this. All I need
to do is to get an optical drive recognized.

01/03/2008, 14h31	#8
gecko Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Re: Poor pics from Photoshop On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:26:37 GMT, "Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote: >The default is wrong (you can press ctrl-shift-K and change this) Convert >them to the working space. > >> Having no idea what this means, I've been letting the default make the >> decision. I tried one test print with choice no. 1 and could see no >> difference. Whatever this is appears to have the resolution frozen at >> 234 dpi. I pumped the resolution up to 2400 dpi and couldn't see any >> difference with a jewelers loupe. > >Ignore the dpi setting - this is an internal number that normally does not >change the quality of the result. > >BTW - you didn't tell us the problem you are seeing with the pics. >--- >Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com My friend s response: > have a CD-R from the newspaper full of photos of last years Little > League championship game that my grandson won. I had promised to make > him an album and a display with his jersey. > > It may not be the printer driver that's responsible for the poor > results I'm getting. Photoshop is displaying a message new to me: > This document has an embedded color profile that does not match the > current RFGB working space. > > Embedded: Nikon Adobe RGB 4.0.0.3000 > > O Use embedded profile (instead of the working space) > O Convert document's colors to the working space > O Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage) THIS IS MARKED > BY DEFAULT The default is wrong (you can press ctrl-shift-K and change this) Convert them to the working space. Duh. Or just click Option 2, which still didn't allow adjusting resolution. This comment suggests that the incomprehensible term "working space" means "Photoshop's tools for manipulating color." That's not an issue. These shots require only cropping and histogram density adjustment. > Having no idea what this means, I've been letting the default make the > decision. I tried one test print with choice no. 1 and could see no > difference. Whatever this is appears to have the resolution frozen at > 234 dpi. I pumped the resolution up to 2400 dpi and couldn't see any > difference with a jewelers loupe. Ignore the dpi setting - this is an internal number that normally does not change the quality of the result. BTW - you didn't tell us the problem you are seeing with the pics. The 4x6 test photo I'm using utilizes about 1/3 of the image area. The dots are plainly discernable with (my) unaided eye at normal viewing distance. The shot intended for the jersey display will be 8.5x14. The dots will be huge. Anyone who doesn't recognize 234 dpi as a serious quality problem doesn't deserve to have Photoshop CS. These shots are Nikon lens sharp. I can count the stitches on the baseball in the test photo on the monitor in high resolution with "working space" enabled. What I see is not what I get. The Alps printer produces resolution comparable to 1200 dpi. I'm down to two likely causes: 1. The Nikon camera locked in the 234 dpi resolution at the moment of exposure, in which case there is no improving it, or 2. The downloaded XP driver --- Alps last driver was for Me --- is deficient. This mystery may be solved when I manage to get the Win98SE Alps produced driver unzipped. I had forgotten how unstable Win98 is. It's driving me nuts. I hadn't seen a BSOD in years before this. All I need to do is to get an optical drive recognized.