Printing is offset by 1/2 "

My 7520 all in one printer prints everything offset on the left side by 1/2 inch. How do I fix this?

Hi mljennin,
Thank you for your response!
With the fact that the printer is having the same issue while copying on it's own, I would suggest the following options:
Take a look through this guide, An 'Out of Paper' Message Displays on the Control Panel and the All-in-One Does Not Pick Up Paper, as it will show you how to clean the rollers, etc.
Getting Printer Updates for HP Deskjet Ink Advantage 6520 e-All-in-One and HP Photosmart 6520 and 75....
Make sure the printer is plugged directly into the wall outlet, and not a surge protector. Issues when Connected to an Uninterruptible Power Supply/Power Strip/Surge Protector. This applies to Inkjet printers as well.
If these options do not resolve your issue, then there is a hardware malfunction with the printer, and it will need to be replaced/upgraded depending on your warranty status. Please call our phone support at 800-474-6836. If you live outside the US/Canada Region, please click the link below to get the support number for your region. Country-language selector.
Best of luck!
RnRMusicMan
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos Thumbs Up" to say “Thanks” for helping!

Similar Messages

Issue w/ Queues in Server 10.5.5, Xerox 7760s: They print, but offset

A little background:
Currently we have a mix of 80 fully patched 10.4.11 and fully patched 10.5.5 clients printing directly to 4 identical Xerox Phaser 7760DXs via ipp. They work great. No problems with clients printing directly to the printer.
-BUT-
For reasons beyond the scope of this post, we MUST move the clients to use server queues (PaperCut).
Server is now a clean test server running fully patched 10.5.5 OS X Server with just print services running.
We set up 4 queues the usual way, and then set clients to print to the named queues via LPR, designate the correct driver/ppds on the client.
The clients CAN print, however, out of every app we try, from TextEdit to Illustrator CS3 -anything-
the print outs are blown-up or offset really noticeably -
Say you set up Preview to
print a 7"X5" jpg to centered, on tabloid in landscape. Set the scale option to %100 (no scaling) and
it prints basically off center: up and to the left about 25% of the total page size- really off.
Again, not app related, textedit does this with a single word of centered text, photoshop CS 3, BBEdit, Firefox, etc every print, all print out offset more or less to the same degree, no matter how one sets them up.
Same clients, setups, but printing to the printer directly, rather than by the queues, in all the same apps, you never have this issue.
We did look at this as far as the pstop file version and 10.5.5:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20080925104227545&query=print%2Bque
and no, substituting the older pstop files did not correct the situation.
Ideas, input greatly appreciated.

A little background:
Currently we have a mix of 80 fully patched 10.4.11 and fully patched 10.5.5 clients printing directly to 4 identical Xerox Phaser 7760DXs via ipp. They work great. No problems with clients printing directly to the printer.
-BUT-
For reasons beyond the scope of this post, we MUST move the clients to use server queues (PaperCut).
Server is now a clean test server running fully patched 10.5.5 OS X Server with just print services running.
We set up 4 queues the usual way, and then set clients to print to the named queues via LPR, designate the correct driver/ppds on the client.
The clients CAN print, however, out of every app we try, from TextEdit to Illustrator CS3 -anything-
the print outs are blown-up or offset really noticeably -
Say you set up Preview to
print a 7"X5" jpg to centered, on tabloid in landscape. Set the scale option to %100 (no scaling) and
it prints basically off center: up and to the left about 25% of the total page size- really off.
Again, not app related, textedit does this with a single word of centered text, photoshop CS 3, BBEdit, Firefox, etc every print, all print out offset more or less to the same degree, no matter how one sets them up.
Same clients, setups, but printing to the printer directly, rather than by the queues, in all the same apps, you never have this issue.
We did look at this as far as the pstop file version and 10.5.5:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20080925104227545&query=print%2Bque
and no, substituting the older pstop files did not correct the situation.
Ideas, input greatly appreciated.

Add Printer Marks Offset

When using the 'Add Printer Marks' feature under Print Production tools, is there a way to set the offset of the resulting marks from trim? I get files every day that have no marks and the marks that this feature create just don't work. The offset appears to be only about .040". It needs to be 0.125" for most jobs. You can edit object on the marks after creation in Illustrator but that would be way too much work on a multi page file.
Is there a simple Acrobat plug in that would have this feature other than Pitstop available
Thanks.

You cannot adjust the printer marks offset in the 'Set Page Boxes' under
Print production. I need to know how to change the offset of the 'Default'
setting in the Add Printer Marks feature. Making the Quark Express marks the
default would also suffice.
Thanks.
Mike
In a message dated 2/16/2015 1:58:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Add Printer Marks Offset
created by Vikrantt Singh
(https://forums.adobe.com/people/Vikrantt+Singh) in Printing & Prepress - View the full discussion
(https://forums.adobe.com/message/7199885#7199885)

Pages to be printed in offset

I made a book in Pages and now I want to have it printed in offset. Is that possible?
Maby when I deliver it in PDF?

There is also the issue of carrying consistent colors from one job to the next.
Consistent colour is a product both of the calibration of the printing condition and of the correct use of the ICC profile that characterises the printing condition.
If you cannot run your press to a consistent target, then no test chart you print is representative, and no ICC profile I build from your test charts is representative either.
Colour management is (1) process control and (2) people control.
Why ignore bleeds, spot colors and issues like resolution management and slugs?
Print houses that have not invested in up-to-date plant are a problem, but then they were also a problem in the past.
To quote Bette Midler "I've been kidnapped by KMart!"
Well, ICC colour management has first and foremost been driven by professional photographers. The problem for professional photographers was that they could not add value by colour correction in past processes that scanned direct to CMYK with EPS DCS. For the professional photographer to add value, it is necessary that the colours she creates on the colour desktop display can be correlated to the colours that are possible in the intended printing condition, and that the printing condition behaves in a repeatable and predictable manner.
In 1985, PostScript version 23 for the Apple LaserWriter did not support CMYK. In 1987, fifty per cent of Macintosh systems had colour displays. In 1990, PostScript level 2 supported CMYK but the colour management system in it did not support softcopy proofing on the colour desktop display, as Seybold noted. In May 1992, Primavera (Italian for 'spring', beta name for ColorSync) was previewed at the Apple World Wide Developer Conference as noted in Jonathan Seybold's review. In May 1995, ColorSync 2 Golden Master was released at the Apple World Wide Developer Conference and at DRUPA in Düsseldorf (at the same time as the first A4 automatic spectrophotomer, the GretagMacbeth SpectroScan). In 1999, a proposal to add the ICC profile for the intended printing condition in Adobe PDF was introduced. When the OutputIntent for PDF was implemented in shipping software from GretagMacbeth, Adobe and others it became possible for the studio photographer to add value by colour correcting on the display with reference to the ICC profile for the display plus the ICC profile for the editing space plus the ICC profile for the intended printing condition, and to hold the printer to a contract proof that has the printer pay if the press deviates by more than dE 3 from the FOGRA control strip on the contract proof.
Since the ColorSync Users List opened in 1999 there have been prepress shops and press shops complaining that colour management does not work. In part their complaint is correct, but not for the reasons they advance. ICC colour management is a format for communicating (a) what colours are achievable for a given configuration and calibration of a colour device and (b) what colourants achieve those colours. In fact, a Heidelberg Speedmaster is a peripheral to the ICC profile for the state of the printing condition that the Speedmaster processes. This is why Heidelberg integrated **** in 1997 and then in 2000 integrated GretagMacbeth holographic grid spectrophotometers with optical fibre scanning across the width of the sheet in the Image Control units.
The difficulty is that there is need of a second communication format. Apple introduced such a second communication format in ColorSync 2.5 that introduced the Video Card Gamma Tag to set the state of your colour display to the state that was characterised when you created your ICC display profile. In other words, you need a calibration/configuration management format that communicates with your colour management format. This is what job jackets, CIP, JDF and more back is about. Again, the printing architecture of QuickDraw GX had some of these ideas, and before that similar ideas about communicating device configuration was implemented in the PDD PostScript Printer Definition format.
But if you want to understand PDF processing, you want to begin by understanding that device dependent attributes do not belong in the format. You need another format for that, a companion process format that carries the information about device states and device attributes.
Just my ten cents,
Henrik

Document Printing/Exporting Offset

Not too long ago I upgraded from CS 4 to 5.5. I haven't done much printing until now.
I'm finding everything in InDesign that I print or export to PDF is offset by 1/8 inch to the left, leaving a wider margin on the right. (As a PDF, this error becomes visible onscreen.) I have checked every setting I can think of and everything looks correct.
I did some tests to be sure it wasn't a driver or printer problem by drawing boxes in Pages and Word. They print flawlessly.
Could there be something new in 5.5 that I'm unaware of causing this?
Thanks,
Tim

I trashed my preferences via the keyboard shortcut. Problem persists. However, PDF export print improved to about 1/16 inch offset.
Something just occurred me, I know you have to have Java installed to run CS apps. Apple recently updated and that messed up some web work I was doing. I wonder if they could be related? Longshot and I suppose more people would have the same problem.
Related to after trashing the prefs. It's been years since I had to redo prefs. In dialog boxes (like New Document) I thought you set what type of measurements they display under preferences->Units & Increments. Am I wrong or did that change, as I can't get them back to displaying inches.
Thanks.

Aperture printed image offset by 1/4" on Epson 7800 printer

I'm using Aperture 3.2.4 with System 10.7.4, and Epson 7800 printer, iMac. Have printed many images, working properly. But recently, every printed image is offset 1/4" up. It looks correctly centered in the printer setup screen, but when printed, the bottom margin is 1/4" larger and the top one 1/4" smaller. For this printer, the bottom margin is supposed to be fixed at 0.56" (9/16"), and it always used to be, and that's what the setup screen still says it is. But now the printed image's bottom margin is 0.81" (13/16"), even though the setup calls for .56".
I've tried to compensate by adding 1/4" to the top margin, and that does bring the printed top margin up from 5/16" to 9/16", but the bottom margin remains 13/16"
Anyone have any ideas?

I don't know why it is, just that it was a bug that was revealed about a year ago. I had similar problems with my 9800 and could not for the life of me figure out the cause. I had Epson telling me it was the humidity. I had Chromix telling me to put the UV filter on my Spectrolino, and it all came down to the default printer. Not sure exactly where I read about it first, but I'm glad that one more person now knows.

Printing is offset in weird way

I have a file that has a 1.5"h x 3.5"w box in the very top left hand corner (0,0). I understand that my printer will not allow me to print to the very edge of the document so this is not a bleed question (or at least I don't think it is).
Here's the problem. On the file, this box ends at 1.5" down and 3.5" to the right. However, when I print the document it prints 1.385" down and 3.65" to the right.
That means not only does the printed document look different than the online document… the printed document also doesn't seem consistent (with the verticial being shorter and the horizontal being longer).
Can anyone explain what's happening and how to resolve it?
Thanks

Check the print dialog to see if you are scaling the print in some way.

How do you make sure the form data prints (commercial offset printing)?

We are commercial printers and have been using a PDF workflow for quite a while now. We recently received a PDF form to print but any information filled in the form just dropped out (all non-data printed fine). When we send it to a laser printer, everything is there but when it goes through the RIP and imposition software (both Heidelberg), all the data is missing.
When I open the PDF from the client, I am not able to change or even highlight the data. There is a message saying the information is locked.
We were able to get around the problem by importing the PDF into InDesign and making a new PDF from that but that seems to be an extra step that coulb be avoided.
Anyone else with a similar problem (and solution)?

How can you tell that it is an XFA form? If I can identify the form type from when I get jobs like this, I can use the workaround from the beginning.
Here are a few more screen shots of things that are happening:
When I try to Print to a PDF:
When I use the Mac "Save to Adobe PDF" in the print dialog:
I get this message often:
and when I try to embed the missing font (PitStop), I get this:
The only thing that has worked so far is placing the PDF in InDesign and Exporting to a new PDF from there. I guess this is making the flattened PDF that you talked about.

Removing printer offsets from PDF pages

I accidently set up a printer page offset when creating PDF pages from Word Perfect X3. Is there a way to remove the offset, or do I need to go back to the original WP pages (which I can't find!)?

I recreated a page and made sure there were no offsets listed. The PDF page still prints offset. I found sources to recreate the page, displayed codes, and removed anything marked as offset. There is still an offset to the left when pre-print displaying either the source page or the PDF version.

Duplex Printing Problem - Word 2007, Vista and HP Officejet Pro L7780

I'm having trouble with duplex printing on my new HP Officejet Pro L7780, from Word 2007, running on a brand new Vista system. I've also had this same problem (repeatable) with two other computers, running XP Professional/Word 2003, XP Home/Word 2003. All of the service packs have been installed for the operating system, word, and printer.
If you print a landscape document, using the auto duplex setting for the HP printer, the margins will print out offset by .25 inches, on the left and rigt margins. So if your margin is 1 inches on right and left, the margins will print to .75 on one side and 1.25 on the other. This would be annoying, except that I'm trying to print brochures and books, which requires that the pages print out exactly as set up... "close enough" isn't working for me
The way I have replicated this problem is as follows: set up a document in landscape format, using the default margins. Insert an image on page one, size it so it takes the full margin area. On the second page, fill it up with text. Print the document, selecting the printer properties and setting Print on Both Sides=Automatic. The easiest way see the problem is by holding the document up to the light. The front and back margins should match and they don't.
Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated.
Diana

Diana,
This problem is perhaps much larger than you might have imagined. We have tried to work with Hewlett Packard for over two years on the duplex printing problems. In the process, we have expended over 100 hours of effort in troubleshooting the problem which has included updating software, reinstalling software, developing test documents, escalating issues, submitting technical findings, and in purchasing replacements. Unfortunately, our efforts to interact with Hewlett Packard excalated support have resulted in an aire of apathy, disinterest, incompetence, frustration, redundancy, occasional discourtesy, and an outright lack of professional decorum - something inconceivable of a large, reputable company.
We have identified several problems with duplex printing. The duplex printing problems include irregular margin increases (.25 to .50 inch), margin shifts, cut-off text, compressed text, and compressed graphics. Please note that most of these problems are only evident when printing documents from computer applications to the printer. If the user simply uses the front printer panel to copy in duplex mode, these problems are not always evident. This suggests that the printer mechanics are capable of properly duplexing and that the problem lies in the drivers.
The problem is evident on the HP OfficeJet Pro L7780, Photosmart L7180, Photosmart C6150, Photosmart 3310, and likely on many, many other HP models. The problem is evident on many computers (HP, IBM, Toshiba, and Dell), is evident in multiple applicatons (Word, Wordperfect, Excel, Peachtree, Notepad, and many more), and is evident on multiple operating systems (Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Media Center Edition, and Microsoft Vista).
We consider ourselves to be extremely polite, patient individuals, but have nearly been driven to outrage by the indignant disregard offered us by HP's escalation support department; a department which should represent the cream-of-the-crop in both service and technical expertise. Given the ease with which the problem can be duplicated, we expected an extremely quick resolution by HP who, to our knowledge, has never even made the effort to duplicate the problem in-house on our behalf.
Ironically, HP highly advertises their J.D. Powers rated technical support, yet it appears that they actually have extremely poor published consumer rankings in some of today's mainstream computer magazines. HP technical support makes no apologies for the fact the user cannot use a major feature of their printers, offers no indication that the problem is even being addressed, and off-loads the responsibility by suggesting that we contact Microsoft (who is to blame for this issue).
Thank you, Diane, for your message. We had a hard time imagining that we were the only one experiencing this problem, especially when HP promotes such a representation. Which also begs the question why HP plays like the problem does not even exist? I also fail to understand why HP technical support shows so little interest in a problem that is easily duplicated and adversely affects a major feature of the printer which is commonly used by individuals purchasing equipment for its duplex capabilities.
This is sad because we have been a loyal customer of HP for over twenty-five years. There was a time when we would have happily endorsed HP's steller products and steller support (provided you could get a problem escalated). Now, however, they all-too-often appear to offer equipment that fails to support advertised features which is backed up by sub-standard support and extremely expensive ink. This is an especially sad commentary for users who are buying HP's upper-end printers and computers.
We desire to know if there are others out there experiencing similar problems? If you have experienced these problems or would like samples of the problems we have duplicated, please respond. I think the more information we gather, the better our chance of a successful resolution to a serious problem.
Thanks Everyone!

Black&White printing of a PDF file

Please suggest how to modify printer settings so that a pdf file prints only black&white even though the printer attached could be a colour printer.
I have checked printer setup->properties->advanced button in acrobat reader, but could not find option to make the print black & white only.

Hi,
when i checked printer preferences advanced option, only following were visible, and none of them i suppose relates to black&white printing.
<printer name> advanced document settings
Paper/Output
Copy Count
Graphic
Scaling
True Type Font
Document Options
PostScript Options
PostScript Output Option
True Type Font Download Option
PostScript Language Level
Send PostScript Error Handler
Mirrored Output
Negative Output
Printer Features
Offset Collated Sets
Edge-to-Edge Printing
Image Smoothing
Draft Mode
Watermark

Color settings in Photoshop for print production

Does anyone have experience and/or knowledge about the color settings in Photoshop?
We have business cards that will be printed using offset printing (4 color printing) and Spot printing (Pantone), and need guidance in configuring the settings.
Please help!

Oh, but by the way, Photoshop is an odd choice for business cards and a troublesome one for spot colour. Illustrator or InDesign perhaps.

Problems Printing from Epson 2400 in Lightroom 2.3

I'm in the process of switching over from a PC to a Mac. I've gotten lightroom running and transfered all my photos over. But I'm having two big problems printing from my Epson 2400.
*8.5x11 prints are offset. The top of the picture starts about an inch lower than it should, and the bottom typically gets cut off.
*Lightroom refuses to print 4x6 prints. It says it's printing, and the paper feeds in, but then the printer just spits out a blank page.
I'm using the most current version of the Epson 2400 driver that I could find on the Epson web site.
[Update] I used iPhoto 9 to print out some pictures, and they came out fine. So this seems to be a lightroom issue or a conflict between the lightroom/epson drivers.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

Further update. It appears that I can print perfectly from another account on the same mac. But the account on which my catalog resides doesn't work at all. Could my catalog have been corrupted when I transfered my photos and catalog over to the new mac from the pc? Is there any way that I can fix it? (I have tried optimize and relaunch; no luck.)
I could -- as a last restort -- kill the catalog and reimport all my thousands of photos, but wouldn't I loose the keywords and adjustments?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

PPI VS. DPI in verbal printing discussion

Hi,
I was wondering If I could get a professional opinion on how DPI and PPI should be conversed with a print vendor?
This would include screen printing and offset printing.
Also, for years when I talk with a designer, I always asked to save as 300 DPI…not 300 PPI thats just the language I have been used to.
Can someone please give me an endepth explaniation of the two choices and which is more common to use.
Personally I think DPI is the more current to use.
Thanks…please advise,
JB

They are used interchangably (unfortunately) and if they ask for 300 DPI then you can be confident that they mean 300 PPI.
However, this doesn't make it correct: there are no "dots" in a digital image, never have been and never will be. There are only pixels. PPI is the correct unit of measurement, and that's only if you know the print size; the actual resolution of a digital image is the total number of pixels, for example 1500px by 850px -- until you determine the output size there is no PPI measurement. Of course you need to know the output size in order to give them 300 PPI; scanning an image @ 300 PPI and then enlarging it 200% in your layour will give you an effective resolution of 150 PPI.
DPI refers to output resolution of a device such as a printer, imagesetter, platesetter, etc. It does not refer to linescreen (that would be lines per inch, or LPI).
The best way to avoid confusion in any discussion is to use proper terminology (and teach and encourage others to do the same).

How to Preserve Transparency for Printing on Silver Vinyl (and Avoid Flattening Artifacts)

I have an Illustrator file that contains a number of icons that are "Placed" transparent Photoshop files (i.e. they were never flattened so there is no white background in any of these placed icon files). The Illustrator file is being printed by a commercial printer on silver vinyl and then cut on a cutting machine. Before giving the file to the printer I have been instructed to do the Object => Flatten Transparency operation to make sure that no artifacts are created during this process. (The file must be flattened because the cutting machine requires that this be done.) My problem is that when I do this a white rectangle artifact is created around each of the icons--and obviously this is not what I want to see when I am printing on silver vinyl! (I have read that one way to ensure that these artifacts are not created would be to select the layer containing all the icons, and then select the layer underneath it, so that the icons are flattened "onto" something. But in this case, there is no "layer beneath!") Does anyone know of a type of "fake" layer that I could put under the icons that would make the Flattening process work--but not impact the look of the silver vinyl? Does anyone have any other type of solution? (I am new to Illustrator and am basically desperate to get this problem solved!) Thank you very much in advance.

They are 720 dpi images being printed on the silver vinyl by a Roland XJ640 inkjet printer
Knowing now that the images in question are, in fact, full-color raster images, the first thing I would ask the printer is this: "Since you are printing onto silver vinyl, how are you going to "back up" the color images with areas of white so that the process color renders correctly?" The references I looked at suggest this is a six-head inkjet printer using 4-color process (CMYK). That would make it a "process plus 2 (spot color)" device.
The lists of compatible inks I saw included a metallic silver and an opaque white. So that suggests two ways this might be being printed:
Depending on the resulting area of "background" silver in the finished pieces, it could be practical for the project to actually be printed on white vinyl, not silver, and the silver "background" would actually be one of the printed inks. Typically, to accomplish that in a program like Illustrator, you would enclose your full-color raster images in a clipping path of the desired shape, draw a background shape behind the clipped raster images which will bleed beyond the eventual cut paths, and fill that background shape with a spot color Swatch which is named so as to be recognized by the software driving the device as its silver ink.
If the vinyl is, in fact, silver, then a white object needs to be printed first, and the CMYK inks printed on top of it. Typically, to accomplish that in a program like Illustrator, you would draw shapes surrounding your images in the desired shapes, and fill those shapes with a spot color Swatch which is named so as to be correctly recognized by the software driving the device. It is usually more convenient to position these objects in front of the CMYK images and set them to overprint. Or, if they are positioned behind the images, then the images themselves need to be set to overprint or the CMYK inks could be set to overprint in the Separations section of the Print dialog of whatever software is actually doing the printing.
The icons on the globe pattern are very small 1440 dpi placed Photoshop files....printing at 1440 dpi with bicubic interpolation...
This is a common misconception about printer resolution. Knowing that a given inkjet printer has a hardware resolution of 1440 dpi does not mean that maximum detail is going to be achieved if the full-color raster images are 1440 PPI.
1440 DPI is not the "extremely high resolution" it sounds like to some. To understand, consider normal commerical offset printing: A typical PostScript imagesetter has a hardware resolution of 3000 SPI (printer Spots Per Inch). And compared to the relatively "fuzzy" dots that are created by an inkjet device effectively "spraying" droplets of liquid ink on a sheet, the printer spots of an imagesetter are sharp-edged dots made by exposing a photo emulsion on film with a laser. And yet, designers wanting maximum fidelity and detail when printing full-color raster images do not go around creating their raster images at 3000 PPI, do they? Why not?
Here's the deal: Whether you are talking about inkjet composite printing or imagesetting, printing full-color images involves process color. "Process color" means you use little tiny dots of (usually) just four primary colors of inks to simulate all the colors in the image. In order for those little tiny dots to simulate other colors, they must do one of two things: They have to either vary in size (halftone screening), or they have to vary in number (stochastic screening) across a given area.
Common commercial offset printing employs the first method, halftone screening. Remember: the resolution of the imagesetter is 3000 SPI. In other words, that imagesetter just does one thing: It creates spots which measure 1/3000 inch. That's a fixed function of the mechanical hardware; the imagesetter cannot vary the size of the spots it creates. So how does it print the variable-size dots required by halftone screening? Here's how: Each of the variable-size halftone dots (the dots of ink that will actually be printed) are built up out of the much smaller printer spots.
This raises the question, how many printer spots are available to build up the shape of each halftone dot? That's where the halftone ruling (expressed in LPI; Lines Per Inch) comes in. And that's the value (halftone LPI) that you consider when determining best PPI for your images. The rule-of-thumb is one-to-two times the halftone ruling. For example, 175 LPI is considered above-average printing in offset lithography. It's one step above the most commonly used "magazine quality" of 150 LPI. So assuming a project being printed on quality coated stock at a halftone ruling of 175 LPI, appropriate raster image PPI would be 175-to-350. Using more is just needlessly wasting data that is going to effectively be "averaged away" anyway ("oversampling"). It can, in fact, degrade the printed results. Note that that's a far cry from 3000, the hardware resolution of the imaging device.
Composite inkjet printing nowadays commonly employs the second method, stochastic screening (also called FM screening, diffusion dither, etc.). Nowadays, 1440 is a common hardware resolution for even cheap desktop inkjet printers. Again, similar to the imagesetter described above, this means that the inkjet printer does just one thing: it bursts onto the substrate little fuzzy dots of ink which measure (roughly) 1/1440 inch. That's fixed; the inkjet printer cannot vary the size of the spots it creates. Note that this is actually less than one fourth the number of printer spots created by a typical imagesetter. So how does an inkjet render all the colors required to reasonably reproduce a full-color image? It prints fewer printer spots of each of its primary colors within a given area. And to avoid a discernable (and distracting) pattern, it distributes those printer spots in what looks like, to a human, a random pattern.
So once again, there is no 1:1 correspondence between each printer spot produced by an inkjet printer and each pixel in a full-color raster image. Trying to achieve that correspondence by making your image PPI equal to the SPI of the printer is just as silly in inkjet printing as it is in imagesetting. It's still just needlessly gross oversampling with absolutely no advantage.
In fact, one of the much-hoped-for promises of stochastic screening in the early days of desktop prepress was that it reduces the PPI needed for apparent sharpness in printed results. (In those days of low memory and slow processing, file size was of paramount concern.) That is, for "comparable detail and sharpness" stochastic screening required lower PPI.
What all this means is: You are not going to achieve any visible detail advantage by sampling your full-color raster images at 1440 PPI instead of at a much lower PPI. Ridiculously high PPI will not make a screened (halftone or stochastic) image include more detail when viewed under magnification. Increasing the PPI of your raster images to the moon does not overcome the rendering capability of the printing process itself.
JET

Printing is offset by 1/2 "

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for