Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: cpmorganesq on October 01, 2009, 02:44:07 pm

Title: Lightroom printing resolution issue
Post by: cpmorganesq on October 01, 2009, 02:44:07 pm
I'm using Lightroom 2.5 to print to an HP 130 printer. I'm printing a 4" x 18" file at 300ppi, with the print resolution box unchecked. If I print the photo at 4" x 18",  it looks fine. But if I increase the image size by a small amount to 5" x 22", Lightroom prints it at 245ppi, but the output has terrible resolution and visible jaggies. When I ran the same job a few minutes later, I got normal resolution. Could this be a bug?

Thanks,

Chris Morgan
Title: Lightroom printing resolution issue
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 01, 2009, 02:52:16 pm
Yes!
Erik


Quote from: cpmorganesq
I'm using Lightroom 2.5 to print to an HP 130 printer. I'm printing a 4" x 18" file at 300ppi, with the print resolution box unchecked. If I print the photo at 4" x 18",  it looks fine. But if I increase the image size by a small amount to 5" x 22", Lightroom prints it at 245ppi, but the output has terrible resolution and visible jaggies. When I ran the same job a few minutes later, I got normal resolution. Could this be a bug?

Thanks,

Chris Morgan
Title: Lightroom printing resolution issue
Post by: cpmorganesq on October 01, 2009, 02:58:08 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Yes!
Erik

Eric,

Has this happened to you?

- Chris
Title: Lightroom printing resolution issue
Post by: cpmorganesq on October 01, 2009, 04:38:02 pm
In poking around this forum, I found the answer to my problem at:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....amp;hl=printing (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27548&hl=printing)

If you rotate a long, narrow image in LR from portrait to landscape, then try to print it, the resolution will go down drastically. So I went back to CS4, rotated and saved the image there, synchronized the image in LR, then it printed perfectly. Adobe apparently has not fixed this bug, even though the discussion in the link cited above is from mid-2008.

- Chris