Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: walter.sk on October 09, 2011, 02:07:45 pm
-
I am going to use the ColorMunki to profile Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl paper on my Epson 4900 printer. I will be using a 17" x 100' roll, which is 290 gsm, 11.5 mill. I would like to use 8.5" x 11" sheets of Gallery Smooth Pearl to print the targets and make the profiles, but the smaller paper is only 280 gsm and 11 mil. Would I be okay using the sheets for the profile and then perhaps adjusting the platen width to compensate for the difference when using the Roll paper, or would I be better off using the roll to print the targets and measure them?
Also, is there any way with the 4900 and a 17" roll of paper to have the printer cut at exactly 11" from the leading edge so that I get 11x17 sheets? On my now-defunct Z3100, using Qimage, I was able to tell the printer that a page was 24" x 17". In Photoshop, I would size my images to 10.5 x 15.25, increase the canvas size to 11x17 and put a 1 pixel stroke around the canvas, and print 2-up, placing the images next to each other. In the printer driver I set the Z3100 to eliminate white space above and below the prints, and with 2 manual cuts I was able to have 2 11x17's. I'm hoping there's a way to get exact 11x17's from the 4900.
-
I am going to use the ColorMunki to profile Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl paper on my Epson 4900 printer. I will be using a 17" x 100' roll, which is 290 gsm, 11.5 mill. I would like to use 8.5" x 11" sheets of Gallery Smooth Pearl to print the targets and make the profiles, but the smaller paper is only 280 gsm and 11 mil. Would I be okay using the sheets for the profile and then perhaps adjusting the platen width to compensate for the difference when using the Roll paper, or would I be better off using the roll to print the targets and measure them?
I doubt that you would see any difference between the two. The paper stock is a little thicker for the roll paper, but I presume the coating thickness is identical in both cases.
-
Thanks, Alan.