borderless

[timothy015]

I just purchased an I9900 and I'm having trouble regarding the picture being cut off on the edges. In the original print, before print preview there is a good amount of space between my subject and the backround. Despite this, when I go for a borderless print it cuts off the subject. What is an easy way to correct this problem. I have photoshop.

[CastleDude]

The trick here is to make sure you crop the picture (either in the printing utility or in photoshop) to the same ratio as the picture you are taking.

For Easy PhotoPrint (that comes with the 9900) when you get to the last screen (just before pushing print). Double click on the picture (the big copy) then move the square box around to pick the best part of the picture.

In Photoshop create a rectangle crop that is the same ratio as the paper you are printing to (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, etc) move it to fit and crop.

[RyanH]

The problem is that digital cameras don't take the same dimension of photos as film camera do. Since your are trying to print the pic a standard film size, the photo is getting cut off when printed so it will fit on the paper.

You have a few options,

1. Resize the photo to a standard filmsize[/*]
2. Crop the photo to a standard film size[/*]
3. Print via an online service who prints "digital" sizes

[/*]
There may and will be more options, but that is all that comes to mind right now. Hope this helps a little.

[luisr]

If you are printing 4x6 often and your camera offers a 2:3 aspect ratio mode shoot using that mode. You will be doing the cropping with the camera right from the beginning and don't have to worry about that later.

I can hear many people telling why waste the extra pixels!!! If you are going to print mostly 4x6s then the extra pixels will be lost in printing anyway, so better have the camera do the cropping than having to do it manually picture by picture on your PC.

[JimC]

luisr wrote:

If you are printing 4x6 often and your camera offers a 2:3 aspect ratio mode shoot using that mode. You will be doing the cropping with the camera right from the beginning and don't have to worry about that later.

I can hear many people telling why waste the extra pixels!!! If you are going to print mostly 4x6s then the extra pixels will be lost in printing anyway, so better have the camera do the cropping than having to do it manually picture by picture on your PC.

Well.... I've got mixed feelings on this one. If you're sure you'll always want 4x6" prints, fine -- use 2:3 Aspect Ratio. However, I tend to print most of mine at home, using the "album pages" feature in Epson Film Factory.So I like the larger aspect ratio better. This software lets me put multiple prints on a page (even resizing them, and moving them around before printing), with text under each photo as desired.

Also, you never know when you'll get a shot that you want to print at larger sizes, and a 3:4 aspect ratio works better for almost everything except for 4x6" prints. Of course, the European "A" Sizes are the exception, but the difference between 2:3 and 3:4 is very tiny even then. Here is a chart showing frame utilization at various print sizes and aspect ratios:

http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleed....htm#frameutil

[RyanH]

Jim,

With those album pages you print, what size paper are you printing on? Is it 8x10 or 8.5x11 paper with multiple pictures and text you add? It basically sound like you create an actuall album/scrapbook type page instead of printing 3 or so photos and then inserting them into an album.

Sounds neat.

[Mr_Saginaw]

One other item.... The way the Canon driver achieves "borderless" prints is to kind print right off the edge of the paper. If you go into the printer driver setting you can adjust how much "over" the printer will print...

[JimC]

RyanH wrote:

With those album pages you print, what size paper are you printing on? Is it 8x10 or 8.5x11 paper with multiple pictures and text you add? It basically sound like you create an actuall album/scrapbook type page instead of printing 3 or so photos and then inserting them into an album.

Ryan:

I use 8.5x11 photo paper for the album pages. The version of Epson Film Factory I'm using is an old one. I just checked the "Help, About" screen, and it's version 1.04P, Copyright 1999-2000.

I think Epson may have included it with an Epson PhotoPC 3000z I once owned (although it may have been included with an Epson printer). I don't know for sure.

Anyway, the version I'm using is a little "unrefined". :-)

You have to be careful with a few screens. Otherwise, you have to start over again. For example,once youselect your photos, and the desired "album pages" template. You use a right arrow button to "go to next step".

When you're on the screen that allows you to use print preview, select printer properties and print; you can still press the right arrow button. But, if you do this, you have to start all over again (there should not have beena right arrow button on this screen).

It's also got menus for remembering templates you've modified (but they don't seem to work). Basically, it's a little "buggy". Nothing major, as it is nice for printing album pages. Once you figure out where the "quirks" are, you just work around them.

Mine has a choice of different templates for these pages. For example, 3 photos left, 3 photos right, 4 photos left, 4 photos right, 4 photos "zig-zagged", etc. You see a tiny picture of what a page will look like when you pick a template.

Also, once you have your photos loaded into a template, you can actually delete whole sections (one or more photos). You can also move around and resize photos on the template pages (so you end up with some larger than others). Ditto for text boxes, and you can choose fonts/colors used in them. Although, the text is not wysiwyg in the text boxes when you're entering it. You don't see any "boxes" when you print -- just the text. The boxes are just there as an aid to entering text where you want it.

Once you get used to it, it's great for album pages. It also can be used for other size prints, too (not just album pages).

It also has auseful crop feature. You can pick a desired Aspect Ratio, then resize the crop box forcomposition, while maintaining the chosen Aspect Ratio. It's redeye correction feature isn't bad either.

Anyway, I suspect that it's been improved a lot since I got mine. Epson actually sells this product now, too. It looks like they're on Version 3. So, chances are, all of the "quirks" with my old Version 1.04P are gone.

You can download a trial from http://www.epsonsoftware.com

I've never tried any newer versions.

[luisr]

JimC wrote:

Well.... I've got mixed feelings on this one. If you're sure you'll always want 4x6" prints, fine -- use 2:3 Aspect Ratio. However, I tend to print most of mine at home, using the "album pages" feature in Epson Film Factory.So I like the larger aspect ratio better. This software lets me put multiple prints on a page (even resizing them, and moving them around before printing), with text under each photo as desired.

Also, you never know when you'll get a shot that you want to print at larger sizes, and a 3:4 aspect ratio works better for almost everything except for 4x6" prints. Of course, the European "A" Sizes are the exception, but the difference between 2:3 and 3:4 is very tiny even then. Here is a chart showing frame utilization at various print sizes and aspect ratios:

That's why I made it a point that if you are going to print mostly 4x6 use 2:3. This is from my own experience. I never print at home - just got a 5-year old ink-jet which does a great job with pictures and premium photo paper but doesn't get even close to the Fuji Frontier at the local Walgreens. Many people do the same - many people print mostly at home as well. I don't print any of the larger sizes often.

[timothy015]

thanks everyone for all your help. And with borderless it does print right off the page. I have the i9900 and I just returned it. I think there was a defect in my unit. Basically when it printed off the page on borderless prints I think the ink dripped on the rollers, leaving black smudges in corners of photos. Hopefully the next i9900 will perform better.