Supported Printers: HP printers from 2010 or later, including many HP DeskJet, HP Envy, HP OfficeJet, HP OfficeJet Pro All-in-Ones—as well as many HP Here we will show you How to Download and Install HP Smart (Printer Remote) for PC running Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10.
Thanks Robbie I'll check it out. Keith, I like Qimage because I find it to be very flexible, easy to use and feature rich.
The user interface just seems logical to me. The colour management/profiling options are more than enough for my needs, as are the filter, sharpening and interpolation options. Sizing and layout of prints to virtually any size paper is straight forward. I seem to be able to get the results I require with a minimum of fuss. The only other software I've used for printing have been straight from Photoshop (a pain in the but) and the Canon offering that came with my Stylus Photo R210 (far too basic). Your still using the R210 printer. I'm just replacing an R310.
Its got a big ink system, and I think the heads need cleaning. But I've gone to another Epson which is better suited for big ink system, due to the ink cartridges being stationary in the machine. A much better idea. Of course, big ink will save you many times the cost of a printer. Back on topic: have you checked out putting your edited photo into iPhoto, and then printing from there? The benefit of doing so is substantial IMO, because iPhoto has a preview that accurately shows how the image will look when printed. Just make sure your settings - such as quality and paper type - are correct.
I now print photos from just two apps - iPhoto, and Aperture. Both print perfectly. If you can invest in Aperture, its worth it IMO. As soon as you discover how it works, which is a very steep (therefor quick) learning curve. Parallels is great, not really pricey, and takes care of all those places you wish you could run windows software! I couldn't pry myself away from Qimage after a switch to an Imac earlier this year, so run Parallels with Windows 7.
It lets you run Qimage as if it were a Mac app, fully integrated with other Mac apps on your desktop. Note that while Parallels isn't too expensive, you still need to buy a copy of Windows which would make it an expensive option if Qimage is the only reason you need it. David Metcalfe wrote: Parallels is great, not really pricey, and takes care of all those places you wish you could run windows software! I couldn't pry myself away from Qimage after a switch to an Imac earlier this year, so run Parallels with Windows 7.
It lets you run Qimage as if it were a Mac app, fully integrated with other Mac apps on your desktop. Note that while Parallels isn't too expensive, you still need to buy a copy of Windows which would make it an expensive option if Qimage is the only reason you need it. It's only expensive 'til you look at the price of good RIPs, heh I have no idea why I love Imageprint as much as I do (ok, I do, but it's all tied up in phatte black making the proof-to-final print process easier on the 4880), but you gotta sell a few prints to make up for that kind of a hole in the budget A copy of Windows 7 and qimage is super cheap by comparison! Tdptdp wrote: David Metcalfe wrote: Parallels is great, not really pricey, and takes care of all those places you wish you could run windows software! I couldn't pry myself away from Qimage after a switch to an Imac earlier this year, so run Parallels with Windows 7. It lets you run Qimage as if it were a Mac app, fully integrated with other Mac apps on your desktop.
Note that while Parallels isn't too expensive, you still need to buy a copy of Windows which would make it an expensive option if Qimage is the only reason you need it. It's only expensive 'til you look at the price of good RIPs, heh Why rip a photo?
Ripping is an out of printer way of rasterizing postscript. But a photo is not postscript. You can go direct to the printer, and use its RGB conversions.
Ripping can proof a printing press though. But is printing yourself, or proofing for a printing press, what is wanted here? Melbourne Park wrote: Why rip a photo? Ripping is an out of printer way of rasterizing postscript. But a photo is not postscript. You can go direct to the printer, and use its RGB conversions.
![Mac Mac](/uploads/1/2/5/6/125657317/131768241.jpg)
Ripping can proof a printing press though. But is printing yourself, or proofing for a printing press, what is wanted here? In the case of Imageprint, RIP is more of a generic term. It's a driver replacement with some workflow additions. This confused the hell out of me for a while, because when I heard 'RIP' I thought of what we used to call a RIP back in the day, and it wouldn't have anything to do with printing photos. Tdptdp wrote: Melbourne Park wrote: Why rip a photo?
Ripping is an out of printer way of rasterizing postscript. But a photo is not postscript. You can go direct to the printer, and use its RGB conversions. Ripping can proof a printing press though. But is printing yourself, or proofing for a printing press, what is wanted here? In the case of Imageprint, RIP is more of a generic term.
It's a driver replacement with some workflow additions. This confused the hell out of me for a while, because when I heard 'RIP' I thought of what we used to call a RIP back in the day, and it wouldn't have anything to do with printing photos. In a Mac, there is a system based colour control operating. Some applications take advantage of this better than others. But if we're talking photos, there's no need to use Windows.
Rely on the Mac's base line colour reliability, and on your printer's drivers. There is an inherent problem going from RGB - a subtractive colour system which our screens use - to the additive colour of printers.
Printer manufacturers best handle that switch, inside their machines, using their own RBG to additive colour conversions. As long as the software one uses is properly installed and the monitor one uses is properly setup up, one will get reasonable results.
Ultimately though a full circle of viewing a calibration table, printing it, then scanning it, will reveal the accuracy of one's setup. That process can be done, and it will provide a proper setup. Put a final file into Windows, and the whole calibration cycle is dependent on the profiles embedded in the file. Which means its more complex to achieve reliability that way. If one is proofing for a printing press, that is a different matter too. Obviously a printing press has different colour gamuts, and there is a big difference between a 4 colour press and a ten colour HiFi press. And whether the proof printer can handle all that.
Obviously spot colour issues, including metallics, are things that a proofing printer finds difficult to achieve, even if it has the colour gamut. If one is printing to save paper, such as mixing up photos and printing on a large format printer, there are lots of native Mac apps that will do that too. Tdptdp wrote: Um, aren't scanned profiles fairly low quality as compared to using a spectrophotometer? For the screen, that's what you do. Although soon I expect, there will be Mac software that will allow your digital camera to do the same job.
The full circle though, is to scan a calibrated colour file for what you want to go to - for instance a Pantone table intended for calibration and for matching Pantone colours. Then you scan the colours on your screen, and print the table. Scan the table again, and after the various adjustments, everything should match. Going from a photo - WYSIWYG - to the printer is more simple.
At the end of the day, the Heinz tin needs to have Heinz colours - on the TV advertisement, on the sample label & tin, and on the real printed label. Photos are much easier. 'Leave it to the print driver' works well for many people, I'm sure.
The fact is that its the printer drivers that operate the printer. People are reliant on them. Printing photographs is a piece of cake, compared to printing a photograph that emulates what it will look like when coming out of a press of some kind. That might be a spot colour press, a process four colour press, a hi fi 8 colour press, or a hi fi with spot plates, or a screening printing press going onto fabric, or whatever the final print medium will be.
For doing that, then typically you'll need a RIP, and it will talk to the printer. If its a cheap inkjet, then it will do so via that printer's RGB engine, which converts to its additive colour CMYK cartridges (no matter how many of them there are) all by itself. And yes typical proofing printers have CMYK and colour postcript interfaces. Those machines will do the job themselves, if the have the final press's characteristics in them, via software choices from your computer. But one can get the same results with a bit more trouble and possibly better or worse results, with a software RIP and a cheap printer.