Garnick

Unfortunately, calibrating a laptop is for the most part a futile exercise. Yes, it cannot hurt to calibrate to some extent using the eyeball method, which of course is what any strictly software based callibration is built upon. However, even if you were to use the best hardware + software combo to calibrate a laptop display, it woud serve virtually no purpose. Think of the word "laptop", probbaly the most unstable foundation for any display, let alone a "laptop computer" display. I'm sure you have noticed that as your dispay is tilted either back or forward the actual onscreen image will become visibly different, especially as it pertains to density(lightness & darkness). Of course this difference also appies to other image features such as overall colour balance and saturation. The only way to overcome these anomalies would be to make sure you always leave the "laptop" on a "desktop" and that you sit at exactly the same angle each time you use the laptop. Also, use a protactor to measure the angle of the disply tilt at time of calibration, in case you ever want to close the laptop. When you open it again, use the protractor to reset the display angle. Of course I do relaize that this probably sounds like an absurd overstatement of what's necessary in order to have a somewhat calibrated laptop display that is consistant. However, it is not exagerated at all, as you will discover when trying to match your output/print to your display, something that is extremely difficlut even with a good stand-alone display that has been properly calibrated with the best hardware + software combo. As I first mentioned, go ahead and calibrate with whatever software you chose, but do not expect miracles when it comes to printing. I print for amateur and professional photographers and I see a lot of files from people who have never bothered to calibrate their disply, laptop or otherwise. I know this because most standard(non-professional) displays are much too bright right out of the box. In an endeavour to correct their bright images these folks tend to darken them in an image enhancement app such as AP or Photoshop. When this happens, if they are not using a non-descructive method such as "Adjustment Layers", they are literally throwing away important image data that can never be retrieved. Eventually, if these images are viewed on a properly calibrated display and lightened as necessary there will likely be a notciable amount of noise in the lower tones and especially in the shaodw areas. Reason?...a lot of that data has been discarded, a very dangerous and image destroying practice. Of course one very important way to overcome these destructive practices is to always work on a copy of the original and to always use "Adjustment Layers". Probably much more information than you wanted or possibly needed at this point, but perhaps something to chew on when you're wondering why your prints don't match your display. Good luck with your printing :) !¡!¡!

Thank you for weighing in on this topic. And yes, I sometimes describe the difference between pixels and dots in this manner - image forming pixels are related to and created by light, since without light there would be no image formation at all. Dots however are related to and formed by physical pigments. By "pigments" I am not referring strictly to "Pigment based inks", although they do indeed contain a much higher volume of pigments than do dye inks. Another way of putting it would be the following - one can hold a pigment in one's hand, but not so for an image forming pixel. The volume of pixels(picture elements) on the camera sensor are referred to numerically(Megapixels), meaning the total number of pixels that can be generated(recorded) on that size and density of sensor. In that case the number of actual "photo sites" on the sensor will determine the maximum number of pixels recorded. One can physically clean the camera sensor, but not so for an image file. The only way of "cleaning" the pixels in an image file is in an app such as Photoshop or Affinity Photo, or other such programs. Indeed, image forming pixels are not at all the same as the "dots" that a printer uses to construct a physical print from that same computer based image file. And yes, you are correct with this statement as well, "there is nothing simple about printing, whatever the method. Even the basic idea of the printed "dot" is much more complicated than it at first seems, because (among other things) they can overlap, have different shapes & density variations within & around their circumference, or react with the substrate (which may or may not be paper) in different ways." I have to plead ignorance in reference to both Canon and HP Printers, since all of my printers have been, and probably will continue to be Epson models/varieties. I have owned and operated the Epson SP4000, SP7600(24")x2, SP9600(44") and now the SP9900(44") printers, and on all or most of those printers the "dots" are indeed somewhat elongated(eliptical) shaped, not perfectly round. And yes they do often overlap to some extent as well. I imagine some readers of my original post would perhaps describe it as being nit-picky, or perhaps hair-splitting, or as I previously mentioned, a discussion based solely on semantics. Well, I suppose it could fit quite nicely into all of those categories, for without picking nits, splitting hairs and paying attention to semantics, where would we be? In my opinion we would be right where we are now, having a discussion about two totally different entities that have become housed under one common umbrella. Again, the acronym "DPI" is still used as a catch phrase for both DPI and PPI, as if they are essentially the same thing. Once I learned the difference between those two concepts many years ago, it always amazed me how many people used that same "umbrella" then, but I thought perhaps that had changed by now. Unfortunately I was wrong. To finalize my diatribe on "semantics" I will say that all of what I have written was to perhaps shed a bit of light on the incontrovertible fact that there is a very definite difference between "dots"(DPI) and "pixels(PPI). I very much doubt this will have any effect on those who wish to follow the lazy path of grouping both concepts under that same old umbrella, but I have at least been able to offer my own 2¢ worth to the cause. At this point I shall exit - stage left, and follow the discussion as/if it continues. Thank you all for joining in, it's been a blast!¡! :)

Well actually you are wrong, dpi and ppi are not the same at all, and i find it rather disturbing that anyone still thinks they are. I hope I don't come across as arrogant or insulting, I'm simply stating a fact. And actually your opinion of what a printer "should" do is also wrong. Well, I suppose I shouldn't refer to your opinion as being wrong, it's the conclusion that's wrong. I generally print at 1440dpi and with some more demanding customers 2880dpi. What that means is that the printer will lay down either 1440 or 2880 dots per inch depending on my setting. It has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the image file. Most, if not all Epson Pro Graphic printers/large format have a native file resolution of 360ppi that they prefer, but they will of course print whatever ppi is sent. I believe Canon printers prefer 600ppi files and HP 300, but I may be mistaken on the Canon numbers. However, the preferred file resolution has nothing to do with the printer resolution which is set by the operator. And by the way, I do understand both ppi and dpi and their relation to each other, but thanks for the links regardless. I shall check them out.

One thing I find very disturbing in the AP Image Size dialog is the default setting of the "Resample" button. In my opinion that should never be checked unless you actually want to either add or delete pixels in that image file. Occasionally I help some of my customers with Photoshop. The first thing I explain to them is the folly of working on a JPEG file and then saving as a JPEG. I then show them a sample I did many years ago of a JPEG file that I resaved as a JPEG 10 times and the subsequent deterioration of the image. The next thing I go to is the Image Size dialog in PS and explain the difference between resizing and resampling and strongly suggest that they leave Resample unchecked unless they have a very good reason to use it. I cannot count the number of times someone brings in a file they have worked on and then downsized to the print they wanted at that time and had Resample checked. They then had an 8x10 at 300ppi, but when they next try to upsize it to 16x20 the resolution is 150ppi and they do not understand what has happened. I then explain to them that by leaving the Resample button checked when simply downsizing the image they are actually throwing pixels away and will never be able to retrieve them. Oh yes, of course they could resample again when they upsize the image to 16x20, but they are only adding empty pixels, no detail and the image will be inherently lacking in sharpness. I would like to see the Resample button left unchecked as the default setting, so I suppose I should be posting this in the "Requests" section.

This is not a question, it is in essence a statement. A statement that may be judged as a rant and never see the light of day in this forum, but I sincerely hope that will not be the case. However, I will now pose a question - DPI or PPI, what are you talking about? Well, at the risk of offending someone I will attempt to explain the difference. Yes, I do realize that those two acronyms are in many cases interchanged, but in a forum of this nature I think it becomes rather confusing for those who are trying to learn Affinity Photo as their first image manipulation app. DPI of course stands for Dots Per Inch, as we aware. If we are not aware, we should be! PPI stands for Pixels Per Inch and bears no relationship to DPI, absolutely none. In an image file you are dealing with PPI(pixels per inch), or, image resolution. When printing that image you are dealing with DPI(dots per inch), or, printing resolution. In essence, you could send a high resolution image file(ppi) to the printer, expecting to get a high quality print. However, if you mistakenly set your printer at a low printing resolution(dpi) you would be very disappointed with the results. There's an old saying, "garbage in, garbage out". However, in the scenario I have just described, that saying would be something like this - "quality in, garbage out". So to package all of this into a form that would hopefully have everyone speaking the same language, here's the simple breakdown - PPI/pixels per inch refer to an image file, whereas DPI/dots per inch refers to the number of dots that the printer lays down to build that image. The only time you would actually see pixels in a print is in the case where an extremely low resolution file has been sent to the printer. But keep in mind that those pixels you might see are made up of dots laid down by the printer. To perhaps sum this up in a more succinct manner - PPI = Image file, DPI = Printer. I realize that if anyone actually reads this it may appear to be simply a matter of semantics. However, semantics are what language is based upon, and in this case misused semantics can be very disturbing to one trying to learn the difference between DPI and PPI, and most definitely there is a difference.

Thank you, you nailed it! Not sure why I hadn't explored that, but of course it's not a part of the print dialog I would ever need to go to when printing from PS. All of that info is set elsewhere, so no need to do it in that location. One more question. It would seem that Color Match/Color Sync is not a "sticky" selection. In other words, it has to be reset for every image sent to the printer. Is there a way to save that as part of the printer dialog? Seems to be a rather circuitous path with a few hurdles along the way. I do understand that there are still some growing pains in AP, so perhaps I should add this to the "Requests" forum. Thanks again, much appreciated.

As near as I can determine, setting these options in "Document" are an akin to "Soft Proofing" in Photoshop/Lightroom and have no direct relationship to my previous question. The two images I am using for this test are one from Bill Atkinson and one from Digital Outback. These images are meant to be used for evaluating the printing/colour management workflow and they should not be manipulated in any way before printing. However, the printer must NOT be managing the colour and the proper paper/printer profile must be selected in the printer driver. As I mentioned previously, there is no facility for selecting a paper/printer profile in the printer driver associated with AP, and in that respect the printing pipeline seems to be incomplete. As far as setting the options in the AP Prefs is concerned, that is simply another way of setting the colour space in which one would work. Again, not related to my original question. To repeat, the final step in printing is the Printer Driver, and that's where the Paper Profile is selected. However, in AP there is no facility for that setting in the Printer Driver. And also again, if I have somehow overlooked that setting in the Printer Driver, please advise. Following are the two images I referred to that I frequently use to evaluate the print system. Thank you.

I am exploring AP in the event that PS CS6 somehow becomes unusable. Although that seems rather unlikely, one never knows. I will admit that I haven't had a lot of time to devote to this exploration, but I have found a few features that could be improved, in my opinion. However, since my business involves a lot of printing, I will concentrate on this issue for now. My first question is this - what is managing colour, the printer or AP? If it is indeed the printer, that would rule out this app for my purposes, since I require a colour managed system, all the way to the printer. However, if AP is managing the colour, why am I not able to choose a printer/paper profile? Of course it is possible that I have missed a step in the print dialog, but this is something I do many times a day, so I think that possibility is unlikely. If I have somehow missed a step in my haste, I would appreciate your input. Thank you,

I have been exploring AP as much as possible when time permits and have found a few things I would consider to be non-starters for my particular workflow. Usually I am working in Photoshop and occasionally Lightroom as well. Most of my workday is spent in PS, where I print from many different sources and file formats. It is not unusual to have more than a dozen images open on my desktop simultaneously, for various reasons. Also, in PS I work without the Application Frame and no tabs, which facilitates the movement and sizing etc of individual images. However, I cannot seem to find a method in AP to work without tabs. Of course I can open a number of images without tabs in "Separated Mode", but I still have to deal with a floating window that contains a much smaller image and they will dock. Is there any way to collapse the window to the actual image borders as in PS, or at least turn of floating window docking? Thank you.

Woops ;^( I apologize for not checking the resolution of the "copy", and I have no idea why that is happening. Obviously there is an answer, but not one I can think of at the moment. I just did the same procedure again and saved the copy to the desktop. When I opened the desktop file in PS it was 76ppi. 'Tis a conundrum.

I am exploring AP in the event that PS CS6 somehow becomes unusable. Although that seems rather unlikely, one never knows. I will admit that I haven't had a lot of time to devote to this exploration, but I have found a few features that could be improved, in my opinion. However, since my business involves a lot of printing, I will concentrate on this issue for now. My first question is this - what is managing colour, the printer or AP? If it is indeed the printer, that would rule out this app for my purposes, since I require a colour managed system, all the way to the printer. However, if AP is managing the colour, why am I not able to choose a printer/paper profile? Now it is possible that I have missed a step in the print dialog, but this is something I do many times a day, so I think that possibility is unlikely. If I have somehow missed a step in my haste, I would appreciate your input. Thank you, Gary

Actually you can duplicate an image in AP, although it's not quite as efficient as in Photoshop. I use PS almost exclusively, but also checking AP in case there might someday be an issue with PS CS6. I have encountered a number of questionable situations in AP, but it definitely does have potential. In PS I usually have a number of images open at any one time, so I turn of the "Application Frame" since I do not like working with tabs. Therefore I am also working in AP in "Separated Mode", although I am not fond of the floating, tab like window. However, I do digress. The answer to your question is as follows: open an image file - copy(alt/opion + c) - go to FIle>Open From Clipboard. This will open a duplicate/copy of your image file. Hope this helps. Gary