>>I always do them in Photoshop on my windows laptop.
>>Am I the only one with this problem?/ I have a bet going that I'm
>>not ;^). I say linux is weak in the printing area & it's about the only
>>good thing windows does.
>Hmm, if I had photoshop I wouldn't be using gimp!
>I've got what sound (to me) like more serious printing problems. I've been
>working with photos for a long time and with gimp for around a year, but
>on the computer and the web, never needed to print them. But now I need to
>I am running XP and gimp, the printer is an Epson Artisan 800, chosen
>it's supposed to print really well.
>I can't get it to size the pix correctly. In gimp I use "print size" to
>the picture size to what I want it to be (say 8x10). When I look at print
>preview it's fine. But it always prints at 100% of the photo size, so if I
>let it print the photo (total size, though not print size, roughly 32x40)
>would take six pages. I've tried all the obvious sizing options, both in
>"print size" and in the print command, but it always comes out full size.
>can't scale it, since that would just eliminate all the detail.
>It will print the size I want if I use Paint (the software that comes from
>microsoft) to print instead of gimp. So it seems to be a problem with gimp
>talking to the printer.
>Printing from Paint (after adjusting the photo to my liking in gimp), I'm
>having troubles with the colors. Irrespective of which paper I'm actually
>printing on (I'm using either ordinary printer paper for test prints or
>photo paper), if I tell it I'm using white matte paper it all comes out
>pink and gray shaded than the photo, and if I tell it I'm using glossy
>it comes out much more blue.
>All of the pictures also come out much darker than they appear on the
> So for one of the photos (which is a distant view of hills, water, and
>so it's a rather blue-and-white picture) I lightened the whole thing, so
>the printed version isn't too dark. But I still have the pink vs. blue
>Are these color problems (aside from the sizing problems) normal? Do they
>all seem dark simply because I've only ever seen them backlit before?
>That shouldn't explain the blue vs. pinkish problem, though (not
>pink, but definitely not the color that's on the screen). Would the colors
>different printing from gimp vs. printing from paint?
>I read the other comments in this thread and thought I must need gutenprint
>(I'm new to this, okay?) - but that appears to be only for macs or linux.
>All advice will be appreciated!
Printing is one of Gimp's weak spots. However, if you save your prints as
jpg or tif, any other ap that allows you to print photos should allow you to
open those prints, and, if that application is working properly with your
printer, should allow you to print what you see on your screen in that
application - assuming your monitor is not extremely out of calibration (or
If you edit a photo totally in Paint, does your printer render it true to
what you see on the screen?
If so, then, the same should be true for photos that you edit in GIMP and
open in Paint for printing purposes.
Make certain that you don't have Paint or your printer's dialog set to make
any auto adjustments to your photos.
. . . and, to the previous poster who stated that he/she would not be using
GIMP if he/she had Photoshop, some of actually prefer working in GIMP to
working in Photoshop. I am one of those. If I don't have to work in 16-bit,
then, I prefer working in GIMP. Since I cannot print from GIMP for reasons
similar to those expressed in this post, I open those photos in Photoshop or
in Sony's Image Data Converter (that assuredly warns me that it is limited in
the adjustments it can make to tiff files (just what I want when I'm ready to
print)) and size them/print them from there.
Photoshop tends to make unwanted adjustments to those files so that colors
are more muted with less punch than what how they appear on screen, so, even
for printing, I am tending to use Photoshop less and IDC more.
Gimp-user mailing list