OT: HP Tech Support says I'm lying...

kentwolf wrote on 1/7/2008, 4:09 PM
Hey:

As per the info on this forum, I went out and got an HP Photosmart C5280 All-In-One Printer/Scanner/Copier.

I primarily wanted it for disk printing.

I just had the most outrageous experience with HP Tech Support.

Problem:

Digital Photos on photo paper are getting truncated/cut off due to them not ending up on the paper the same dimensions in which they are created. Make a 4.000 x 6.000 photo it's ending up on the paper at about 4.250 x 6.250 and the truncation is *not* perfectly symmetrical. I know all about the sizing to the paper, etc. etc. etc..

After 97 minutes on the phone, the guy was told to tell me as per HP "2nd Level Tech Support" that my images are not really at 4x6 and/or try bigger paper.

See: http://home.comcast.net/~kentwolf/Image01.jpg

Absolutely incredible. Anyone else have this sizing problem on paper with the C5280?

That was their final answer. That I am lying about the dimensions, even though I read them off and offered to send them the actual image and that I need to get bigger photo paper.

Also, if I am trying to print something from Photoshop CS3, and the HP printer doesn’t render it correctly, that takes me out of the realm of the HP warranty because it involves another product. Fortunately, I proved the sizing issue with their little HP app as well.

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 1/7/2008, 5:50 PM
I've got the same printer and for me it prints pretty much exactly what i tell it to. Of course, the printer won't print all the way to the edges of the paper, but discounting that the images on the paper are exactly the size i specify.
richard-courtney wrote on 1/8/2008, 7:09 AM
I have had problems with the scanning not being accurate on HP bed scanners.

Example: scan a specialty form (A4 perfed DVD case insert) to use as
template for paintshop. Had to rescale it differently in X and Y.

Never have printed borderless. Is this the problem?
kentwolf wrote on 1/8/2008, 8:23 AM
Actually, I have not had a problem with the scanning end of things. It scans like I would expect it to.

Kelly:

As per my link above (http://home.comcast.net/~kentwolf/Image01.jpg) in your opinion, do you think what I am trying to do is unreasonable?

My camera a Panasonic Lumix FZ-20, I think, does result in the images getting cut off a little, so I do expect to lose a little. I sized the images to exactly 4x6 though.

It would seem that a 4x6 image sent to 4x6 paper, with the image set to size itself to the 4x6 paper (borderless) would yield a 4x6 result.

I was using an Epson R200 before, and I admittedly did not put it to this same test. This is the first time I have looked at this close.

Also, I exchanged the HP printer with a duplicate last night and it is doing the same thing. So, just wondering if what I am trying to do seems unreasonable.

Thanks.
John_Cline wrote on 1/8/2008, 8:36 AM
Printing size is one area where DPI comes into play. Make certain that the image is set for 300dpi (for example) in your graphics program and then make sure the image dimensions in pixels are 1200v x 1800h. (4x300=1200 and 6x300=1800) This should print at exactly 4" x 6".
nolonemo wrote on 1/8/2008, 8:59 AM
>>It would seem that a 4x6 image sent to 4x6 paper, with the image set to size itself to the 4x6 paper (borderless) would yield a 4x6 result.<<

This is a little unclear to me. AFAIK all printers printing borderless will upsize the photo a little so that it's slightly larger than the paper size, the result is that (1) there is some ink overspray at the edges and (2) the image on the paper is slightly cropped.
kentwolf wrote on 1/8/2008, 10:54 AM
>>...make sure the image dimensions in pixels are...

That is precisely what I did.

>>This should print at exactly 4" x 6".

That is what I thought, thus the thread. It, however, did not. The link I stated shows the result of this. It is not what I expected.

With regard to the note about upsizing a bit, I am seeing evidence of that, but it was curious to me that the upsizing was *not* symmetrical.

I do remember awhile back someone saying something here about HP printers not printing "centered." As I remember it, they called HP, told them of the off-centered-ness and HP told them that, whatever it was, that was within their allowable tolerance.

Perhaps this is more of the same.

Thanks, guys.
nolonemo wrote on 1/8/2008, 2:20 PM
**This should print at exactly 4" x 6". **

>>That is what I thought, thus the thread. It, however, did not. The link I stated shows the result of this. It is not what I expected.<<

No, IF you have selected the borderless paper option, and are trying to print a 4x6 image to 4x6 paper, the printer is functioning correctly. You might not like the way it's designed to act, but it's doing what the designers want it to. As I said, if you select borderless printing, the printer upscales the photo to larger than the target paper size, so you end up with true borderless instead of white lines along the edge that could result from the paper size being a little off, or the paper not feeding completely straight.. it sounds from your original post that that's what's happening (the final dimensions you give jibe with that). If you want a 1:1 match on borderless, your only option is to print to a bordered print and cut off the borders.

What happens if you tell CS3 to print the 4x6 image in the middle of a 8x10 sheet (without specifying borderless)? If you don't get 4x6 in that case, I agree you have a problem.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood what's going on.
kentwolf wrote on 1/8/2008, 4:22 PM
>>...perhaps I've misunderstood what's going on...

What you said sure sounds reasonable. All may have been working like this for years, but I just never checked. I usually use my stills in video.

I will take a look at this when I get home.

When I talked to HP tech support, besides being barely able to understand them (accent), they never said anything like this. Perhaps they could barely understand me. :)

I understood perfectly well though when they said that I was "in error" (lying) about my image dimensions and to get bigger paper.

I will take a look when I get home and post with my findings. Seeing another replacement printer is behaving the same certainly leads me to think I was in error as to what to expect.

I really appreciate the help. Thanks!
riredale wrote on 1/8/2008, 4:59 PM
There has to be a setting somewhere that has been overlooked.

I have never used that printer, but aside from my disliking how HP seems to love to install everything but the kitchen sink when installing a printer, they have great technology. I do know, however, that on my Canon IP-3000 printers there is a setting in the driver for border and borderless, and if borderless is selected the printer will automatically slightly zoom up a few percent to eliminate any chance of white. But that zooming up can be set to one of four settings, including no zooming at all. It's very accurate, perhaps down to 1mm.
nolonemo wrote on 1/8/2008, 4:59 PM
>>I understood perfectly well though when they said that I was "in error" (lying) about my image dimensions and to get bigger paper.<<

My experience with outsourced CS has been uniformly dismal, in my experience, you're much better taking your problem to Google. For example, the first hit Googling "print size on borderless paper" was http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/March_2005.html which talks about the sizing problem with borderless prints. Though I guess it helped that I already knew the answer I was trying to find :-)

kentwolf wrote on 1/8/2008, 5:21 PM
>>...Googling...

I did Google it before posting, but I did not use that exact search phrase, thus I did not see the article you mentioned. The article you referenced quite honestly answers all of my questions.

...and I am defitely going to buy Qimage.

Thanks much!
kentwolf wrote on 1/8/2008, 9:45 PM
Well, I tried the Qimage program and no question about it: It sure give one a lot of control over the printer. Maybe even too much. :)

With the concepts detailed in the stated article in mind, I find I can achive what I need, almost perfectly, by simply extending the canvas of the image by 0.125" x 0.125". It appears to be repeatable. I think if I hone this Photoshop action a little I could get it nearly perfect. It has now become a matter of principle. :)

Thanks all for the input. I certainly learned something I did not previously know with respect to the print area of photos and run-of-the-mill photo printers. It is much appreciated and will not be forgotten. :)
nolonemo wrote on 1/9/2008, 8:48 AM
Kent, thanks for posting, that's a great idea which had never occurred to me!