Why would images print significantly smaller than designed (I'm referring to the ruler size, NOT the screen size) when the pixel aspect ratio in Photoshop is set to square pixels and 300 dpi? Does Premier or AE reset PhotoShop pixel dimenions on the sly in the Master Collection?
We have a summer intern designing business card size (3.5" x 2") inspiration cards on an old laptop that was used for video production with with the CS3 Master Collection and a CS4 Production Premium upgrade.
The 3.5 x 2.0 cards print out at about 3 3/8" by 1 15/16" on every one of the half dozen different printers we've tried them on, including FedEx Office locations and several different Lexmark office printers. Image size is 1050 px by 600 px, i.e., 3.5" by 2.0"
When we lay out a number of cards on an 8" x 11" sheet and save it as a pdf, and then open the pdf in Photoshop and measure the image sizes, each card clearly measures 3.5" by 2" but still prints in the distorted 3 3/8" by 1 15/16" size.
The smaller print problem persists if we save the images as tif, jpg or bmp. Opening the files and resaving them in CS5.5 doesn't help the problem either. It's a problem with both the CS3 and CS4 versions of Photoshop on that laptop.
The print dimensions are just off enough to make it look quirky and cause design issues.
It looks like something is forcing the pixels into a smaller rectangular shape but I don't know where else to look to try to fix it.
Our CS5.5 Master Collection Photoshop is doing the same thing, only not as much. I'd like to be able to print the cards close to actual size. The problem persists for 5.5" x 8.5" bookcover designs too.
In the printer dialog box settings, is it set to print 100% or perhaps set to "shrink to fit"? or something similar? or less than 100%?
Thanks for your response.
I meant to mention that the printer dialog box is set to 100% and the problem persists when I print to a pdf as well as save to a pdf or tif or jpg.