postscript

Hi Daniele,

Yes, you must have a printer that includes support for PostScript to print all .eps data correctly. PostScript fonts usually print without problems to a non PostScript printer as the font data is prepared for printing before being sent to the printer by the OS itself. All other PostScript data requires a PostScript capable printer to properly print raster and vector .eps data, such as those from Illustrator, Photoshop and Quark.

You can drop a .ps file on the icon for an OS X printer and it will print - is that what you mean?

You can, but if your printer does not support PostScript, the output will be pretty bad. Vignettes will band. Any raster or vector .eps art will print jagged and low res, even if it's a high resolution file. Type will likely print nice, but the type flow in paragraphs may be off. To print PostScript correctly, you must have a PostScript capable device.

Hi, Kurt,
(I want to learn this stuff - I'm not a publishing or graphics artist type...)

I see you have an Epson, so your results may be like mine -
I just did the experiment of dropping a .ps file, containing "placed" text objects and PICT and jpg graphics, on my Epson Stylus Photo R200 w/ Epson USB driver, same R200 w/ Gimp-Print-ghostscript driver and my older PS level II Laserjet.
The only difference I could see (other than color vs black&white) was that the Laserjet didn't handle a TrueType Font and susbtituded a serif font.
(I should look for an EPS graphic to include in my test)

I think the software on my mac RIPs postscript just as well as the software in the printer. I think you're working with a pre-OS X paradigm about postscript -- what do you think?

Thanks for your opinion, in advance.

I too have found that using Ghostscript on non post script printers gives very acceptable results.

I have compared the results to my 2 ps printers and cannot find any difference. Perhaps that is because it is being rasterized in the computer before the file is sent.

That said, I still prefer the output of the ps printers.

I think you're working with a pre-OS X paradigm about postscript -- what do you think?

I don't think so. PostScript is an animal all unto it's own. It requires a proper PostScript interpretor to print correctly. See the next answer to part of your post for an explanation.

I think the software on my mac RIPs postscript just as well as the software in the printer.

This is a case, like my 4000, where the device itself doesn't understand PostScript, but the RIP does. So rather than the PostScript processing happening at the printer, the software RIP performs that step. No matter what you print, every printer rasterizes everything in order to print it. So for the 4000 (and any other device that utilizes a PostScript RIP) the RIP is doing all of the rasterizing before the image is sent to the printer. The printer is then just printing the data raw. No need to have PostScript on that end.

In the case of our HP 5000N, the print driver doesn't perform any type of PostScript RIP. It simply sends the data to the printer. The printer then does all of the PostScript interpretation since that hardware is built into the printer.

And as Carl mentioned, Ghostscript is doing the same thing. It is the PostScript RIP and is rasterizing everything ahead of the printer. The printer itself doesn't need to understand PostScript. So my statement that you must have a PostScript capable device was a bit off. It isn't confined to being the hardware. It can be one or the other (software or hardware). But one of them must be able to perform that function.

Am I on the right track? 🙂

Looks good to me Kurt.

The use of ghostscript with CUPS has sure made the "need" for postscript less of a necessity. I regularly print simple color Illustrator postscript files to my old inkjet and get pretty darned good results.

Firing up the 8400 costs too much unless it is really needed for the speed (lots of copies) or more complex files. But the Epson at highest quality and good paper is a very close second.

Sounds like we're on the same page.
So, have we answered the question, Daniele?

D'oh! I have been looking everywhere for Postscript info online; glad I finally found this discussion. Anyway, I have been struggling with printing Postscript (not PDF) files using Quark 6.5 with an old Epson Stylus RIP v 4.5 - it works inconsistently at best in Classic but it's an aggravating process. (Epson's RIP was built to run in 9.2, not OSX or classic)

It sounds like the newer OS - Panther - uses Ghostscript which works in place of.. or as well as.. Postscript? Is this correct? So I should be able to print Postscript/Ghostscript files accurately to my Espson 1280 inkjet?

Alternately, I was considering getting a new printer that has Postscript installed. It seems like most printers that have Postscript language installed are lasers- made by HP, Lexmark, basically. Any recommendations out there?
I'd greatly appreciate any feedback.

I regularly print postscript files from Illustrator (Creative Suite) to an old Epson 850 hooked up through a parallel to usb adapter or using an ethernet print server. The print server uses ip printing and it is hideously slow. Your printer is usb native so should work better. The 850 is not postscript but you would never know it printing from Panther.


The print quality is very good and the Ghostscript rip is pretty quick. Just select the CUPS + ghostscript driver and give it a whirl.

Make sure that the printer is on and hooked up when trying to add it.

Ahh- I have been slow to upgrade to Panther since i didn't want to lose the capability of printing postscript via classic and the Epson Stylus RIP. Sound like I can make the leap, after all. (I assume upgrading to Panther means Classic environment goes away- ?)

Classic will only vanish if you buy one of the new Mactels. There are varying reports of compatability issues with the various versions of X but even Tiger works with Classic.

The new Intel macs use a emulator for Power PC compatability and while it works well with native X applications it will not emulate well enough for Classic.

You can also stay with Jag (if that is what you are on) and install the Gimp and ghostsscript packages manually. I did it a few years ago and am fuzzy about the details but it is doable.(and free)

Greengrrl,

Welcome to Apple Discussions.

I want to add my 2¢ regarding the combo of OS 10.3.x, Quark 6.5 and Epson postscript printers. I have an Epson Color 3000 and with imported EPS docs in Quark, they all bitmapped using the Gimp-print drivers with Ghostscript. To say the least, I kept using Quark 4.1 until I miraculously found the PrintFab drivers that include RIP functionality. See http://www.printfab.net/
They offer a 30-day Free trial and the PDF manual is a free download. Price is 49 euros.

Note: When installing the package, be sure to select the “Ghostscript” (the
RIP function) option as part of the installation. (Also, see page 7 of the
PrintFab-Manual.)

As for color, I played around with a multitude of different combinations of the PrintFab settings, i.e., the paper type (in the Main tab window) and option in the Color tab window along with the Quark Profiles. I even got close matches with Pantone colors.

(Although, I am not one to read manuals, I read this one and refer to it often.)

Hope this helps. Good luck!

Printfab drivers are great and especially useful when the gimp drivers are not available.

Your priter is supported and I would install the Gimp package with ghostscript and then see if your control was good enough before springing for Printfab drivers.

You also have control over the printers ink usage with Gimp but the interface is through a web browser and can be cumbersome. If you do a lot of printing and color control is critical then spring for the better drivers but I would try working with the free stuff first. Just my 2 cents (with LilyLC and I you now have 4 cents!)

Oy! Such choices!

It sounds like I have some good options to explore.. thanks for the tips, especially re:printfab and ghostscript. I want to move on to a totally OSX (no more classic) environment and I am almost there. I appreciate these discussions.