This is so frustrating. Here's a forum full of Illustrator users with, I'm sure, many on a Mac printing to Desktop Printers perfectly well, and all I'm asking is whether any finds the same situation as in my Screenshots and - hopefully - can explain to me how they are able to print successfully? (( To Monika… I read and thanked you for your reply and would welcome your thoughts on how I responded to that? )) Further information: I printed an RGB black-to white scale using Adobe's Color Printer Utility (which as you know prints without any Color Management). The output was all greys having a strong red brown hue; the output in two other apps, using Accurate Custom Profile, was totally neutral; printed from Illustrator using conditions as mentioned the output was blue. Clear confirmation (red to neutral to blue) of a double assignment of Profiles, I'd say - as a result of Illustrator's "Turn off Printer's Color Management" being simply not possible. ... View more

Thanks Monika for you reply... But... How then do I get to select/change the Media Type, Print Quality settings etc particular to the Printer? I've always done it via whatever Application I'm printing from. (via Printer Setup). I've seen Illustrator (and Pshop) warn that PrinterSettings are by OS - but I've never found (using only non-pro printers) where that can be done OS-wide. (And to leave the App and do so for each change of print media or quality would seem an odd procedure, anyway). In fact, both Photoshop and Illustrator say that when using their Color Handling to not forget to turn off the Printer's Color Management in that very same Print Driver Dialog. And, as screenshot shows, and is why I'm stuck, in Illustrator when going to that Dialog box, it is not possible to 'turn off the the Printer's Color Management' as instructed. In Photoshop (and, if I remember, Lghtroom, and in other Apps) both Color Managemrnt options in that Dialog are (as screenshot) automatically greyed out as a result of 'Let App handle Color' having been selected in the App's Print Settings. So, can I ask: how do you set your Media type, print quality etc? ... View more

I promise I'm not being stubborn for the sake of it...!  But the thing I'm still questioning is why (with Brush Blend modes) it seems to be considered a written-in-stone, law-of-physics inevitability that if there are no pixels to blend with then 'no blending' has to mean laying down pixels as normal, as if that is the only technical possibility? As you say, Johan, it is all mathematics. A formula decides: if this then a, if that then b.  My whole point is why does b have to be 'normal pixel' and not 'no pixel'? To me this seems to be just an accepted, generally adopted, convention. But one I really can't see has anything obvious in its favour. That we need (as in your example, Dave) to use masking to have a blend mode affect only the drawn areas seems just to beg the question of why that should be necessary - when the result could be so simply and directly achieved if 'no blending' was formulated to result in 'no pixel'...? I can only ask again what would be either a) the impossibility or b) the disadvantage of that? (Or, conversely, what are the benefits of how it is now?) [ Just to be clear: In all this, I'm only talking about Brush Blend modes - the logic behind Layer Blend Modes is clear ]. ... View more

Johan, thank you. Yes, you and Davesscm describe well what happens. Sorry if I haven't expressed myself clearly: My curiosity is about why. Put crudely (and please understand, I’m no technician!)… :  if pixels to interact with, then Blend; if no pixels, then Cover. My question (my puzzlement) is why, when defining Brush Blend Mode behaviour, was it decided that, where there are no pixels to interact with, it should be Cover rather than Do Nothing ? To give a simplistic example… (and leaving aside use of masks)… We have on a transparent layer a fishing net. We want to brushstroke a change of hue across a part or parts of that net. As things stand, a brush loaded with Blue, and with Blend Mode set to Hue, stroked across would paint all areas between the mesh of that net Blue. Who would want that? To me, that behaviour seems (always has) incomprehensible. Counter-intuitive. Of no sense at all.. Why not have it that those blank, no-pixel-content, areas are left unaffected? Perhaps I could ask it this way: what advantage or benefit is there to the current behaviour -  blank areas being covered? What disadvantage would there be to a behaviour that left blank areas blank? If somebody could offer an example, I would sincerely be interested to know. ... View more

Thank you Dave... But I hoped my illustration made clear that I do (not expertly) understand what happens...that, as you say: If there are no pixels to blend with then the result will just be the brush (...) content. My question is "Why?" Does not logic suggest that if a brush is set not to cover but to blend, and there are no pixels to be blended, then there would/should be no result at all? Because isn't that the point: to Blend is not - by definition - to Cover? A brushstroke of blue on a Layer with Blend mode set to Hue does not cause empty areas of the Layer beneath to appear as blue. So why should a Brush with Blend Mode of Hue cover empty areas with Blue? I have never myself come across a situation where that is what I'd choose to happen. Perhaps you, or somebody, could suggest where or how it could be of any practical use? ... View more