Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Garnick on December 02, 2017, 03:02:19 pm
-
I've seen rumors that Qimage for Mac is in the works, but no news recently. I have just checked their site and saw no mention of a Mac version. Has anyone looked into this possibility recently?
Gary
-
I've seen rumors that Qimage for Mac is in the works, but no news recently. I have just checked their site and saw no mention of a Mac version. Has anyone looked into this possibility recently?
Gary
In beta, it will be much more limited than the Windows version at this time from what I've heard.
-
I've seen rumors that Qimage for Mac is in the works, but no news recently. I have just checked their site and saw no mention of a Mac version. Has anyone looked into this possibility recently?
Hi Gary,
From the horse's mouth, so to speak ...
http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/mac-version/msg21796/#msg21796
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Gary,
From the horse's mouth, so to speak ...
http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/mac-version/msg21796/#msg21796
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Thanks for the link, although I have read some of that a while ago. I would love to try this software, heard so much about it here on Lula and elsewhere. Printing for others is the main part of my business, and I've been doing that since the late 60s, so obviously I've seen a lot of changes(mostly good). I do most of my work in Photoshop and some processing in LR, but I don't print from LR. For the majority of printing that I do I find LR rather cumbersome and slow compared to PS. However, I imagine that's likely also due to the fact that I don't use LR on a regular basis. As far as Qimage is concerned, my main interest surrounds its printing capabilities, so the other bells and whistles don't interest me at this point. I'll be working the trial version at least, as soon as it's released. I know you have always been a faithful Qimage user, and I'm sure probably a beta tester as well if you have a Mac kicking around.
Thanks again,
Gary
-
I do most of my work in Photoshop and some processing in LR, but I don't print from LR.
Why not? For me, that module is worth the price of admission.
-
Hi Bart,
Thanks for the link, although I have read some of that a while ago. I would love to try this software, heard so much about it here on Lula and elsewhere. Printing for others is the main part of my business, and I've been doing that since the late 60s, so obviously I've seen a lot of changes(mostly good). I do most of my work in Photoshop and some processing in LR, but I don't print from LR. For the majority of printing that I do I find LR rather cumbersome and slow compared to PS. However, I imagine that's likely also due to the fact that I don't use LR on a regular basis. As far as Qimage is concerned, my main interest surrounds its printing capabilities, so the other bells and whistles don't interest me at this point. I'll be working the trial version at least, as soon as it's released. I know you have always been a faithful Qimage user, and I'm sure probably a beta tester as well if you have a Mac kicking around.
Thanks again,
Gary
I have been using Qimage since 2004 as my preferred application for printing. I have been a Windows PC user since 1985 so most of my experience has been on Windows based systems. Purchase an iMac 27" mid 2015 and have installed Parallels on my Mac so that I use Qimage and a couple of other Windows applications that I have own. Works well for me. I have been using Lightroom since its inception in 2006 and have not found any benefit to switching my printing to Lightroom. My printer is a Canon Pro9000 Mk11 and most of my printing on 13x19 inch paper.
I will certainly check the Mac version from Qimage as soon as it is released.
-
Will be out soon: http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/mac-version/15/ (http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/mac-version/15/)
-
It's ready:
http://www.binartem.com/ (http://www.binartem.com/)
-
It's ready:
http://www.binartem.com/ (http://www.binartem.com/)
I understand it is dual OS version so also available as a Windows Qimage version directly accessible from Photoshop and Lightroom. There was already a kind of linking app available for Windows to do that, probably a stepping stone to this version. As a Windows user and aiming to abandon Adobe CC products one day, it was not that attractive to me despite the fact that I hardly use QU's image editing side of the software except for temporary crops on proofprints. I asked Mike whether it was compatible with Photoline but that seems impossible. There is a demo version so worth a try on Windows too.
The future of QU itself is not changing I guess reading this thread; http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/mac-version/15/?PHPSESSID=odo7n4mfnh271v7v08jolmm7d4
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I bought the Mac version of QImage One, it's too early to tell.
I think because it's the first version, the software promises a lot.
Two prints tests ...
-
I've been playing with the Mac demo version of Q1 for the last several hours. IMHO, it brings PSCC up to LR capabilities when trying to print multiple files to a page and all and all is just a pleasure to use. It also locates all the necessary media and ICC profile setting in one nice group as opposed to having to wade through a number of sub menus in PSCC and the printer driver to make a print. Only disappointment so far... I don't believe the "Color Management OFF" feature which would have brought back ICC profile target printing to within the PSCC workflow rather than having to step outside to Apple CSU OR Adobe Color printer Utility is working correctly. In the tests I did, Mac OS color management was definitely hijacking the untagged color target data.
Other than that, I think Q1 is a remarkable effort for a new 1.o version of an App. The Q1 resizing/sharpening functionality also seems to be superb.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
So I download the Mac demo, can I use my existing custom profiles or I have to rebuild through this demo?
They state:
When you print from most software applications, you are at the mercy of the operating system, the software and the printer driver. Qimage One takes direct control of rendering your photos so that they will look their absolute best when they are printed.
-
I think so, as it is released for 14 days. (full trial)
To use your profiles, you have to put in the folder: / user / library / colorsync (this on Mac)
-
I think so, as it is released for 14 days. (full trial)
To use your profiles, you have to put in the folder: / user / library / colorsync (this on Mac)
If their color rendering is any different, I'd think I'd need to build new ones. However, maybe their color rendering is no different (I'd have to print and measure both ways). But they can't have it both ways, one or the other has to exist. It takes direct control of the rendering but renders no differently than my Epson driver?
-
If their color rendering is any different, I'd think I'd need to build new ones. However, maybe their color rendering is no different (I'd have to print and measure both ways). But they can't have it both ways, one or the other has to exist. It takes direct control of the rendering but renders no differently than my Epson driver?
Hi Andrew,
Qimage (One) uses the same (custom) profiles you use with other applications, and prints through the normal printer driver. As far as color goes there should not be a difference (other than at the micro-detail level). The micro-detail will benefit from the proprietary interpolation algorithms and the halo-free output sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I made a video, I hope they can understand the color problem I'm encountering with ICC profile in Qimage One, using with Canon Pro 4000.
https://abdo.d.pr/GNyryO/K23vsz6sUU
-
So I download the Mac demo, can I use my existing custom profiles or I have to rebuild through this demo?
They state:
When you print from most software applications, you are at the mercy of the operating system, the software and the printer driver. Qimage One takes direct control of rendering your photos so that they will look their absolute best when they are printed.
Setting aside the "Color management OFF" bug in Q1, I'm having no issues with color rendering and exact color matching between Q1 and the straight PSCC "photoshop manages color" output. Running on a Mac Pro Tower with latest High Sierra installed. I've made direct comparisons printing with same ICC profile to same printer/ink/media straight from PSCC, then again through Q1. Only image quality differences I see in my tests is with resizing/sharpening setting of Q1 because it's doing additional resampling/sharpening (unless you turn it off and keep scaling to "original" size) that the PSCC print path does not do. I have not gone higher than Q1's "default" value in the print sharpening algorithm yet, but even at that level, the visual image quality differences are not with global tone and color, only the very fine detail sharpening. Q1 definitely adds a little micro-contrast when its sharpening algorithm is used, but only a very close inspection of the print (where us old baby boomers need to put on extra strength reading glasses) show the subtle sharpening and micro contrast differences. I personally dislike any obvious "digitally sharpened" appearance in inkjet prints, so in my tests backing down from the default 5 setting to 3 did the trick for me. Could have matched the fine increase in print sharpness most likely with a little "sharpening for print" move in PSCC, but all and all, very nice output with colors and tones as predicted in the PSCC softproof mode.
Q1 is sending the RGB data through the same printer driver. It just populates the printer driver "default" setting with the values you set in the Q1 menu (which is a commendably nicer approach than all those dumb submenus most drivers use for print quality settings). It is also probably doing the RGB source to destination conversion as "photoshop manages color" does. However, it's not clear to me whether it uses the Adobe CMM or the Apple CMM but those CMM differences are for all practical purposes negligible.
I have no idea what the marketing guys were saying with "When you print from most software applications, you are at the mercy of the operating system, the software and the printer driver. Qimage One takes direct control of rendering your photos so that they will look their absolute best when they are printed" but I suspect they were a bit giddy about the resampling/sharpening functionality and the general ease with which the enduser can place images on a page and select the various printer driver menu settings. Indeed, it's incredibly obvious that Q1 hands off the data stream to the very same printer driver supplied by the printer manufacturer... No circumventing the standard printer driver is occurring, just the way Q1 is enabling the enduser to easily set up the various printer driver menu options compared to other image editing software interfaces or for that matter the printer driver dialog box itself :) Indeed, Q1 lays out the required settings in a way that each and every overly complex print driver menu/submenu mess should have been doing in the first place.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Q1 definitely adds a little micro-contrast when it's sharpening algorithm is used, but only a very close inspection of the print (where us old baby boomers need to put on extra strength reading glasses) show the subtle sharpening and micro contrast differences. I personally dislike any obvious "digitally sharpened" appearance in inkjet prints, so in my tests backing down from the default 5 setting to 3 did the trick for me.
Hi Mark,
One of the nice things about Qimage is that you can use the same settings for different output sizes of that same file. It adapts its output sharpening settings to the different output sizes, which makes it easy and efficient to produce multiple versions with different sizes.
If your preference, or the specific output medium, warrants a '3' then that's supposed to remain the same for different output sizes of the same file on the same medium. And it still allows changing that on a per image(size) basis if one desires that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Mark,
One of the nice things about Qimage is that you can use the same settings for different output sizes of that same file. It adapts its output sharpening settings to the different output sizes, which makes it easy and efficient to produce multiple versions with different sizes.
If your preference, or the specific output medium, warrants a '3' then that's supposed to remain the same for different output sizes of the same file on the same medium. And it still allows changing that on a per image(size) basis if one desires that.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks Bart, I suspected as much, and I do see great virtue in how much Qimage manages to simplify the whole "Sharpen for print" issue for the majority of folks who don't have the time to explore the myriad of "fine tuning" options an image editing app like PS can produce if you have the time and tenacity to explore and experiment. I've paid my dues on all that vast amount of experimentation, and I know from experience how to set sharpening settings for various images and image output sizes. That said, it's a very difficult aspect of digital imaging and printing to teach and share with others. In that sense, Qimage is doing many many people a huge service to automate and tame this aspect of the digital printmaking craft! Also shows how small entrepreneurial companies can continue to innovate while large companies (not sayin' who) can get complacent and happy with the status quo.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I have no idea what the marketing guys were saying with "When you print from most software applications, you are at the mercy of the operating system, the software and the printer driver.
Thanks Mark, sounds like mostly (all?) marketing rubbish to me. Hence my question and insertion of that text from their site. Too bad they have to go that route (I'll refrain from commenting about the photography used on their site ;D ).
I did download the demo and will try it out, along with making measurements of course. I'll stick with my custom profiles as I expected and hopped (despite the marketing nonsense) that I might be able to use.
-
One of the nice things about Qimage is that you can use the same settings for different output sizes of that same file. It adapts its output sharpening settings to the different output sizes, which makes it easy and efficient to produce multiple versions with different sizes.
Sounds like Lightroom which does the same.
-
To be clear, Q1 is providing application managed color, in much the same way as setting PS's "photoshop manages color". Q1 hands off its image data conversions to the the printer driver with the customary OS/printer driver pipeline, IMO. However, Q1 also enforces the printer driver default setting (i.e ignores any custom preset or "last used settings" in the driver, and it lets you know when it has to change to the default), then apparently imposes/overwrites its own settings chosen in its own GUI into that default driver condition. It therefore handles the color conversion, sets the media settings, resamples for both sizing and optimal dpi, and lastly puts its own sharpening sauce into the file before sending the data to the driver. Yup, a lot like LR.
If you are happy with the LR print module (I've never personally liked it) then Q1 may provide little benefit. I'm generally a "PS manages color" kind of guy, usually printing a single image on a page at a time rather than multiple image layouts (e.g. picture packages), so PS has always been a perfectly precise printer driver interface for me. However, when working with multiple printers as I do, Q1 does have merit in that it provides a more seamless approach to setting all the various options one needs to normally set in the printer driver. I'm not sure, however, as I haven't played with it long enough, how it handles special printer features like Gloss optimizer coverage. For that, one might still have to dive into the weeds of the printer driver and force the "default" driver setting to take care of all those more specialized settings.
Another interesting difference between Q1 and PS is that PS will let you move an image around on the page or place an oversized image on the page such that some image area will clip due to the printer margin limitations. PS gives a warning but then lets you proceed. This "feature" can sometimes have value, say for example, when printing an image that has "canvas" margin in the image file sized to the document page already (thus extending slightly past the page margin limits). Q1 appears not to have the option to do that. Rather, it insists the image be placed fully within the printable page margin, so much so that it will actually resize an image automatically if you try to place an image which is larger than the chosen page size margin limits. For the working photographer with a client deadline and many images to print, Q1's enforced page margin limits and auto sizing to fit may actually be a good thing, i.e., one less printmaking issue to worry about. :)
lastly, as I and others have noted already, I do think the proprietary way Q1 handles resize/resample/sharpen for print may well have some serious appeal to those who don't want to learn all the image editing tricks in PS which can otherwise get you to your own output taste for final optimal print quality. Is it better than what I routinely achieve in PSCC? I don't know yet, but even if it only has parity with what I routinely achieve in PSCC, it's definitely going to be a time saver. :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I have a question on color management. I use Capture One, so I will need to manually export images that I have already soft proofed using the printer profile and adjusted for printing. When I do the export, what color space should I use for the exported TIFF?
Also, should I just export the TIFF at native resolution and let Q1 do all of the resampling for size output?
-
Another interesting difference between Q1 and PS is that PS will let you move an image around on the page or place an oversized image on the page such that some image area will clip due to the printer margin limitations.
So, Q1 will enforce the 0.98” top and bottom margins on the Canon Pro-1000 with fine art papers with no way to ignore the restriction? That is a deal killer as I won’t be able to print 16x24 anymore on 17x25” paper.
-
I have a question on color management. I use Capture One, so I will need to manually export images that I have already soft proofed using the printer profile and adjusted for printing. When I do the export, what color space should I use for the exported TIFF?
Hi,
You could output with the output media's profile embedded, which will cause Qimage to use that as input profile, and if selected also as the output profile, so effectively creating a null conversion. Alternatively, you could output the Tiff in a larger colorspace than needed, and let Qimage do the conversion to the output profile's colorspace. I assume that like Qimage Ultimate, Qimage One uses the LittleCMS Color engine for the conversions.
Also, should I just export the TIFF at native resolution and let Q1 do all of the resampling for size output?
I'd let Qimage do the resampling once (and on-the-fly, which may prevent driver memory issues), from native size to whatever output size/sizes is/are chosen. Remember that Qimage can easily produce nested output with different output sizes of source images. Also, CaptureOne is limited to 250% upsampling, and Qimage has no such limitation (other than memory limitations). Qimage is quite capable of upsampling relatively small input to native printer driver resolution, which might require more than 250% if a large output size is chosen.
Cheers,
Bart
-
One of the nice things about Qimage is that you can use the same settings for different output sizes of that same file. It adapts its output sharpening settings to the different output sizes, which makes it easy and efficient to produce multiple versions with different sizes.
Isn't that what Lightroom also does?
Jeremy
-
Isn't that what Lightroom also does?
Hi Jeremy,
Could be the case, but Qimage adds things like interrogating the printer driver for required resolution, nesting, and finely adjustable halo-free output sharpening to the mix. The sharpening scales with output size in order to have a similarly sharpened 'look' to images irrespective of their size. One would have to compare side-by side to spot the (subtle) differences. Do note that Lightroom offers better print quality than Photoshop, so the gains are smaller when comparing Qimage output.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Do note that Lightroom offers better print quality than Photoshop, so the gains are smaller when comparing Qimage output.
How so? Last time I checked colorimetrically the average dE of a few hundred patches was a tad over .5 or so from printing a target through both.
-
How so?
Better resampling quality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Quick update on the Q1 "color management OFF" functionality. I had reported earlier in this thread it didn't seem to be working. After repeating my printing tests with it invoked, now all is well.
I had also sent a message to Q1 support and got this quick reply from Q1 tech suport on how it's supposed to work:
"It is possible to print targets directly from Qimage One. This is achieved using what is called a null transform. We tag the image as sRGB, and tell the operating system and printer we are sending sRGB to prevent OS/printer color management. For this reason, after you have selected 'Color Management OFF' in Qimage One, you should see Color Matching in the driver set to ColorSync/sRGB. It is essential you do not make changes in the Color Matching section of the driver after selecting the color management option in Qimage One or it will create problems in the output.
This is the same method other software products use to turn color management off, to work around that setting being missing from many modern drivers. What we do not yet have access to is the ability to gray out and disable the color controls in the driver, as some products do"
Anyway, still scratching my head wondering what went wrong the first time I tried it. but second time I tried, the Q1 set the colorsync/sRGB setting in the printer driver color matching menu plus Q1 assigned sRGB behind the scenes to the untagged target profile for the null transform method to work according to plan.
Note, again, how much Q1 is interacting with the chosen printer driver. It's not bypassing it in any way as some of the marketing literature seems to imply. Rather, Q1 is simply auto-inserting various user requested settings into the correct menu/submenu items in the driver.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
This is the same method other software products use to turn color management off, to work around that setting being missing from many modern drivers. What we do not yet have access to is the ability to gray out and disable the color controls in the driver, as some products do"[/b]
Which products? Which method does Roy Harrington's Print Tool use, and ACPU for that matter?
-
The only advantage I have seen with printing out of Q-image is when upsizing dslr files where I would have fairly extreme upsizing of print dimensions, dropping ppi to 200 or 150 or when going beyond even that by interpolating to much bigger print sizes than one would normally encourage ( such as people with IPhone files wanting them large). With quality well sharpened files (sharpened in PKS or Photoshop or Lightroom ) I can't see much if any difference than printing via Photoshop or Lightroom. Of course having equal borders on sheets with the Z3200 is nice 🙂.
John
Thanks Mark, sounds like mostly (all?) marketing rubbish to me. Hence my question and insertion of that text from their site. Too bad they have to go that route (I'll refrain from commenting about the photography used on their site ;D ).
I did download the demo and will try it out, along with making measurements of course. I'll stick with my custom profiles as I expected and hopped (despite the marketing nonsense) that I might be able to use.
-
Of course having equal borders on sheets with the Z3200 is nice 🙂.
John
I would buy it just for that....
Mark
-
In the Windows Only, Qimage Ultimate version, I believe it uses LittleCMS as the engine for the color conversion.
Thanks
Aaron
-
There's one think I just notice:
Where is the crop mark funtion?
-
Next to my normal Windows Qimage Ultimate I installed Windows Qimage One Demo to see what it offered in features, as a plug in from PS and LR.
The first observation; Q1 does not represent the features of QU, the last has way more right now. I do not refer to QU's RAW and Image developer tools as I hardly use them (manual cropping and some print filter creations aside) and Q1 will not get these tools as PS and LR have enough of them. However Q1 does not have many print related QU features either. It could be that the Windows Demo is more limited than described, it could be that updates will appear soon to fill in the features I miss here. The last will certainly happen knowing Mike's reputation. I see no on the fly border creation, no cutting marks, no choice of printer profile and/or rendering choice per image in the print page preview menu and way more of that. Of the image editing tools a manual temporary/on the fly crop tool would be one of my first requests. It can be done in PS or LR but going back and forward is time consuming.
A warning right away; there is an Auto Cropping tool in the Print menu that seems to be ON as a default after the install. A handy tool for getting many images + prints fit within one size but better switch it off when learning Q1 IMHO.
The Printer Driver Helper Dialog frame that appears when driver settings have to be altered in the driver menu itself is a big black thing that obscures much of Q1 thumbnail's window. It can be switched off in Preferences, a choice I asked for immediately when QU got that some time ago. It is true that it is a good warning to set the printer profile correct to the media choice made in the printer driver menu but three times should be enough to grasp that logic.
I am not familiar enough with LR CC but I see that Q1 in my case gets an exported Tiff with ProPhoto assigned to print from. Maybe there are choices for the export format in LR and for the assigned color space then that can work with Q1. I have to explore that more and wonder whether that can affect printer profile target printing. Using Q1 straight with a folder allows no image formats like PNG etc and I know that Qimage Ultimate can have problems with assigned color spaces in some image formats like PNG. I actually use that flaw in some cases. Neither in the Plug In form or stand alone Q1 does give a choice in its CM menu how unassigned files will be treated. In QU the default becomes sRGB as an on the fly color space when Qimage Ultimate can not find anything assigned or info in the EXIF etc that would make sense. The default sRGB can be replaced by another default the user likes. There is no image info choice in the thumbs window menu either that can tell me what Q1 makes of an unassigned image file, I fact so far I can not see any assigned color space info either within Q1.
That said when printing a target from Qimage Ultimate and with the CM of QU switched to OFF, the image is transferred without an assigned color space even if it has one assigned or not assigned, no compensation happens, no assigned space passes. With the HP Z3200 I have the CM control in the driver then set to Application controlled CM, in expectation that it passes the image unaffected as it comes from QU and the driver expects it should have been CM treated there but was not. I would think that is the way Q1 should work too for target printing. However when one goes for the "None" route and assigns for example sRGB to a target then both Q1 and QU allow sRGB as a printer profile choice (for that kind of profiles select All profiles + all Windows (or Mac?) profiles down at the bottom of that menu) and keep the printer menu CM choice at Let Application control CM. I would not use that "None" route with QU and Q1 CM set to Printer Driver CM ON and in the Z3200 driver CM set to Printer CM control + to expect sRGB files. It looks like a similar route but I have some doubts.
What color engine Q1 uses I have no clue about, probably LCMS like QU does. Nothing wrong with that. I wonder whether Q1 used on itself and printing a RAW file from a folder is applying the RAW developer info of LR or ACR (if available) or uses its own RAW developer on the fly or calls LR or PS into action then. Must still try that.
I am spoiled by what Qimage Ultimate has aboard. I expect Q1 will be quite different within a year from what it is right now. So take this first report with a big lump of salt.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Looking further at QImage One, there are some things that need to be improved and very fast:
1. there are no cut marks, this for those who work with high volume printing is fatal.
2. You can not see the print size, printed area, and white border area, for example:
the customer asks roll 61cm ... image has 51x91 with plus 5 margin ... it is impossible you put the measurements in this case for printing .. At least I did not find ...
You even have a measurement underneath the image to see the size of it, but there is no option to center.
And also adjust to the extent of the customer is cruel, therefore it has to increase and decrease until you hit, it is very complicated.
-
Looking further at QImage One, there are some things that need to be improved and very fast:
1. there are no cut marks, this for those who work with high volume printing is fatal.
2. You can not see the print size, printed area, and white border area, for example:
the customer asks roll 61cm ... image has 51x91 with plus 5 margin ... it is impossible you put the measurements in this case for printing .. At least I did not find ...
You even have a measurement underneath the image to see the size of it, but there is no option to center.
And also adjust to the extent of the customer is cruel, therefore it has to increase and decrease until you hit, it is very complicated.
I just installed the win demo Q1. Unfortunately crop marks printing and border settings are missing from Q1 in comparison to QUltimate.
To print with specific paper size and image size:
In Printer Setting tab set the custom size of the paper. In your case 610 X 1000.
In the Prints tab right click any size and choose "Add new size". There set a new custom size 510x910.
Set Auto Cropping ON
Choose "InteliSpace Placement" to center the image on the paper.
-
Thanks for the answer,
This option 1 I located, but I find it still very complicated.
But its last information, I can not find where it has this command:
Set Auto Cropping ON
Choose "InteliSpace Placement" to center the image on the paper.
And one more detail, there is no 'undo' option .. I think this is a bug that needs to be fixed.
Att...
-
There is one more bug when you select the metrics system ..
The measures are practically all confused, I honestly can not find the right measures ... :( :( :(
-
Thanks for the answer,
This option 1 I located, but I find it still very complicated.
But its last information, I can not find where it has this command:
Set Auto Cropping ON
Choose "InteliSpace Placement" to center the image on the paper.
And one more detail, there is no 'undo' option .. I think this is a bug that needs to be fixed.
Att...
You can turn On and OFF auto cropping from the scissors button right down.
Image placement on the paper is controlled from the buttons under image area.
-
I am not on a mac so I installed the Win demo version of Q1 to test it. Many printing related things are missing relative to Qimage Ultimate. I am not able to find (at least at their usual location in QU) the following:
-Setting the inner and outer borders.
-Printing crop marks (and other image information)
-The ability to save a complete job (This is very important because saving a complete job is very useful and much safer than LR print collections which cannot be locked and can be changed accidentally).
But this is an initial release and probably all these can be added later.
-
Yes, you understand perfectly.
It is the first version and we are here putting the main needs we need at the moment.
Surely it is of great help to those who are developing.
I bought it, because I believe in their work and I'm sure this stuff will be right. 8)
-
I am not on a mac so I installed the Win demo version of Q1 to test it. Many printing related things are missing relative to Qimage Ultimate. I am not able to find (at least at their usual location in QU) the following:
-Setting the inner and outer borders.
-Printing crop marks (and other image information)
-The ability to save a complete job (This is very important because saving a complete job is very useful and much safer than LR print collections which cannot be locked and can be changed accidentally).
But this is an initial release and probably all these can be added later.
See the response from Mike Chaney, the developer of Qimage. If you are on Windows and already have Qimage Ultimate then there is little benefit in also installing Qimage One.
Quote from: DdeGannes on January 12, 2018, 05:51:09 PM
I am on vacation with my iPad and will not be able to try until I return home on the 15th Jan.
Will this application be a substitute for Qimage Ultimate?
Depends on your perspective (how you use Ultimate). Qimage One is designed to do one thing: print optimal quality photos easily. So it doesn't try to be all things at once like Ultimate and as a result, Qimage One will not have capabilities like editing, email sending, file conversion, slide shows, database/search, and other functions that are not directly related to the photo printing process.
Ultimate will (for now) remain PC only and continues forward being the "Swiss Army Knife" of photo printing tools. Qimage Ultimate 2018.113 is due out next week.
Regards,
Mike
-
See the response from Mike Chaney, the developer of Qimage. If you are on Windows and already have Qimage Ultimate then there is little benefit in also installing Qimage One.
Quote from: DdeGannes on January 12, 2018, 05:51:09 PM
I am on vacation with my iPad and will not be able to try until I return home on the 15th Jan.
Will this application be a substitute for Qimage Ultimate?
Depends on your perspective (how you use Ultimate). Qimage One is designed to do one thing: print optimal quality photos easily. So it doesn't try to be all things at once like Ultimate and as a result, Qimage One will not have capabilities like editing, email sending, file conversion, slide shows, database/search, and other functions that are not directly related to the photo printing process.
Ultimate will (for now) remain PC only and continues forward being the "Swiss Army Knife" of photo printing tools. Qimage Ultimate 2018.113 is due out next week.
Regards,
Mike
The omissions I noted are "directly related to the photo printing process".
-
The omissions I noted are "directly related to the photo printing process".
Hi,
While I agree that the initial version of Qimage One can use some more functionality (and the author did say that it will be somewhat limited to speed up the initial release), there are very many things "directly related to the photo printing process". But they are not necessarily 'showstoppers' for most users.
If they are, wait till they're added, or in the meantime use the Qimage Ultimate product that has more features than almost any of its current users need (and there are still things missing, for some). The Windows version reportedly runs fine under Parallels on the Mac OS.
The pricing of Qimage is such that it's almost a no-brainer, given the productivity and output quality improvements it offers or will offer after the first updates. Even the upgrades after a year are dirt cheap as well, as a refreshingly different approach. And the author of Qimage is very knowledgeable and approachable (but may be hard to convince for feature changes unless very good arguments are used), and he introduced several innovations over the last 20 years that left the competition (if any) in the dust.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
I understand your point.
But it's important to think, to many, not a few MAC users who have not and never used a Windows version, no matter how many people say it.
So when it solves to put a MAC version in the market, at least that is expected that this version is next to that we have for MAC.
Then my comparison would be the LR, he would have to at least offer something equivalent.
It is not because it worked for Windows that MAC users now have to accept what is placed.
If it made a version for MAC it is because it has commercial interest if it has commercial interest that makes it right.
Cheers,
Abdo
-
Bart,
I understand your point.
But it's important to think, to many, not a few MAC users who have not and never used a Windows version, no matter how many people say it.
So when it solves to put a MAC version in the market, at least that is expected that this version is next to that we have for MAC.
Then my comparison would be the LR, he would have to at least offer something equivalent.
It is not because it worked for Windows that MAC users now have to accept what is placed.
If it made a version for MAC it is because it has commercial interest if it has commercial interest that makes it right.
Hi Abdo,
I understand and agree, but Mike Chaney (the author) is kind of special (and has been at least for the 20(!) years that Qimage has been around) and he will deliver on his promises to expand the capabilities of the initial release version. The best proof of that is that there is a number of features missing in the release version that have already been implemented successfully in the Windows (Ultimate) version. So it's not that they have yet to be invented, it's just a matter of time to implement. You guys on the Mac OS are lucky to benefit from us guinea pigs on Windows who helped build the foundation (and loved every step of the way) to what it has become ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
You guys on the Mac OS are lucky to benefit from us guinea pigs on Windows who helped build the foundation (and loved every step of the way) to what it has become ...
And you guys on Windows are lucky to benefit from us guinea pigs on Mac who helped build the foundation for Photoshop ;D
The big question of course is, for those of us with say Lightroom, what's worthwhile. Still working on that.
-
Hi Abdo,
I understand and agree, but Mike Chaney (the author) is kind of special (and has been at least for the 20(!) years that Qimage has been around) and he will deliver on his promises to expand the capabilities of the initial release version. The best proof of that is that there is a number of features missing in the release version that have already been implemented successfully in the Windows (Ultimate) version. So it's not that they have yet to be invented, it's just a matter of time to implement. You guys on the Mac OS are lucky to benefit from us guinea pigs on Windows who helped build the foundation (and loved every step of the way) to what it has become ...
Cheers,
Bart
I do not complain.
So much that I bought the version, without even testing.
Because I believe it will evolve.
Cheers,
Abdo
-
And you guys on Windows are lucky to benefit from us guinea pigs on Mac who helped build the foundation for Photoshop ;D
The big question of course is, for those of us with say Lightroom, what's worthwhile. Still working on that.
Hi Andrew,
If only looking at the financial side of things, it's obvious that Qimage has used a more beneficial pricing model for its customers. In fact, I think I purchased the free upgrades for life version of Qimage around the turn of the century and was happy enough to buy the modest upgrade price version when it became available. I even skipped upgrading for a while, and could just get the latest update for an upgrade price(!) after I started paying again (no penalties for temporarily interrupting the upgrade fees).
Looking at the technical benefits, Qimage has been offering cutting-edge (proprietary) solutions(!) to printing issues that people can have for decades, and has been leading in output quality (except, maybe, some very good/expensive dedicated single printer model RIPs). Qimage covers any printer that has a driver for the given Operating System (making changes of printer-hardware very easy). It also does not require to pay for using different printers or print-widths, a single license does it all.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I do not complain.
So much that I bought the version, without even testing.
Because I believe it will evolve.
Hi Abdo,
I'm confident (after almost 20 years of personal experience with the product and its author) that you will not be disappointed but, in fact, will be pleasantly amazed (and there are few people/products that I can endorse with such confidence).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Andrew,
If only looking at the financial side of things, it's obvious that Qimage has used a more beneficial pricing model for its customers.
It's not obvious until you define what product with the same basic features you're comparing, so what product is that? Not Lightroom.
Qimage has been offering cutting-edge (proprietary) solutions(!) to printing issues that people can have for decades, and has been leading in output quality
Sounds like the kind of marketing speak we hear from: fill in the blank.
May be so, it's up to each of us to test this and see if it's true. For example, you've stated it has superior resampling. And that may very well be true for those who have to resample up their images. I don't.
Qimage covers any printer that has a driver for the given Operating System (making changes of printer-hardware very easy).
You feel that's unique?
It also does not require to pay for using different printers or print-widths, a single license does it all.
That too isn't unique as far as I see. It's no different from Lightroom no?
-
... For example, you've stated it has superior resampling. And that may very well be true for those who have to resample up their images. I don't. You feel that's unique? That too isn't unique as far as I see. It's no different from Lightroom no?
Andrew, you hit on the crux of my interest in Qimage, the upsampling and sharpening algorithms applied by Qimage. I make large prints, but I'm not a guy who can go out and purchase a Phase One 100 Mp camera. So, I routinely have to pay a lot of attention to my upsampling and sharpening techniques to pull the very best enlarged prints out of my more humble camera original files. Many folks swear by a superior interpolation/sharpening result from Qimage, but it's actually a challenging topic.
For one thing, I've got lots of hard fought, hard won experience "preflighting" print quality output in Photoshop, i.e. bringing already upsampled/sharpened output from RAW developers into Photoshop, then applying additional resampling and sharpening functions in PS to squeeze every drop of sharpness I can get without introducing degrading image artifacts or "over baking' the final file for print before I actually hit the print button. Qimage adds another layer of complexity ( I did buy a licensed copy of Q1) into my workflow because it offers no way to "export to tiff" the Q1 converted-to-print data, so there's no obvious way to preview the end result. You have to carry all the upsizing/sharpening experimentation through to print, thus burning up a lot of paper and ink. I'm working on a work around, trying to install a "virtual tiff file printer driver' on my Mac, but I'm not quite there yet. Without such a " preflight proofing" image workflow, everything has to go to print. Costs add up quickly.
Why not just trust Q1 to do its thing with resampling/sharpening? Well, that begs the question: "what level of source file sharpening and size interpolation is the best starting point for Q1's additional resampling/sharpening goodness?". One could say, "well start with the "native" file size, but coming from ACR or any other RAW developer, that native file will already have baked in sharpening (or not). So it's a rather complex set of experiments to compare Q! print output to PS or LR output, and it clearly depends on what level of sharpness and digital artifacts exist in the source file. That quality is baked in with OOC jpeg image files, but wide open for lots of interpretation when working with RAW files.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
May be so, it's up to each of us to test this and see if it's true. For example, you've stated it has superior resampling. And that may very well be true for those who have to resample up their images. I don't
Hi Andrew,
Think again. ANY size of output that is not a 100% pixel-for-pixel reproduction of the source image, will need to be resampled. Any enlarged output will benefit even more (e.g. check smoother arcs and near diagonal features). Also, downsampled images will need to be resampled (without introducing aliasing artifacts).
Especially when resampling to the printer driver's requested PPI resolution (which will allow output sharpening without subsequent resampling/blurring), this will require lots of care at the pixel level (including e.g. dithering of smooth gradients with 8-bit/channel printer drivers, and the handling of either 16/15-bit, or 8-bit/channel, source images, and/or anti-aliasing for down-sampled images. Not sure if all that is already implemented in Q1, but it is in the Ultimate version, and has been for a long time. So it's merely a matter of implementation time if it's not already there.
And that is not marketing speech, it's the voicing of 20 years of benefitting from solutions that really make a difference.
In fact, but I do not know if it's already implemented in the initial version of Qimage One, I can print with 'Overdrive' resolution with Qimage Ultimate, which means that a native 720-PPI printer will be fed by a 1440 PPI level of detail (and a 600 PPI driver with 1200 PPI), and it is visible (it may be subtle from a distance, but more angels are in fact dancing on the pin's head, when viewed at close scrutiny).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
While I agree that the initial version of Qimage One can use some more functionality (and the author did say that it will be somewhat limited to speed up the initial release), there are very many things "directly related to the photo printing process". But they are not necessarily 'showstoppers' for most users.
If they are, wait till they're added, or in the meantime use the Qimage Ultimate product that has more features than almost any of its current users need (and there are still things missing, for some). The Windows version reportedly runs fine under Parallels on the Mac OS.
The pricing of Qimage is such that it's almost a no-brainer, given the productivity and output quality improvements it offers or will offer after the first updates. Even the upgrades after a year are dirt cheap as well, as a refreshingly different approach. And the author of Qimage is very knowledgeable and approachable (but may be hard to convince for feature changes unless very good arguments are used), and he introduced several innovations over the last 20 years that left the competition (if any) in the dust.
Cheers,
Bart
I like QU very much. I use it more and more. I am sure that Q1 will become a very useful app for macOS users too.
-
I had a look, printed off a few. I think I'll hold off. It doesn't offer enough control on positioning for me and the Mac implementation is a bit rough to be honest. There is certainly a market for a great photo printing app, perhaps the PC Ultimate version meets that but not this.
Stuck with Capture One's clumsy approach or the Epson Print Layout app, which isn't much better.
-
Andrew, you hit on the crux of my interest in Qimage, the upsampling and sharpening algorithms applied by Qimage. I make large prints, but I'm not a guy who can go out and purchase a Phase One 100 Mp camera. So, I routinely have to pay a lot of attention to my upsampling and sharpening techniques to pull the very best enlarged prints out of my more humble camera original files. Many folks swear by a superior interpolation/sharpening result from Qimage, but it's actually a challenging topic.
For one thing, I've got lots of hard fought, hard won experience "preflighting" print quality output in Photoshop, i.e. bringing already upsampled/sharpened output from RAW developers into Photoshop, then applying additional resampling and sharpening functions in PS to squeeze every drop of sharpness I can get without introducing degrading image artifacts or "over baking' the final file for print before I actually hit the print button. Qimage adds another layer of complexity ( I did buy a licensed copy of Q1) into my workflow because it offers no way to "export to tiff" the Q1 converted-to-print data, so there's no obvious way to preview the end result. You have to carry all the upsizing/sharpening experimentation through to print, thus burning up a lot of paper and ink. I'm working on a work around, trying to install a "virtual tiff file printer driver' on my Mac, but I'm not quite there yet. Without such a " preflight proofing" image workflow, everything has to go to print. Costs add up quickly.
Why not just trust Q1 to do its thing with resampling/sharpening? Well, that begs the question: "what level of source file sharpening and size interpolation is the best starting point for Q1's additional resampling/sharpening goodness?". One could say, "well start with the "native" file size, but coming from ACR or any other RAW developer, that native file will already have baked in sharpening (or not). So it's a rather complex set of experiments to compare Q! print output to PS or LR output, and it clearly depends on what level of sharpness and digital artifacts exist in the source file. That quality is baked in with OOC jpeg image files, but wide open for lots of interpretation when working with RAW files.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Qimage Ultimate has the Print to File choice for that and it must be quite easy to implant that in Q1 too. There is a demo version of QU too and in the interpolation + smart sharpening routines both will act the same when starting from the defaults (interpolation algorithm choice etc) in QU.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Think again. ANY size of output that is not a 100% pixel-for-pixel reproduction of the source image, will need to be resampled.
Indeed it does but I've yet to see the issue sampling down for output using any number of processes.
In fact, but I do not know....
You sure you want to continue with that as the start of a sentence? ;D
-
Many folks swear by a superior interpolation/sharpening result from Qimage, but it's actually a challenging topic.
Many swear by Perfect BlowUp or Prefect Resize and so on. When I ran my own tests as I think they should be run, I didn't find superior sampling making it's way to the actual print and did find capture and output sharpening provided a much larger difference in the results then the products themselves without this important set of edits.
It offers no way to "export to tiff" the Q1 converted-to-print data...
That's a pretty significant limitation in my book too, certainly for anyone hoping to send the files out for print.
What about Print to PDF on the Mac, RIP in Photoshop? Inelegant, slow, potentially damaging?
-
I've been using QU and plain old Qimage for years. The killer function for me is to put about 6 of the same image on one sheet and assign a different profile to each one. Always useful for obvious reasons.
-
Now that is interesting.
-
Now that is interesting.
The per image printer profiling on the print page is nice if you like to compare profiles but is hardly something you need for daily practice. All the images land on the same paper anyway and you will use the best profile for that paper. What is nice though is that the rendering choices with one profile can be set per image on the print page if desired. Saves time and/or paper working with paper rolls.
I have not used it yet but the latest QU update has a new cropping tool added that is outside the image editing tools part. Looks like tools created for Q1 are faster embedded in QU than Q1 :-). However a good decision, it would need that very much if I had to depend on Q1. Next thing needed are border choices and cut marks, the ones I prefer are the corner marks where after each cut there still are small lines visible for cutting the next edges. I usually add 0.5mm extra white border and cut just within the marks then. The graphic arts cut marks as used for stacked prints on a quillotine cutter, they take more paper and are not as precise and handy when prints are cut one after the other. If Mike adds a color choice for the cut marks in preferences one could use a lighter color and just cut once when the images are nested against one another, the light color will not show on the cutted edge like the black ink does. Or use yellow marks and use a blue lamp near the cutter. Right now QU allows another marking color too (on my request) but the method to get that is too tricky, I would like to have it in preferences.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The per image printer profiling on the print page is nice if you like to compare profiles but is hardly something you need for daily practice. All the images land on the same paper anyway and you will use the best profile for that paper.
True, although you may use differing rendering intents. But you'd soft proof to see which first so, kind of a fringe feature.
-
Quick question for all of you QU or Q1 users. I print with a Pro-1000, so no roll paper, just sheets. I print from CO and only 1, maybe 2, prints per sheet (like 2 5x7 on 8.5x11 paper). Is there really any reason to move away from printing in CO?
-
True, although you may use differing rendering intents. But you'd soft proof to see which first so, kind of a fringe feature.
Well you can read that in my message as well and I trust a hard proof more than a soft proof so usually skip the last. For several small proofs nested on the width of a roll a rendering choice per image is very nice. The new crop tool in QU that applies the crop to the image on the print page makes a set of proofs easier too. Very likely that it will come to Q1 too.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Quick question for all of you QU or Q1 users. I print with a Pro-1000, so no roll paper, just sheets. I print from CO and only 1, maybe 2, prints per sheet (like 2 5x7 on 8.5x11 paper). Is there really any reason to move away from printing in CO?
There is a demo. Compare the print results. Check the tools available, if not enough difference come back after a year and check them again.
Edit: at the updating rate already shown I would now say; come back in 3 months.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
What about Qimage One more integrated with Capture One, Photoline, etc ? The speed of Capture One with big files draws users to it in increasing numbers. It can work with higher than 4 core CPUs, like Qimage Ultimate does too. A month ago Darktable became available on Windows. In short; there are now good alternatives to Adobe products and binding Q1 to Adobe only may not be the optimal choice for the future.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
What about Qimage One more integrated with Capture One, Photoline, etc ?
And not to forget Affinity Photo.
The speed of Capture One with big files draws users to it in increasing numbers. It can work with higher than 4 core CPUs, like Qimage Ultimate does too. A month ago Darktable became available on Windows. In short; there are now good alternatives to Adobe products and binding Q1 to Adobe only may not be the optimal choice for the future.
A seamless way of integrating the printing capabilities of Qimage with those programs would be very interesting indeed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And not to forget Affinity Photo.
A seamless way of integrating the printing capabilities of Qimage with those programs would be very interesting indeed.
Cheers,
Bart
I would like to see Capture 1 for sure.
-
We have users who have reported that it works in Capture One Pro (using the Edit With/Edit In feature). What version of Capture One Pro and Qimage One are you using?
Regards,
Mike Chaney
Binartem, Inc.
ddisoftware, Inc.
-
We have users who have reported that it works in Capture One Pro (using the Edit With/Edit In feature). What version of Capture One Pro and Qimage One are you using?
Regards,
Mike Chaney
Binartem, Inc.
ddisoftware, Inc.
I have check using my Capture one V 10.2.1 and I have used the file menu to send a raw file to Qimage One and it works just as it does from Lightroom. see the relative screen capture. I opened Capture One and select a file to send Qimage One open with the file available as a thumb, i have not tested a print but will do so in due course.
Very happy :) :)
-
Hello
I've been successfully printing using Q One from Capture One Pro.
I have found that, while COP's "Open With" works it does not incorporate the COP edits.
The best option is by using COP's "Edit With ...". That creates a TIFF (with all the edits) and feeds that to Q1. Perfect!
I'm not sure but it may be that the "Edit With ..." TIFF settings option may need to be set to "uncompressed".
Regards
Peter
I would like to see Capture 1 for sure.
-
Hello
I've been successfully printing using Q One from Capture One Pro.
I have found that, while COP's "Open With" works it does not incorporate the COP edits.
The best option is by using COP's "Edit With ...". That creates a TIFF (with all the edits) and feeds that to Q1. Perfect!
I'm not sure but it may be that the "Edit With ..." TIFF settings option may need to be set to "uncompressed".
Regards
Peter
yes I agree with your findings.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
In comparing prints from Qimage to those made directly from Photoshop, the QI images have a definite reddish cast. This is likely from operator error, but I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong.
Any ideas?
-
In comparing prints from Qimage to those made directly from Photoshop, the QI images have a definite reddish cast. This is likely from operator error, but I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong.
Any ideas?
The only way anyone could possibly respond to the question is for you to describe in detail exactly what procedures, settings and color management you employ with each application when producing the actual print.
This article from 2011 by Mike Chaney the author of Qimage, while is a bit dated, describes how you can get matching prints using both Qimage and Photoshop. Hope this helps.
http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/may-2011-printing-the-same-colors-in-qimage-ultimate-and-photoshop/
-
Hello
I've been successfully printing using Q One from Capture One Pro.
I have found that, while COP's "Open With" works it does not incorporate the COP edits.
The best option is by using COP's "Edit With ...". That creates a TIFF (with all the edits) and feeds that to Q1. Perfect!
I'm not sure but it may be that the "Edit With ..." TIFF settings option may need to be set to "uncompressed".
Regards
Peter
Not that familiar with Capture One Pro for Sony yet (two hours) but would Exporting Originals / Variants not deliver more possibilities? Windows version here and I use Qimage Ultimate instead of Q1 so can not really judge that. With Export Variants I might be able to set up both a Color Tiff and a separate B&W export from the RAW file.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Not that familiar with Capture One Pro for Sony yet (two hours) but would Exporting Originals / Variants not deliver more possibilities? Windows version here and I use Qimage Ultimate instead of Q1 so can not really judge that. With Export Variants I might be able to set up both a Color Tiff and a separate B&W export from the RAW file. However Grayscale + assigned Gamma 2.2 export seems to be no longer available in C1 based on a google check.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
See the quote below by Mike Chaney from a reply to a question from me requesting how Q1 deals with raw files Mac version.
Quote
Raws that are well exposed and don't need a lot of editing should have similar default renderings across Ultimate and One. Beyond that, the scenarios can get complicated. Ultimate allows the user to change raw processing options to change them from the defaults. And since macOS has system level support for raw photos, the Mac version of Q1 will render raws like other macOS tools to be consistent across applications on the Mac... but that also means that raw photos will not necessarily be identical when comparing Q1 macOS to Q1 Windows.
Since all raw developing tools come with their own "flavor" of how the raws are developed, we tried to keep things consistent among tools on the same OS. So Q1 Windows will be a good match for QU Windows (with QU defaults). And Q1 macOS will be a good match for other macOS tools like Photos. We felt it was important for macOS users to get raw photo results similar to what they were used to seeing with other macOS tools rather than try to emulate the same results between macOS and Windows since few users tend to switch back and forth between macOS and Windows applications.
As previously mentioned, nearly any tool will produce similar results when developing "typical" raw photos. For those with challenging scenes, difficult lighting, under or overexposure, we feel like users will likely use their favorite raw developing tool to do the more complicated edits anyway and they will be exporting and then using Q1 to print, or using the including plugins to come from Photoshop.
Regards,
Mike
End Quote
-
See the quote below by Mike Chaney from a reply to a question from me requesting how Q1 deals with raw files Mac version.
Quote
Raws that are well exposed and don't need a lot of editing should have similar default renderings across Ultimate and One. Beyond that, the scenarios can get complicated. Ultimate allows the user to change raw processing options to change them from the defaults. And since macOS has system level support for raw photos, the Mac version of Q1 will render raws like other macOS tools to be consistent across applications on the Mac... but that also means that raw photos will not necessarily be identical when comparing Q1 macOS to Q1 Windows.
Since all raw developing tools come with their own "flavor" of how the raws are developed, we tried to keep things consistent among tools on the same OS. So Q1 Windows will be a good match for QU Windows (with QU defaults). And Q1 macOS will be a good match for other macOS tools like Photos. We felt it was important for macOS users to get raw photo results similar to what they were used to seeing with other macOS tools rather than try to emulate the same results between macOS and Windows since few users tend to switch back and forth between macOS and Windows applications.
As previously mentioned, nearly any tool will produce similar results when developing "typical" raw photos. For those with challenging scenes, difficult lighting, under or overexposure, we feel like users will likely use their favorite raw developing tool to do the more complicated edits anyway and they will be exporting and then using Q1 to print, or using the including plugins to come from Photoshop.
Regards,
Mike
End Quote
Denis, that answers some questions I raised in my second message in this thread but not the one you replied on. I rephrase it shorter here; Can Capture One Pro export a Tiff, JPG or PNG as a Grayscale file with Gamma 2.2 assigned?
Edit; It can, as some replies further on indicate. I was mistaken with C1's activation and by that still in the Express version that may not have the direct Grayscale file export.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I am sorry Ernst i do not have an answer to that specific question. Maybe a more experienced user of Capture One can post a response.
-
For many years I'm a satisfied Mac C1 user (version 11 now). For fine-art printing I used QU and therefore had to export the to be printed file to a transfer-folder to QUltimate under Windows/VMWarefusion, it worked but was rather cumbersome. So I was happy to learn that Q1 was around which I'm using now.
There are two ways to transfer C1 files to external editors/programs.
1. Right click and use "edit with" and an intermediate file is generated. The "edit variant" selection window gives a number of options such as file type (jpeg, tiff and psd), ICC profile, resolution and the "open with program" (Q1)
2. Right click and use "open with" and the original file is passed through, in this case, Q1.
The direct invocation of Q1 v107 works fine. My workflow consists of using Affinity Photo for the impaint brush and making a border, so I end up with a TIFF file in C1. I use this file for the "copy with" variant. The advantage of using "copy with" opposed to "edit with" is that you don't end up with extra files in C1.
Make sure that you change History->Manage Disk Space->Delete files/folders older than: to 1 month because the Q1 export folder expands pretty fast.
I also had a problem with the reddish cast, after installation of Q1 the first print was reddish and the following prints were ok. I had to re-install Q1 from scratch an the same happened again. This behaviour remains a mystery for me.
For me Q1 shines for B&W prints.
Hope that this helps.
Hans
www.neecke.eu
-
Hans, dank je wel.
Gives me more info on the C1 save functions. However I do not mind to archive some extra non-RAW files if more work has been done on the original RAW. With almost any RAW developer there is a risk I may not continue using it, for various reasons. Next to that I scan/copy digitally B&W negatives that I still like to develop as RGB RAWs and save them then as Grayscale Gamma 2.2. 1/3 of the size of an RGB 16 bit file. No format is as universal as TIFF or PNG in the long run.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Next to that I scan/copy digitally B&W negatives that I still like to develop as RGB RAWs and save them then as Grayscale Gamma 2.2. 1/3 of the size of an RGB 16 bit file. No format is as universal as TIFF or PNG in the long run.
Hoi Ernst,
To answer an earlier question, Capture One allows to "Edit with..." and allows to assign a Phase One Gray (G1.0, G1.8, or G2.2) ICC profile to the intermediate (TIFF) output file, which is then opened in a single channel Grayscale mode by e.g. Photoshop. I'm not sure whether Q1 can deal with single channel files though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hoi Ernst,
To answer an earlier question, Capture One allows to "Edit with..." and allows to assign a Phase One Gray (G1.0, G1.8, or G2.2) ICC profile to the intermediate (TIFF) output file, which is then opened in a single channel Grayscale mode by e.g. Photoshop. I'm not sure whether Q1 can deal with single channel files though.
Cheers,
Bart
Dag Bart,
So that means the conversion from RAW/RGB to Greyscale happens on the fly when export is activated?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Dag Bart,
Thank you. I guess the Capture One Pro for Sony does not have them embedded but I probably can add them. Will search for it. So that means the conversion from RAW/RGB to Greyscale happens on the fly when export is activated?
Yup, that's what I expect is happening, in C1 Pro anyway.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hoi Ernst,
To answer an earlier question, Capture One allows to "Edit with..." and allows to assign a Phase One Gray (G1.0, G1.8, or G2.2) ICC profile to the intermediate (TIFF) output file, which is then opened in a single channel Grayscale mode by e.g. Photoshop. I'm not sure whether Q1 can deal with single channel files though.
Cheers,
Bart
Edit: Sorry, I was mistaken. I got the impression that activation from Capture One Express for Sony to the Capture One Pro for Sony was already done but I was still in Express. The Express version has no direct Grayscale file export, no Grayscale profile to assign.
I will change some of my messages before this one.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I also had a problem with the reddish cast, after installation of Q1 the first print was reddish and the following prints were ok. I had to re-install Q1 from scratch an the same happened again. This behaviour remains a mystery for me.
Hi Hans,
As someone who ran into a similar problem myself with QImage Ultimate on Windows 10, your experience is interesting, given you see it on a Mac. Except in my case multiple prints in a row could be affected. My black and white prints were unaffected. Whether the problem is caused by the same bug, or we have seen different problems that superficially appear to be the same, I have no idea.
Damon
-
Hi Damon,
I put the question about the reddish cast to Andrew Wilford, the developer of the Q1 mac version, and below his reaction:
We suggest you ensure that the print settings in both programs are identical, and that the program passing the images to Qimage One is consistent in the ICC profile settings it passes. This article may help you ensure that everything is set up correctly:
http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/may-2011-printing-the-same-colors-in-qimage-ultimate-and-photoshop/
The problem occurred only once after the two initial Q1 installations and I can't recall if there was any 3880 printer setting discrepancy.
Hans
-
We just released 2018.108 which should fix the reddish cast that was occurring for some users under certain conditions/settings. That version also has the added ability to print cut marks (either crop marks or guide lines) as requested by users.
Regards
-
We just released 2018.108 which should fix the reddish cast that was occurring for some users under certain conditions/settings. That version also has the added ability to print cut marks (either crop marks or guide lines) as requested by users.
Regards
Thanks Mike, I see that things are getting better! Congratulations.
An issue if it is possible in the case of the cut marks, we would not be able to determine a white margin between it and the impression .. 1 "2" 3 "4" ..?
Thank you,
-
An issue if it is possible in the case of the cut marks, we would not be able to determine a white margin between it and the impression .. 1 "2" 3 "4" ..?
Sounds like you are referring to another feature (borders) that was discussed elsewhere which we are considering for future versions, rather than an issue with cut marks.
Regards
-
Thanks Mike, I see that things are getting better! Congratulations.
An issue if it is possible in the case of the cut marks, we would not be able to determine a white margin between it and the impression .. 1 "2" 3 "4" ..?
Thank you,
Well you could add white or colored margins in the application to print from and add the cut marks in Q1. When Q1 gets the border creation feature it becomes easier and on the fly with printing.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots