I have been following this thread with interest, as I've looked at Qimage a number of times over the past few years to see if it might add anything to my workflow, but have never been quite convinced enough actually to buy the software.
My background is that I print professionally for a number of very critical and internationally-exhibiting artists, using a full RIP for output. My default workflow comprises an initial capture sharpening pass with Focus Magic on the artwork image converted with Capture One Pro, followed by any other adjustments for colour matching etc, then an output sharpening pass with Nik Sharpener Pro 3 at the required print size, ignoring the actual file resolution (i.e. resample = off). The file is then sent to the RIP, which takes care of any resampling required for the printer input. While this may be theoretically and technically sub-optimal in some instances, the RIP does a very good job and there have never been any complaints about print resolution and sharpness; in fact I sometimes have to dial back the output sharpening from the defaults.
I did some tests earlier last year which may be helpful to the present discussion, comparing prints from Qimage to my usual workflow and also to an enhanced workflow with Photozoom Pro as an intermediate resizing step. These may not show the full achievable differences as they were done on the matte art paper that the majority of my clients specify, although this particular paper holds fine lines and detail exceptionally well.
The native resolution of the original file was 335ppi at the required output dimensions. All print files were derived from the same master file which had an initial capture-sharpening pass with Focus Magic. The Qimage prints used QI's Fusion interpolator.
(1) The Qimage prints needed a Final Print Sharpening setting of 15 DFS (med-high; I believe the default is 5) to match my default workflow prints with Nik Sharpener Pro for resolution and sharpness.
(2) The Qimage prints exhibited a small colour/contrast/saturation shift compared to the prints from the RIP, though this may have been the result of using output profiles originally generated via the RIP.
(3) Using an intermediate Photozoom Pro S-Spline Max resampling step in the default RIP workflow, there was a tiny improvement in sharpness and resolution when resampled to 300ppi and a slightly more definite, albeit still small, improvement when resampled to 600ppi, both using the Nik Sharpener defaults at 100%
(4) The output sharpening percentage in (3) had a greater effect than the resampling value; at 50% output sharpening, the 300ppi and 600ppi results were effectively indistinguishable.
(5) Generally, the results using the RIP with the added Photozoom Pro intermediate step were sharper and felt more coherent and less harsh than the equivalent Qimage prints, though the differences were mostly fairly subtle and mainly obvious on a direct side-by-side comparison.
I don't pretend for a moment that this was an exhaustive test, as there are so many parameters in the various softwares that could be fine-tuned and which might well affect the final results, but it may suggest avenues for further exploration.
On a purely physical basis, Qimage's handling of bulk prints on roll paper when tested was substantially inferior to that of the RIP, though I note that Mike has added a new roll printing feature in the latest release which may go some way towards rectifying that.
None of this is intended to detract from Qimage, which does an amazing job at a very small fraction of the cost of a professional RIP and with a great deal of convenience for the average user, particularly on sheet paper. I am actually still tempted to buy it, both as an additional tool in the box and for some of its other useful features; however, for my purposes, the basic RIP workflow still provides better quality as standard, with the option of squeezing the last few percent out of the print if necessary by resampling with Photozoom Pro, at the cost of the significant additional resampling time.
Malcolm
