Qimage for MAC?

[Garnick]

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

[digitaldog]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Garnick]

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

[digitaldog]

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.

[Denis de Gannes]

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.

[Borealis]

Will be out soon: http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/mac-version/15/

[Panagiotis]

It's ready:

http://www.binartem.com/

[Ernst Dinkla]

It's ready:

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

[Abdo]

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 ...

[MHMG]

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

[digitaldog]

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.

[Abdo]

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)

[digitaldog]

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?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Abdo]

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

[MHMG]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[MHMG]

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

[digitaldog]

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  ).

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.