Topic: QiMage Review/Article on Luminous Landscape? (Read 8890 times)

WayneDrury · « **on:** November 02, 2007, 07:16:48 am »

I find this an excellent printing utility, having had it mentioned to me by a colleague. My current Epson R300 has a considerable difference with prints in sharpeness, colours and detail in the images when using QiImage.

Searching Luminous Landscape I cant see Michael Reichmann has reviewed or looked at QiMage. I was looking for his opinions as looking to upgrade my Epson and also not been happy with the prints direct from LR, hence using QiMage.

I was thinking of contacting him as I like im sure many others would value a review by him. Has this been covered before or any one approached him before with this suggestion?

Thanks in advance

Wayne

SeanPuckett · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2007, 08:30:55 am »

QImage produces excellent print results. I use it.

To its benefit: It's cheap, has great upscaling algorithms, is fast, ICC support, and allows some useful image tweaks prior to printing. Mike (developer) provides direct support via yahoo group, and he is quite responsive to genuine bugs.

To its detriment: Roll paper management is non-existent, the UI is at times wonky (although it is tolerable, there's a lot of frustration too), there's no gamut warning display, and running multiple customer jobs at once can result in annoying layouts.

As far as print quality, though, it's the best hundred bucks you can spend. What's that -- a single ink cartridge? Hardly a decision at all. Use it if you can.

-- woops, should have posted this in the other thread.

Gordon Buck · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2007, 09:29:32 am »

Qimage is a good product. I use it sometimes. The user interface does not quite match my natural line of thinking but it's OK.

If you do buy Qimage, be sure to save every scrap of paper and email that you receive from them. The program is tweaked regularly and the download procedure, secret codes, etc also change. If you lose one of these codes or passwords then you may have a tough time getting back into good graces.

Craig Murphy · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2007, 09:34:36 am »

I'll second the 'Keep track of your codes, etc.' with Qimage.

jpmulligan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:06:32 am »

Quote

If you lose one of these codes or passwords then you may have a tough time getting back into good graces.

Well, I have been using QImage for 4 years now, and have never had an issue with getting a replacement unlock code for it when needed, usually within just a couple of hours. I think your statement is kind of misleading and sounds like Mike Chaney would have an issue with getting a legitimate user a replacement unlock code. Any software vendor is going to require some evidence that you have licensed the product, so it is just common sense to keep track of your previous license codes.

Yes, some people have had problems, but the majority of postings that I have read on the Yahoo group message board for QImage regarding this issue has usually resolved to being a problem with email systems and spam filters.

rdonson · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:37:14 am »

Wayne,

Qimage is a really solid printing program. If Michael wants to review it that would be great. The community of Qimage users is already quite large.

Lightroom has no real print facility other than it can send nicely formatted prints to your printer of choice. Without softproof you're printing in the dark and you'll waste a lot of ink and paper. I do think Lightroom will eventually provide softproofing and even improve the experience of softproofing but no one knows when that will be.

CS3 has improved its printing to the point where its marginally better than a sharp stick in the eye.

I use Qimage Studio and I'm a happy camper. My print workflow is sooooooo much better with it.

SeanPuckett · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:54:56 am »

I use QImage studio myself and have workflow issues with the UI that Mike is not entirely keen on resolving. (Witness recent discussions in yahoo group, argh.) Since QImage is the work of an individual, not a committee or corporation, so there's a lot of personality and ego involved and not so much market research or UI guideline tuning.

Still, the output is good, and I continue to use it.

rdonson · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2007, 11:06:41 am »

Yeah, I've been following your conversation with Mike in the list, Sean.

Mike is a talented programmer but not necessarily a UI human factors expert. Still, for the most part I'm able to work with it and get done what I need to do.

Generally I don't agree with Mike's points about not simulating paper white/black either but have learned to live without them.

Can't beat the performance, price and service of Qimage though.

Ernst Dinkla · « **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2007, 11:43:37 am »

Quote

I use QImage studio myself and have workflow issues with the UI that Mike is not entirely keen on resolving. (Witness recent discussions in yahoo group, argh.) Since QImage is the work of an individual, not a committee or corporation, so there's a lot of personality and ego involved and not so much market research or UI guideline tuning.

Still, the output is good, and I continue to use it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 6000 members mailing list is in my opinion a good market research instrument and much more than that. There's some patience needed when you have requests even when more people support that request. With good arguments you have a chance that a feature is added but it is seldom that Mike promises to do so and he may even oppose the idea in the list but implant it 3 months later. Don't expect a reference to the original feature request when a feature is added to an upgrade. I prefer his ego and one man shop way above companies or committees, much more interactive communication possible, faster response, more suggestions accepted. The company where I got my expensive (other) RIP has none of that.

Just don't touch the UI subject, nobody changed his mind on that subject and for 80 $ one should allow him to keep the design he likes. It will be difficult anyway to structure so many features and choices in a compact program and still oblige to UI standards.

On the codes: it was easier in the past but Mike must have seen more piracy and he added more time restrictions + code changes to counter that. Incredible that some are not prepared to pay what is like a fee for such a versatile program. Nothing of that money you pay is lost in expensive marketing tools, advertising, distribution channels, cosmetic designs (Mike can abandon the UI skin choices too if you ask me), etc. It is all recycled in good, essential features, debugging, lifelong upgrades (Mike's life I guess :-)

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

SeanPuckett · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2007, 11:58:29 am »

Ernst,

Fair comments all.

I use Bibble for much the same reason I use QImage. Bibble has its own quirks and personality issues, but it is far superior in results (which is where it counts) for my use. I love it so much, I wrote the plug-ins!

-s

Gordon Buck · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2007, 01:07:14 pm »

Quote

Well, I have been using QImage for 4 years now, and have never had an issue with getting a replacement unlock code for it when needed, usually within just a couple of hours. I think your statement is kind of misleading and sounds like Mike Chaney would have an issue with getting a legitimate user a replacement unlock code. Any software vendor is going to require some evidence that you have licensed the product, so it is just common sense to keep track of your previous license codes.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Retaining the unlock code is not enough, you must also hang onto the previous download code. This has nothing to do with the output or usefulness of Qimage -- just a caution about the updates.

jpmulligan · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2007, 01:12:12 pm »

Quote

Retaining the unlock code is not enough, you must also hang onto the previous download code.

And why would that be? Sure, if you go back and install an earlier version, I can see that you may want the unlock code for it, but why would I want to go back to an outdated version, once I have satisfied myself that the current version works for me as expected?

gdeliz · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2007, 01:23:04 pm »

As a long-time Mac user, I've never quite trusted apps that are not ported to the Mac. Since a disproportionate number of photographers use Macs the reason for not porting the app becomes even more puzzling. Is the developer afraid that more intelligent users will uncover too many flaws?

George Deliz

rdonson · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2007, 01:42:59 pm »

Quote

Since a disproportionate number of photographers use Macs ......

George Deliz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its largely a question of economics for Mike Chaney.

Mike has run numerous surveys in Qimage asking for those who want a Mac port to vote. I don't think any of the surveys have netted more than 200 votes. Compared to the tens of thousands of people using it on Windoze, the Mac vote is a nit.

With the advent of the MacIntels a number of people are running Qimage on their Macs using Parallels.

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nice to have a Mac version . Most people feel that Mike should spend his time adding features rather than spending his limited time and resources on a Mac port.

You never know though. Adobe or Microsoft could offer to make Mike a millionaire any day and the whole story could change.

Gordon Buck · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2007, 06:23:37 pm »

Quote

And why would that be? Sure, if you go back and install an earlier version, I can see that you may want the unlock code for it, but why would I want to go back to an outdated version, once I have satisfied myself that the current version works for me as expected?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can't download the trial version and use your old unlock code. To use the old unlock code, you have to download the update. To download the update, you need the download code that you last used. That's why I say that you need to hang onto all your old codes. I thought that keeping the unlock code would be enough; it never occurred to me to keep the download code.

Bob Walters · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:28:45 am »

Quote

Well, I have been using QImage for 4 years now, and have never had an issue with getting a replacement unlock code for it when needed, usually within just a couple of hours. I think your statement is kind of misleading and sounds like Mike Chaney would have an issue with getting a legitimate user a replacement unlock code. Any software vendor is going to require some evidence that you have licensed the product, so it is just common sense to keep track of your previous license codes.

Yes, some people have had problems, but the majority of postings that I have read on the Yahoo group message board for QImage regarding this issue has usually resolved to being a problem with email systems and spam filters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am also a long time Qimage user and what you say about not having a problem getting a replacement unlock code is true; however, you may have to pay for it. So it depends on if you define "problem" as being forced to dip into your wallet or not.

I misplaced my code about 6 months ago and had to pay a nominal fee for Mike to look it up. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but the warning to keep track of your Qimage code data is a good one and could save you a few bucks someday.

I concur with the comments about the clumsy interface, which is why I have stripped my Qimage work-flow down to the bare minimum. If one is willing to invest the time to learn the various options, it has quite a bit of power. I prefer to devote what's left of my old brain to being as proficient as possible with Photoshop and I mostly use Qimage as a layout program. Having said that, it is true that I use Qimage for almost every printing job.

Bob

jpmulligan · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:57:57 pm »

I really wasn't trying to hijack this thread to turn it to a discussion about the license codes, but I just felt that in the overall scheme of things QImage-related, it is a relatively minor issue and shouldn't dissuade someone from trying QImage.

However, I realize that just because I haven't had a problem doesn't mean that others haven't had annoyances in this area. Software licensing is always a sticky issue and Mike is one of the few entrepreneurs around that is trying to support a user community at the same time as also trying to protect his intellectual property from the wolf at the door. He does a great job and sells a great utility program at a reasonable cost. For me at least, his constant attention to providing upgrades and improvements make it one of the best bang-for-buck bargains out there.

Gordon Buck · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:03:35 pm »

I agree, Qimage is a good product. I'd purchase it again. Just save all your emails.

fike · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:43:41 pm »

I got it to allow me to get around limitations on the length of images made on roll paper. I now use it for all my printing. After you get acustomed to the awkward interface, it becomes a pretty good tool.

It isn't a page layout tool
text captioning stinks
the first 6 months with the tool are frustrating

...but, it makes noticeably better prints than PS CS3. I couldn't live without it. My 13" x 60" panoramics look fantastic with Qimage.

Qimage is one major reason I haven't moved to a Macintosh yet. There is so much great software made by independent shops aiming at the PC market. The same thing doesn't exist for the Mac. I use downloader pro. Qimage. PTAssembler. All of these are quirky tools that are better than the big guys can make.

Can you tell, I like the tool.

rdonson · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2007, 06:43:30 am »

Quote

After you get accustomed to the awkward interface, it becomes a pretty good tool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I tell people about Photoshop too.

Author Topic: QiMage Review/Article on Luminous Landscape? (Read 8890 times)