Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...
That's an interesting remark, but yet I wonder ...
How do people work in LR in practice? I've used earlier versions of Lightroom, and liked some parts, but not
the integrated workflow. It's even different enough from Photoshop to make it less than intuitive to switch between the two of them. Maybe it's due to the way I work, and it makes me wonder how others do. Mind you, this all has nothing to do with shaking old habits, but efficiency!
When I open the results of a shoot, my first action (after making a backup of the Raws) is culling of the files based on general usability for the intended goal. Secondly I mark my shots based on technical quality, and thirdly I flag the best composition/potential wise. There are three iterations I go through almost all of the time. It makes no difference whether I do that in Capture One or Lightroom's Develop module. I most certainly do not do a full workflow run all the way to print as soon as I ingest the Raws into the workflow.
Based on the remaining list of candidates, I will do more postprocessing to strengthen the things I like, or reduce the things I don't. I can do that quite well in Photoshop, and some other tools I might need. I most certainly do not finish the workflow run all the way to print yet.
After all preliminary work, I revisit if I still agree with my earlier vision, maybe a tweak here and there is needed. I most certainly do not print yet.
After setting up the printer, check for cleanliness, check ink levels, perhaps do nozzle cleaning, what have you, only then I am ready to print in the most efficient way possible, including selecting different sizes per images nesting, grouping by paper type, other special requirements, and then send the files of to the printer. I have no problem doing that with Qimage, I can even print teststrips, and if need be tweak the output for that specific paper, even if I print to several paper types. The printjobs and settings get saved for future/repeat use automatically.
This is just as easily, perhaps more efficiently, done with separate applications that are individually the best suited for their part of the workflow.
Where is the benefit of a Leatherman tool with its inevitable Jack of all trades shortcomings in that, efficiency wise?