Using Qimage on a Mac

[robgo2]

I have read some of the threads discussing supposed limitations of printing with the Mac OS, particularly Snow Leopard, and after looking at some of my prints critically, I must admit that color fidelity and saturation are not as good as they might be.  I have also read many praiseworthy comments about Qimage as a print manager.  I realize that this could be accomplished on the Mac via Parallels, but does it really work any better than simply using CS5 with OS 10.6?  If so, can I use the custom paper profiles that I already have for CS5, or will I have to have new profiles made?

Thanks,
Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have read some of the threads discussing supposed limitations of printing with the Mac OS, particularly Snow Leopard, and after looking at some of my prints critically, I must admit that color fidelity and saturation are not as good as they might be.  I have also read many praiseworthy comments about Qimage as a print manager.  I realize that this could be accomplished on the Mac via Parallels, but does it really work any better than simply using CS5 with OS 10.6?  If so, can I use the custom paper profiles that I already have for CS5, or will I have to have new profiles made?

Hi Rob,

As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. You can use your regular ICC paper profiles, and Qimage will remember them after the first use with a certain paper type. You can use the program for free during it's grace period, but I suggest to read some of the included Learn-by-Example tutorials. They are the fastest way to get the hang of the 'different' user interface. That way you'll have more time left to tinker with the different options, there are many.

Cheers,
Bart

[robgo2]

Hi Rob,

As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. You can use your regular ICC paper profiles, and Qimage will remember them after the first use with a certain paper type. You can use the program for free during it's grace period, but I suggest to read some of the included Learn-by-Example tutorials. They are the fastest way to get the hang of the 'different' user interface. That way you'll have more time left to tinker with the different options, there are many.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks, Bart.  Have you personally used Qimage on a Mac, or do you know of others who have?  I would like to know if it is worth going through the effort and expense.

I have already downloaded a trial version of Parallels only to discover that I still need a copy of Windows 7 for it to operate.  Naively, I thought that the program would include Windows.  I will first get that set up before downloading the trial version of Qimage.

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks, Bart.  Have you personally used Qimage on a Mac, or do you know of others who have?

Hi Rob,

I'm working on a Windows Platform personally, which is what drives my Qimage and Canon printer. You can check the Qimage forum if there are Mac users participating there, if nobody steps forward here.

I would like to know if it is worth going through the effort and expense.

Maybe there is a Qimage user in your region with the same printer you use, willing to do a comparison print? Alternatively, you could ask a QI user to print an image (crop) to a file (instead of to a printer). You could then print that file unaltered to your printer and compare it to your current output flow. Qimage allows to print to file for those using external/off-line printers, but the ready-to-print files are obviously huge when they are stored instead of printed on the fly.

Cheers,
Bart

[shewhorn]

I have read some of the threads discussing supposed limitations of printing with the Mac OS, particularly Snow Leopard, and after looking at some of my prints critically, I must admit that color fidelity and saturation are not as good as they might be.

Most of the issues surrounding Snow Leopard are with regards to printing an untagged profile. Snow Leopard did have some early issues but as far as I can tell they've all been dealt with. Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) is investigating an issue with Snow Leopard, CS5 and Epson Drivers with v4 ICC profiles built by certain profiling packages. I don't believe those issue affect the actual printable area, rather they affect the non printable area (outside of the print some people area getting a grey border).

Without knowing your printer, workflow and level of expertise it's hard to say what the issue is but I'm reasonably confident that it's not related to Snow Leopard (not saying it isn't, but I think it's unlikely). Over the past month I've built hundreds of profiles with Monaco Profiler as well as a product that's yet to be released and I've not run into anything that is platform related.

I do own (and use) QImage (both natively on a Windows machine as well as running on Windows via Parallels on a Mac). It's a fantastic product at a great price and it has a very nice interpolation algorithm. That said, QImage will not have any impact on color fidelity and saturation. The ICC profile, the printer (or lab) that you're using, the paper you use, and the techniques used to prepare the file are what will influence that. QImage just makes it easy to resize images and maximize printable area on a page or roll when printing multiple images. In terms of color, output from QImage and output via Photoshop are identical.

The only drawback with QImage is that if you have a printer capable of delivering greater than 8 bit resolution (such as Canon and Epson's large format offerings) then you're stuck with 8 bit output. That's fine for a lot of material but for the smoothest gradations a "16 bit" workflow with "16 bit" output (of course the output of many cameras and printers only go up to 14 bits) is the way to go.

I do a lot of event photography and with the volume of photos that I have to process, I typically work in 8 bits but if I'm shooting a landscape or doing something critical, I'll work in 16 bits.

Cheers, Joe

[Langsey]

Looking at their web site its a windows platform only. Mac users would have to use virtual PC or parallels.
John

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I do own (and use) QImage (both natively on a Windows machine as well as running on Windows via Parallels on a Mac). It's a fantastic product at a great price and it has a very nice interpolation algorithm. That said, QImage will not have any impact on color fidelity and saturation. The ICC profile, the printer (or lab) that you're using, the paper you use, and the techniques used to prepare the file are what will influence that. QImage just makes it easy to resize images and maximize printable area on a page or roll when printing multiple images. In terms of color, output from QImage and output via Photoshop are identical.

Hi Joe,

Useful feedback, thanks.

The only drawback with QImage is that if you have a printer capable of delivering greater than 8 bit resolution (such as Canon and Epson's large format offerings) then you're stuck with 8 bit output. That's fine for a lot of material but for the smoothest gradations a "16 bit" workflow with "16 bit" output (of course the output of many cameras and printers only go up to 14 bits) is the way to go.

True, but apparently only Windows XPS drivers currently support a 16-bit pipeline to the printer. The most critical moment is of course the conversion from file colorspace to printer colorspace. I'm not sure how Qimage handles that specific conversion, presumably floating point calculations (on smoothly interpolated data, another benefit for native printer resolution upsampling!), so there is only very little left for the printer dithering to add in the sense of accuracy.

Cheers,
Bart

[robgo2]

Most of the issues surrounding Snow Leopard are with regards to printing an untagged profile. Snow Leopard did have some early issues but as far as I can tell they've all been dealt with. Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) is investigating an issue with Snow Leopard, CS5 and Epson Drivers with v4 ICC profiles built by certain profiling packages. I don't believe those issue affect the actual printable area, rather they affect the non printable area (outside of the print some people area getting a grey border).

Without knowing your printer, workflow and level of expertise it's hard to say what the issue is but I'm reasonably confident that it's not related to Snow Leopard (not saying it isn't, but I think it's unlikely). Over the past month I've built hundreds of profiles with Monaco Profiler as well as a product that's yet to be released and I've not run into anything that is platform related.

I do own (and use) QImage (both natively on a Windows machine as well as running on Windows via Parallels on a Mac). It's a fantastic product at a great price and it has a very nice interpolation algorithm. That said, QImage will not have any impact on color fidelity and saturation. The ICC profile, the printer (or lab) that you're using, the paper you use, and the techniques used to prepare the file are what will influence that. QImage just makes it easy to resize images and maximize printable area on a page or roll when printing multiple images. In terms of color, output from QImage and output via Photoshop are identical.

The only drawback with QImage is that if you have a printer capable of delivering greater than 8 bit resolution (such as Canon and Epson's large format offerings) then you're stuck with 8 bit output. That's fine for a lot of material but for the smoothest gradations a "16 bit" workflow with "16 bit" output (of course the output of many cameras and printers only go up to 14 bits) is the way to go.

I do a lot of event photography and with the volume of photos that I have to process, I typically work in 8 bits but if I'm shooting a landscape or doing something critical, I'll work in 16 bits.

Cheers, Joe

Joe, thanks for your input.  I use custom profiles made by Eric Chan, and I followed his instructions for printing the color targets, which I think bypasses the issues that have occurred with Snow Leopard.  My prints are not bad, but there is definitely some loss of saturation from what I see on the monitor.  From what you have said, I should not expect Qimage to have much impact in that regard.  I use Genuine Fractals for all interpolation and Nik Sharpener Pro for sharpening, so I don't feel the need for Qimage in those areas, even though it may be excellent.  I also soft-proof every image prior to printing.  It sounds like I should work more on that step of the process and make small proof prints prior to the final print.

Rob

[shewhorn]

True, but apparently only Windows XPS drivers currently support a 16-bit pipeline to the printer.

Ahhh, forgot about that. Have any of the manufacturers abandoned writing plugins for 16 bit printing and gone to directly writing XPS drivers?

Here's some dated information from the author of QImage that indicates he'll support it on his side. Of course it's up to Epson, HP, and Canon to deliver the drivers:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage/qimage-with-16bit-printers/

Sounds like Epson as of 11 months ago had no interest in developing 16 bit drivers:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/printers/can-an-epson-pro-3880-provide-16bit-output/

Cheers, Joe

[John Hollenberg]

The only drawback with QImage is that if you have a printer capable of delivering greater than 8 bit resolution (such as Canon and Epson's large format offerings) then you're stuck with 8 bit output. That's fine for a lot of material but for the smoothest gradations a "16 bit" workflow with "16 bit" output (of course the output of many cameras and printers only go up to 14 bits) is the way to go.

However, unless Canon has made a change in the last year or two, the "16 bit plugin" only sends 12 bits of color data to the printer.  This is according to Scott Martin, who did the iPFX300 printer review on LL a while back.

[Scott Martin]

To be more specific, Canon's drivers and plug-ins are now both capable of sending 16 bit data but, at least on the x100 printers, the on-board L-COA processor was *processing* that 16 bit data in a 12 bit mode. The other brands haven't come clean as to what bit depth they are processing their data on board. Some well known evangelists are quick to say that even Epson's $100 printers process data at 16 bits but when I ask direct questions about bit depth processing to Epson's and HP's product managers they are quick to say "no comment" with a grin. Processing that data at higher bit depths gets exponentially more demanding and costly. There a point of diminishing returns and Canon choose to go with 12 bits because they felt it was past that point. Personally I think the distinction between 12, 14, and 16 bits is pretty insignificant and I choose to focus instead of 8 bits vs "high bit depth" paths. And above that, I like to let the final print quality speak for itself. On some printers you can send a grainger rainbow in 8 or 16 bit modes and see a real (albeit small) improvement at high bit depth, whereas on some printers you won't see a difference at all - that's valuable info.

As for the OP's points, there is NO downside to using the Mac - no compromises of saturation or DMax whatsoever. The drivers from all printer brands are equal in this respect in a cross platform manner. Running Qimage on the Mac is a pain that I can't recommend. ImageNest will soon have the same interpolation capability plus a lot more layout capability in a slick, Mac friendly (good looking, intuitive, a joy to use, etc) application. Since ImageNest uses the drivers you can send in 16 bits if the driver supports it.

It sounds like you need to focus on your profiles, paper choices, display calibration, and color management implementation. Grasp the inherent gamut differences that different printing processes and papers provide. I don't think that solutions like Qimage are going to be the magical solution that your looking for. You can get the quality that you're looking for printing from PS or LR when married to the right techniques.

[deanwork]

And what is the deal with the True Black and White workflow available for the Canon IPFs. Is it utilizing high-bit depth data in an effective way this is visible in prints made from quality dslr and drum scan files?

j

[shewhorn]

However, unless Canon has made a change in the last year or two, the "16 bit plugin" only sends 12 bits of color data to the printer.

Hence my use of quotes for "16 bit".

I'll ask Kimbro Gray from Canon but prior to the release of the x300 series I asked him about bit depth I believe he said the new x300 series is working at 14 bits. I just sent an email off to him to double check that figure.

Cheers, Joe

[Ernst Dinkla]

Here's some dated information from the author of QImage that indicates he'll support it on his side. Of course it's up to Epson, HP, and Canon to deliver the drivers:

Cheers, Joe

There is another promise by Mike on 16 bit RAW conversions:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/48-bit-%2816-bit-per-channel%29-tiff-output-possible/?action=printpage

Two years ago I wasn't sure that we ever should see more than 8 bit data paths through Qimage, I don't think it will last another two years and we have 16 bit throughout.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/



 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thanks, Bart.  Have you personally used Qimage on a Mac, or do you know of others who have?  I would like to know if it is worth going through the effort and expense.

I have. I don't.

QImage makes good prints but its user interface is little short of bizarre, even by Windows standards. I've used it under XP (with VMWare Fusion rather than Parallels, for no particularly good reason) and I cursed it, and Windows, every time.

I now find that Lightroom 3 gives me the adaptive output sharpening that I need and can do layouts. Not having to use Windows is bliss (well, not bliss but definitely an improvement in my life).

The only reason I can see myself going back to QImage is if I wanted to make a print longer than 37" on my 3800, as I gather it does something clever which allows this.

FWIW

Jeremy

[shewhorn]

Hence my use of quotes for "16 bit".

I'll ask Kimbro Gray from Canon but prior to the release of the x300 series I asked him about bit depth I believe he said the new x300 series is working at 14 bits. I just sent an email off to him to double check that figure.

Cheers, Joe

Here's his response. My information was a little bit off but not too far:

1) There is no native Postscript driver for the large format printers, you need a RIP for processing postscript. (My comment... I wasn't clear in my question, I said PS Driver and should have said Photoshop Plugin, he took PS to mean Postscript).
2) Regarding the printer driver and print plug-in, the device / driver combination will process data in a variety of bit depths. The quality settings in the driver determine this. Only the very highest setting uses 14 bit. High settings otherwise use 12. And then of course the 8 bit is the standard depth.
3) This has not changed from the X100 series to the X300 series. What has changed are some of the rendering intent capabilities, access to different color engines, and the availability of black point compensation for enhancement of shadow details.

[John Hollenberg]

1) There is no native Postscript driver for the large format printers, you need a RIP for processing postscript. (My comment... I wasn't clear in my question, I said PS Driver and should have said Photoshop Plugin, he took PS to mean Postscript).
2) Regarding the printer driver and print plug-in, the device / driver combination will process data in a variety of bit depths. The quality settings in the driver determine this. Only the very highest setting uses 14 bit. High settings otherwise use 12. And then of course the 8 bit is the standard depth.
3) This has not changed from the X100 series to the X300 series. What has changed are some of the rendering intent capabilities, access to different color engines, and the availability of black point compensation for enhancement of shadow details.

Thanks!  Wiki FAQ updated with this new information:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Plugin+Bit+Depth

[Scott Martin]

2) Regarding the printer driver and print plug-in, the device / driver combination will process data in a variety of bit depths. The quality settings in the driver determine this. Only the very highest setting uses 14 bit. High settings otherwise use 12. And then of course the 8 bit is the standard depth.

These comments are not in line from the information I've gotten higher up. The plug-in has buttons for sending either 8 or 16 bits. The Quality options control the screening and, most importantly, *the number of passes* the print head takes over an area. If the quality settings effected bit depth, why would they bother with the 8 or 16 bit buttons? If the x000 and x100 printers could only process in 12 bits why would they choose to send variably and send more than 12 bits with the Highest setting? Respectfully, I think he has clearly confused the variable number of passes with the bit depth.

[natas]

I just wanted to chime in and also recommend ImageNest. I stopped using Qimage since the 3.0 version of Imagenest came out. The new version they are working on will have print sharpening built in along with many other options.

BTW the save paper feature in ImageNest is very nice (for epson printers)

[shewhorn]

These comments are not in line from the information I've gotten higher up. The plug-in has buttons for sending either 8 or 16 bits. The Quality options control the screening and, most importantly, *the number of passes* the print head takes over an area. If the quality settings effected bit depth, why would they bother with the 8 or 16 bit buttons? If the x000 and x100 printers could only process in 12 bits why would they choose to send variably and send more than 12 bits with the Highest setting? Respectfully, I think he has clearly confused the variable number of passes with the bit depth.

Scott,

That certainly intuitively makes more sense to me and I'd always understood that the x100 series operated at 12 bits.

Cheers, Joe