Qimage: Which version do you recommend

[sm906]

Hi,

after several tests with panorama printing (HP Zx100) I decided to do this with Qimage, because the sharpening is better than what I can achieve with LR 3.3. The overall print quality impression is more pleasing. Only question that remains to me: Which of the current four versions Lite/Pro/Studio/Ultimate should I buy. Pyramid interpolation, which gave me the best test results, is available for all of them. So Qimage Lite seems to be sufficient, also having in mind that the next major release of LR might have improved in terms of sharpening algorithms, might have...

Which Qimage version do you recommend in terms of handling and additional features that might be worth a bit more money? Does the Ultimate version make sense over the other versions, at least in respect of the improved user interface (I am not able to compare this by myself, cause the Lite/Pro/Studio won't work on my PC becaue of previous tests about 9 months ago?

Thomas

[Ernst Dinkla]

Go for Ultimate. That is the one that will be actively updated with new features and already has more features. The GUI is changed compared to the other versions so if you would go for the cheaper versions and later decide to get Ultimate there is a learning process again. The Studio version etc will only be updated to keep them running as I understand it, nothing more.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

[alain]

That depends on you're printing habbits and volume.

I'm very happy with the pro version and this for years.
But I use it for rather easy printjobs (aka one or two images at a time)

[JeffKohn]

I've owned the Professional edition for years, although I don't use it much any more except for smaller prints where the layout capabilities are useful, since I can get better results for large prints by sharpening myself and using Canon's print plugin. But I do feel the Pro version is probably the sweet spot for people who just want to print and don't care about using Qimage for RAW processing, HDR, etc. For instance I found hybrid interpolation to be better than pyramid, and using per-image ICC settings can also be useful. Soft-proofing is also useful. You don't get any of that with lite.

Having said that, Cheney has abandoned development (except for maybe the occasional bugfix) on all versions but Ultimate, and isn't offering an upgrade path to Ultimate. So if you think you might ever want some of the current/future features in Ultimate, you should go ahead and buy that now.

[Nill Toulme]

On my short list of photo processing apps I would not want to be without, Photoshop comes in fourth.  Qimage, BreezeBrowser Pro and Capture One are tied for first.

I use the Studio version, which gets you Hybrid SE interpolation, which is another step up from Hybrid.

If I were starting out now I would go with Ultimate, for the reasons others have mentioned above.

Nill

[davidh202]

I agree fully with what Ernst said and had purchased ultimate even though I have yet to use the RAW editing features.
For only a few dollars more why quibble?
I am still blown away by the amazing results I am getting printing from the  tiny  files some customers have brought in.

[Rhossydd]

The GUI is changed compared to the other version

From the screen shots I've seen there doesn't look to be too much change. In other words, just as awful and unintuitive as the other versions

Anyone with a dual or quad core system would be daft to opt for anything less than the studio version as it's the first one to support multiple CPUs/cores and that makes a big difference in performance when printing. So for the small difference in price it's probably worth going for the Ultimate version.

It's a useful tool, but it's interface and usability need some serious help that Chaney can't seem to deal with on his own.
I use it less and less now LR3.x is so good for printing.

[Paul Sumi]

Anyone with a dual or quad core system would be daft to opt for anything less than the studio version as it's the first one to support multiple CPUs/cores and that makes a big difference in performance when printing. So for the small difference in price it's probably worth going for the Ultimate version.

If you click on the link on the bottom of this blog review of Qimage Ultimate, there is a $10 discount.  FWIW, I'm a Q Studio user who probably won't upgrade to Ultimate unless a future version does something substantially better than Studio with print quality.

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2010/11/printing-series-qimage-ultimate.html

Paul

[Ernst Dinkla]

From the screen shots I've seen there doesn't look to be too much change. In other words, just as awful and unintuitive as the other versions

Which makes the learning curve steeper for both versions and so the change from the first to the second version. I actually prefer the Studio GUI for printing, But you make a lot of GUI mistakes when both are used so a choice has to be made.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +190 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Sven Bernert]

I use it less and less now LR3.x is so good for printing.

Same here. With LR3 being one reason and Mirage the other.

Studio user here btw.

[Rhossydd]

Which makes the learning curve steeper for both versions and so the change from the first to the second version.

I've just downloaded the Ultimate try out and I really can't see any significant differences in UI between them. Just a few subtle changes that would only trip up people who were using this day in, day out as a RIP. For more casual users I'm sure it would be trivial to upgrade.

It's still a very good program, but bits of it annoy me.
None of the issues I have with Qimage seem to have been addressed in the ultimate version. It seems development is driven by a few vocal users and what's easily possible to add, rather than what would significantly benefit all users, but is much harder to implement.

Paul

[mburke]

I don't print professionally but I find that Ultimate is a wonderful program. I don't use it for raw because I use CNX2. There are a lot of other little things I use it for like email, multiple print layouts, ease of changing page sizes, panos, quick changes to brightness, levels, etc . It is really easy to crop photos and do fit to size. The blog is a great environment to find out how to do things. Very friendly. It is the best $90 piece of software I own. Wouldn't want to print without it. It also does a nice job of saving print jobs in case you want to go back and do something again.

Mike

[Ernst Dinkla]

I've just downloaded the Ultimate try out and I really can't see any significant differences in UI between them. Just a few subtle changes that would only trip up people who were using this day in, day out as a RIP. For more casual users I'm sure it would be trivial to upgrade.

It's still a very good program, but bits of it annoy me.
None of the issues I have with Qimage seem to have been addressed in the ultimate version. It seems development is driven by a few vocal users and what's easily possible to add, rather than what would significantly benefit all users, but is much harder to implement.

Paul

To mention some things: If I hit the enter button twice on an image it is loaded in the print queue of Studio, it goes to edit mode in Ultimate. Either the print queue or the image quality settings are shown in Ultimate and the print sizes are in a pop up menu. In Studio all of that is shown in one menu.

I do not see an alternative in other software on the PC that delivers all the features already available. Softproofing, reliable and transparent CM, adjustable extrapolation and print sharpening settings, adjustable anti-aliasing on downsampling and much more. Will work with any Windows compatible printer driver. probably 3/4 of its features I do not use but they are not blocking other features. And that 1/4 I use is worth much more than the $150 total I probably paid for the different versions over the last 7? years.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +190 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Rhossydd]

To mention some things: If I hit the enter button twice on an image it is loaded in the print queue of Studio, it goes to edit mode in Ultimate. Either the print queue or the image quality settings are shown in Ultimate and the print sizes are in a pop up menu. In Studio all of that is shown in one menu.

Sure, just a minor change of behaviour really, but hardly the "brand new product......offering an all new interface ... a host of innovative new features." that it claims on the web page. That sort of hype would be illegal on a UK press ad.

Yes, Qimage remains a fantastic program with many great and unique features. It just pains me that it could be so much better and easier to use, but that's not going to happen.

[JeffKohn]

It's still a very good program, but bits of it annoy me.
None of the issues I have with Qimage seem to have been addressed in the ultimate version. It seems development is driven by a few vocal users and what's easily possible to add, rather than what would significantly benefit all users, but is much harder to implement.

I agree, the product seems to have lost its focus. So many of the newer features seem to be less about optimizing print quality and layout, and more about trying to be some sort of all-in-one program (does he really think he can compete with Lightroom?). I wish there was a version that had all the latest/greatest features related to actual printing, while leaving out the other crap. While there are some printing-related features in Studio/Ultimate I wouldn't mind having, I can't stomach upgrading when much of the development effort and feature set are focused on stuff I just don't care about. And the way he's giving previous customers the shaft with the "all new" Ultimate edition also stinks IMHO.

[Craig Murphy]

I print with Qimage also and found nothing in the new version that added to its printing ability so did not upgrade.  No reason to.

[Rhossydd]

And the way he's giving previous customers the shaft with the "all new" Ultimate edition also stinks IMHO.

Anyone offering free upgrades with no limit is a bit naive or myopic. Although here has been comment on his forums for years that users were willing to pay for upgrades to support Qimage in the longer term. The way he's chosen to generate new revenue from Q seems a bit poorly thought out.
A reduced cost upgrade to the new version, followed by fees for significant upgrades, might have caught more people willing to support the product. Instead asking people to shell out for the same again with a few tweaks added, then pay an annual fee to fix the inevitable bugs seems to show a lack of understanding of his market.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Shouldn't we discuss Adobe's pricing instead and the conditions of use? I have one CS4 version running. Harddisc problems prevented twice the inactivation on another system. By God's grace I can have one running now while I would love to have CS2 running too for Kodak's Colorflow plug-in. An update of Lightroom is more expensive than a Qimage Ultimate purchase and some years of updates. There's a copy of Adobe's PressReady in the cupboard, one release, an update, and Adobe pulled the plug. 10 years ago more expensive in $ than Qimage Ultimate is right now.

Mike will keep the other versions running on the Windows versions to come as I understand it. Anyone ever seen a similar support for Adobe software on for example Apple OS systems? Yes, the lifelong support and updates promise was too good to be true, I believe he kept that promise up for 11 years and the original purchasers can still use the software. In some cases that means the user paid less than 3 dollar a year for software still usable and updated over the 11 years. The Dutch are known for their purchasing practice: giving too little and asking too much. But I can assure you with deals like that we keep our mouths shut when there could be slightly less in the bag than expected.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +190 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Rhossydd]

Shouldn't we discuss Adobe's pricing instead and the conditions of use?

No. It's of no relevance to the OP's question and it's been thrashed to death in the past anyway.

Mike will keep the other versions running on the Windows versions to come as I understand it.

Wishful thinking on his part. If there's major changes to the OS eg only available as a 64bit version, you'll find he'll amend his wording to say he will only keep it working on the systems it was designed for. He's been lucky so far that Windows has kept legacy support for applications for extremely long time scales(in computer terms).

To get back to the OP question; Maybe if you believe the claim support for the older versions will continue indefinitely, maybe the studio version is the one to opt for as you might not have to pay for an upgrade for the next OS ?
Studio is, after all, pretty much bug fixed and stable now.

[Ernst Dinkla]

To get back to the OP question; Maybe if you believe the claim support for the older versions will continue indefinitely, maybe the studio version is the one to opt for as you might not have to pay for an upgrade for the next OS ?
Studio is, after all, pretty much bug fixed and stable now.

Well I asked for 0.1 mm precise feedback on image positions on the print page for ages. I have a use for that. It was added to Ultimate and not to Studio. Mike added the roll trimming feature in Ultimate. You create a very long print page that fits the width of the roll and when the images are placed you crop the print page to the last image added. RIP like feature asked for a long time ago as well. There's more of that on the printing side, development certainly isn't limited to the input side.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +190 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm