Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: John V. on September 07, 2016, 02:08:23 am
-
Hi all,
I'm looking for a way to easily load multiple images into photoshop and have them laid out/arranged within a blank psd for print-to make the best use of roll media. There a script or some such that can do this?
Thanks
-
SilverFast's PrinTao 8 application has canned templates templates that are designed exactly for this purpose. We reviewed it on this website some time back.
-
Hi all,
I'm looking for a way to easily load multiple images into photoshop and have them laid out/arranged within a blank psd for print-to make the best use of roll media. There a script or some such that can do this?
Hi,
I don't know if there is a specifc script for Photoshop that could handle that, but it seems sub-optimal to use Photoshop for that. There is a number of applications that are dedicated print management systems, and nesting (the automatic 'optimal' placement of images on a page) has been part of their functionality almost since day one.
I use Qimage (Ultimate) (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/index.html) for something like over a decade and a half, and it has had that functionality (along with many other printing related features) as long as I can remember.
Re-inventing the wheel, for something that is tried and tested, seems a bit of a wasted effort. People who have used Qimage (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/index.html) are generally delighted by the improved image quality and time and material savings they achieve, as these older comments (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/21565334) demonstrate. And people are today still saying that it is one of the best software purchases they have ever done, and it's not expensive either.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/embed/dZcgbrdf5eA) will show the nesting in action.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But no Mac version and unlikely ever to be developed - yes I know one can load Windows onto a Mac and use it, but added cost and perhaps other issues.
-
Or get a last generation (or 2) PC and directly load Qimage on that directly.
Probably still less expensive than Printao8 esp if you are using *both* Canon and Epson printers (which is 2x the cost).
Off topic: That's not the first time I've seen different products for either Canon or Epson and if you use
both, you'd need to buy the software twice.
-
Not sure I'm properly visualizing the arrangement you're going for, but I think Lightroom can do this.
-
Not sure I'm properly visualizing the arrangement you're going for, but I think Lightroom can do this.
That's what I was thinking as well.
-
Not sure I'm properly visualizing the arrangement you're going for, but I think Lightroom can do this.
The goal is to efficiently fit multiple images in as small a (paper size) space as possible. Maybe rotation is allowed (allows optimal fitting), maybe not, maybe some edge-space must be left between images, maybe not.
One solution is to work with a template, like Mark suggested. The drawback is that it's not flexible, and one always has to fill the template in the same way with the same image sizes. Switching/deleting images or removing one, will require lots of editing if multiple sizes are involved.
The other solution is to automate the process, e.g. with a custom made Photoshop script (which is Javascript like, so it can be quite flexible, but requires maintenance for newer versions).
The easiest solution is using an existing program that does the nesting automatically (and creates higher quality output).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Or get a last generation (or 2) PC and directly load Qimage on that directly.
Probably still less expensive than Printao8 esp if you are using *both* Canon and Epson printers (which is 2x the cost).
Off topic: That's not the first time I've seen different products for either Canon or Epson and if you use
both, you'd need to buy the software twice.
Ya but Howard, for those on Mac, think of the operational overhead working the photos in one system and then transferring them into another system for printing. Sure it's doable, but a nuisance. I for one would not like to bother with either this overhead, or reverting to Windows for that matter. I used Windows from 1991 till 2010 and frankly, without wanting to start a Mac:Windows flame war, all told I'm much happier on OSX - one can't pinpoint any one glaring killer advantage; it's a whole bunch of little and not so little things that just add-up to a better computing experience, at least for me. They all have their issues, so this is an "on balance" rapid assessment that not all will agree with.
As for PrinTao licenses, I can also think of business models more attractive to users than buying the same piece of software twice, but if that prices PrinTao out of contention for some folks, as it would, it's for LSI to decide how they'll optimize market and revenue for their products - they'll win some and lose some.
-
The easiest solution is using an existing program that does the nesting automatically (and creates higher quality output).
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, this makes the most sense, and as far as I know, not doable in LR. In LR one can select the "Custom" layout option and position the photos manually on the page to maximize page fill, but that is a manual process which takes time and thought one page at a time.
-
Mirage Print does that also. You can download a trial version.
-
Ya but Howard, for those on Mac, think of the operational overhead working the photos in one system and then transferring them into another system for printing. Sure it's doable, but a nuisance. I for one would not like to bother with either this overhead, or reverting to Windows for that matter. I used Windows from 1991 till 2010 and frankly, without wanting to start a Mac:Windows flame war, all told I'm much happier on OSX - one can't pinpoint any one glaring killer advantage; it's a whole bunch of little and not so little things that just add-up to a better computing experience, at least for me. They all have their issues, so this is an "on balance" rapid assessment that not all will agree with.
As for PrinTao licenses, I can also think of business models more attractive to users than buying the same piece of software twice, but if that prices PrinTao out of contention for some folks, as it would, it's for LSI to decide how they'll optimize market and revenue for their products - they'll win some and lose some.
Mark,
I'm a longtime Unix & Mac user (in fact, managing very large Unix server installations is what keeps a roof over my family's head) so I'm well aware of issues w/ system integration and the rich wonderfullness of dealing with Windows <sarcasm>. Yes, it's a crying shame that Qimage is (and will apparently never be) done as anything but a Windows application but the OP deserves to hear about what possible options are available to solve his problem and then he can make his own decision about what tradeoffs are acceptable be they OSX or Windows based. I personally wouldn't be particularly interested in the Printao product, esp. as I reconsider my 'commitment' to Epson printers and already have a Qimage license (via Virtualbox/Win7 on my Mac which is pretty seamless albeit not as polished perhaps as Fusion/Parallels) but everyone's mileage may vary and I respect that. Heck, there is even ImageMagick's 'montage' command that could be used for $0 if the OP/user is so inclined.
-
............... but the OP deserves to hear about what possible options are available to solve his problem and then he can make his own decision about what tradeoffs are acceptable be they OSX or Windows based.
Completely agree.
I keep hearing such good things about QImage I was just expressing some frustration that one needs to deal with Windows for using it - more palatable to some than to others of course.
-
Completely agree.
I keep hearing such good things about QImage I was just expressing some frustration that one needs to deal with Windows for using it - more palatable to some than to others of course.
Hi Mark,
The frustration is understandable, but it was also frustration that made Mike Chaney (the author of Qimage) give up on the effort to make a Mac OS version. It can be read here (http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/may-2010-some-sour-apples/). Besides, the Mac installed base is too small for him to suffer the restrictions for developers. There's not enough reward in it, and too much inflexibility and frustration.
Luckily, Parallels seems to work very well on a Mac, and Qimage functions fine under Parallels (and other virtual machines).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Mark,
The frustration is understandable, but it was also frustration that made Mike Chaney (the author of Qimage) give up on the effort to make a Mac OS version. It can be read here (http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/may-2010-some-sour-apples/). Besides, the Mac installed base is too small for him to suffer the restrictions for developers. There's not enough reward in it, and too much inflexibility and frustration.
Luckily, Parallels seems to work very well on a Mac, and Qimage functions fine under Parallels (and other virtual machines).
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Thanks, yes I was familiar with the story and understandable; but about half the graphic arts community is on Windows, the other half on Mac, so for him it's a choice to put up with the trouble or lose a substantial chunk of this potential market and he made his choice. That's fine. I do have Parallels and Windows 7 Professional on a MacBook Pro which I thought may come in handy sometimes for my consulting work, as that world is almost all Windows. Turned out to be a waste of money, but I know how it works and you're right - it is very good. However, the level of print quality I get from Lightroom (including B&W work) really makes it superfluous to buy Parallels and Windows for my desktop then go to the trouble of installing it and using it, rendering files etc. I would only do all that if I thought the value-added would really make it worthwhile and I'm not there.
-
The frustration is understandable, but it was also frustration that made Mike Chaney (the author of Qimage) give up on the effort to make a Mac OS version. It can be read here (http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/may-2010-some-sour-apples/). Besides, the Mac installed base is too small for him to suffer the restrictions for developers. There's not enough reward in it, and too much inflexibility and frustration.
I really don't believe much of that from the developer. Programmes are generally written in a common programming language and then compiled for whatever machine they run on. Apple controls the environment because they want the programmes to work on all machines with all types of hardware and generally they supply the drivers for the printers. The current Mac OS will run on machines from 2007. Sounds like a good idea to me. In this market of photographers, designers and printers the Mac market would certainly not be smaller. It just sounds like he was not interested. Mirage seemed to have no problem making cross platform versions.
-
Thank goodness Apple does not supply printer drivers for Epson and Canon professional printers.
-
Mirage seemed to have no problem making cross platform versions.
For those prices, even I could try to cope with some of the mentioned corporate arrogance. But mind you, he is not the only developer that reports similar events. Mike just has a different business model, and he listens to what the customers want/need, and he needs to be able and react swiftly. That would be very difficult with Apple.
And he was right then about the future of mobile platforms as well, Android has overtaken iOS.
And there must have been a reason why Microsoft tried buying Qimage from Mike, an offer he declined.
One doesn't sell the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mike just has a different business model, and he listens to what the customers want/need, and he needs to be able and react swiftly. That would be very difficult with Apple.
Agree with the first part, the 2nd no. Look at a superb, Mac only raw converter, built by one guy; Iridient Developer.
As a partner in a company that makes a rather simple cross platform software product (three actually;PhotoKit suite), we do need to consider the business model and customers but I can say that either platform has it's own unique challenges. One isn't better, easier than the other. So no, making Apple the bad guy here doesn't wash. Both Mike and Brian have made their own decisions about supporting a single platform, we have to live with that without blame.
-
Android has overtaken iOS.
That sounds good until you realise that is only total number of devices of all manufacturers vs devices of one manufacturer. Individual market share and the ability to make a profit = R&D is minimal.
The reality is that total usage for things other than phones is far higher on iOS. That is because of iTunes, the apps, the apps that work and the apps that work all the time. Our town put in a wifi system for tourists and over 60% of devices are Apple. When I travel the iPhone is all I take IT wise.
http://www.kiama.nsw.gov.au/your-council/news---media/media-releases/public-wi-fi-launched
-
Agree with the first part, the 2nd no. Look at a superb, Mac only raw converter, built by one guy; Iridient Developer.
As a partner in a company that makes a rather simple cross platform software product (three actually;PhotoKit suite), we do need to consider the business model and customers but I can say that either platform has it's own unique challenges. One isn't better, easier than the other. So no, making Apple the bad guy here doesn't wash. Both Mike and Brian have made their own decisions about supporting a single platform, we have to live with that without blame.
There are a number of differences between the software development methods and update frequencies of the parties mentioned.
The main difference is that Mike is very prolific with tweaks and improvements, often weekly. And on the rare occasion it takes a couple of weeks between updates, it's usually because he was inventing another major new feature or improvement. They get added on a regular basis, some for specialized use, like new drone camera profiles, some for all users like a ColorManagement engine upgrade, or a fix for bug introduced by the latest OS version (Win10 Anniversary upgrade not recognizing default printer). Because Qimage supports all printers that use a printer driver, there are lots of different issues that can crop up. And if a user proposes a good improvement, Mike will often implement it within a few days, or over the weekend, like we saw with the addition of dithering to improve the output quality of the usual 8-bit per channel print pipeline.
That's quite different from the occasional maintenance release or update for a new Raw format that the other developers produce, and that can wait for an approval process.
So it's not a blame game, it's just different requirements in responsiveness. Both models work, but they are for different folks.
Cheers,
Bart