Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Robert Ardill on July 30, 2014, 04:13:34 pm
-
I have QImage Pro that I very occasionally use if I need to print a number of images at different sizes. But normally I use Lightroom to print, with all final resizing / sharpening etc in Photoshop. I have very low volume printing to an HPZ3100 and to an Epson 4880. Landscape prints and digital paintings only, pretty much; sizes 16x12 up to 30x20 typically.
I wonder if anyone has seen real print quality benefits with QImage over Lightroom? If so I would consider moving to QImage Ultimate, but it seems to me that since both packages use the printer driver that if the image is already sized and sharpened that QImage would have no advantages over Lightroom.
Advice most welcome!!
Robert
-
Have you done a search of this site? There have been numerous contributions on this topic. I have read much of it and I doubt you will find a conclusive, non-controversial answer. If you can test both and see which you like better in respect of process and results, it is the best way to address this question.
-
Have you done a search of this site? There have been numerous contributions on this topic. I have read much of it and I doubt you will find a conclusive, non-controversial answer. If you can test both and see which you like better in respect of process and results, it is the best way to address this question.
Hi Mark,
Yes, I have done a search and there are a lot of posts about QImage, but I could not find a comparison with Lightroom. I've just done a test with a small image (12"x9") and I can't see any difference, so perhaps I've answered my own question (although the answer is based on a sample of 1, which is hardly conclusive!).
Robert
-
I would recommend testing for the usual sizes in which you make prints, and select a sample of images having different characteristics, for example, fine detail, or lots of sky where smooth tonal transitions are important or heavy shadows with lots of shadow detail, or a black and white conversion with lots of tonal gradation. These four types at your normal printing sizes should give you a solid appreciation of whether it matters which route you use.
-
I would recommend testing for the usual sizes in which you make prints, and select a sample of images having different characteristics, for example, fine detail, or lots of sky where smooth tonal transitions are important or heavy shadows with lots of shadow detail, or a black and white conversion with lots of tonal gradation. These four types at your normal printing sizes should give you a solid appreciation of whether it matters which route you use.
Thanks Mark - Have you tried these tests yourself, and if so, what was your conclusion (for your images)?
Going at it from a slightly more theoretical than practical point of view, if the image is print-ready (in other words, if all of the cropping/resizing, tonal adjustment, sharpening, etc., has already been done), and all that we are asking of QImage and Lightroom (or Photoshop ... or other printing software) is to convert the image from the working space to the destination space (via the same CMM) and then feed the output to the print driver ... is there anything that could differentiate the quality of their output?
On the other hand, I don't see where a CMM can be specified in QImage ... so perhaps it has its own CMM, in which case it might be better for some images and some rendering intents, but not so good for others.
Perhaps this is a topic I need to take up on the QImage forum ... or talk to QImage directly.
Robert
-
Qimage and Qimage Ultimate use LCMS as their color engine. I have not seen problems reported on its color rendering compared to Photoshop or Lightroom. QU behaves well with a variety of profiles I use for my Z3100/Z3200.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Going at it from a slightly more theoretical than practical point of view, if the image is print-ready (in other words, if all of the cropping/resizing, tonal adjustment, sharpening, etc., has already been done), and all that we are asking of QImage and Lightroom (or Photoshop ... or other printing software) is to convert the image from the working space to the destination space (via the same CMM) and then feed the output to the print driver ... is there anything that could differentiate the quality of their output?
Hi Robert,
Even if one doesn't use the usually better resampling algorithms, Qimage Ultimate has the capability to use the amazing (halo-free) Deep-Focus Sharpening (DFS) as output sharpening. Using both resampling quality and DFS, should (and does) provide superior quality, although the differences get more prominent with increasing output sizes.
Here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89357.115), here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54798.msg447163#msg447163), and here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74359.0) is some more discussion about some of these aspects.
On the other hand, I don't see where a CMM can be specified in QImage ... so perhaps it has its own CMM, in which case it might be better for some images and some rendering intents, but not so good for others.
Qimage uses the LCMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_CMS) engine for its color management.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Mark - Have you tried these tests yourself, and if so, what was your conclusion (for your images)?
Robert
No I have not. My suggestions are based on how I would go about doing such tests if I had the inclination to do so. But I do not, because I am on Mac, do not intend to install Parallels and Windows on this computer for what may be little (if any) incremental advantage (a lot of expense and potential Windows-related security issues) and I have been fully satisfied with the quality of print output I get from Lightroom, including the sharpening, which is very well-implemented. I know a huge number of Windows users think very highly of QImage, so if I were on Windows I would definitely test it quite thoroughly relative to Lightroom.
To be mindful of: I see from their website that QImage does not yet support the Sony a6000, which entered the market about four months ago. I would be frustrated by this because it is the camera I most use these days. Also, I could not find whether QImage supports soft-proofing. If that were correct, I would not use it for printing photographs, because I consider soft-proofing an important final step in adjusting my images for print. If I am wrong about that, so much the better for QImage.
-
No I have not. My suggestions are based on how I would go about doing such tests if I had the inclination to do so. But I do not, because I am on Mac, do not intend to install Parallels and Windows on this computer for what may be little (if any) incremental advantage (a lot of expense and potential Windows-related security issues) and I have been fully satisfied with the quality of print output I get from Lightroom, including the sharpening, which is very well-implemented. I know a huge number of Windows users think very highly of QImage, so if I were on Windows I would definitely test it quite thoroughly relative to Lightroom.
To be mindful of: I see from their website that QImage does not yet support the Sony a6000, which entered the market about four months ago. I would be frustrated by this because it is the camera I most use these days. Also, I could not find whether QImage supports soft-proofing. If that were correct, I would not use it for printing photographs, because I consider soft-proofing an important final step in adjusting my images for print. If I am wrong about that, so much the better for QImage.
Check Google (no need to install Parallels for that)
Sony A6000 is supported in QU since early July. http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-raw.htm
Softproof existed in the old Qimage Pro already; Ctrl+space gives the softproof image + information of the printer profile/rendering, hit space again and the normal image appears, Esc to go back to the main menu. Robert will know that.
In QU profiling can be adapted per image when several are already nested on the print page. Few applications or RIPs that have that feature. There are more QU features like that. Whether Roberts needs QU given his low print volume is a question I can not answer. Print quality like Qimage can deliver is possible with Lightroom + some other applications Bart mentioned in other threads. Whether it works as fast and easy as QU is another matter. Recalling old jobs with the right QU + printer driver settings is one of the things I would not like to miss. The QU job log is precious data for me.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Yes right, on closer inspection of the list of supported cameras I see it is there - thanks for the correction.
Yes, one can use Windows without Parallels, but that means using Bootcamp, which is much less convenient. Anyhow, Parallels is a relatively inexpensive add-on compared with the price of buying Windows, an OS I left in 2010 and would be very reluctant to return to unless I had no options. I have it on my laptop - did that for my consulting work "just in case" of compatibility issues for files I receive from others, but so far have made very little use of it. If QImage came out with a Mac version, at least out of intellectual curiosity, I would be interested in testing it versus Lightroom.
-
I have Lr, Ps, and QImage Ultimate. I use QImage when I need to exceed the Epson print length limit, and when I need to use different profiles for different images printed on the same sheet - I use is very little. I do no printer prep in Ps nowadays; I use it for layers and cloning when I need those.
There are several things I really dislike about QImage, including the user interface and the layout preview (which is way, way too small). There isn't a sufficient quality difference to make it worthwhile for me.
Brian A
-
Hi Robert,
Even if one doesn't use the usually better resampling algorithms, Qimage Ultimate has the capability to use the amazing (halo-free) Deep-Focus Sharpening (DFS) as output sharpening. Using both resampling quality and DFS, should (and does) provide superior quality, although the differences get more prominent with increasing output sizes.
Here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89357.115), here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54798.msg447163#msg447163), and here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74359.0) is some more discussion about some of these aspects.
Qimage uses the LCMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_CMS) engine for its color management.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I've been trawling through the links you gave me (with a lot of interest ... and some confusion). To me, for the low-volume printing I do, it comes down to whether QImage can do a better job of resizing an image than I can in Photoshop, and do so more easily.
My workflow is like this: I do the initial development in Lightroom and apply a small amount of development sharpening (most of my images are 1Ds and 1DsIII, so they do need some sharpening, but I keep it at a minimum). I then open the images in Photoshop and after any further adjustments, I size the image for print (at the print resolution - 300ppi or 600ppi for my HPZ3100). I then apply sharpening: I use an edge mask and Smart Sharpen. If necessary I will apply a further small amount of sharpening using the inverted edge mask (so I don't resharpen the edges): I often use the ACR filter for that as I quite like the Masking feature in ACR/Lightroom sharpening). I print from Lightroom, but I do not normally apply any print sharpening.
I've tried to compare this with QImage Ultimate, but my trial has just ended (as I was away for 10 days I've had little time to play with it) and my old version of QImage Pro doesn't have the DFS sharpening. I wonder if you would have (the time and interest to have) a go with this image with QU - and resize it to 2x or 3x. I'll do the same with my normal workflow and we could then compare the two. I'm just thinking of the rendered files themselves, of course, not the actual print.
You can download the image here: it's a crop of a 1DSIII photo. http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/T13339.tif (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/T13339.tif)
Thanks!
Robert
[/quote]
-
Robert, have you tried a 100% LR workflow from ingestion to Print using all of LR's capture sharpening, output sharpening, softproofing and resizing capabilities? If so, what did you find wanting about it that you need to go all these other steps?
-
I've tried to compare this with QImage Ultimate, but my trial has just ended (as I was away for 10 days I've had little time to play with it) and my old version of QImage Pro doesn't have the DFS sharpening. I wonder if you would have (the time and interest to have) a go with this image with QU - and resize it to 2x or 3x. I'll do the same with my normal workflow and we could then compare the two. I'm just thinking of the rendered files themselves, of course, not the actual print.
You can download the image here: it's a crop of a 1DSIII photo. http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/T13339.tif (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/T13339.tif)
Hi Robert,
Here's a temporary link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0it85wqt5d9w49p/T13339_Fusion%2BDFS10_v250.jpg) to a 3x upsample, Fusion interpolation, DFS set to 10 (I have no idea if that's the best setting for your printer / media).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have been using Qimage as my go to printing software since 2003 and have never had the temptation to move to Photoshop or Lightroom. Lightroom is my go to software for processing my raw files and I have used since the initial Beta version. I have Photoshop CS 6. To match the resizing options in Qimage you would have to use the likes of Perfect Resize 8 (formally Genuine Fractals) as a plugin for PS CS or Lightroom at a cost of $150.
Qimage's user interface is different to Photoshop or Lightroom and takes some getting used to but then it is designed mainly as a Print Processing Program and its quality output simply great. You can edit, sharpen, crop, noise reduction whatever without altering the original file. Choose print dimensions, size, final print sharpening and send to print without ever creating any intermediary files.
If I use Lightroom for processing the raw file I can send a tiff via "edit in function" apply any further edits and print options an go.
Actually its the only software program which I use that is keeping me from moving to a Mac system.
-
Robert, have you tried a 100% LR workflow from ingestion to Print using all of LR's capture sharpening, output sharpening, softproofing and resizing capabilities? If so, what did you find wanting about it that you need to go all these other steps?
Hi Mark,
Lightroom is great, but there are many things that are more easily done in Photoshop than Lightroom (and vice-versa), and there are some things that cannot be done in Lightroom but can be in Photoshop. As just one example, it's very difficult to sharpen in Lightroom with an edge mask - with a great deal of time and effort I suppose one could do it with the adjustment brush, but it's a very inefficient way of doing it. On the other hand, it's something that can be done in seconds in Photoshop, using an action.
I tend to work with both Lightroom/ACR and Photoshop together: initial development in Lightroom, then Photoshop with a raw smart object so that I can continue to use the nice ACR adjustments (including sharpening) while having the full power of Photoshop (or I use the Camera Raw Filter); I also use Lightroom to manage all of my pictures, including the ones that have been developed in Photoshop, and I use Lightroom for web, printing, slideshows, map etc.
There are times when I do nothing to an image in Photoshop - but to keep my workflow consistent I still use the Lightroom/Photoshop/Lightroom workflow. I certainly wouldn't do this if I was a wedding photographer, say, as it would be ridiculously time-consuming ... but I'm not. I'm a landscape photographer and my ratio of developed images to raw images is tiny.
Robert
-
I have been using Qimage as my go to printing software since 2003 and have never had the temptation to move to Photoshop or Lightroom. Lightroom is my go to software for processing my raw files and I have used since the initial Beta version. I have Photoshop CS 6. To match the resizing options in Qimage you would have to use the likes of Perfect Resize 8 (formally Genuine Fractals) as a plugin for PS CS or Lightroom at a cost of $150.
Qimage's user interface is different to Photoshop or Lightroom and takes some getting used to but then it is designed mainly as a Print Processing Program and its quality output simply great. You can edit, sharpen, crop, noise reduction whatever without altering the original file. Choose print dimensions, size, final print sharpening and send to print without ever creating any intermediary files.
If I use Lightroom for processing the raw file I can send a tiff via "edit in function" apply any further edits and print options an go.
Actually its the only software program which I use that is keeping me from moving to a Mac system.
Thanks for that Denis - it's really why I'm looking at QImage again. Cropping/resizing etc., for print is a pain and if QImage can do as good a job as I can in Photoshop/Lightroom then I would certainly give it a very good try!
Robert
-
Hi Robert,
Here's a temporary link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7m7ipiib9lk7so/T13339_Fusion%2BDFS10.jpg) to a 3x upsample, Fusion interpolation, DFS set to 10 (I have no idea if that's the best setting for your printer / media).
Cheers,
Bart
Many thanks for that Bart. I've done a screen comparison and there's nothing to it (QImage is slightly better in places and my sharpening is slightly better in others). As I would (modestly) think quite highly of my own sharpening, this is a pretty amazing result for QImage, considering the 300% upsample.
I'm VERY nearly convinced!
Robert
-
Hi Robert,
... Fusion interpolation, DFS set to 10 (I have no idea if that's the best setting for your printer / media).
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
How do you decide what sharpening to apply to a print using QImage? When I do it in Photoshop I view the image at print size so that I can get a reasonably good idea of how much sharpening to apply - but I don't see any way of doing that in QImage. I understand that different printer/paper combinations require more/less sharpening, but at least if my starting-point is an image that is correctly sharpened when viewed on my monitor at print size, I can then apply more/less sharpening based on experience with the paper.
Doing it by trial and error will be very time-consuming and expensive (especially as my prints vary a lot with some having almost no detail and others with very fine detail).
I'll have a look at the training videos, but your experience (and Denis's too, of course ... or anyone who uses QImage) would be much appreciated!
Robert
-
Hi! Robert you can also go to the site below and get some advice, there are some very experienced and helpful users that offer great tips. http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/
Also some learning videos here including one on DFS.
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/learn.htm
-
In Qimage, you can "Print to File" and then view the processed image in whatever software you use. Doing this allows all kinds of comparisons without actually doing a print.
-
Hi! Robert you can also go to the site below and get some advice, there are some very experienced and helpful users that offer great tips. http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/
Also some learning videos here including one on DFS.
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/learn.htm
Many thanks Denis - I've taken the plunge and bought QU (I hope I get more use out of it than I did from QI Pro!). The main issue for me was the change in workflow, but I think it's going to work out.
Robert
-
In Qimage, you can "Print to File" and then view the processed image in whatever software you use. Doing this allows all kinds of comparisons without actually doing a print.
Exactly the way I did my 3x magnified example.
One then looks at the print-flie output at the appropriate zoom setting on display for an impression of how it would look in print (within the usual limitations of comparing such different output media). Use the Photoshop View Print size menu, or calculate: zoom% = (display PPI / Print PPI) for an exact displayed size, or use the Qimage Image Examiner (<Ctrl>X while hovering over a thumbnail of the printfile), and zoom out to the approx. required level.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Many thanks Denis - I've taken the plunge and bought QU (I hope I get more use out of it than I did from QI Pro!). The main issue for me was the change in workflow, but I think it's going to work out.
Robert
Hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
-
I have been using Qimage as my go to printing software since 2003 and have never had the temptation to move to Photoshop or Lightroom. Lightroom is my go to software for processing my raw files and I have used since the initial Beta version. I have Photoshop CS 6. To match the resizing options in Qimage you would have to use the likes of Perfect Resize 8 (formally Genuine Fractals) as a plugin for PS CS or Lightroom at a cost of $150.
Ah, yes, but you can buy Pefect Resize 8 standalone version for only $50. If you want a PS plugin, I would advise stepping up to the Perfect Photo Suite 8.5 for $180, which is money well spent, IMO. It contains Perfect Resize as well as seven other modules that can be very useful. I use the standalone version, and It has become my main photo editor these days. I think that CS6 is starting to feel unwanted. However, PPS does not have a printing module. For that, one can use PS or LR.
I have no experience with Qimage, as I am on a Mac, and I print with ImagePrint. None of what I wrote above is meant as a comparison of Perfect Resize and Qimage with regard to resizing and sharpening quality.
Rob
-
I am really only focusing on the original thread topic "Qimage versus Lightroom for printing". I have both and IMO I prefer Qimage to Lightroom for quality prints. I am well aware of the quality resizing options of Perfect Resize, the point I was making is you would need something like this along with Lightroom to match Qimage. I already have Qimage so I am not necessarily interested in also purchasing additional software.
There are lots of options in the market so there are choices, the final test of what is best for you and your taste rests with you.
Print quality can only be assessed by actually viewing the final print. In the final analysis you would need to make a print using Lightroom and one using Qimage and decide for your self.
-
Hi,
I've done a fair amount of testing (and used a lot of paper!!), so I thought I would report back with my conclusions.
PRINT RESOLUTION
First of all, I checked out the effect of print resolution, from the link that Bart gave me: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54798.msg447163#msg447163 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54798.msg447163#msg447163).
I did the testing on my HPZ3100, which has the following print options:
Render: 300ppi Print 1200x1200
Render: 600ppi Print 1200x1200
Render: 600ppi Print 2400x1200
I printed on a high gloss paper after having calibrated the printer/paper and profiled the paper using i1Profiler and an i1Pro2.
DITHERING SMOOTH COLORS (I checked 3 different shades).
First of all I eliminated the 2400x1200 print resolution (the printer does extra passes to achieve this) as the dithering was LESS smooth than at 1200x1200. I could see this by scanning the print at 4800dpi. There may be some advantage for diagonal lines, for example, but I see no advantage for photography.
The smoothest dithering was on the 600ppi 1200x1200 (when viewed using a 4800dpi scan). However there is no visible difference to the eye between this and the print at 300ppi 1200x1200. There may be a barely noticeable difference using an 8x loupe. So, from a tone/color point of view there seems to be no discernible advantage in going to 600ppi. BTW: the printer matches the 300ppi dithering when printing at 600ppi by doubling the number of passes; the spot sizes are identical: so my conclusions here may not be valid for an Epson as the Epson print head is capable of changing the spot size.
DOWNSIZED PRINT
With the print downsized for 300ppi but at print resolution for 600ppi, there is no visible difference between the prints (by eye or with an 8x loupe).
UPSIZED PRINT
With the print at print resolution for 300ppi (but upsized x2 for 600ppi), there is no visible difference between the prints (by eye or with an 8x loupe).
With the print upsized by 2x for 300ppi (and 4x for 600ppi), the 300ppi print is better, as expected (although the difference is surprisingly small).
All of the resizing was done using Photoshop with resampling set to Automatic. I used Nik Sharpener 3 for the final output sharpening, after resize, same amount in all cases (the only other sharpening was a small amount of raw sharpening in Lightroom).
CONCLUSION
My conclusion is that there is no advantage (with the Z3100 at any rate) in printing at 600ppi. IMO, the best setting is 300ppi for the print, 300ppi rendering resolution in the print driver and 1200x1200dpi printing. My view is that upsizing to 600ppi will only damaging the image. However, if the image resolution is at 600ppi or higher (in other words, a very small print – about 24x16cm for a 1DS3 21MP image), then there may be a very slight advantage in printing at that resolution.
I haven’t tested on matte paper, but I expect the same results – but with less sharpness overall because of the ink diffusion on the matte paper.
QIMAGE v. PHOTOSHOP/LIGHTROOM
As far a printing goes, there is no difference between QImage and Photoshop (I haven’t tested against Lightroom as I expect that LR and PS will be the same or very similar). It comes down to sharpening and resizing, and there is quite a difference there, as one would expect.
SHARPENING
I’m new to QImage (having just purchased it) so I may not be using it optimally. The test was a 3x upsized image printed at 300ppi on both Photoshop and QImage.
QIMAGE DFS
At first sight, the QImage Deep Focus Sharpening appears to be really excellent. It sharpens the image with no visible haloes. However, what it does is to lighten and darken pixels, not just at the edges, but over a much wider area, so that it’s a bit like adding local contrast. This certainly gives the impression of sharpness, but at the expense of tonal change in the image and desaturation of the lighter colors. For example a light colored leaf or reed may easily become leached to white or to a much paler color.
On the other hand, what is good is that the DFS appears to be applied AFTER resizing. If used carefully it gives a good result.
SHARPENING AND UPSIZING
I made 3 comparisons:
1. Upsize and DFS sharpen in QImage (effectively one operation)
2. Upsize in Photoshop; Smart Sharpen; Output Sharpen using Nik Sharpener Pro 3
3. Upsize in Photoshop; Smart Sharpen; Output Sharpen + Local Contrast using Nik Sharpener Pro 3
With 2 and 3 I used a raw smart object with the Smart Sharpen filter below the Nik Sharpener filter (so that the Smart Sharpen is applied first).
1 appeared sharper than 2. On close examination I could see that this was due to the increased local contrast in the QImage print, so I added a small amount of Local Contrast in the Nik Sharpener filter (the filter can apply Output Sharpening, Structure, Local Contrast and Focus at the same time) and reprinted the image as 3. At this stage QImage and Photoshop prints appeared equally sharp.
There is really nothing to separate the two prints 1 and 3 viewed at normal distances. However it is clear that the QImage print, 1, has a loss of detail as you can see in the scanned image below. There’s a sort of posterization effect, so that the rock, for example, appears to have gray patches where there should be a variation in tone, resulting in a loss of structure to the surface. Also, there is a leaching of color in the reeds for example (not visible in the scanned image below).
CONCLUSION
My conclusion is that QImage does a superb job and does so almost automatically. I do think that it is possible to achieve a better result in Photoshop, and certainly a much more controllable one: so I will continue to use Photoshop for critical prints, but I do intend to use QImage where ‘pretty good’ is good enough.
Nik Sharpener Pro 3 (which I had but wasn’t using) really does a very good job of output sharpening, local contrast and ‘structure’ and it has a great feature in that the image can be soft-proofed to show how it should look on print (from a sharpening point of view). This soft-proofing (sharpening) feature would be a fantastic addition to QImage. However I prefer Photoshop Smart Sharpen for normal sharpening to the Nik Focus sharpen: Smart Sharpen is very controllable and it’s easy to cut out haloes, damp down shadow noise etc. The Nik Focus sharpen has no controls except for Strength.
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/QUvPS.jpg)
You can see a larger version of this image here: http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/QUvPS.jpg
I hope this has been of interest and with any luck we’ll have an interesting discussion to follow!
Robert
-
Hi! Robert see you have been doing some testing. This thread started out comparing Qimage versus Photoshop/ Lightroom and appears you need Nik Sharpener Pro to try and even out the contest. Sorry I would not be able to comment further since I have never had a reason to use Nik Sharpener Pro.
-
Hi! Robert see you have been doing some testing. This thread started out comparing Qimage versus Photoshop/ Lightroom and appears you need Nik Sharpener Pro to try and even out the contest. Sorry I would not be able to comment further since I have never had a reason to use Nik Sharpener Pro.
Hi Denis,
I just used Nik Sharpener but you could equally well use Smart Sharpen for output sharpening. In Lightroom you would use the Print Sharpening. I'll give these a go and see if there is a significant difference.
I didn't use Nik Sharpener to even out the contest ... as I mentioned, I've purchased QImage Ultimate, so I have a vested interest in QU being better!
Robert
-
Hi,
I've done a fair amount of testing (and used a lot of paper!!), so I thought I would report back with my conclusions.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the feedback. I don't have time to address all tests you did, but allow me to add a few observations before I turn in for the night.
I assume you used Fusion interpolation. While pretty good, there are other methods as well, so depending on image content you may want to try a few of the others as well. Hybrid SE e.g. is free of ringing/halos, and can be sharpened more without creating too much halo.
I'm also not completely familiar with the specifics of the HP printer used, so there may be settings that could have an influence. It e.g. took a while for Epson printer users to discover the 'Finest detail' option, without which the printer downsamples to a lower resolution. I'm not saying such a thing happens with the HP, just that I don't know. Make sure to check the PPI indicator at the top right above the layout preview, it will show what the printer will do.
As for dithering, it makes a difference whether you send 8-bit/channel data to Qimage, or 16-b/ch. The latter gets dithered upon import, and (if selected) after sharpening and conversion to the output profile for your media.
As for downsampling, Qimage uses an adjustable amount of anti-aliasing. Depending on subject structure, you may be able to switch it to a lower setting than what you used. 'Medium' is default, so 'Lower' or even 'Off' may create sharper results, but potentially also some clearly aliasing artifacts in e.g. brick structures or similar repetitive structures.
As for upsampling, it is possible to use special sharpening techniques that are better than what Qimage can do, but at the expense of more work. That makes it a choice for more or less convenience. However, if you do want to take more time, then you can also do that with Qimage. When you save the upsampled print output file without Smart DFS sharpening, you can also use the image editor and roll your own level (radius and amount, and even targeted by color range) of sharpening, and save that as a print filter for automatic future use. So you only create such an optimization once, and re-use it for multiple files by checking the (P.filt.) check-box at the bottom right of the interface.
That's it for the moment.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I assume you used Fusion interpolation. While pretty good, there are other methods as well, so depending on image content you may want to try a few of the others as well. Hybrid SE e.g. is free of ringing/halos, and can be sharpened more without creating too much halo.
Yes, I did use Fusion with a setting of 5. As I mentioned, I'm very new to QImage (even though I've had QImage Pro for years), and so I'm quite likely not using the optimal settings. Unfortunately (as far as I can see) the full image editor preview and other previews don't show the resized image with (the resizing) sharpening, or the effect of the different resizing algorithms, so it's only possible to gauge this by saving the file and then opening in Photoshop. I've no doubt that getting the right resizing/sharpening is critical. Perhaps you could convince Mike Chaney to add a soft-proof like the one in Nik Sharpener ... it's not a feature I've seen elsewhere and it's really tremendous.
I'm also not completely familiar with the specifics of the HP printer used, so there may be settings that could have an influence. It e.g. took a while for Epson printer users to discover the 'Finest detail' option, without which the printer downsamples to a lower resolution. I'm not saying such a thing happens with the HP, just that I don't know. Make sure to check the PPI indicator at the top right above the layout preview, it will show what the printer will do.
I have an Epson 4800 which is currently out of commission (and I had a 4000), so I'm quite familiar with these printers (as good as the HP, but no better IMO). The settings on the HPZ3100 is clearer than on the Epson because the print driver shows the Rendering PPI and the Print DPI (so for example, you can choose a rendering intent of 600ppi and a print resolution of 1200x1200dpi. If you then send the printer a file at anything but 600ppi, the driver will resample to 600ppi before printing. You can also select rendering at 300ppi and print at 1200x1200 and the printer will lay down exactly the same number of dots as it would if the file rendering was at 600ppi and print at 1200x1200. You can also select more passes and more detail (2400x1200), but apart from the print taking more time, the print quality difference is not visible to the eye, IMO, and only barely with a loupe. I didn't align the print heads before doing the tests and this could have an effect.
As for dithering, it makes a difference whether you send 8-bit/channel data to Qimage, or 16-b/ch. The latter gets dithered upon import, and (if selected) after sharpening and conversion to the output profile for your media.
Does QImage work entirely in 8-bit? Seems like it from http://forums.steves-digicams.com/printing-qimage-support-forum/54299-does-qimage-support-16-bit-files.html, where Mike Chaney says: “Dither is only used when you have pallete driven color like 256 color images. When converting from 16 bits/channel to 8 bits/channel, the information is simply remapped to 0-255 instead of 0-65535. All image programs do the same thing when converting from 48-24 or 24-48. None of them use dithering because it isn't necessary.”
If so, that’s not so great as I would certainly prefer to do things like upsizing and sharpening in 16 bits.
As for downsampling, Qimage uses an adjustable amount of anti-aliasing. Depending on subject structure, you may be able to switch it to a lower setting than what you used. 'Medium' is default, so 'Lower' or even 'Off' may create sharper results, but potentially also some clearly aliasing artifacts in e.g. brick structures or similar repetitive structures.
Thanks for that – so far I’ve not had to downsample much and haven’t had an aliasing problem, but I’ve stored it in memory for the future. That’s certainly a nice feature!
As for upsampling, it is possible to use special sharpening techniques that are better than what Qimage can do, but at the expense of more work. That makes it a choice for more or less convenience. However, if you do want to take more time, then you can also do that with Qimage. When you save the upsampled print output file without Smart DFS sharpening, you can also use the image editor and roll your own level (radius and amount, and even targeted by color range) of sharpening, and save that as a print filter for automatic future use. So you only create such an optimization once, and re-use it for multiple files by checking the (P.filt.) check-box at the bottom right of the interface.
What I’ve found so far is that DFS is OK but only with a radius of 1 … or maybe 2, max. It seems better (on screen) to use a higher amount with a radius of 1 than a lower amount with a radius of 2. The example I give above used a radius of 2.
As I mentioned, it’s very difficult to gauge the overall sharpening because the full-screen editor doesn’t show the effect of the resize sharpening (or I don’t know how to get it to show that).
The printer filter is a very nice feature – however again the issue I would have with it is that its effect can only be seen on the saved file or on the print, not on screen.
What I didn’t mention is that QImage is much better than Lightroom from the point of view of print layout, print borders, viewing the print with adjustments on the page etc. I’m focusing more on the negatives than the positives of QImage at the moment … but I really should say that in my opinion it is an excellent print program. I don’t think I would use it for raw development because programs like Capture One and Lightroom have a lot of extra features compared to QImage for raw development. However, if I was printing loads of raw images and if I wasn’t looking for optimum prints then I would certainly consider QImage from raw to print.
My dilemma is keeping my overall workflow simple but effective for low-volume printing, but quite high volume image selection and development. Lightroom is very good for image management, developing, map module, web, slideshows etc; it’s just OK for printing IMO. As I always use Photoshop in between development and print/web, I do have the option of proper resizing, sharpening etc., in Photoshop, and then using Lightroom just for print output without any resizing or sharpening. Introducing QImage somewhat complicates the issue for me as QImage does have a lot more control over print processing than does Lightroom. That’s why I’m so interested in finding out if QImage can do as good as (or even nearly as good as) a job as I can do in Photoshop in terms of resizing and output sharpening, because I would then use QImage for that purpose. But that also means that the sharpening has to be as good in QImage as it is in Photoshop (whether I use Smart Sharpen, Nik Sharpener, edge masks/no edge masks … or whatever), because I do not want to do the output sharpening before the resizing, clearly.
If QImage had better visual previews than it currently does it would make the decision much easier for me: I’ve spent ages getting my system set up so that what I see on my monitor is really, really close to what I get on print … and QImage doesn’t quite work in that setup right now.
Robert
-
Have you used the soft proof or image examiner feature in Qimage. See screen capture.
-
Robert,
I fear (as I think you did) that you were not achieving the best results in Qimage because you are circumventing some of the features that help it deliver maximum quality automatically. You mention a 3x upsampled image printed at 300 PPI. You also mention using upsampling and DFS in Qimage. I think what you did, in effect, forced Qimage to upsample and sharpen twice, which is certainly not optimal. In Qimage, you don't need all the gyrations that you do in other programs: you'll achieve the best results by just printing the original file at the size you want. Maybe I'm not 100% clear on exactly what steps you performed when, but if you had a 100 PPI image that you upsampled to 300 PPI, sharpened, and then printed... stop doing that. ;) Just drag the original 100 PPI image over to the page and print it at the size you want and then compare that result. It'll automatically upsample, sharpen (based on the size you chose), and print. If you need more sharpening, just set your output sharpening higher than the default (5).
I'm also more than a bit surprised to hear that you think you saw DFS overbrightening. That's exactly what it doesn't do, as it was designed to avoid those artifacts. For example, with USM, if you sharpen an image of sky shot through tree leaves, some of the small gaps/holes that should show sky between the leaves will actually turn from blue (sky) to stark white. That's because USM over-drives the contrast. DFS cannot and does not do that: where you got white specular dots through the leaves with USM, you'll get the true blue with DFS because it has a limiter that doesn't allow it to blow past the actual color of the objects being sharpened. In fact, I don't see that in your print either.
Regards,
Mike
-
There has been a Z3100 driver/firmware combination that asks for 1200 PPI input resolution in soms driver settings. Not the most recent ones. The Z3200 drivers never went above 600 PPI input resolution.
On processing + printing time: the antialiasing filter in QU's downsampling can take more time in processing than the printing with 600 PPI input takes. So with big image files you may go that route even if the media is not showing more detail. Gradations usually improve with the 600 PPI input settings too, it is not just the details you should check.
Ernst Dinkla
-
Robert,
I fear (as I think you did) that you were not achieving the best results in Qimage because you are circumventing some of the features that help it deliver maximum quality automatically. You mention a 3x upsampled image printed at 300 PPI. You also mention using upsampling and DFS in Qimage. I think what you did, in effect, forced Qimage to upsample and sharpen twice, which is certainly not optimal. In Qimage, you don't need all the gyrations that you do in other programs: you'll achieve the best results by just printing the original file at the size you want. Maybe I'm not 100% clear on exactly what steps you performed when, but if you had a 100 PPI image that you upsampled to 300 PPI, sharpened, and then printed... stop doing that. ;) Just drag the original 100 PPI image over to the page and print it at the size you want and then compare that result. It'll automatically upsample, sharpen (based on the size you chose), and print. If you need more sharpening, just set your output sharpening higher than the default (5).
I'm also more than a bit surprised to hear that you think you saw DFS overbrightening. That's exactly what it doesn't do, as it was designed to avoid those artifacts. For example, with USM, if you sharpen an image of sky shot through tree leaves, some of the small gaps/holes that should show sky between the leaves will actually turn from blue (sky) to stark white. That's because USM over-drives the contrast. DFS cannot and does not do that: where you got white specular dots through the leaves with USM, you'll get the true blue with DFS because it has a limiter that doesn't allow it to blow past the actual color of the objects being sharpened. In fact, I don't see that in your print either.
Regards,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Many thanks for your comments - and I'm sure I'm not using QImage to its best advantage. You're right, what I did was to upsize by 3x (as a test) using Fusion with a sharpening of 5; I then applied a DFS sharpening with a radius of 2 and amount of 100. The reason for doing that is that the image looked very soft on the previews (all of them) ... and the reason for that as far as I can see is that QU does not show the sharpening that has been applied during resize (which I assumed, when I did the test, that it did). I will try again without the second sharpening and hopefully the results will be better.
As I've mentioned, the issue with this approach is that I will either have to print to file and examine the file to see how much sharpening has been applied during resizing; or I will have to print, possibly several times, until I get the sharpening I want. I don't much like either of these options, especially the second one.
It would be very useful if the QU previews showed the image with the resize sharpening. And it would be even more useful if it could show a soft-proof, as does Nik Sharpener Pro, showing how the sharpening is likely to appear on the particular paper type selected (at the print size).
Regarding DFS: what I see rather than haloes is a sort of posterisation. If you look at the image I posted you should be able to see this, if not you can download a 25% downsized zip of the scan here: http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/QUvPS-L.zip.
This image below is interesting to look at:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/DFSTEST.jpg)
The image is resized to show the pixels.
On the left is a gradient going from light gray to middle gray with a darker gray background (made in Photoshop). On the right is the same image with DFS 3/200 applied. As you can see, where there is a transition, the lighter pixels have been lightened and the darker ones darkened – which is similar to what the equivalent USM would do, but less aggressively, as you can see here:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/USMTEST.jpg)
However, what DFS also does is to lighten and darken a much wider band than the radius (of 3 in this case), whereas USM limits the sharpening to the radius. The effect of that can be (as I’ve shown in the images) to flatten, or give a posterized look, to small areas (which you won't get with USM or some variant like Smart Sharpen).
In the DFS pixel-sized test above you can also see that the pixels are spread in a semi-random pattern, which may give an impression of texture, but can also result in flattening because light and dark pixels are spread next to each other over a large area.
It’s not that I think DFS is bad (I’m on the fence at the moment) … but I think it needs to be used with a small radius (not more than 2) and low amount (not more than 200), otherwise there is a strong risk of this sort of posterized look.
Anyway … that’s just my (current) opinion, and as I’ve said I am a total QU newbie!
Robert
-
Robert,
No amount of screen proofing will ever be able to tell you if sharpening is correct....only printing will. Based on experience you may get close, but it is essentially experience guessing.
Qimage allows you to test paper/printer combinations, adjusting the amount of DFS sharpening applied. Then, assuming use of same interpolation, the results will be consistent for essentially whatever size you decide to print to.
My starting point into Qimage is a print that looks good on the screen. I then export an 8 bit Tiff in PrinterRGB, which I then print what ever size I need, cropping to aspect ratio in Qimage.
John
-
There has been a Z3100 driver/firmware combination that asks for 1200 PPI input resolution in soms driver settings. Not the most recent ones. The Z3200 drivers never went above 600 PPI input resolution.
On processing + printing time: the antialiasing filter in QU's downsampling can take more time in processing than the printing with 600 PPI input takes. So with big image files you may go that route even if the media is not showing more detail. Gradations usually improve with the 600 PPI input settings too, it is not just the details you should check.
Ernst Dinkla
Hi Ernst, the driver I have only allows 600ppi max (I can't imagine how the driver would handle 1200ppi as that would be equivalent to 1 pixel per dot: it would have to downsample or throw away pixels!).
I have checked gradients at 300ppi and 600ppi and I really don't see it on print. If I scan the print at high resolution I can see that there is a difference in the dithering, with the 600ppi being smoother ... but even on a high gloss paper it's invisible even with a magnifying glass (and on this test I score 100% http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge, so I must have fairly good color vision :)). I personally would never upsample to 600ppi unless the image resolution was already very close to it.
Robert
-
Robert,
No amount of screen proofing will ever be able to tell you if sharpening is correct....only printing will. Based on experience you may get close, but it is essentially experience guessing.
Qimage allows you to test paper/printer combinations, adjusting the amount of DFS sharpening applied. Then, assuming use of same interpolation, the results will be consistent for essentially whatever size you decide to print to.
My starting point into Qimage is a print that looks good on the screen. I then export an 8 bit Tiff in PrinterRGB, which I then print what ever size I need, cropping to aspect ratio in Qimage.
John
Yes, well of course that's true ... up to a point. However I do think that if you stick to a limited range of papers and to a limited size of prints and to certain types of images that it's possible to get a very accurate idea of what the print will look like ... with experience and testing, as you say. To be honest, I've only just come across the Nik sharpen proof preview and I'm not at all sold on it (although I'm keeping an open mind). I think it's better to stick to the screen at print size and to judge the sharpening visually, taking into account the softening on the print due to ink diffusion and dithering (so sharpen a bit more, but not too much more).
Perhaps it's a lack of trust on my part, but I much prefer to judge these things visually rather than rely on an automated system (even if this has been tuned for paper and size).
The problem with your workflow, to my mind, is that if the image looks good on the screen, you will already have applied sharpening to it. If you then resize it you will be resizing the sharpening too, so that it will be too much if you are upsizing and too little if you are downsizing ... and then you will be applying sharpening with the resizing presumably, so sharpening on top of sharpening. I think it's much better to resize and then to sharpen for output - and that may mean more than one type of sharpening (for example local contrast and edge-sharpening).
Robert
-
Have you used the soft proof or image examiner feature in Qimage. See screen capture.
Hi Denis,
Yes, I have (both) ... but they don't show the resize sharpening (to my knowledge).
Robert
-
In the Fraser/Schewe three steps of sharpening, I appliy the first two steps to the native image until it looks the way I want it on the screen.
The final step, output sharpening, is applied by Qimage based on output size, and any adjustments for specific paper. I do not have to remember the differences by paper. Once I have tested and arrived at what I consider the correct settings, Qimage remembers and will use the same settings whenever I select that paper.
-
Well, not really a fair example above, since you applied double the sharpening strength with DFS (3/200) than you did with USM (3/100). DFS, like USM, is actually only sharpening a 3 radius but as you can see, it sharpens the concentric rings that make up the gradient. In fact, that is "real" detail that is being sharpened too: it may only be single steps, but it is detail. And when you go to 200% strength, those are going to show. As you can see by my example (attached), the USM version does show some accentuating of the gradient where it darkens/brightens the gradient steps inside the circle, but just not as much as DFS. And DFS has no dark halo on the outside and bright halo on the inside. In fact, you could probably go with a lower setting here like 3/50 with DFS and get similar results to USM... without the halos.
BTW, original in the center, USM on the left, DFS on the right: zoomed to show individual pixels.
Mike
-
In the Fraser/Schewe three steps of sharpening, I appliy the first two steps to the native image until it looks the way I want it on the screen.
The final step, output sharpening, is applied by Qimage based on output size, and any adjustments for specific paper. I do not have to remember the differences by paper. Once I have tested and arrived at what I consider the correct settings, Qimage remembers and will use the same settings whenever I select that paper.
Hi John ... yes, a lot of people seem to use that sequence of sharpening. Personally, I prefer to do all of the tonal and color adjustments with no sharpening (I'll temporarily add sharpening in Lightroom or in the ACR Smart Object as it's difficult to work on an image with no capture sharpening); then I resize the image (with capture sharpening off); then I do the capture sharpening with an edge mask (or using ACR with the Masking feature as that effectively gives an edge mask); then if appropriate I may do some 'creative' sharpening; and finally I will sharpen for output, again usually with an edge mask or with high-pass sharpening, or both.
Of course the disadvantage is that for every print size I will have to go through the sharpening saga, but once the workflow is set up it's quick to do. If I had to do many prints every day I wouldn't do it this way, needless to say!
But I think this is a better way of sharpening as I believe that it does the least possible damage to the image.
Robert
-
Well, not really a fair example above, since you applied double the sharpening strength with DFS (3/200) than you did with USM (3/100). DFS, like USM, is actually only sharpening a 3 radius but as you can see, it sharpens the concentric rings that make up the gradient. In fact, that is "real" detail that is being sharpened too: it may only be single steps, but it is detail. And when you go to 200% strength, those are going to show. As you can see by my example (attached), the USM version does show some accentuating of the gradient where it darkens/brightens the gradient steps inside the circle, but just not as much as DFS. And DFS has no dark halo on the outside and bright halo on the inside. In fact, you could probably go with a lower setting here like 3/50 with DFS and get similar results to USM... without the halos.
BTW, original in the center, USM on the left, DFS on the right: zoomed to show individual pixels.
Mike
Hi Mike,
Yes, I applied a lower amount to the USM sharpening because it's much more aggressive than DFS. Photoshop Smart Sharpen is closer to DFS in that sense, so with Smart Sharpen a value of 200 would be close to the same value with DFS.
At any rate, I agree that a small radius and small amount is good - but sometimes a higher amount is needed and IMO DFS is potentially problematic then.
The thing is, that sharpening relies on accentuating edges ... which means lightening and darkening at either side of the edge, so you could achieve something similar to your DFS example simply by applying a lower USM sharpening (or better still, by using Smart Sharpen as that allows fading the sharpening at the highlights and shadows). Other than that we can give an effect of greater sharpness by using local contrast or by blurring the areas we don't want to be sharp, like the background. So DFS has to work on the edges (which it clearly does) ... the question that I have is how much away from the edges does it go and what does it do there?
It seems to me that it does go quite a long way, presumably attempting to add local contrast (which is great ... I have no issue with that!). The only issue I have is that it seems to me that DFS really needs to be throttled back quite a lot, otherwise it does appear (to me) that it causes, as I put it, a sort of posterisation. Of course that is easily avoided by keeping the radius and amount low.
Robert
-
I had to take another look at the DFS code to see what it was doing in low contrast areas. What I found was that it wasn't taking the radius into account when measuring local contrast so the piece of code that decides what is statistically significant (to sharpen) needed that factor. About a half dozen lines of code later and we have the improvement in 2014.250. See attached for the comparison.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention in a way that I could easily see/test it. The problem doesn't easily show up on "organic" images: more on mathematical gradients. But the result (in 2014.250) produces a much smoother result with less noise in areas like sky and evenly shaded areas, without affecting sharpness of notable edges.
Regards,
Mike
-
I had to take another look at the DFS code to see what it was doing in low contrast areas. What I found was that it wasn't taking the radius into account when measuring local contrast so the piece of code that decides what is statistically significant (to sharpen) needed that factor. About a half dozen lines of code later and we have the improvement in 2014.250. See attached for the comparison.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention in a way that I could easily see/test it. The problem doesn't easily show up on "organic" images: more on mathematical gradients. But the result (in 2014.250) produces a much smoother result with less noise in areas like sky and evenly shaded areas, without affecting sharpness of notable edges.
Thanks for having another look Mike,
It does improve the natural look of more organic image content enough to make a difference. Users might even want to review their amount settings for the Smart output sharpening. Since shadows are usually lower contrast areas, as are sky gradients, they are now both smoother, and can tolerate higher amount settings.
As an illustration I've attached crops of a 300% upsampled print-to-file example that was posted earlier (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92128.msg749501#msg749501) in this thread (I've updated the temporary link to a 2014.250 version upsample in that post). First attachment is the pre-2014.250 version, then the new 2014.250 version of the same source. The smoother sky and less 'posterized', more organic looking low-contrast shadows are clearly visible at this 100% zoom version. Of course at the final print size the difference is more subtle due to the smaller pixel size / higher PPI of the printed output versus the display.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I had to take another look at the DFS code to see what it was doing in low contrast areas. What I found was that it wasn't taking the radius into account when measuring local contrast so the piece of code that decides what is statistically significant (to sharpen) needed that factor. About a half dozen lines of code later and we have the improvement in 2014.250. See attached for the comparison.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention in a way that I could easily see/test it. The problem doesn't easily show up on "organic" images: more on mathematical gradients. But the result (in 2014.250) produces a much smoother result with less noise in areas like sky and evenly shaded areas, without affecting sharpness of notable edges.
Regards,
Mike
Mike,
I have to say that I am really impressed at your customer service! Small is beautiful when it comes to software development, and many hands do not always make light work (I speak from bitter experience).
The difference this has made is huge. The circle/gradient test is now fine; and this test below is even more interesting:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/QU250vSS.jpg)
The orginal is just a square to which I applied a small amount of Gaussian blur to soften the edges. As you can see, QU with DFS 3/100 has done a remarkable job – it has almost entirely restored the original, removing the Gaussian blur without introducing any haloes. Amazing! As a comparison, Smart Sharpen, also with 3/100 but without any backing off on Lightness and Shadows shows the expected lightening and darkening around the edges. On this test DFS blows Smart Sharpen out of the water.
I redid the test with the crop of the photograph. I upsized by 3x in Photoshop (to keep things equal), sharpened in QU with DFS 3/200 (to keep the test the same as before) and sharpened in Photoshop with Smart Sharpen at 3/200 (but with back-off on the Highlights and Shadows … not entirely fair, but this is a feature of Smart Sharpen).
First of all, the ‘posterization’ type artifacts are gone from the QU image – great! Secondly, in terms of sharpening, I see very little difference between the two: considering the upsizing, both images are very sharp (this was a hand-held shot, so I wouldn’t expect incredible detail).
BUT … on closer examination, Smart Sharpen sharpens areas that should not be sharpened (the water in the bottom corner of the image is a good example), resulting in sharpening artefacts. DFS is perfect in those areas. It is possible to partly correct the Smart Sharpen problem by dialling in Reduce Noise … but this is getting complicated and the effect is not perfect.
You can see the images here: http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/T47221---QU250vSS.jpg
I have to say that I’m really impressed. You should think of offering DFS as a plug-in for Photoshop … I think you would get a lot of buyers!
Robert
-
Good work Robert in raising this issue with Mike. A great update for all Q users, some more magic from Mike.
-
Robert,
Thanks again for raising the issue and retesting 2014.250! After 15 years doing just the digital imaging part of this, I consider myself a "supreme pixel peeper" which means artifacts are my enemy and when I see something that can obviously be improved, I can't sleep until it is done. ;) I try to never forget that image quality is a complex dynamic and I can't possibly see or test every aspect on my own. I continue to be impressed by others who dig deep like I do and can eloquently illustrate and recommend improvements. I appreciate the feedback because being a small company, being able to tap into the "hive mind" that electronically connects us is the only way I can compete with the big boys.
Regards,
Mike
-
Robert,
Thanks again for raising the issue and retesting 2014.250! After 15 years doing just the digital imaging part of this, I consider myself a "supreme pixel peeper" which means artifacts are my enemy and when I see something that can obviously be improved, I can't sleep until it is done. ;) I try to never forget that image quality is a complex dynamic and I can't possibly see or test every aspect on my own. I continue to be impressed by others who dig deep like I do and can eloquently illustrate and recommend improvements. I appreciate the feedback because being a small company, being able to tap into the "hive mind" that electronically connects us is the only way I can compete with the big boys.
Regards,
Mike
Well Mike, you're certainly very welcome and my thanks to you too! I have to say that my testing wasn't entirely altruistic - I really would like to use QImage, and DFS was (but no longer is, I'm glad to say) a show-stopper.
Rather than doing even more testing, could you give me a quick rundown of what happens during resizing?
As far as I can see, I have two options: resize with 0 sharpening and then sharpen with DFS in the image editor, or resize with sharpening and then forget about sharpening in the image editor (except perhaps for some creative-type sharpening). It would clearly make more sense to sharpen with resize so I would appreciate a bit more information on how that works.
What I would like to know is this: assuming I have selected DFS as the resampling sharpening algorithm, how do you determine what a sharpening level of 1, 3, 10, or whatever corresponds to in terms of DFS radius and strength? I assume you base this on various factors like the print size, the image resolution and the paper type (matte, gloss etc)? If so, it would be very useful to know what formula you use as it would make the initial dialing in of the correct sharpening amount much easier.
Many thanks!
Robert
-
What I would like to know is this: assuming I have selected DFS as the resampling sharpening algorithm, how do you determine what a sharpening level of 1, 3, 10, or whatever corresponds to in terms of DFS radius and strength? I assume you base this on various factors like the print size, the image resolution and the paper type (matte, gloss etc)? If so, it would be very useful to know what formula you use as it would make the initial dialing in of the correct sharpening amount much easier.
Hi Robert,
Maybe the Mike's Tech corner (http://ddisoftware.com/tech/index.php) forum is a more appropriate place for such specific questions, but I'll leave that up to Mike.
My take on it is that Qimage tries to take as much hassle out of the print process as possible, yet do so with very high quality. That's where the very good resampling algorithms and Smart output sharpening come in, and utilizing the maximum resolution that the printer has to offer. That means that the Smart output sharpening tries to retain the original/input image's sharpness/look, by modifying the 'Smart' sharpening radius with output size, both up and down (although down-sampling may require additional user adjustable anti-aliasing filtering to prevent trouble with repetitive patterns).
The sharpening amount to apply will depend on several factors, such as image content, output medium, and user preference. Default amount is 5, and is usually a good point to start, but 10 or more may be usable in certain situations as mentioned before, or when the input image was not or hardly sharpened to begin with. Whatever the settings you like best turn out to be, they can be saved in a recipe that can be recalled for future use, otherwise Qimage will simply remember most of the last used settings for the type of paper and printer and profile used.
Cheers,
Bart
-
As far as I can see, I have two options: resize with 0 sharpening and then sharpen with DFS in the image editor, or resize with sharpening and then forget about sharpening in the image editor (except perhaps for some creative-type sharpening). It would clearly make more sense to sharpen with resize so I would appreciate a bit more information on how that works.
Hi Robert,
The latter is the normal MO. Automatic Smart sharpening after resizing is one of the things that makes Qimage so powerful. It will still allow optional full control by the user to resize without sharpening and save that, and then add sharpening in its editor when subsequently printing, but that defies the set-and-forget benefits of Qimage. In fact, one can do such a convoluted operation with a global Print filter, so even that can be automated, but is more commonly used to adjust for certain media that print a bit darker than others, or correct underexposed or low contrast images from someone else, and things like that. The original file will remain unaltered, only a separate filter description will be saved, so you have total freedom to create and adjust such a procedure.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here are a couple of examples how Qimage handles a very organic (sinusoidal) range of spatial frequencies. The target used for upsampling to 300 percent of its original size, and automatic DFS Smart sharpening, shows how smooth Qimage transitions from no sharpening to very high sharpening of the finest detail levels (the finest printed details if one uses 600 or 720 PPI resampling and printer resolution). An original star target was given a very mild 0.7 sigma Gaussian type of blur to produce the resampling target, comparable to what a very sharp lens would produce with excellent technique (heavy tripod, and perfect focus, at the best aperture for the sensor).
The automatic DFS Smart sharpening was applied after Fusion interpolation, with amounts 5, 10, and 15, as indicated in the filenames.
This also shows the benefits of not over-sharpening the source image file, it allows to apply more sharpening during print/output sharpening, without wreaking havoc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
Many thanks for your replies. You're probably right and my question probably should be on Mike's tech corner - however Mike has been very helpful on this forum and what makes it interesting to keep the discussion open here for a while longer is that we are not all QImage aficionados on this forum (so that there are quiet a lot of potential customers for QImage around :)).
Do you have a test image that could be used to check out the best resizing/sharpening settings for different papers? I'm thinking of a chart to test print MTF, like the lens MTF charts, either for visual or scanned evaluation.
As you've no doubt guessed from the other post, I'm moving in the direction of less and later sharpening, which fits in nicely with the QImage modus operandi.
Robert
-
Do you have a test image that could be used to check out the best resizing/sharpening settings for different papers? I'm thinking of a chart to test print MTF, like the lens MTF charts, either for visual or scanned evaluation.
I have designed a test image/target (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217) that allows to do a lot of those things, like measuring the central blur diameter of a 'star' to determine limiting resolution and give a quick visual comparison, but also a slanted edge to determine the MTF (or the SFR as the ISO standards committee calls it), and a grayscale to calibrate the response curve. There are a few other line patterns on that target that directly challenge the printer, as a check to verify the printed quality of the target. It's pretty merciless for printers but also allows to test cameras by shooting an image of it.
Another cruel test is a so-called zone-plate target (https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3wmc4lqxervncb/Rings.png), but that's most often used as a down-sampling test target, although some upsampling algorithms also make a mess of upsampling that.
As you've no doubt guessed from the other post, I'm moving in the direction of less and later sharpening, which fits in nicely with the QImage modus operandi.
I agree, although if our tools would allow a better (deconvolution) Capture sharpening, without halos and without going crazy on noise, there would be little harm in doing that from the start. Better signal to noise of the image data, allows more detailed post-processing. Given the current state of affairs, there is a lot to be said for postponing it until we have more pixels that allow 'sub-pixel' (versus original pixels) accurate sharpening, when upsampling for e.g. print is our destination. I see little benefit in upsampling of artifacts and making them easier to see, so postponing sharpening can help with that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart,
I'll have a go with your test images ... after I've caught up on some work for customers.
Yes, of course, if we could correct things like blurring due to the optics, for example, without introducing additional artifacts then that would be absolutely great ... and the sooner in the process the better (in the same way that using a better lens is a good thing!). But to introduce an artifact, and then enlarge it, only to add more artifacts ... seems a step or two too many.
Do programs like DXO Optics use deconvolution techniques, do you know? What's the state of play? Seems like something to keep a close eye on!
Just had a look at your link ... have you used Imatest (Norman Koren)? It's seriously good for testing lenses (and adjusting microfocus etc) ... but it's one of these programs that sort of sucks you in like a black hole (one needs to tread carefully!).
Robert
-
Hi guys,
I see sharpening as a two stage process. For the majority of work which tends to start with a photo from a digital camera, the demosaicing of the sensor data combined with any AA filter that might be used over the sensor tends to soften the final image a bit so that you don't get single-pixel-level sharpness. So the first step is to get the image itself to have the intended sharpness. In Qimage Ultimate, you can set your sharpening level in raw options so that when the image is developed, enough sharpening is added to get the image back to "baseline" sharpness: bringing the sharpness of the image to the intended level in the image itself. That is typically done as mentioned, in the raw format options, or in the image editor if you are not shooting raw (using DFS to a level you are satisfied with). It's easier if you are shooting raw because you can dial in the sharpening (and adaptive noise reduction) levels needed for your particular camera and then leave it alone. Some cameras render sharper raw images than others, some have AA filters removed, and so on, so the level you set there is based on a particular camera model and can be customized globally or by specific model if you have more than one camera.
Once the image itself looks as sharp as it "should" to your eye (I typically judge that at 1:1 zoom), the final phase is to match the sharpness you see on the screen with what comes out of the printer. The final print sharpening in QU is designed to allow you to do that. For your printer, driver settings, and paper, you can print a few samples and as soon as you set your final (smart) sharpening level to something that matches well with your screen, you can save that as a printer setup and never worry about it again: because now your visual sharpness of the print matches what you see on screen. QU is designed to give you the same level of visual sharpness on each print, regardless of what size you print.
Yes, it does use an algorithm that takes into account the original image size, how much it has to be upsampled (or downsampled) for the current print size you are using, modified of course by where you have your final print sharpening set (5 being the default). I don't disclose the actual algorithm for (probably obvious) reasons but it is based on years of R&D of what it takes to replicate visible sharpness at various input and output PPI.
I can tell you that at output/print time, the sequence is:
- Interpolate to final print resolution
- Sharpen at that final resolution
- Apply color management
Note that the application of color management must come last because the first two steps (interpolation and sharpening) should never be done in the printer's color space (profile) as those printer profiles are often jaggy and have out-of-gamut colors which could introduce artifacts if processing is done in a printer color space.
Regards,
Mike
-
Do programs like DXO Optics use deconvolution techniques, do you know?
Yes, they do, but a drawback is that their program is limited to an AdobeRGB gamut workingspace, even when exporting as ProPhoto RGB.
What's the state of play? Seems like something to keep a close eye on!
Lot's of things going on, but the industry giants are (as usual) slow at picking up the pace and implement real solutions for e.g. Photographers.
Just had a look at your link ... have you used Imatest (Norman Koren)? It's seriously good for testing lenses (and adjusting microfocus etc) ... but it's one of these programs that sort of sucks you in like a black hole (one needs to tread carefully!).
Yes, I've used it and it is very good, but my main issue with it is that is only analyses, without making the connection to implementing solutions based on those analysis. I do understand Norman's business model, so that explains for me why they stop at the point they do.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A deconvolution sharpening choice added tot Qimage's RAW development? Based on the slanted edge tool Bart provides so anyone with an odd camera/lens combination can still use it while more common combinations can be found in a user's pool of sharpening profiles.
Ernst Dinkla
-
A deconvolution sharpening choice added tot Qimage's RAW development? Based on the slanted edge tool Bart provides so anyone with an odd camera/lens combination can still use it while more common combinations can be found in a user's pool of sharpening profiles.
Ernst Dinkla
That would be a good reason to do raw development in QImage! (if I understand you correctly). But why stop at the raw development? Surely the deconvolution would work just as well on a tif? (providing no sharpening during the raw development, that is). Still, easier said than done I would guess.
Robert
-
Just to give you a bit more feedback, I've just done 3 prints of the same image for three different customers (30x20, 20x16 and 16x12), and with slight trepidation did this with QImage (on a lovely Canson Platine paper). All three images had minimal capture sharpening in Lightroom (low radius, low strength, masking) and I then printed with QImage with the DFS sharpening set to 5 (and held my breath!).
The results were perfect - sharp, no haloes, no artifacts. I couldn't have been more pleased.
Robert
-
I had to take another look at the DFS code to see what it was doing in low contrast areas. What I found was that it wasn't taking the radius into account when measuring local contrast so the piece of code that decides what is statistically significant (to sharpen) needed that factor. About a half dozen lines of code later and we have the improvement in 2014.250. See attached for the comparison.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention in a way that I could easily see/test it. The problem doesn't easily show up on "organic" images: more on mathematical gradients. But the result (in 2014.250) produces a much smoother result with less noise in areas like sky and evenly shaded areas, without affecting sharpness of notable edges.
Regards,
Mike
Thanks
As a long time user of Qimage, I'm quite happy that you spend the time to get always better results. Qimage takes the hassle out of my printing and I get superb results.
Alain
-
Thanks
As a long time user of Qimage, I'm quite happy that you spend the time to get always better results. Qimage takes the hassle out of my printing and I get superb results.
Alain
+1
-
+1
Since 2003 and it just keeps getting better. :)
-
Just to give you a bit more feedback, I've just done 3 prints of the same image for three different customers (30x20, 20x16 and 16x12), and with slight trepidation did this with QImage (on a lovely Canson Platine paper). All three images had minimal capture sharpening in Lightroom (low radius, low strength, masking) and I then printed with QImage with the DFS sharpening set to 5 (and held my breath!).
The results were perfect - sharp, no haloes, no artifacts. I couldn't have been more pleased.
Robert
I have always said that you cannot judge prints on a computer monitor, in the final analysis you can only judge from the actual print. Enjoy!
-
The results were perfect - sharp, no haloes, no artifacts. I couldn't have been more pleased.
Great, mission accomplished.
Of course there will be those who say that LR would have produced the same result, until they try Qimage ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Great, mission accomplished.
Of course there will be those who say that LR would have produced the same result, until they try Qimage ...
Cheers,
Bart
\]
Setting aside all "vested interests" (e.g. I paid for it so it must be the best, or this is what I use so it must be the best, or this is the product I earn my living from so it must be the best....et. al.) I truly believe these comparisons are very difficult to make properly, for several reasons: firstly, the appearance of comparative outcomes could vary by image content. Secondly, each application being compared would need to be used in its optimal manner; thirdly, to the extent feasible, the comparison should islolate for all other variables that could contaminate the relative impact of the sharpening functions alone; fourthly, what several have said above - where prints on paper are the final output, the only way to come to operationally significant conclusions is to see the comparative results in a print on paper (and then what paper and what printer at what resolution- presumably a gloss paper using the finest detail settings of the printer and the native resolution of the printhead). These provisos of course are elementary scientific procedure as you well know. I'm not convinced the demos provided to date in this thread have shown conclusively that QImage is necessarily or systemically superior to what can be achieved in LR. It could well be the case - not saying otherwise, as I can't test this myself, insofar as I shall not install Windows on my Mac for this purpose alone. There are many interesting insights on this thread, but to say we have a definitive and generally applicable conclusion just yet - I wonder.
-
Setting aside all "vested interests" (e.g. I paid for it so it must be the best, or this is what I use so it must be the best, or this is the product I earn my living from so it must be the best....et. al.) ...
Hi Mark,
I'm not sure what vested interests you picked up from the previous discussion, but as far as I am concerned, I own licenses to both Lightroom (5.6 as of this writing) and Qimage Ultimate (2014.251 as of this writing), and compare based on output quality. Because that is 'hard' to convey on someone else's display, and tastes vary, I've shown some neutral samples which demonstrate what to expect, and what to look for. Display comparisons of print-file crops, which can be printed(!), do provide a first impression though.
I'm not convinced the demos provided to date in this thread have shown conclusively that QImage is necessarily or systemically superior to what can be achieved in LR. It could well be the case - not saying otherwise, as I can't test this myself, insofar as I shall not install Windows on my Mac for this purpose alone. There are many interesting insights on this thread, but to say we have a definitive and generally applicable conclusion just yet - I wonder.
As you said, there is only one way to convince yourself, but nobody is twisting your arm into doing so.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I would say that this is an interesting discussion, don't kill it please!
Best regards
Erik
Hi Mark,
I'm not sure what vested interests you picked up from the previous discussing, but as far as I am concerned, I own licenses to both Lightroom (5.6 as of this writing) and Qimage Ultimate (2014.251 as of this writing), and compare based on output quality). Because that is 'hard' to convey on someone else's display, and tastes vary, I've shown some neutral samples which demonstrate what to expect, and what to look for. Display comparisons of print-file crops, which can be printed(!), do provide a first impression though.
As you said, there is only one way to convince yourself, but nobody is twisting your arm into doing so.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fair enough Bart, and I won't be taking it any further for the reason explained. But it would be interesting if QImage were released in a Mac version - I'd definitely buy a license and test it, given how many knowledgeable people swear by it. However, daring to also say, my visual acuity and printing standards are kind of exacting, so if I were dissatisfied with the results I achieve with the tools I use, I would of course go the extra mile (or 1.6 kilometers). I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Hi,
I would say that this is an interesting discussion, don't kill it please!
Best regards
Erik
No one is killing it Erik -no reason why it shouldn't run its natural course. There have been no insults, swearing, obscenities or other no-nos that I'm aware of :-)
-
Hi Mark,
My response was not personally meant. I just felt the thread was turning a bit non constructive.
Just to make it clear, I really like Lightroom and the associated work flow, but I can see the merit of some other tools. Unfortunately, use of almost any external tool from Lightroom breaks parametric work flow. That is a very bad thing!
Best regards
Erik
No one is killing it Erik -no reason why it shouldn't run its natural course. There have been no insults, swearing, obscenities or other no-nos that I'm aware of :-)
-
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/QU250vSS.jpg)
The original is just a square to which I applied a small amount of Gaussian blur to soften the edges. As you can see, QU with DFS 3/100 has done a remarkable job – it has almost entirely restored the original, removing the Gaussian blur without introducing any halos. Amazing! As a comparison, Smart Sharpen, also with 3/100 but without any backing off on Lightness and Shadows shows the expected lightening and darkening around the edges. On this test DFS blows Smart Sharpen out of the water.
Interesting as that Adobe Smart Sharpening image is exactly what I've been having a problem with lately doing circuit board layouts where we need a sharp B&W transition and not shades of gray. If we use PS Threshold on the Smart Sharpen to address the sharpening, it pixelates and drops what was a sharp circuit board trace (or line) into a jagged mess that needs to be retouched (hours!) for a clean straight edge. Honestly, we can edit better within Windows Paint than PS if it must be sharp and with a clean edge-break image for circuit boards and layout. Seems the longer we work within PS the worse the image becomes with regards to the edges and subsequent pixelations and shades of gray which we do not want to see at all.
We also use QU as the print maker since we can enlarge and shirk easily for the 0.1 pin layout matching. Really has been a good print software for what we do over Adobe.
SG
-
Mark's comments are perfectly valid. There are a lot of complexities involved in testing, even down to the type of image you choose to perform the test. Aside from DFS and sharpening without halos (which LR can't do), any and all of these tools are capable of getting within probably 5% of each other as far as print quality. Even the difference between USM and DFS might not be noticeable for prints/setups that don't need a lot of sharpening in the first place, so wouldn't show halos even with USM type sharpening. And, with all the plugins available, you can get close to DFS sharpening performance with some (albeit expensive) plugins for PhotoShop.
The way I see the Qimage Ultimate mission, it is to get you in that "optimal quality" range cost effectively and with the least hassle and (just as important) repeatably and reliably, minimizing the potential for user mistakes in those steps. So while I'm not here to make claims that QU beats all the competition as far as quality and there is no way to achieve results as good as QU, what I will claim is that you can get equivalent quality to the best possible in any other program, with only a fraction of the effort. And that quality is available to all users, not just those with years of experience pixel peeping. Sure, if you know what you are doing, you can use specialized plugins, resample to exact levels required for a given print size, make sure your driver and color management settings are correct for a particular job, lay out your prints in an efficient manner on the paper, and so on... with most all of these programs. The difference is: you can get there a lot faster, easier, and more reliably with QU... without having to be an expert.
Regards,
Mike
-
Hi Erik,
Understood. I too like to stick with a parametric workflow as much as possible for all the well-known reasons; that said, breaking it has become less of a quality issue over the years with various software improvements, but that is a whole other topic!
-
....
The way I see the Qimage Ultimate mission, it is to get you in that "optimal quality" range cost effectively and with the least hassle and (just as important) repeatably and reliably, minimizing the potential for user mistakes in those steps. .... The difference is: you can get there a lot faster, easier, and more reliably with QU... without having to be an expert.
Regards,
Mike
There are lots of great reasons to use Qimage Ultimate (managing paper profiles and addressing the George Costanza "It was the pool!" shrinkage effect come to mind). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DoARSlv-HU
I've been using Qimage for years. Mike's description sums it all up nicely.
:) ken
-
Hi Mark,
My response was not personally meant. I just felt the thread was turning a bit non constructive.
Just to make it clear, I really like Lightroom and the associated work flow, but I can see the merit of some other tools. Unfortunately, use of almost any external tool from Lightroom breaks parametric work flow. That is a very bad thing!
Best regards
Erik
Regarding the question of parametric workflow ... of course it's great to stay in Lightroom (or other program that uses stored adjustment steps rather than actually altering the image), but we shouldn't forget that Lightroom has to render the image in order to make the changes. Even though the raw image is not touched, the image data is being worked on in order to achieve all of the adjustments that we make - and then for print or web viewing the rendered image is output.
And there are many things that we simply cannot do (currently) in Lightroom that we can do in Photoshop, say. And moving the image to Photoshop (or to QImage for that matter) does not mean that all of the parametric information or raw data is lost: all we need to do is to open the image as a smart object in Photoshop and either work on it in Photoshop or save it as a tif of psd for QImage (and QImage or any other program will work fine on the tif with the embedded raw object with all of the parametric formulae because Photoshop renders the image).
Also, when working in Photoshop we can to a very large extent work parametrically (effectively, although people might argue that we are working non-destructively, which is effectively the same thing), by using the raw smart object, smart filters, adjustment layers etc. When it is no longer possible to work in that way, we can always use a separate layer for the destructive type work, keeping everything nice and clean and easily reversed.
Of course there is a downside to this - file size and performance, but with terabyte discs cheaply available and powerful computers with gigabytes of memory, for perhaps $1000 more than a mid-range family computer ... that isn't such a show-stopper any more.
Robert
-
\]
Setting aside all "vested interests" (e.g. I paid for it so it must be the best, or this is what I use so it must be the best, or this is the product I earn my living from so it must be the best....et. al.) I truly believe these comparisons are very difficult to make properly, for several reasons: firstly, the appearance of comparative outcomes could vary by image content. Secondly, each application being compared would need to be used in its optimal manner; thirdly, to the extent feasible, the comparison should islolate for all other variables that could contaminate the relative impact of the sharpening functions alone; fourthly, what several have said above - where prints on paper are the final output, the only way to come to operationally significant conclusions is to see the comparative results in a print on paper (and then what paper and what printer at what resolution- presumably a gloss paper using the finest detail settings of the printer and the native resolution of the printhead). These provisos of course are elementary scientific procedure as you well know. I'm not convinced the demos provided to date in this thread have shown conclusively that QImage is necessarily or systemically superior to what can be achieved in LR. It could well be the case - not saying otherwise, as I can't test this myself, insofar as I shall not install Windows on my Mac for this purpose alone. There are many interesting insights on this thread, but to say we have a definitive and generally applicable conclusion just yet - I wonder.
I have to say Mark that in this instance I have zero vested interest. I've paid my $69 for QImage Ultimate, but I would drop it in a flash, just as I did with QImage Pro that I bought years ago, if it didn't simplify my workflow and, more importantly, showed no quality improvement in my prints. I certainly don't like wasting money, but $69 is no reason to stick to a bit of software that doesn't do what you want it to do.
Also, I am still on the fence regarding QImage. My initial tests are very encouraging (although, as you can see from the earlier posts, the tests were not initially encouraging!), but now we come to your second point, which is the difficulty of comparing one program or method with another. It's shockingly time-consuming (and costs a lot more than $69 in ink and paper!, not to mention time!), and comparing like with like is very difficult. It's also very difficult to be objective (which is something I've tried really hard to be in my testing, because who would I be fooling but myself?).
I have a constitutional dislike for things that work automatically and which I don't understand. I would prefer to spend ages sharpening an image myself with the basic filters available (which I understand reasonably well) rather than dialing in 5 and hitting the button. So using a program like QImage for me really goes against the grain, which is the main reason I'm still on the fence: it's going to have to prove itself to me for a while to come before I succumb.
And I do agree with you - if I was on a Mac I wouldn't change to Windows because of QImage. It's good, but it certainly wouldn't warrant that sort of disruption!
Robert
-
Robert, your pen-ultimate post is all largely correct. But you omitted what for some - perhaps many - of us could be the biggest constraint of all: TIME. The value of time spent image editing needs to be considered - to me anyhow, it is the scarcest of resources. For that reason, a Lightroom workflow is really hard to beat because for many peoples' needs the program design is so very good. I make it a habit of exploiting Lightroom to the fullest before turning to anything else. I think roughly 95% of my image editing is done in LR without going into any other application. The other 5% usually happens either because I need to de-skew a perspective (LR 5 can't yet do this properly) or I need some kind of mask or mask-based adjustment that is hard to implement correctly in LR, though with version 5 even that has become very much better. So again, not wanting to hijack the thread from its original intent, the sharpening question does have this as context, and I believe a good number of professionals would share my perspective that if one is to move out of LR, there needs to be significant value-added for the time commitment to be worthwhile.
Re your post immediately above, I too like to understand what I'm doing, and to the extent my professional abilities allow - understand what's happening under the hood. In this regard = w.r.t. sharpening, I think Jeff Schewe's book provides a huge amount of excellent insight that is as valid for Photokit Sharpener, as it is for LR/ACR, and as it may be for other acutance-based applications on the market. In LR there are just a few sliders to play with, but once one really understands how to use them, it provides a very flexible and effective "sharpening" package. One is not confined to dialing-in presets or set numbers.
-
Of course there is a downside to this - file size and performance, but with terabyte discs cheaply available and powerful computers with gigabytes of memory, for perhaps $1000 more than a mid-range family computer ... that isn't such a show-stopper any more.
Hi Robert,
And in the case of Qimage Ultimate, one can export from LR as an 8bit/channel TIFF, already converted to the output profile, since QU will convert to 8-b/ch data anyway (and with 8-b/ch data QU won't dither on input). So the burden on (temporary) storage space is relatively limited.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Robert, your pen-ultimate post is all largely correct. But you omitted what for some - perhaps many - of us could be the biggest constraint of all: TIME. The value of time spent image editing needs to be considered - to me anyhow, it is the scarcest of resources. For that reason, a Lightroom workflow is really hard to beat because for many peoples' needs the program design is so very good. I make it a habit of exploiting Lightroom to the fullest before turning to anything else. I think roughly 95% of my image editing is done in LR without going into any other application. The other 5% usually happens either because I need to de-skew a perspective (LR 5 can't yet do this properly) or I need some kind of mask or mask-based adjustment that is hard to implement correctly in LR, though with version 5 even that has become very much better. So again, not wanting to hijack the thread from its original intent, the sharpening question does have this as context, and I believe a good number of professionals would share my perspective that if one is to move out of LR, there needs to be significant value-added for the time commitment to be worthwhile.
Re your post immediately above, I too like to understand what I'm doing, and to the extent my professional abilities allow - understand what's happening under the hood. In this regard = w.r.t. sharpening, I think Jeff Schewe's book provides a huge amount of excellent insight that is as valid for Photokit Sharpener, as it is for LR/ACR, and as it may be for other acutance-based applications on the market. In LR there are just a few sliders to play with, but once one really understands how to use them, it provides a very flexible and effective "sharpening" package. One is not confined to dialing-in presets or set numbers.
Totally Mark - I'm not running down Lr for a minute. I use it all the time and even though every now and then I'll get tempted by Capture One, or check out what DCRAW can do ... so far I've always gone back to Lr and like it a lot. I think the sharpening is excellent ... the Masking adjustment is brilliant (you would think that 'Smart Sharpen' would have a feature like that!). I often use the ACR sharpening instead of Smart Sharpen in Photoshop (with the CC Camera Raw filter and before that with Dr Brown's Edit Layer in ACR script). You can then dial-down the haloes (if any) using the Photoshop advanced blending features, set the layer blend mode to Luminosity to avoid color artifacts (or set the Smart Filter blend mode to Luminosity) etc.
So far I've always used Lr for printing and the printing functionality is excellent (and consistent with the rest of Lr, which is an important consideration). Output sharpening in Lr is just too basic IMO, so I've always output sharpened my images in Photoshop (I'm REALLY fussy about sharpening in prints ... I think bad sharpening is one of the quickest and easiest ways to ruin a print).
Getting very familiar with one's tools is a really important thing, IMO, because then we have a better chance of getting the best out of them ... so I really wouldn't advocate changing for the sake of change. What I'm doing at the moment is just reviewing things to see if there are better ways of working. That's a useful thing to do also ... every now and then ... providing it doesn't become a full-time occupation, which this is in danger of becoming!
I think Mike Chaney's comment was very fair: he claims that QImage will do as good a job as the best packages currently available, but he doesn't claim that one can't achieve as good a result with another package. Bart also said that if you're prepared to spend the time at it that you can probably achieve better results than with QImage running automatically (presumably he included doing further processing in QImage itself as well as Photoshop or whatever).
I personally don't really need to print multiple prints at the same time (sure, sometimes yes, but I can always manage in Lightroom or even Photoshop). If that's something one does a lot, then that is one area where QImage really shines. The flexibility of layout, borders, adding text, sharpening, resize algorithms, anti-aliasing etc., is fantastic for a package at that price. If you are doing that a lot it would be worth getting a PC just for printing. If I was a wedding photographer, for example, I wouldn't hesitate for long.
For me it comes down more to the quality of the resizing algorithms and the output sharpening (and also the anti-aliasing for downsampling, which can potentially be a problem).
Robert
-
The bottom line is what the print looks like under normal viewing conditions. I really wonder if this debate is overlooking this. We went through the same tortuous discussion a couple of years ago in response to a Mark Dubovoy article HERE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.0). The bottom line is that there are lots of options from both the hardware and software perspective. We all make choices but in the hand of skilled practitioners equivalent results can be had with various combinations. I continue to maintain that an expert digital printmaker can use different tools and come up with an excellent print.
-
The bottom line is what the print looks like under normal viewing conditions. I really wonder if this debate is overlooking this. We went through the same tortuous discussion a couple of years ago in response to a Mark Dubovoy article HERE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.0). The bottom line is that there are lots of options from both the hardware and software perspective. We all make choices but in the hand of skilled practitioners equivalent results can be had with various combinations. I continue to maintain that an expert digital printmaker can use different tools and come up with an excellent print.
Generally true, and why the time and efficiency dimension can be determinative in making choices, recognizing also that no matter what we use, at some point we end up against the resolution constraints of lenses and printers.
-
The bottom line is what the print looks like under normal viewing conditions. I really wonder if this debate is overlooking this. We went through the same tortuous discussion a couple of years ago in response to a Mark Dubovoy article HERE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.0). The bottom line is that there are lots of options from both the hardware and software perspective. We all make choices but in the hand of skilled practitioners equivalent results can be had with various combinations. I continue to maintain that an expert digital printmaker can use different tools and come up with an excellent print.
I had a quick look at the topic you mention Alan, and although I only got to the bottom of page 1 ... which was enough! ... I don't see the parallels. Of course as good results can be obtained using different tools (even if the tools aren't as good, providing the user knows how to compensate - for example by using blend modes to reduce the halos in USM). And I think we absolutely all agree that the bottom line is how well the print (or web image) looks under the intended viewing conditions, not what process was used to achieve it.
So I think you're right to continue to maintain that an expert digital printmaker can use different tools and come up with an excellent print :)
But I also assume that the expert digital printmaker would use the best tools available to him, or her, as the case may be.
Robert
-
Hi,
As a generic point, I would say that it is great that we have alternatives. Personally, I only use Lightroom for printing. But, it may be that Lightroom may not be the best image processing tool. Some cases I need to resort to Photoshop.
I have used QImage in my Windows past, but I was not really happy with the user interface. I guess that I would have a look at QImage if I used the "W" platform, but now I use Lightroom. For really large prints I may go with ImageMagic and a few Topaz tools.
That said, I am pretty sure QImage is a great tool.
Other than that, I just wish I had more printworthy images and wall space to hang…
Best regards
Erik
-
I have used QImage in my Windows past, but I was not really happy with the user interface.
I agree with you - the user interface is one of the reasons I didn't use QImage Pro; and I do not find the interface in QImage Ultimate intuitive or easy to use. I keep stumbling on features that it has that should really jump out at you ... or struggle to find ways to do something that is dead easy in reality but is sort of hidden in the undergrowth.
Other than that, I just wish I had more printworthy image and wall space to hang…
Hear hear!
-
I do agree also.
I really think Qimage is fantastic and has an amazing price tag. The results are superb and the whole concept of the software is perfectly aimed at my type of use... but not the interface.
The only thing that keeps me from using it more is the user interface and how counter intuitive it is.
If they could manage to leave the features and quality as it is for the moment and focus the next developments on the interface and usability from the user's point of view, Qimage could become the best overall software for printing.
I hope that happens.
-
A couple years ago, Mike Chaney made a run at developing a Mac version. I don't remember the details, but as I remember, it ended with frustration of closed architecture and lack of developer support from Apple.
Mike even uses a Mac. Many of my friends do also, but keep and old and/or cheap PC to print with.
-
I do agree also.
I really think Qimage is fantastic and has an amazing price tag. The results are superb and the whole concept of the software is perfectly aimed at my type of use... but not the interface.
The only thing that keeps me from using it more is the user interface and how counter intuitive it is.
If they could manage to leave the features and quality as it is for the moment and focus the next developments on the interface and usability from the user's point of view, Qimage could become the best overall software for printing.
I hope that happens.
Have you used Qimage Ultimate? It is completely different from the old Qimage and the UI has been redesigned. Anyone who can use LR can certainly use QU... in a fraction of the time! LR is so convoluted and makes each step so difficult that it's a nightmare to do even the simplest task. And talk about non-standard! With all the holding down of Alt and Ctrl keys to switch to different panels, if that's what you are looking for... you'll certainly never see that in Qimage Ultimate! ;) The simplest printing tasks that take less than a half dozen clicks in QU take a multitude of gyrations to get done in LR... if you can even do them at all.
Mike
-
.............. LR is so convoluted and makes each step so difficult that it's a nightmare to do even the simplest task. And talk about non-standard! With all the holding down of Alt and Ctrl keys to switch to different panels, if that's what you are looking for... .......... The simplest printing tasks ................ take a multitude of gyrations to get done in LR... if you can even do them at all.
Mike
I've been using LR since version 1 and it has only gotten better from one release to the next. I can assert with confidence that what you are saying here is unmitigated rubbish. Not to speak of the countless and varied clientele for whom LR is their image editing bread-and-butter application, available for both Mac and Windows.
-
I've been using LR since version 1 and it has only gotten better from one release to the next. I can assert with confidence that what you are saying here is unmitigated rubbish. Not to speak of the countless and varied clientele for whom LR is their image editing bread-and-butter application, available for both Mac and Windows.
Mark, in most cases, I have the ultimate respect for you.
In this case, however, you are not qualified to make a comparison.
LR has gotten much better with each release.....it had to, it was cr*p for printing when it started. It still does not, in anyway compare to what QU can do....and much easier.
Sorry.....you should spend some time learning and using before you speak.
-
User experience varies and there is no way around that fact.
I've used Qimage since 2008 and Lightroom since its inception.
My experience has been that Qimage continues to give visibly better results.
However I don't find the new UI any better, it still seems to have been designed by an engineer. Two of many peculiarities that come to mind: I am unable to get the borders I want without doing the math for the 3mm printer edge, and there are sub-sub-menus to negotiate to recall settings.
For me, Lightroom is so intuitive to use that I have completely given up on Qimage, which is a shame. Sometime I'll put aside a day to completely re-learn it to try to get an easier workflow going.
David
-
LR is so convoluted and makes each step so difficult that it's a nightmare to do even the simplest task. And talk about non-standard! With all the holding down of Alt and Ctrl keys to switch to different panels, if that's what you are looking for... you'll certainly never see that in Qimage Ultimate! ;
Mike, so, I've been relatively neutral regarding Qimage Ultimate and even included it in a section of my The Digital Print book (taking the time to buy and download the then most recent version). But, I tend to draw the line at belittling a competing product to LR a "convoluted nightmare"...do you really want to do that?
I have no problem with you advocating your product, but do you really want to go down that rabbit hole of belittling a competing product?
Several thing come to mind...the foremost being you don't really have a clue how to use Lightroom...if you did you would see how to use it as an efficient way to get from raw capture to final print and get excellent results (I can, so others should be able to as well). And don't even get me started with your raw processing...
It's all well and good to point out your product's strengths, but, you really shouldn't try to denigrate other competing products. It lessens your credibility...
The fact is, I'll never be a main-line Qimage Ultimate user for the simple fact that I use Mac...and you've made it perfectly clear that you either can't (or won't) code for Mac. Therefore, your product is a non-starter for me. Sorry...
-
Jeff, I think you are correct. Both sides are guilty of the "easy to use is what you know" syndrome.
Each product does have it's good and...could be improved points....functionally and UI.
I admit to using both and having...on both....needed to search around to do certainly things....or found that one or the other could not do what I wanted. I also admit that I am a bit biased to QU...for many reasons...the most being the quality...and a printing consistency and flexibility that is not in LR.
That said, I do not knock LR printing. For most, it is great and far better than can be do via PS.
-
User experience varies and there is no way around that fact.
Hi David,
That's correct, and add a natural resistance to change, and we have a recipe for entrenched opinions.
However, for the task at hand, i.e. repeatedly producing high (and often better) quality output with a minimum of effort, it's objectively hard to beat Qimage Ultimate. Lightroom isn't bad, nobody says so, but it does take a fair amount of work to produce output, with plenty of opportunities to choose sub-optimal setings. Qimage can do the same thing or better with very few mouse clicks.
Of course both programs can also be set up for more complex tasks, and that's where the amount of experience one has with either program kicks in.
I've used Qimage since 2008 and Lightroom since its inception.
My experience has been that Qimage continues to give visibly better results.
However I don't find the new UI any better, it still seems to have been designed by an engineer.
You could be right ;) . One of Mike's goals seems to be to create a short route with few clicks to achieve simple tasks. Others may prefer a nice looking interface while they jump through a myriad of hoops to achieve their goal.
Two of many peculiarities that come to mind: I am unable to get the borders I want without doing the math for the 3mm printer edge, and there are sub-sub-menus to negotiate to recall settings.
I'm not exactly sure what you want to achieve (printers have variably sized non-printable borders), maybe there is a simple solution or, if there is enough support, Mike could create a solution (just ask it on his Tech Corner forum). Once a non-standard setting is found that one likes, that can of course be saved and recalled for future jobs, like LR also can do if you started out designing a template of sorts. Qimage simply remembers, and also allows to formally save the settings for easy recall if one frequently wants to switch between settings.
Mike is known to listen to his customers (and others), although he does have a final say in what gets added or not, usually based on sound reasons (like after his sobering experiences with creating a Mac version).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've used Qimage since 2008 and Lightroom since its inception.
My experience has been that Qimage continues to give visibly better results.
This statement has been posted by several others but this was the easiest for me to clip out and highlight. I would appreciate any uses of both products to clearly define for me what "visibly better results" means and how it is evaluated on real life prints (not artificial targets). I'm not concerned with UIs as any one can master a program with enough effort (I use ArgyllCMS to do all my profiling and in this day of Windows/Mac OS, old fashioned command line programs can be a PITA). I'm not trying to be argumentative here but rather as a scientist want to understand the evaluative method that is used.
-
Hi David,
That's correct, and add a natural resistance to change, and we have a recipe for entrenched opinions.
However, for the task at hand, i.e. repeatedly producing high (and often better) quality output with a minimum of effort, it's objectively hard to beat Qimage Ultimate. Lightroom isn't bad, nobody says so, but it does take a fair amount of work to produce output, with plenty of opportunities to choose sub-optimal setings. Qimage can do the same thing or better with very few mouse clicks.
Of course both programs can also be set up for more complex tasks, and that's where the amount of experience one has with either program kicks in.
You could be right ;) . One of Mike's goals seems to be to create a short route with few clicks to achieve simple tasks. Others may prefer a nice looking interface while they jump through a myriad of hoops to achieve their goal.
I'm not exactly sure what you want to achieve (printers have variably sized non-printable borders), maybe there is a simple solution or, if there is enough support, Mike could create a solution (just ask it on his Tech Corner forum). Once a non-standard setting is found that one likes, that can of course be saved and recalled for future jobs, like LR also can do if you started out designing a template of sorts. Qimage simply remembers, and also allows to formally save the settings for easy recall if one frequently wants to switch between settings.
Mike is know to listen to his customers (and others), although he does have a final say in what gets added or not, usually based on sound reasons (like after his sobering experiences with creating a Mac version).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart's observations are mine too. What I use most for images is Qimage Ultimate + Photoshop and I think I am equally skilled in both but will not use all their tools. It is harder to learn new applications like Raw Therapee and Photoline but I can not say that their user interface is bad either. Different approaches on user interfaces for all of them, some seem illogic in learning but speed up the work when learned.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
I'm not trying to be argumentative here but rather as a scientist want to understand the evaluative method that is used.
Hi Alan,
For anything else than objectively measurable test targets, visual quality would be difficult to quantify (unless one takes a statistically significant amount of people and subject them to a double blind test of prints with a variety of subjects, and at various viewing conditions). It may well be that the QU alternatives compared to, given the thread's topic that's most likely to be LR, are not used to the fullest (which would also plead in favor of QU, which is less likely to under-utilize the achievable print setup quality).
The complexity of the path leading to the final print may also influence one's opinion.
Visually better results for me means, an up/down-sampling and sharpening quality that leads to natural looking, sharper (yet artifact free) images where sharpness is needed (and smooth where smooth is needed), with the intended layout, for the intended viewing conditions. Color management would produce equal results on that specific aspect. Others may have other aspects in mind.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mark, in most cases, I have the ultimate respect for you.
In this case, however, you are not qualified to make a comparison.
LR has gotten much better with each release.....it had to, it was cr*p for printing when it started. It still does not, in anyway compare to what QU can do....and much easier.
Sorry.....you should spend some time learning and using before you speak.
You've misunderstood where I am coming from. As I have not used QImage, you are correct that I am not in a position to comment on it. That is why you have not seen any comments from me about using QImage, and if you look carefully, why I snipped what Mike said about QImage out of the quote I extracted. I was focusing solely on the veracity and ethics of his comments on LR. While everyone is of course entitled to their opinions and this is a relatively free and open forum, there are bounds of decency and once those bounds are so obviously and egregiously crossed it is time to call a spade a spade. My late father was a manufacturer in Montreal and of course he had competitors. He was also a real gentleman, and one of the things he taught me very early in life is that you don't take down your competitors; you would not like them doing likewise to you - you focus on doing your own thing properly and you let your product speak for itself. In so many ways I have seen over and over again how truly wise were these words, and it distresses me to see the decorum of a technical discussion brought down to the level that it was with that comment.
-
You've misunderstood where I am coming from. As I have not used QImage, you are correct that I am not in a position to comment on it. That is why you have not seen any comments from me about using QImage, and if you look carefully, why I snipped what Mike said about QImage out of the quote I extracted. I was focusing solely on the veracity and ethics of his comments on LR. While everyone is of course entitled to their opinions and this is a relatively free and open forum, there are bounds of decency and once those bounds are so obviously and egregiously crossed it is time to call a spade a spade. My late father was a manufacturer in Montreal and of course he had competitors. He was also a real gentleman, and one of the things he taught me very early in life is that you don't take down your competitors; you would not like them doing likewise to you - you focus on doing your own thing properly and you let your product speak for itself. In so many ways I have seen over and over again how truly wise were these words, and it distresses me to see the decorum of a technical discussion brought down to the level that it was with that comment.
Mark. I think (maybe surprisingly to you) that your view is just as valid as mine. But I also don't think I should be stifled because I'm a developer. In response to another poster saying they don't like the QU interface, I don't like the LR interface. It seems to me they designed it to take literally the most complex route possible to perform a task. But that's OK. To some, the LR UI might seem more "logical" even though it takes more steps to accomplish the same thing. That's fine. My point in my post is that a tool is what you make of it. And if people can learn to use a tool that takes many more steps to do the same thing, and that tool has some obvious deviations from many established standards, they can probably learn to effectively use either tool! What I find is that people will spend countless hours learning how to navigate and use LR, attend (paid) classes, and then claim it to be the best tool. Then when some other tool does something differently, they declare it "wrong". Some of that is the "more expensive is better" syndrome. People will put the time into using LR because, well, it's Adobe.
Yes, I admit there is some "bad blood" between myself and Adobe. Chris Cox of Adobe has never had any hesitation in belittling my product on forums, so I feel no obligation whatsoever to hold back in pointing out weaknesses in an Adobe product. What you do with that "information" is up to you. But I stand by my right to voice my opinion and I will not be stifled on this, or any other forum. A couple years ago, a bug in CS5 was exposed where Adobe was writing JPEG files that clearly deviated from the JPEG standard. Instead of fixing the bug, Chris Cox of Adobe just belittled the half dozen or so programs that had a problem reading those non-standard JPEG's, leaving the bug in place and never fixing it all the way to the end of the CS5 production line. He called out myself, BreezeBrowser, and several other tools for not "reading" the JPEG files properly when, in fact, the JPEG's were malformed from the get-go. I finally got him to admit (on his own forum) that yes, the JPEG headers did not follow the standard, but he acted as the "Adobe Mafia" and tried to tow the line that whatever Adobe creates is the defacto new "standard" and other products should mold themselves around it.
But this isn't about "two wrongs make a right". It's about me pointing out how I feel that nearly everything done in LR can be done much easier in QU. And there are many things that QU can do that LR cannot. And only a very few things (mostly non printing related) that LR can do that QU cannot. Your late father sounds a lot like my late father: smart engineer and good man. But, having competitors, I'm sure they both realized that pointing out their strengths and competitors weaknesses is a part of business. If people don't know what to look for, they may not be able to make an informed decision. That's why you see commercials where companies compare themselves to competitors. Sometimes the competitor isn't named directly, sometimes they are. I think the Samsung commercial showing the iPhone users at the airport tethered to wall outlets is a riot. Maybe you don't like that commercial, or maybe you think it's OK only because it is done in a comedic way, but it's all a part of competition. I don't have Adobe's payroll or the ability to do things like multi-million dollar campaigns to convince customers that renting software to them is a good idea. So my statement about QU being much more efficient to use for printing and my belief that LR makes things far more difficult than they need to be, might prompt a few people to actually check it out rather than just assume that LR is better because: either that's what they learned, or lots of people are using it.
So no, I don't apologize for pointing out a competitor's weaknesses. Those weaknesses are primarily why QU exists because many people realize there is a better way, and pointing out strengths and weaknesses may prompt people to actually look at what they are doing and try the steps in both programs. It is only then that they may discover, "Wow, he was right. I've been doing it the hard way". I've seen enough people struggle with LR that I thought that pointing out that it takes the long way around most tasks was important. I know I'm not the only one. Ron Martinsen did a video comparison and while it's not perfect (he missed one obvious step), it does point out how it's not always best to have the most complex UI, even if it is "pretty". Check out his video (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2013/04/qimage-2013-complex-print-layout-made.html) where he tries to simply get three 4x6 prints on a page in LR. I would have preferred that he pick different size prints on the same page which is even more difficult in LR, but it does illustrate my point. The video is about halfway down the page.
Regards,
Mike
-
You've misunderstood where I am coming from. As I have not used QImage, you are correct that I am not in a position to comment on it. That is why you have not seen any comments from me about using QImage, and if you look carefully, why I snipped what Mike said about QImage out of the quote I extracted. I was focusing solely on the veracity and ethics of his comments on LR. While everyone is of course entitled to their opinions and this is a relatively free and open forum, there are bounds of decency and once those bounds are so obviously and egregiously crossed it is time to call a spade a spade. My late father was a manufacturer in Montreal and of course he had competitors. He was also a real gentleman, and one of the things he taught me very early in life is that you don't take down your competitors; you would not like them doing likewise to you - you focus on doing your own thing properly and you let your product speak for itself. In so many ways I have seen over and over again how truly wise were these words, and it distresses me to see the decorum of a technical discussion brought down to the level that it was with that comment.
Mark,
If I read your messages again in this thread I can only comment that the signal to noise ratio is not high in them. We both have no experience with both applications which isn't a good start for comments here. I do not have much to add in this thread. My messages mainly corrected false information about Qimage or added details on Qimage when asked but I did not try to describe any pro or con aspect of Lightroom, I simply couldn't as I have only used some LR demos in the past. If other people with experience of both programs do describe pros and cons of both programs I do not object, the thread aims at that content. The thread may get more heated when the writers are more bound to the programs' development teams, I can understand that. As far as I can observe it has more to do with their pride in the software development done than in the potential sales as a result of this thread.
I have no high regard on the ethics in commercial activities. I prefer to see mud throwing en plein public than to hear rumors spread in private talks. It is easier to interpret the first than the last.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Mark,
If I read your messages again in this thread I can only comment that the signal to noise ratio is not high in them. We both have no experience with both applications which isn't a good start for comments here. I do not have much to add in this thread. My messages mainly corrected false information about Qimage or added details on Qimage when asked but I did not try to describe any pro or con aspect of Lightroom, I simply couldn't as I have only used some LR demos in the past. If other people with experience of both programs do describe pros and cons of both programs I do not object, the thread aims at that content. The thread may get more heated when the writers are more bound to the programs' development teams, I can understand that. As far as I can observe it has more to do with their pride in the software development done than in the potential sales as a result of this thread.
I have no high regard on the ethics in commercial activities. I prefer to see mud throwing en plain public than to hear rumors spread in private talks. It is easier to interpret the first than the last.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Hi Ernst,
Well, either I haven't done a very good job of making my perspectives clear enough in this thread or you don't quite understand where I am coming from for whatever reason. So be it and let us leave it at that - no harm intended :-).
You are of course correct about our lack of experience using both applications, and that is why I have been careful to avoid discussing Q-Image; I like to know what I am talking about. Frankly, in this kind of discussion I don't see the need for throwing mud, period. Back to the main course.
Best regards,
Mark
-
Mark. I think (maybe surprisingly to you) that your view is just as valid as mine. But I also don't think I should be stifled because I'm a developer. In response to another poster saying they don't like the QU interface, I don't like the LR interface. It seems to me they designed it to take literally the most complex route possible to perform a task. But that's OK. To some, the LR UI might seem more "logical" even though it takes more steps to accomplish the same thing. That's fine. My point in my post is that a tool is what you make of it. And if people can learn to use a tool that takes many more steps to do the same thing, and that tool has some obvious deviations from many established standards, they can probably learn to effectively use either tool! What I find is that people will spend countless hours learning how to navigate and use LR, attend (paid) classes, and then claim it to be the best tool. Then when some other tool does something differently, they declare it "wrong". Some of that is the "more expensive is better" syndrome. People will put the time into using LR because, well, it's Adobe.
Yes, I admit there is some "bad blood" between myself and Adobe. Chris Cox of Adobe has never had any hesitation in belittling my product on forums, so I feel no obligation whatsoever to hold back in pointing out weaknesses in an Adobe product. What you do with that "information" is up to you. But I stand by my right to voice my opinion and I will not be stifled on this, or any other forum. A couple years ago, a bug in CS5 was exposed where Adobe was writing JPEG files that clearly deviated from the JPEG standard. Instead of fixing the bug, Chris Cox of Adobe just belittled the half dozen or so programs that had a problem reading those non-standard JPEG's, leaving the bug in place and never fixing it all the way to the end of the CS5 production line. He called out myself, BreezeBrowser, and several other tools for not "reading" the JPEG files properly when, in fact, the JPEG's were malformed from the get-go. I finally got him to admit (on his own forum) that yes, the JPEG headers did not follow the standard, but he acted as the "Adobe Mafia" and tried to tow the line that whatever Adobe creates is the defacto new "standard" and other products should mold themselves around it.
But this isn't about "two wrongs make a right". It's about me pointing out how I feel that nearly everything done in LR can be done much easier in QU. And there are many things that QU can do that LR cannot. And only a very few things (mostly non printing related) that LR can do that QU cannot. Your late father sounds a lot like my late father: smart engineer and good man. But, having competitors, I'm sure they both realized that pointing out their strengths and competitors weaknesses is a part of business. If people don't know what to look for, they may not be able to make an informed decision. That's why you see commercials where companies compare themselves to competitors. Sometimes the competitor isn't named directly, sometimes they are. I think the Samsung commercial showing the iPhone users at the airport tethered to wall outlets is a riot. Maybe you don't like that commercial, or maybe you think it's OK only because it is done in a comedic way, but it's all a part of competition. I don't have Adobe's payroll or the ability to do things like multi-million dollar campaigns to convince customers that renting software to them is a good idea. So my statement about QU being much more efficient to use for printing and my belief that LR makes things far more difficult than they need to be, might prompt a few people to actually check it out rather than just assume that LR is better because: either that's what they learned, or lots of people are using it.
So no, I don't apologize for pointing out a competitor's weaknesses. Those weaknesses are primarily why QU exists because many people realize there is a better way, and pointing out strengths and weaknesses may prompt people to actually look at what they are doing and try the steps in both programs. It is only then that they may discover, "Wow, he was right. I've been doing it the hard way". I've seen enough people struggle with LR that I thought that pointing out that it takes the long way around most tasks was important. I know I'm not the only one. Ron Martinsen did a video comparison and while it's not perfect (he missed one obvious step), it does point out how it's not always best to have the most complex UI, even if it is "pretty". Check out his video (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2013/04/qimage-2013-complex-print-layout-made.html) where he tries to simply get three 4x6 prints on a page in LR. I would have preferred that he pick different size prints on the same page which is even more difficult in LR, but it does illustrate my point. The video is about halfway down the page.
Regards,
Mike
Mike, I think we just have a different concept of what constitutes fair comment (regardless of the business practices of others in the community) so let's leave it at that. I do wish you would develop a Mac version so I could test your application without having to install Windows on my computer. I have heard many good things about Q-Image from a long time back and were it not for that limitation I would very much like to have tried it out.
Regards,
Mark
-
David....Page Margins
Is this what you are looking for? QU, Edit>Preferences
-
David....Page Margins
Is this what you are looking for? QU, Edit>Preferences
If that is indeed what Dave was looking for, it's fully explained in this video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/embed/p-22y2wfzI4).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Seems like a lot of good people contributing here who can get opinions (and maybe a few biases and passions) ;) across without it turning downhill. I certainly appreciate that. There are positives and negatives with any software and some negatives may drive you away from one solution while the positives of another pull you in. Good to be able to share both because people have such varying needs and expectations for what they use.
Mike
-
Yes, I admit there is some "bad blood" between myself and Adobe. Chris Cox of Adobe has never had any hesitation in belittling my product on forums, so I feel no obligation whatsoever to hold back in pointing out weaknesses in an Adobe product.
You realize that Chris has nothing to do with Lightroom, right? So, are you saying since you and Chris don't get along, you feel free to complain about an entirely different product because it's still produced by Adobe? You realize how that sounds, right?
-
You realize that Chris has nothing to do with Lightroom, right? So, are you saying since you and Chris don't get along, you feel free to complain about an entirely different product because it's still produced by Adobe? You realize how that sounds, right?
As you should be aware, the Adobe proponents have been known to be quite "vicious" at times....wouldn't you agree...??
I do not think Mike explained himself well, but I think Bart did a good job of explaining that it was different approaches to get to similar results. Because one expresses a like or dislike on an approach, it should not be "seasoned" as a "complaint". We don't need trigger words driving this thread into closure.
-
Qimage Ultimate is what I use. I did some tests a few years ago comparing it to printing through PS and LR, and, to my eye, Qimage was ahead by a nose. Many useful tools/utilities have been added since. The UI was never a problem for me, like any new program, it take a bit of poking around first until you get used to it.
-
This statement has been posted by several others but this was the easiest for me to clip out and highlight. I would appreciate any uses of both products to clearly define for me what "visibly better results" means and how it is evaluated on real life prints (not artificial targets). I'm not concerned with UIs as any one can master a program with enough effort (I use ArgyllCMS to do all my profiling and in this day of Windows/Mac OS, old fashioned command line programs can be a PITA). I'm not trying to be argumentative here but rather as a scientist want to understand the evaluative method that is used.
I mean finer rendition of detail where that is important, and smoother gradients (for example a storm cloud that shifts from very dark to dark right across the print). Only a few percent of my prints really require that extra bit of care.
-
As to the usability of UIs in general, I guess I'm not used to having to "study the manual"! As, I said, sometime I'll put a day aside for Qimage and make notes as I go.
Here's an example of what I mean. (I'm ignoring the print package in LR as I find it a bit of a dog and don't use it much). If I want to print an image in LR I go to the print module and there are my presets on the left in the template browser. If I want to change the border, I enter the border I want under "layout" in the right panel, and the border I enter is what I will actually get on the print. For example, 2cm and not 2cm minus the non-printing area.
For Qimage I open the file from LR with the "edit in" option. Where are my presets? Well, I happen to know they are under "file-recall". But I don't see them yet. Again, I happen to know you have to press one of the lower buttons "JSLPOA" I guess it's P for print. Or is it J for print job?
Okay, I don't have a preset loaded on this computer. So I find the printer dialogue and select A3 sheet. Now I have a tiny thumbnail on the page. How do I make it fill/fill the page? I tried "edit page". No. I tried right clicking. No. Ah, there's a button on the right under the layout and it has an option "fit to page" I press it. No. Ah, the same button is on the thumbnail. Success.
I tried putting in a 2 cm border. Bother, Qimage is set to Imperial and I have to shut down my work to go to preferences. Okay, I'm in the page editor and "borders". Do I select B or B+? Well "B+" doesn't work so I stay with "B" and enter my 2cm border. Now "B" doesn't work and though I finally get a 2 cm border on the sides it is certainly not 2cm at the top and bottom.
I give up now.
David
-
As to the usability of UIs in general, I guess I'm not used to having to "study the manual"! As, I said, sometime I'll put a day aside for Qimage and make notes as I go.
Here's an example of what I mean. (I'm ignoring the print package in LR as I find it a bit of a dog and don't use it much). If I want to print an image in LR I go to the print module and there are my presets on the left in the template browser. If I want to change the border, I enter the border I want under "layout" in the right panel, and the border I enter is what I will actually get on the print. For example, 2cm and not 2cm minus the non-printing area.
For Qimage I open the file from LR with the "edit in" option. Where are my presets? Well, I happen to know they are under "file-recall". But I don't see them yet. Again, I happen to know you have to press one of the lower buttons "JSLPOA" I guess it's P for print. Or is it J for print job?
Okay, I don't have a preset loaded on this computer. So I find the printer dialogue and select A3 sheet. Now I have a tiny thumbnail on the page. How do I make it fill/fill the page? I tried "edit page". No. I tried right clicking. No. Ah, there's a button on the right under the layout and it has an option "fit to page" I press it. No. Ah, the same button is on the thumbnail. Success.
I tried putting in a 2 cm border. Bother, Qimage is set to Imperial and I have to shut down my work to go to preferences. Okay, I'm in the page editor and "borders". Do I select B or B+? Well "B+" doesn't work so I stay with "B" and enter my 2cm border. Now "B" doesn't work and though I finally get a 2 cm border on the sides it is certainly not 2cm at the top and bottom.
I give up now.
David
Time to RTFM....or in this case, watch the videos
-
As to the usability of UIs in general, I guess I'm not used to having to "study the manual"!
Hi David,
'Studying the manual' is very useful to learn and make better use of a powerful tool. To assist in that, the documentation offers a lot of "Learn by example" scenarios, which will hand-hold you with accomplishing common tasks in a simple step-by-step fashion. There is also a number of videos available, for 'beginner' level users on the basics, and intermediate and more advanced topics for somewhat more experienced users trying to accomplish very specific tasks. Links to the relevant videos is even one button click away, the small red 'V' icons in the various dialogs.
Here's an example of what I mean.
[...]
If I want to change the border, I enter the border I want under "layout" in the right panel, and the border I enter is what I will actually get on the print. For example, 2cm and not 2cm minus the non-printing area.
Unless I misunderstand you, you got exactly what you entered, how is that an issue? It would only be an issue if you wanted to have a border that includes the non-printable area. For that you override the printer's physical limitations with the earlier mentioned "margins" dialog. Because QU cannot read your mind (yet ;) ), you'll have to tell it what you want.
For Qimage I open the file from LR with the "edit in" option. Where are my presets? Well, I happen to know they are under "file-recall". But I don't see them yet. Again, I happen to know you have to press one of the lower buttons "JSLPOA" I guess it's P for print. Or is it J for print job?
You make it sound dramatic, but the buttons for the various types of scenarios you can save/recall for later use do have tool-tips when you hover the mouse pointer over the buttons. No need to guess, at all. It's all there, in plain sight. You can even switch that built in help behavior on or off (because some of the tool tips give a lot of info, which might clutter the interface on occasion), maybe that's what you did, switch the tool-tip (content sensitive) help off?
In addition, you already have part of the list with all saved scenarios in front of you, with lots of additional info about the scenario's specifics, ready to scroll through. The buttons are just a filter to make a selection from that long list, to reduce the amount of scrolling. Again, QU is trying to reduce the number of mouse clicks required to achieve your goal.
Okay, I don't have a preset loaded on this computer. So I find the printer dialogue and select A3 sheet. Now I have a tiny thumbnail on the page. How do I make it fill/fill the page? I tried "edit page". No. I tried right clicking. No. Ah, there's a button on the right under the layout and it has an option "fit to page" I press it. No. Ah, the same button is on the thumbnail. Success.
Yes, it's as easy as pie. You set-up the printer/paper combination, select the thumbnail of your image and instruct how large the thumbnailed file should be printed on the paper you selected earlier. No need to try clicking on all sorts of things that don't achieve the task, just click on the thumbnail itself and select the size which will be positioned on the page as instructed earlier, or when you change your mind you can rearrange them in other ways. If you made a mistake, just click the little 'print properties' button on the layout preview, and select another size. That also allows to simply produce multiple copies of different sizes of the same source file, by adding multiple copies to the Queue, and adjust their sizes where the are positioned, and the page gets adjusted depending on how you've set the page filling method (e.g. to save paper by automatically fitting as many images on a single page size, or other arrangements).
I tried putting in a 2 cm border. Bother, Qimage is set to Imperial and I have to shut down my work to go to preferences.
No, you don't have to 'shut down your work', you just change the preferences from imperial inches to metric millimetres (usually done once after installing the program for the first time, but for international use one can switch any time, without having to use a calculator). And then you just continue from where you were.
Okay, I'm in the page editor and "borders". Do I select B or B+?
The tool tip will tell you that 'B' type of borders go inside, and the B+ borders are added outside, of the selected print size. No need to guess, just select what you want to do. There's no need to click on all sorts of options that obviously won't do what you want.
Well "B+" doesn't work so I stay with "B" and enter my 2cm border. Now "B" doesn't work and though I finally get a 2 cm border on the sides it is certainly not 2cm at the top and bottom.
I give up now.
Maybe it's something else that's bothering you, but you seem to get frustrated very easily. What's 'worse', it's preventable. Just have a look at some of the videos (one mouse click away), or the learn-by-example documented exercises, and enjoy your output.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Should a user interface be judged on its compensations for our laziness in learning a program? Or should it be judged on how it packages the choices to be made that the most used are easy to access, repeatable and informative while less common used are more hidden to reduce the visual complexity of the GUI ? Given the many printing functions in QU, not available in other programs, it would be impossible to do the first in my opinion while it does a good job on the last. David's tale on the 20mm borders is not what I would describe as a review on QU's user interface in working conditions. It is a bit like the Start button in Windows, illogic to switch the computer off there but who cares about that after the fifth time you used it.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Should a user interface be judged on its compensations for our laziness in learning a program? Or should it be judged on how it packages the choices to be made that the most used are easy to access, repeatable and informative while less common used are more hidden to reduce the visual complexity of the GUI ?
Good questions, but surely there is no single right answer.
If a program is useful enough, some people will learn even a difficult UI. But if the UI is difficult to learn and to remember, perhaps it is not self-explanatory or consistent, then some will judge it not worth the time spent learning it - especially if they don't use the program frequently.
I used to use Qimage for all my printing. But I don't print every day or even every week, and found that it took me a while to figure out how to do some of the things I needed. The UI was not obvious, and the documentation (IMHO) was not great. Then next time I needed to do the same thing, I sometimes found that the UI wasn't good enough to trigger half-remembered memories, and I'd have to learn it all again.
As Lightroom's printing capabilities became greater I used Qimage less - which accentuated the problem of forgetting how to use it - and now I don't use it at all.
I think to talk about "laziness" is not relevant here. By that token, I could describe anyone who doesn't know what I know as too "lazy" to learn it. We all have finite time to devote to photography, and make judgements about the utility of tools we use. Being difficult to use definitely decreases utility, especially for tools we don't use every day.
-
I agree with Ernst (not about my "signal to noise ratio" [:-)], as on review I think I hit the nail on the head from page 1 of this thread) but about the relative priority to put on U.I. convenience in deciding on a preferred printing application; it isn't - in my view anyhow - a foremost consideration. Different people have differing degrees of patience for mastering interfaces and reading documentation, some are more techno-masochistic than others; so be it, but not the primary matter in answering the OP's question. The original question was about relative print quality from these two applications. So Ernst is right - someone who uses both OPTIMALLY could have the highest value-added in contributing an answer focused on observation of printed output; however, the big proviso is that such person actually tested both applications in a scientifically appropriate manner - and I think we are all agreed this is not as simple as it may sound. Nonetheless, let us for a moment return to fundamentals in order to pick a way through the matters that come to mind in answering this question: first and foremost: what do we mean by "printing"?
In the broadest sense "printing" is everything we need to do with an image file from the time it hits the hard drive (and many of us would argue from the time we aim the camera, but let us confine this to the context of processing) until the paper emerges from the printer. So many factors intervene along the chain, I won't bore this erudite audience listing them, but to cut to the chase in context, a very key one is the whole package of stuff one does or is done editing the file to optimize the quality of how it will print. That immediately takes us into the realm of software and software user capabilities, which I like to unpack into two major categories: (i) things that happen under the hood - algorithm design/computational factors) and (ii) things the user may control.
Starting with (i), there are more issues than I know about, but two that come immediately to mind are the colour management system (CMS) and the printer driver. ICC profile awareness is a given. Some applications may use LCMS or the computer CMS, some may use custom printer drivers or the printer manufacturers' drivers. So perhaps the first thing to do is to test for which "under-the-hood" package delivers better outcomes (of course the meaning of "outcomes" explicitly defined - let us say in respect of smoothness of tonal gradations, extent of detail rendition, similarity of monitor to print output, etc.) Not easy but perhaps doable. Then there is factor (ii), and here there is a bit of further unpacking to do, because no one application covers all the things one could do for improving the prospects of achieving a high quality print. This unpacking is again primarily about two factors: (1) the stand-alone features of the primary application, and (2) the manner in which this application cooperates with complementary applications providing different capabilities.
I think the above provides a decently organized framework within which to evaluate and discuss the relative merits of QImage vs Lightroom, or other "printing" application in respect of achieving a high quality result. I shall not actually try here to implement this framework because my familiarity with QImage is limited to watching Mike's videos on his website, whereas I have been printing with Lightroom for years.
But in case its of any interest to those thinking about their options, in respect of the latter I can say with confidence based on extensive experience that my colour management set-up works very well, I achieve sharp output without visible halos, and my colours, tonal gradations and B&W renditions are at a level to be expected from an Epson 4900. While over 90% of my work goes straight from camera to print within LR, I find it's complementarity with Photoshop works very well, which is a great asset because there are numerous things LR is not designed for, but PS is; as well, certain specialized third-party applications work as plug-ins to LR, which comes in handy. While masking in LR had a rather "basic" start, with version 5.x it has become vastly better, and with some practice much masking for which I would revert to Photoshop I can now successfully manage in LR. While in LR's earlier days I would still print from PS, printing matured in LR with the recent versions; for my needs (one photo at a time, or layouts of a number of photos on a sheet, or the production of the odd pano on roll paper, all up to 17" width) I find the usage of LR's print module to be easy, well integrated with the Epson driver, and reliable - from my experience, paper wastage does not occur for any fault in the Print module. That about sums up my experience with this application; yes, this or that could be improved, a few additional features are always on the wish-list, but grosso modo, for me, this is a brilliant application. I don't know whether this helps any one, but for the record, I have been doing digital imaging from scanning and DSLRs for the past 14 years and well-known professionals have commented on the quality of my printed output. I take it from that I may have an objectively decent basis from which to offer these observations.
Mark
-
As to the usability of UIs in general, I guess I'm not used to having to "study the manual"! As, I said, sometime I'll put a day aside for Qimage and make notes as I go.
Here's an example of what I mean. (I'm ignoring the print package in LR as I find it a bit of a dog and don't use it much). If I want to print an image in LR I go to the print module and there are my presets on the left in the template browser. If I want to change the border, I enter the border I want under "layout" in the right panel, and the border I enter is what I will actually get on the print. For example, 2cm and not 2cm minus the non-printing area.
For Qimage I open the file from LR with the "edit in" option. Where are my presets? Well, I happen to know they are under "file-recall". But I don't see them yet. Again, I happen to know you have to press one of the lower buttons "JSLPOA" I guess it's P for print. Or is it J for print job?
Okay, I don't have a preset loaded on this computer. So I find the printer dialogue and select A3 sheet. Now I have a tiny thumbnail on the page. How do I make it fill/fill the page? I tried "edit page". No. I tried right clicking. No. Ah, there's a button on the right under the layout and it has an option "fit to page" I press it. No. Ah, the same button is on the thumbnail. Success.
I tried putting in a 2 cm border. Bother, Qimage is set to Imperial and I have to shut down my work to go to preferences. Okay, I'm in the page editor and "borders". Do I select B or B+? Well "B+" doesn't work so I stay with "B" and enter my 2cm border. Now "B" doesn't work and though I finally get a 2 cm border on the sides it is certainly not 2cm at the top and bottom.
I give up now.
David
That's the perspective of a LR user using QU. Now I want to show you the same type of perspective from a QU user using LR...
The problem here is that you are starting this task like a "seasoned Adobe product user" in that you are trying to make it as complicated as possible because that's what you are used to. Instead of trying to force QU down the path of LR, try using it as it is designed. For example, you have decided that you must start with the limitation that you have to pick a predefined layout. You don't because QU doesn't have that limitation: it can build a layout as you go with you picking nothing more than the size on the fly! In fact, the steps are:
- Click the "print properties" button on a thumbnail and select "Fit to Page" as the size.
- On that same print properties dialog, decide with the crop (scissors) button whether you want an exact size (cropped) print or one fitted without cropping.
- On that same print properties dialog, enter 20mm in border 1 and decide what color you want.
- Click the "+" button on any thumbnail(s) and they all are added to the page(s) with the above settings.
- I notice the page is already set to 720 (based on the current Epson printer), so I click print.
Your statement about borders makes no sense. You choose either B or B+ depending on whether you want the border inside the print size (fit to page chosen above) or outside (added to that size). There are only two choices and the border top/bottom is never different than the sides. That is, unless you use the Photo Mats feature where you can make them uneven. In this case, you've chosen the largest print possible on the page, so only B makes sense at this point: you cannot add border around the outside of the print because your print already fills the page.
Here's the same process above that took just a few clicks in QU, done in LR:
- Select an image from the library and click on "Print" module
- Scroll down and finally find "Maximum Size" in the templates, select it
- My landscape print rotates as it should and sorta fills the page, except it doesn't fill the page: white space left/right.
- Try to find a way to crop the image to size to fill the page...
- Look on the right for a "crop to size". I find nothing related to the print options that might do that.
- I see "Keep square" which doesn't even make sense because my image isn't square.
- Ah, I see "Zoom to fill" under "Image Settings": that works.
- On to the border, where do I specify a border? I try "Stroke border". It works, but...
- I'm looking for a way to specify a 0.75 inch border. All I can get is "points". Where is the size of the border: I want inches?
- Not only can I not find how to specify 0.75 inch, it'll only let me go to 20 points which looks too small for what I want.
- I give up on the border and leave it at 20 "points". That'll have to be big enough.
- Before I print, I'd better scroll down and check other settings: what's this... 600 PPI in the resolution?
- I'm already set to an Epson printer which I know uses 720 PPI, why is LR set to 600?
- I change that to 720 and print.
And that's the simplest of print tasks. I don't even want to show you the LR steps when you want to decide print sizes on the fly, such as deciding the sizes as you go: "I want a 5x7 of this... 8x10 of this... two wallets of this... etc." Those are each ONE click in QU. Even a simple task like deciding you want 2 5x7 prints on page 2 after doing your first one fit-to-page is nearly impossible in LR.
Of course, there are other tasks in QU that are incredibly easy that are made quite difficult (or impossible) in LR. Take database searching for example. In QU, here's the process for entering searchable data to finding it at a later time:
I want to enter "Red Hibiscus" on a folder I just downloaded so I'll be able to find it later, so I've already typed "Red Hibiscus" in the folder description ("D" box below the folder name) when I downloaded the photos. There wasn't even anything I needed to click: just type the description as the box is already there. Days/Weeks/Months later, when I want to find red flowers or that red hibiscus, I:
- Click the search button (binoculars button just above the thumbs).
- Type the word "Red", press <enter> twice, and there are all the folders/images that have "red" in the description
- I double click on the one in the list that says "Red Hibiscus" and I'm there.
First of all, that can't even be done in LR: you can't have a description on a folder. Only on individual images. And the dialogs required to do that (and later search), are hidden layers deep. In addition, LR can only have DB info on files that support embedded IPTC. So as an Android/web developer, folders or images that contain GIF, PNG, or BMP files where I've typed something like "Emoji icons" can't be seen or searched by LR. But I guess that's not a problem anyway because LR can't even see those files in the first place.
Mike
-
You realize that Chris has nothing to do with Lightroom, right? So, are you saying since you and Chris don't get along, you feel free to complain about an entirely different product because it's still produced by Adobe? You realize how that sounds, right?
Jeff, you are mischaracterizing what Mike wrote. He said a (presumably) authorized representative of Adobe bad mouthed his product in public forums. That's a corporate action. Let's keep the discussion honest, shall we?
-
The problem here is that you are starting this task like a "seasoned Adobe product user" in that you are trying to make it as complicated as possible because that's what you are used to. Instead of trying to force QU down the path of LR, try using it as it is designed. For example, you have decided that you must start with the limitation that you have to pick a predefined layout. You don't because QU doesn't have that limitation: it can build a layout as you go with you picking nothing more than the size on the fly! In fact, the steps are:
- Click the "print properties" button on a thumbnail and select "Fit to Page" as the size.
- On that same print properties dialog, decide with the crop (scissors) button whether you want an exact size (cropped) print or one fitted without cropping.
- On that same print properties dialog, enter 20mm in border 1 and decide what color you want.
- Click the "+" button on any thumbnail(s) and they all are added to the page(s) with the above settings.
- I notice the page is already set to 720 (based on the current Epson printer), so I click print.
Your statement about borders makes no sense. You choose either B or B+ depending on whether you want the border inside the print size (fit to page chosen above) or outside (added to that size). There are only two choices and the border top/bottom is never different than the sides. That is, unless you use the Photo Mats feature where you can make them uneven. In this case, you've chosen the largest print possible on the page, so only B makes sense at this point: you cannot add border around the outside of the print because your print already fills the page.
Mike
I think David starts from sheet feeding and wants the image in the center + 20mm white borders without cutting the sheet afterwards. Usually that requires the crop scissors to be on and print margin compensation in the preferences set so they equal 20mm all around. Without the crop function and the image not centered you can reduce the paper cutting to one side. It will be a rare case where an image has the aspect ratio that will fit the sheet size aspect ratio minus 20mm all around.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
That's a corporate action.
No, it's not...I'm well aware of the dispute between Mike & Chris...I was there and watched it. And, yes, I agree that Chris was far from a perfect gentleman, but Mike gave as good as he got. Which again has ZERO to do with the discussion of Lightroom, wouldn't you agree?