LR or Qimage 2020 for printing?

[aebolzan]

By today printing standards...is it still fine to print using the print module of LR 6.1, or a software like Qimage 2020 do that  better?...The point is that I am just started with printing after acquiring a new Epson P800  (and Hahnemuehle papers) and some guys told me that LR 6 is too old and the printing module is not at the level of the new versions. Is this that so?...Has the printing module of LR changed significantly in the last versions?...Has anyone changed LR for Qimage for printing?...

Agustin

[Denis de Gannes]

I have been using Qimage Ultimate since 2003 for printing and will certainly give them a thumbs up.
I have used Lightroom since it was launched in Feb 2007 as my go to application for processing my raw files from my digital cameras. However I am pretty sure the latest version of Lightroom classic is way beyond Lr 6.14 in image processing but I am not aware if the printing process had any significant changes in the past few years.

[JeanMichel]

Since you are using LR 6.1, chances are that you are using an older computer too. The LR Classic (which is what I use) does not run on an older MacPro tower, so I am using a newer iMac. So, if you have an older computer you may not be able to use a current version of LR. I really do not se any functional differences in the print module of older LR's and the current one; it works extremely well. The beauty of LR is that you do not need different files for printing different sizes, on different media, on different printers!

[aebolzan]

Since you are using LR 6.1, chances are that you are using an older computer too. The LR Classic (which is what I use) does not run on an older MacPro tower, so I am using a newer iMac. So, if you have an older computer you may not be able to use a current version of LR. I really do not se any functional differences in the print module of older LR's and the current one; it works extremely well. The beauty of LR is that you do not need different files for printing different sizes, on different media, on different printers!

To tell you the truth, once Adobe decided to move to the subscription model, I decided to leave LR because I didn't like the fact that they lied when they had said that LR would will always  have a perpetual licence model (adding a subscription model to the perpetual one would have been not a problem for me...)...so almost  two years ago I moved to Capture One and never looked back, as I find CO faster and better for processing images, albeit quite behind LR in the field of importing and catalogue capabilities, but I maintain LR with me because of the LR catalogues that I have, that I do not intend to process  again with CO. The problem now is that CO 13.1 arrived seemingly with a bug (Windows version, not Mac) in the Print menu that impedes to select the resolution output, and this is happening just in the moment I decided to start printing my images!....
so I can only move to LR, at least for printing, or to something else such as Qimage (I also saw ImagePrint, but it is quite expensive for a person who will print not every day and single images at a time)....so this is the reason why I am asking opinions about this...I suspected that the Print Module was maintained as the same as that in LR 6.1, but I was not sure....the computer, by the way, is not so old: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 six core processor,  3.4 GHz, 16 Gb RAM, Windows 10

 

[jrsforums]

The beauty of LR is that you do not need different files for printing different sizes, on different media, on different printers!

Same with Qimage.

In my testing, Qimage has better results from interpolation and sharpening.  Plus greater flexibility on placement and zooming in, as an example.  Does take a bit of time to learn, but lots of video tutorials and an active forum with plenty of member and author help.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

To tell you the truth, once Adobe decided to move to the subscription model, I decided to leave LR because I didn't like the fact that they lied when they had said that LR would will always  have a perpetual licence model (adding a subscription model to the perpetual one would have been not a problem for me...)...so almost  two years ago I moved to Capture One and never looked back, as I find CO faster and better for processing images, albeit quite behind LR in the field of importing and catalogue capabilities, but I maintain LR with me because of the LR catalogues that I have, that I do not intend to process  again with CO. The problem now is that CO 13.1 arrived seemingly with a bug (Windows version, not Mac) in the Print menu that impedes to select the resolution output, and this is happening just in the moment I decided to start printing my images!....
so I can only move to LR, at least for printing, or to something else such as Qimage (I also saw ImagePrint, but it is quite expensive for a person who will print not every day and single images at a time)....so this is the reason why I am asking opinions about this...I suspected that the Print Module was maintained as the same as that in LR 6.1, but I was not sure....the computer, by the way, is not so old: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 six core processor,  3.4 GHz, 16 Gb RAM, Windows 10

Having abandoned Lightroom (I've been a user since its first version) since it went subscription model, I'm reluctant to comment on LR. However, I've simultaneously been a Qimage user as well, ever since soon after its inception some 20+ years ago. It's a mature dedicated printing application, and as such it offers much better features and potential output quality for printed output. And it has a very reasonable pricing/upgrade policy.

[Rhossydd]

Same with Qimage.

Not quite, you still need an intermediate file to print from, unless you're just going to use Qimage and abandon LR completely.

Qimage can deliver slightly higher image quality, but at the cost of a more involved workflow. Using just Qimage for everything could work, but I find it a pretty horrible interface.

Probably best to do your testing, for me I'd only resort to using Qimage when there is a need for the absolutely highest quality possible regardless of inconvenience. For 99% of printing LR (6 here) works so well you won't see any difference, but is hugely easier to work with. 

[JRSmit]

Not quite, you still need an intermediate file to print from, unless you're just going to use Qimage and abandon LR completely.

Qimage can deliver slightly higher image quality, but at the cost of a more involved workflow. Using just Qimage for everything could work, but I find it a pretty horrible interface.

Probably best to do your testing, for me I'd only resort to using Qimage when there is a need for the absolutely highest quality possible regardless of inconvenience. For 99% of printing LR (6 here) works so well you won't see any difference, but is hugely easier to work with.

I use LR for printing now for many years. I also tried qimage and have Q1 (binartem).
Can only say that LR print function is of very high quality ( I did not find a better one yet) , and very efficient in use. Qimage/Q1 is not better in print quality and like Mirage has a more complex way of working.

[digitaldog]

As outlined, LR can print from raw, Qimage requires a rendered image so there isn't a direct apples to apples comparison. I think QimageOne is superb but there are advantages to workflows using LR from raw of course. Soft proofing and then output specific edits are done via Proof Copies which is huge, plus the Proof Copy contains only output specific edits, the profile and rendering intent selected. Make a Smart Collection of such Proof Copies, printing again is a snap. Print Templates are huge time savers for reprint work and at differing sizes. If you mainly work from a raw source, Qimage can't compare in terms of speed and far less storage overhead (Everything LR does is both cataloged and all edits parametric).

[Rhossydd]

As outlined, LR can print from raw, Qimage requires a rendered image so there isn't a direct apples to apples comparison.

Actually Qimage can print direct from RAW like LR. However Qimage's editing capabilities are pretty basic and nowhere near as comprehensive or user friendly as LR offers.
You can also save settings and options like LR's print templates too.

[digitaldog]

Actually Qimage can print direct from RAW like LR. However Qimage's editing capabilities are pretty basic and nowhere near as comprehensive or user friendly as LR offers.
You can also save settings and options like LR's print templates too.

I stand somewhat corrected: Qimage One (Mac) does open raws and my DNGs but I see no tools to edit the image. And of course, any edits I apply in LR are null and void. I'm not sure if I'm just viewing the JPEG preview or not.

[Denis de Gannes]

I stand somewhat corrected: Qimage One (Mac) does open raws and my DNGs but I see no tools to edit the image. And of course, any edits I apply in LR are null and void. I'm not sure if I'm just viewing the JPEG preview or not.

For sure Qimage One (Mac) does not have the full editing functions available in Qimage Ultimate including processing raw image files. You just get to do your processing in LrC and forward a tiff to print in Qimage One.

[Denis de Gannes]

Quote ” Actually Qimage can print direct from RAW like LR.”
I have been using Qimage since 2003, so my thought would be ’Actually Lr can print directly from RAW like Qimage’
The link to Qimage Ultimate is ddisoftware dot com, it's Windows only software.
The Qimage One app for Mac cannot process RAW files and has no editing functions. It just provides printing functions from your Mac. So you can provide a tiff, jpeg high resolution file and it will resize and apply print sharpening at any print size without having to create individual files prior to printing.
To ”wit” it provides superb printing options.

[Denis de Gannes]

Quote ” Actually Qimage can print direct from RAW like LR.”
I have been using Qimage since 2003, so my thought would be ’Actually Lr can print directly from RAW like Qimage’
The link to Qimage Ultimate is ddisoftware dot com, it's Windows only software.
The Qimage One app for Mac cannot process RAW files and has no editing functions. It just provides printing functions from your Mac. So you can provide a tiff, jpeg high resolution file and it will resize and apply print sharpening at any print size without having to create individual files prior to printing.
To ”wit” it provides superb printing options.
Qimage goes back a long way have a look at one of the article from the website by Mike Chaney back in 2004.
Mike is the individual behind this great software program.

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/august-2004-over-the-gamut-and-through-the-woods/

[JRSmit]

Just a technical item, in all cases the file sent to the print pipeline is a rendered file, not the RAW file.
Therefore the point of RAW in this case is not really a differentiaal, but more the rendered file used for the print. That is one of the practical things of Lightroom , that rendered file does not requires any Actions, nor does it have to be persistent.

[Brianna437]

I have used Lightroom since it was launched in Feb 2007 as my go to application for processing my raw files from my digital cameras. However I am pretty sure the latest version of Lightroom classic is way beyond Lr 6.14 in image processing but I am not aware if the printing process had any significant changes in the past few years.

[IanSeward]

By today printing standards...is it still fine to print using the print module of LR 6.1, or a software like Qimage 2020 do that  better?...The point is that I am just started with printing after acquiring a new Epson P800  (and Hahnemuehle papers) and some guys told me that LR 6 is too old and the printing module is not at the level of the new versions. Is this that so?...Has the printing module of LR changed significantly in the last versions?...Has anyone changed LR for Qimage for printing?...

Agustin

I used LR from V1 but always print with Qimage. LR does a great job but for me Qimage for everything to do with printing :-)

Ian

[govindvkumar]

Is there anyone who has tried both Qimage ultimate and Qimage one? Are there any differences or is it just the platform difference? Which is better?