Qimage v the rest

[JeffKohn]

I must be in the minority, I don't care for QImage's sharpening at all as it seems to be too halo-prone for my tastes. I do like using it for print layout and management of driver settings, but for larger prints I still do my own upsizing and sharpening.

[Quentin]

I used to use ImagePrint.  I've now returned to using Qimage because, to be honest, its a better program at a fraction of the cost, now that manufacturers' own OEM printer drivers are better than they used to be.

Quentin

[SeanPuckett]

QImage puts money in my pocket, because I save a lot of time using it vs. any other conceivably affordable output mechanism.  The output quality is excellent (and this is what matters).  The layout and UI is clunky even when one is familiar with it, and there are some things one will never get used to.  Still, when a customer can come in and say "hey, I want another 32x40 print, and a couple 16x20s also" and I spend more time loading canvas than dealing with layout, uprezzing, sharpening etc etc etc ... it's proved its worth.  A no brainer purchase, I'd buy it again in a heartbeat.

[NikoJorj]

The layout and UI is clunky even when one is familiar with it, and there are some things one will never get used to.  Still, [...]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I feel... a bit reassured by what you say : I just began to try it, and reading the manual produced actually more interrogations than answers    ...
Still digging, though : this software really looks like a gem hidden in the dirt.

[chilehead]

All good comments, and I agree with the positives and negatives mentioned.  My only addition for Seamus is to include the Qimage folder in your backup scheme.

It would be a shame to lose all those layouts and settings!

Mark

[seamus finn]

Yes, the UI is a bit clunky and the PDF tutorial is hard to digest - but the rewards seem to be worth the hassle.

[seamus finn]

Good tip, Mark, easy to overlook - thanks for that.

Seamus

[dealy663]

I also have been unable to see the benefit that QImage has over PS for uprezzing and sharpening.

Now The most I've ever really tried is taking an image from a D200 and going up to 24x36", so maybe that has something to do with it.

But I've tried on multiple occasions to see where QImage was doing a better job at sharpening than either PK sharpener or my own by hand use of PS's smart sharpen. The same goes for the many uprezzing algos in QImage. I was just unable to produce something noticeably better with QImage.

I wonder what I'm missing that others are seeing? Maybe I'm really good at my sharpening and uprezzing in PS, or maybe I'm so blind that I can't see what everyone else sees? I dunno.

Derek

I must be in the minority, I don't care for QImage's sharpening at all as it seems to be too halo-prone for my tastes. I do like using it for print layout and management of driver settings, but for larger prints I still do my own upsizing and sharpening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[DarkPenguin]

I think part of it is that if it does as good a job it makes your life easier.  You don't need to make multiple versions for different size prints.  Just stop short of output sharpening and save that.  Then let qimage do the rest for each print size.

[seamus finn]

One of the big revelations for me is how Qimage works so easily in tandem with Lightroom. Learning Qimage for just a few days now, I seem to have effortlessly slipped into this routine: import pics into LR; apply adjustments in Develop Mode as normal; sent images to Qimage via alternative external editor and print from there, allowing Qimage to apply the final smart sharpening. No need to worry about print sizes and individual sharpening etc. It's fast, easy and painless, as Dark Penquin points out above - and it opens up the whole array of Qimage print facilities at the click of a mouse.

For those of us not happy with LR sharpening (and nobody is) this workflow is one way to go until LR gets its sharpening act together. Also, if you don't use  or like LR, you can drag images from Bridge  (in CS3 anyway) straight into the Qimage print windows so long as they are not RAW.This way, you edit a bunch of pics in Photoshop, save them to a folder as usual without final sharpening, open the folder in Bridge and drag them into Qimage for final auto sharpening and printing.

Just some intitial impressions from a Qimage beginner. Some practical tips from seasoned veterans would be good.

[Treve willis]

Is there any outstanding reason for printing through Qimage rather than Lightroom or CS3, both of which I use? I've read the Qimage reviews (all seem very positive) and I've downloaded the latest trial version which I'm working on. It looks a little tricky at first glance. I use a Canon 5D, L glass lenses and an Epson 2400.

Typical of my luck, while doing a few test prints, I ran out of inks and my supplier says he can't get replacements  for a few weeks.   Meantime, I'm stuck re testing (not that I'm any great expert in this field) so I would appreciate any advice from Qimage devotees and others.  Is it a steep learning curve? I don't want to invest a lot of time learning the application if it's not worth the candle in the long run (cost, obviosly, isn't the issue as it seems terrific value).

Should I go for it?

Thanks all
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi

I have been using Qimage for 2½ years and Lightroom for about 3
months. I have done some comparisons with using Qimage and the
Lightroom print module and written them up.

If anyone is interested in my comparison, it can be found @
[a href=\"http://churchillphotographer.blogspot.com/2008/03/comparing-image-printing-through.html]http://churchillphotographer.blogspot.com/...ng-through.html[/url]

Regards

[Ray]

I\ve been using Qimage ever since Photoshop misbehaved with my Epson 7600. I rang Epson about the problem and they referred me to Adobe. Anticipating complications, I simply switched to Qimage, a program which I'd been considering using for some time, and I've never looked back.

I'm also mightily impressed when you are guaranteed a lifteime of support and upgrades for one initial purchase price. I just hope Adobe does not buy out this company as they did with RSP.

[Paul Sumi]

I'm also mightily impressed when you are guaranteed a lifteime of support and upgrades for one initial purchase price. I just hope Adobe does not buy out this company as they did with RSP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A few years ago Mike Chaney (author of QImage) related a story about Microsoft expressing interest in him and his company. It's said that everyone has his price, but evidently Microsoft couldn't find Mike's.

Unless things have changed dramatically, I doubt that Adobe will find Mike's price, either.

Paul

[Nill Toulme]

One of the most common remarks you see about Qimage is "I only wish I'd tried it sooner."  I've certainly said that more than a few times myself.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[jpgentry]

Slower?  Yes.  Because it's doing what takes three steps in Photoshop in just one step.  They are:
1. Resizing (Interpolating)
2. Sharpening
3. Printing

You are probably not comparing apples to apples when it comes to the time taken to do these steps.

-Jonathan

I downloaded a trial copy and tried it on a 12x18 photo that I upsampled from 8x12 in Qimage and using the default sharpening. The results were excellent but it seemed much slower than printing through ps CS3. 

Sharon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[rdonson]

A nice write up, Treve.  You forgot to mention there is one thing Qimage can do that Lightroom cannot.

Softproof.

[Hellstan]

Lightroom doesn't offer softproofing so you print from there blind unless you want to roundtrip to CS3 for softproofing.  That could be a productivity hit depending on your workflow.

Qimage provides uprezzing and final sharpening that's fairly automatic and produces excellent results.  This can be a significant time saver.

Qimage's image placement capabilities are pretty good.

The ability to provide print filters instead of altering your initial image can be very advantageous.

All in all Qimage is an incredible bargain.  Imagine Adobe offering free updates for life for its software.  Ain't gonna happen.  Then there is Mike's incredible responsiveness to bug reports and how quickly he revs the software. 

I expect that Adobe will close the gap to Qimage eventually by offering softproofing and uprezzing and good final sharpening in Lightroom.  When that happens it may satisfy the needs of a number of people.

At this point there isn't much of a contest.  Qimage is designed to make printing easier and better than CS3 or Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alas, no Quimage for Mac…

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Alas, no Quimage for Mac…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Easy solution: Just get a PC (and learn how to really suffer).  

[Scott Martin]

Alas, no Quimage for Mac…[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ImageNest for the Mac is worth looking into. [a href=\"http://www.bluecubit.com/]http://www.bluecubit.com/[/url]

[Hellstan]

Easy solution: Just get a PC (and learn how to really suffer). 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Never ever give à $ to Ballmer the Enbalmer and Mr Gate$.