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 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