Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing  (Read 44827 times)

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2014, 09:04:12 pm »

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.  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. 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2014, 09:54:20 pm »

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.  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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #82 on: August 10, 2014, 07:50:38 am »

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.  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
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 07:52:27 am by Robert Ardill »
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #83 on: August 10, 2014, 09:21:28 am »

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
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 11:23:06 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #84 on: August 10, 2014, 01:45:09 pm »


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!
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • Personal blog
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #85 on: August 10, 2014, 02:49:50 pm »

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.

Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1289
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #86 on: August 10, 2014, 07:05:22 pm »

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.
Logged
John

mchaney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #87 on: August 10, 2014, 10:42:24 pm »

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
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #88 on: August 10, 2014, 10:59:30 pm »

..............  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.

Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1289
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #89 on: August 11, 2014, 01:55:46 am »

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. 
Logged
John

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #90 on: August 11, 2014, 02:24:35 am »

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
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2014, 02:28:09 am »

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...
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 02:31:24 am by Schewe »
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1289
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2014, 02:59:41 am »

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.
Logged
John

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8915
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #93 on: August 11, 2014, 05:39:52 am »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 08:17:36 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #94 on: August 11, 2014, 07:42:15 am »


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.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2014, 07:53:36 am »

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.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8915
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #96 on: August 11, 2014, 08:12:30 am »

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
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 08:19:39 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2014, 08:19:25 am »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

mchaney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2014, 10:04:20 am »

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
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005
Re: QImage versus Lightroom for Printing
« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2014, 10:09:23 am »

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.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 10:46:06 am by Ernst Dinkla »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up