Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
September 20, 2020, 10:43:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
  Home Help Search Login Register  

Download and develop photos from your flash cards with one click!
Get a trial of
FlashPipe today and stop fumbling with explorer windows to transfer photos and videos
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
31  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Every time I read something like this... on: November 09, 2011, 03:34:10 PM
Yeah, like I'd tell YOU!  Grin
32  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Every time I read something like this... on: November 09, 2011, 03:15:48 PM
How many times did he interpolate (add fake pixels) to that image?

Qimage interpolated one time....

Yes, one poster in that Photocamel thread was still using the method of uprezzing 10% at a time until he got to the "recommended" resolution.  Someone else explained that uprezzing should now be done in one step and suggested a $200 piece of software...which you could get for as little as $100 on sale!  (How exciting! Just $100 for a program which interpolates?  Such a deal!)

The good news is that most of the Photoshop users who were posting in that thread are aware that interpolating in Photoshop is not the optimum solution.  The bad news is that I've seen more than one person here on the Qimage forums say that Photoshop users--even after a demo--refuse to believe that there's a $90 printing utility which will do something that Photoshop can't do.

Originally, years ago, I bought Qimage because it made it convenient to print multiple images per sheet.  That was the only feature I cared about.  I printed everything at the default parameters.  Did that for years, all very routine.  I literally didn't know I was getting superior results until I printed a Sony Mavica photo from outside of Qimage.  A year or two later, when I knew what I was doing, people looked at my 8x11 borderless prints from my 4mp Canon G2 and said (#1) "Well, that can't be digital," and (#2) "You printed this yourself?"  Yes, very routinely--and that was when my photo printer was a Deskjet 9650.

So when you thank Qimage for all we learned over the years, I have to put in a plug for Mike who created Qimage and who keeps teaching us the right way to work our pictures.

+1, right on, amen...but let's not forget Terry, a guy named Fred, and all the other evangelists on these forums who are eager and willing to share their knowledge.  I know that the benefits I've received here far outweigh my contributions.

Got to run, have a few photos to print.  Just routine stuff, with no doubts about the quality of the output.  Almost boring, really, with the program I use.
33  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Every time I read something like this... on: November 08, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
...it makes me happy all over again that I'm a Qimage user.


There's some good info in this thread...most of it "old hat" to Qimage users, I suspect.  But it turned into something of an argument about uprezzing, interpolation, etc.  I cannot believe how some photographers jump through hoops just trying to print large at the proper resolution.  Just sample some of the posts in that 10-page thread and you'll see what I mean.

However, I must admit that at least a few posters in that thread are aware of what all Qimage users know:

"Hence, optimal results are obtained by resampling the image to the native PPI that your intended printer uses, then applying Sharpen or USM, and then printing."

But even that's much more work than we have to do, of course, considering that all we have to do (after editing) is set the print size, hit "print," and go for coffee.

Incidentally, a few months ago, more or less by accident, I came up with a "plain paper" test of Qimage's ability to improve a low-res image.  See the editorial cartoon at the link below:


(If you saw a map of my congressional district, you'd know why I like this cartoon.)

It's a small, low-res file, of course.  Just print it on plain paper, fit to page, using the Windows photo-printing wizard or the equivalent.  Then print it from Qimage on plain paper, with interpolation.  The difference is obvious even on plain paper.  Quite enjoyable to show the results to the heathens.
34  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Test strips on: September 15, 2011, 08:04:24 PM
You'll love cropping in Qimage once you get used to it, especially when you're cropping to match a standard size like 5x7 or 8x10.  Impossible to make a mistake unless you turn off Crop Lock.  But it's equally easy to turn off Crop Lock and make a custom freehand crop, too.

and Owen,
I even forgot to mention the Crop Wizard button in the Editor screen.
Thanks for wake up.


Multiple ways to do things in Qimage, no doubt.  Often, when I'm in a hurry for a quick print, I will "crop" by zooming in the Full Page Editor, especially when I'm just trying to find out if I can crop an image to include elements A, B, & C, but leaving out elements D & E.  For me, that's the easiest way to do it.  I just zoom in & out and drag the image around to see if my "test crop" is going to work.

And sometimes I'll zoom to the max in FPE and make a test print when I just want to give someone a quick example of what QU's interpolation algorithms can do.  You could call it a "rough cut" test strip, I suppose.  Most people are impressed when they see the printed result.

I still can't believe what users of some high-end programs have to go through just to crop an image in a specific aspect ratio.  Glad I'm a Qimage user.
35  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Test strips on: September 15, 2011, 06:42:26 PM
> it is likely you are not familiar with the variety of cropping tools in Qimage.
That is for sure. I will have to look into that later, re-viewing the video you linked to. For now, it was faster to do the cropping in an editor I am familiar with.

You'll love cropping in Qimage once you get used to it, especially when you're cropping to match a standard size like 5x7 or 8x10.  Impossible to make a mistake unless you turn off Crop Lock.  But it's equally easy to turn off Crop Lock and make a custom freehand crop, too.
36  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Introduce vignette on: September 02, 2011, 01:04:11 PM
Because you want to vignette to black (or any other colour including grey), Help tells you how to do it:

While neutral colors from 0,0,0 (transparent) to 255,255,255 (opaque) have special meaning in that they dictate the amount of transparency, it is possible to fade to colors other than white (the default fade color).  Simply add the fade color enclosed in square brackets as part of the file name.  For example, fade-oval.tif fades from transparent in the center to white at the edges.  The same file with the name fade-oval[0,0,0].tif will fade to black at the edges instead of white.  Naming the file fade-oval[0,255,0].tif will cause a fade to green at the edges, and so forth.  Note that regardless of the fade color, 0,0,0 still indicates 100% image and 0% fade color and 255,255,255 indicates 0% image and 100% fade color.  Also note that if you would like your prints to fade into the color set as the page background color, do not use the file name fade override as it will override the fade color without considering the page background color.

It's also very easy to pick an appropriate RGB value from your image and then use that value when you re-name the vignette file.  I rarely use black or white vignettes.
37  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Use of USM on: September 02, 2011, 02:40:22 AM
You raise a good point, Fred.  I don't live near a major body of water, as you do, but I nonetheless occasionally have the opportunity to shoot some "foggy morning" or "misty day" scenes.  Applying sharpening to these as a matter of course would be preposterous.  In one case, the scene turned out to be the only image I have ever printed where watercolor paper turned out to be the most appropriate medium.  Why in the world would I have applied any sharpening?

Of course, I'm sure that many people exclusively shooting jpegs with a good p&s digicam find no need to sharpen in post.  The default settings can produce snappier jpegs than a dslr out of the box.  That was certainly my experience when I compared jpegs from a Canon Powershot Pro1 to jpegs from a Nikon D5000 at the default settings.

I was reminded of this just the other day when a new acquaintance who exclusively uses a digital p&s was surprised when I told him that I sometimes applied sharpening in post.  That's because I apply none in camera, of course.

"The life so short, the craft so long to learn..."  Yeah, but the idea's to keep learning.  Thank heavens for these forums.
38  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Use of USM on: September 01, 2011, 05:36:56 PM
So I can go back to looking at my image on screen, and if I see halos, back off the radius setting until they disappear.

Yep, same here.  But I don't think that I've always applied USM to the point where halos are just visible when viewed at 100% magnification, as the writer recommends.  Will have to experiment and make a few test prints.  I remember a few cases where the image on screen looked a bit "crispy," but the print looked just right.

Appreciate your input.
39  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Use of USM on: September 01, 2011, 04:49:33 PM
I still consider myself a novice at post-processing, including the use of USM, although TTS in QU has simplified my life.

However, this info from the Luminous Landscape site leads me to wonder if I've been too conservative when applying USM.  Would appreciate your thoughts on the rule of thumb described below.  Underlining is mine.  Bold is emphasis in the original.

...all files which have USM applied have halos, though obviously some more than others. Halos are caused by edge contrast differences, which is what USM does enhance edge contrast (know in film days as "accutance"). The standard approach to applying the right amount of USM visually is to increase Radius and Amount in proportion for a particular image so that halos begin to be visible at 100% magnification. If one does this properly then at any normal print size they will be invisible. Too much and the image is oversharpened. Too little and the amount of sharpening will be inadequate.
Regrettably a lack of understanding of this topic is all too common. That's why we see people critiquing 100% enlargements of other people pictures online and making all kinds of unfounded deductions. Here's a statement to consider: Any digital image seen at 100% that is either from an in-camera JPG or from a RAW file which has had USM applied properly by the user will show halos. One therefore can not use 100% magnification images to form a reliable conclusion about real-world image quality.

40  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Introduce vignette on: September 01, 2011, 03:42:44 PM

I know Terry bought a program that is designed to make these cutouts, and the opacity can be changed as well as the graduation.

Looking forward to more info on cutouts, especially the name of Terry's program.
41  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Tone Targeted Sharpening with Macro Images on: July 29, 2011, 01:00:38 PM
Replaced the image, as noted above.  The previous image had been reduced & saved twice.  Terry & Fred, thanks again for a very illuminating lesson.
42  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Tone Targeted Sharpening with Macro Images on: July 29, 2011, 12:21:17 PM
Per your request.  Might be some jpeg artifacts in this one.  Replaced the photo.  Slider was indeed all the way to the right.
43  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Tone Targeted Sharpening with Macro Images on: July 29, 2011, 11:36:50 AM
Great example, Fred, thanks for posting.  The difference is also very apparent in the detail on the bird's back and on the leading edge of the right wing.

In keeping with this "bugs & birds" theme, I'll add a less complicated example.  Because of the brown-to-green color range in the subject, I selected the background and chose the "target all except" option.  Radius 2, strength 150, slider at 80%.
44  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Tone Targeted Sharpening with Macro Images on: July 26, 2011, 06:54:06 PM
Great shots, Terry.  Fred, thanks for your informative analysis of this particular use of TTS.

Terry, I'm impressed with the performance of your lens at f/16.  My 55mm Micro-Nikkor is best at f/8 and f/11, but starts to exhibit diffraction beyond that.

Thanks for linking to the "macro on a budget" thread.  I don't remember reading it before.  Until recently, I did all of my close-up work with supplementary filters, specifically the Canon 500D and a set of Hoya filters, usually using the +4 diopter.  I tried cheaper glass, but the CA was terrible.
45  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / TTS-Neutrals on: July 22, 2011, 09:10:39 PM
My first use of the "Neutrals" option in TTS.

I've had my difficulties in the past rendering white-on-white detail.  With this one, I am not entirely displeased.

Slightly cropped from original.  Your comments, please.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!