Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
March 29, 2024, 10:55:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional Photo Printing Software for Windows
Print with
Qimage and see what you've been missing!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Evaluation impressions  (Read 10566 times)
halftone
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile Email
« on: September 16, 2010, 01:32:12 AM »

I'm a long-term user of QImage, then Pro, then from early 2010, Studio. It has been far the best printing prog for PC for as long as I can remember, but flaws with the UI,, sometimes baffling or counter-intuitive workflow and unintended results, have often made it bizarre and frustrating to work with. Still, once I learned its somewhat wayward nature, it offered great control and results. I have been glad to recommend it to countless people.

I've now downloaded and used the trial version of Ultimate some. It is, finally, the prog that QI, QIP, QIS ought to have been all along. It has a tidier and more rational UI, is far easier to not get lost or forget how to do something. It feels better programmed and designed, less of an ad-hoc accretion of ideas. It is faster, slicker. I can understand why it is the way forward.

It still has trad QI irritations, like no standard Windows ability to Move the window via Alt/Space. This is a royal pain for those of us who run with the taskbar at the top of the screen instead of at the bottom. QI doesn't respect this, jamming itself at the top of the screen so the title bar + min/maximise controls remain hidden forever. FGS, why, after all these years?

I understand that it's a ground-up recode, and a lot of work. But from the user point of view it's just an incremental improvement in areas where people have been begging for changes for many years, and have learned to live with the limitations when they weren't forthcoming. This makes the absence of any upgrade discount policy a big mistake. There is no upgrade path from QI/P/S to QIU, no inducement to make the change, beyond "free" camera profiles for RAW conversion.

I hate to tell you this, but QI is starting late from the back of a very big pack where RAW processing is concerned. The world and his dog use Lightroom, or ACR, or CO, or any one of a large bunch of commercial and camera mfr. bundled products. RAW processing is a problem that most QI users will have solved, and invested in, before thinking about QI. Even if QIU is brilliant at it, and it may well be - I happen to be married already to Silkypix Studio, another eccentric-but-gifted prog, after trying most of what's on the market - it's not going to be the reason most people buy it. They'll continue to buy on the strength of QI's rep as the premier print prog., an area where there is virtually no meaningful competition, and Adobe just keep on messing up.

The $19/year update sub is yet another reason to stay put. It's hard to see what justification there is for a product whose core functionality is cloned from the mature and static original QI. Nobody should have to pay for bugfixes. Only the RAW stuff will need constant updating, and that's an incidental feature for most. Maybe it will be attractive to some new users, but only maybe 5% of digital photographers ever use RAW, and 95% of those will use some other processing s/w that either integrates DAM, or works with DAM better than QI does, ie not at all. If you want to develop QIU toward being a proper all-in-one RAW, DAM and output solution, yes there is potential, but right now that is a long, long way off.

Sadly all this means that those of us who are QI users and just want its printing abilities will likely stick with the legacy version for as many years as we can despite Ultimate being somewhat nicer and better, if not yet mature.
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5644



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2010, 09:46:07 AM »

Halftone,
I don't know where to begin to tell you how wrong you are.

Quote
It still has trad QI irritations, like no standard Windows ability to Move the window via Alt/Space. This is a royal pain for those of us who run with the taskbar at the top of the screen instead of at the bottom. QI doesn't respect this, jamming itself at the top of the screen so the title bar + min/maximise controls remain hidden forever. FGS, why, after all these years?

How many people do I know, and I've been around a long time, that run the task bar at the top of my screen? ZERO!
If that's your number one complaint, I have to smile.

Quote
I understand that it's a ground-up recode, and a lot of work. But from the user point of view it's just an incremental improvement in areas where people have been begging for changes for many years, and have learned to live with the limitations when they weren't forthcoming. This makes the absence of any upgrade discount policy a big mistake. There is no upgrade path from QI/P/S to QIU, no inducement to make the change, beyond "free" camera profiles for RAW conversion.

This one is a beaut!
There is no ground up recode, my friend. The printing algorithms are still there and the best, and everything ekse has been improved, PLUS, NEW innovations, such as Lighning Raw, and Tone Targeted Sharpening.; just to name two.

It always amazed me watching women's buying habits over many years, They respond in droves to 40% OFF! My wife sees, 40% and 10% off and runs to her favorite store.
How much does it cost? I dunno, but look at the discount!!
So you would prefer that Mike Chaney had priced Qimage Ultimate at 149.95 and then offered you 40% off for previous Studio customers.
That's what your aforementioned Lighroom does, and Photo shop.
They start at $995.00 and discount off of that for CS5.  ... and that is a bug fixers dream plus one silly hyped item, "Content Aware" which Adobe spent millions to advertise.
TV ad after TV ad sold you Content Aware for hundreds of dollars. Then they screwed up the EXIF on their JPGS and refused to upgrade the covered cameras in CS4.
Did you complain to Adobe?

Quote
I hate to tell you this, but QI is starting late from the back of a very big pack where RAW processing is concerned. The world and his dog use Lightroom, or ACR, or CO, or any one of a large bunch of commercial and camera mfr. bundled products. RAW processing is a problem that most QI users will have solved, and invested in, before thinking about QI. Even if QIU is brilliant at it, and it may well be - I happen to be married already to Silkypix Studio, another eccentric-but-gifted prog, after trying most of what's on the market - it's not going to be the reason most people buy it. They'll continue to buy on the strength of QI's rep as the premier print prog., an area where there is virtually no meaningful competition, and Adobe just keep on messing up.

Lexus started late from the back of a very big pack of luxury cars, and they don't seem to be suffering.
It is the quality of the product plus the value for the dollar spent.
Qimage, has been and always will be the best value for the dollar on the planet, whether you print only or use it as a full blown editor as I do, it still remains the best value.
Quality!  Let's compare... http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/raw.htm

You only have to have eyes to see the work and quality that goes into making a product like Qimage Ultimate.
Everday, more and more Qimage users that bought for printing only, have been trying out the Raw Processing, and the Tone Targeted Sharpening, and more to come in a steady stream. They are realizing that the *results* they are getting surpass the hyped up ACR and the LR results.
Every LR user I have ever spoken to says, I love LR. It stores my images the way I like, but it *still* can't print worth a damn.
That says that Adobe knows it is a terrible printing program, but it still hasn't been addressed.
But you still buy it, and you spat on Qimage. Tsk Tsk!

Quote
The $19/year update sub is yet another reason to stay put. It's hard to see what justification there is for a product whose core functionality is cloned from the mature and static original QI. Nobody should have to pay for bugfixes. Only the RAW stuff will need constant updating, and that's an incidental feature for most. Maybe it will be attractive to some new users, but only maybe 5% of digital photographers ever use RAW, and 95% of those will use some other processing s/w that either integrates DAM, or works with DAM better than QI does, ie not at all. If you want to develop QIU toward being a proper all-in-one RAW, DAM and output solution, yes there is potential, but right now that is a long, long way off.

Sadly all this means that those of us who are QI users and just want its printing abilities will likely stick with the legacy version for as many years as we can despite Ultimate being somewhat nicer and better, if not yet mature.

This one is the easy one.
Value for the dollar!   If you have a problem with any other software, you wait until next year and pay for the fix in an upgrade, or at least wait another 6 months for a free one.
I know people that call Tech Support on their credit card billed at so many $ per half hour for help.
Mr. Chaney is here every day, listening to what people want and need, and putting out new versions at no charge as often as 3 times a week.

Did you know that I buy 4 of those really large salty, soft pretzels from a vendor, and I get one dollar and some coins for change?
So for 19.95 once a year, to get personal tech support, updates constantly, the ability to actually talk to the author, and discuss needs and wants, more features added, you will not pay the 19.95, and walk away?
Have you ever heard the expression: "Shooting yourself in the foot" or "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

I doubt if I will spend the rest of my life in debate and rebuttal with you. I have things to do and a life to live. Nevertheless, I could not let your opinion go unchallenged.

Thank you for listening.
Fred
Logged
Jeff
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 763



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2010, 04:02:01 PM »


I doubt if I will spend the rest of my life in debate and rebuttal with you. I have things to do and a life to live. Nevertheless, I could not let your opinion go unchallenged.

Thank you for listening.
Fred


Well that was nicely put.

I would say that as a result of your Raw v Jpeg thread and my joining in that discussion I have had my full $19 worth of help, instruction, and suggestions direct from the prog Author and others just on that one session.

I only regret I am totally unable to successfully recommend Qimage to friends and fellow club members in return, Adobe has got there first and completely brain washed them.

I am not unduly anti Adobe and use Elements 4 and 7 which can do things Qimage cannot. So I pays my money and make my choice and run both.  But $19 for full support is the best value one is likely to get.

Jeff
Logged

Grumpy
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2010, 06:48:45 PM »

Thanks Jeff, Fred, and halftone.  I appreciate hearing all views!  And honestly, I think we'll all get our "moneys worth" both on the forum and off.  Sure, I may have changed my business plan and I now spend the majority of my time on new software where I get paid for my (continuing) work, but it was necessary to be able to continue my level of direct support to my customers.  My business model is now more in line with what other companies are doing even if a bit more modest/affordable than some at this level.  Well, at least as far as the fees.  I can't (won't) offer their level of support though so if you're looking for a way to use an 800 number to call India to listen to elevator music for 45 minutes only to spend another 15 minutes trying to explain your problem to someone who is probably rushing to get rid of you because he has other lines lighting up to sell "Bumper Dumpers"... well you've probably bought the wrong software and bought into the wrong company.   Grin  How much is an hour of your time worth anyway, when wasted only to receive a non-answer?  I would definitely think that between my support and the 50-100 versions you'll download in the year, $19.99 is well worth it.  Even if I have a "slow" year and only release 50 updates, that's what... about 40 cents per update?  Anyway, it's all good.  Everyone has their view.

I do want to make one comment about raw processing.  Qimage is by no means the back of ANY pack!  The facts are there if you want to look for them.  I (through Qimage) was THE first software author to EVER reverse engineer a raw format and offer raw decoding in third party software when I developed my own algorithms for the Nikon D1 over a decade ago in March 2000 and released them in Qimage.  At the time, NO ONE else could do it or had even attempted it!  It would take a year for any other software to even catch up to the point of competing with Qimage and its raw abilities/accuracy.  Adobe sat on their duffs for four years before they'd release ACR which, until just the last year, never even had real color management support and quite honestly, still doesn't.  SilkyPix is another newcomer, new on the scene.  Really, there's nothing innovative about any of the other raw software.  They still use the same junk controls to make the same tweaks which would be unnecessary if they had the true raw developing power of Qimage.  The lesson here is that more controls is often not better!  But if you want to see what the competitors have learned from the innovators in the field like myself and Eric Hyman (Bibble), just let Qimage develop a few raws and then compare them to what you get by spending a lot of time using those other raw "control panel" type tools and see if it's really worth it.

BTW, even if you prefer the other tools over Qimage Ultimate raw, you can still thank me for leading the pack and for showing the "big boys" how to get started in the world of third party raw software!

Mike
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 06:51:07 PM by Mike Chaney » Logged
halftone
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2010, 02:23:41 AM »

Halftone,
I don't know where to begin to tell you how wrong you are.

Clearly you do :-)

Quote
How many people do I know, and I've been around a long time, that run the task bar at the top of my screen? ZERO!

You need to get out more. The default position was widely criticised from before the launch of XP. Many who realise it can be moved park it at the top because it's then like a normal drop down menu, close to application menus.  Some weirdos even run with at the side so it can be parked on a second monitor. But regardless of deviant personal preference, it's just standard Win app good manners to respect the taskbar position. Apps are not supposed to obscure or hide under it, and the vast majority do not.

In case you missed it, I'm saying QUI finally improves a lot of UI aspects that have dogged QI for years. It's just a small shame that this one persists.

Quote
This one is a beaut!
There is no ground up recode, my friend. The printing algorithms are still there and the best, and everything ekse has been improved, PLUS, NEW innovations, such as Lighning Raw, and Tone Targeted Sharpening.; just to name two.

MC says it's a brand new prog! Now you're telling me it's a makeover with some added stuff. Whichever, I agree it's better.

My point was however that for anyone who bought QI for its unrivalled printing abilities, which has been its whole USP, the new version offers very little beyond a better, tidier UI. Is that really worth $89?

I'm not getting into a debate about Adobe here. That company drives me up the wall. Unfortunately Photoshop remains like death and taxes. Your homily about womens' shopping seems to assume I love paying Adobe upgrade costs because there's a discount. You are hallucinating.

The fact is that QI is not Adobe, is not in a position of market domination except in the niche area of printing. It's just my opinion, nothing more, that it is ill-advised to hang QI's hat on RAW processing and that the user base will follow. Some will, and that's fine. But those who want to print, and only print, won't find any significant advantage in upgrading, and may feel slightly miffed that the choice is between the legacy versions which will remain static and deprecated, and a new version which has to be purchased all over again for no other benefit except that it will continue to be developed.

This obviously does not apply to people like you, who clearly want, like and use the Raw processing, and I can see that you would consider it a bargain. The question is : how many of you are there? Raw is very much a minority pursuit and printing isn't.

Quote
Did you complain to Adobe?
Since you ask, oh yes. I think they're exploitative and deeply unimpressive. See http://tonysleep.co.uk/blog/photoshop-cs2-on-ebay

Quote
Lexus started late from the back of a very big pack of luxury cars, and they don't seem to be suffering.
It is the quality of the product plus the value for the dollar spent.
Qimage, has been and always will be the best value for the dollar on the planet, whether you print only or use it as a full blown editor as I do, it still remains the best value.
Quality!  Let's compare... http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/raw.htm

Quality seems to matter less than hype in photography! If you've used 'em, ACR and LR are decent but not the best RAW converters, though they are slowly improving. What they have going for them is a gigantic marketing snowball, not ultimate quality. People just assume they must be good but there are several RAW converters that IME can do a much better job. There is always a downside too, whether it's usability, or pernicious upgrade costs (says a sometime Capture One user). There's always a balance of attributes which is quite personal to the individual and how they work, and that alone stops any single prog achieving dominance. I only wish Photoshop had such vibrant opposition.

On the basis of a try-out, I'd rate QIU Raw processing as capable of very good quality but...  if I have 100 RAW photos to process before bedtime I am not going to use QIU. "Refine" is clever and a better tool than the equivalent methods in many other RP's, but anything that needs filters is a world of workflow pain. It's not for no reason that the more usable RC's have evolved background batch processing rather than applying every tweak in real time.

I am not rubbishing QIU RP here, simply saying it has a balance of attributes that don't suit me.

Quote
You only have to have eyes to see the work and quality that goes into making a product like Qimage Ultimate.
Everday, more and more Qimage users that bought for printing only, have been trying out the Raw Processing, and the Tone Targeted Sharpening, and more to come in a steady stream. They are realizing that the *results* they are getting surpass the hyped up ACR and the LR results.
Every LR user I have ever spoken to says, I love LR. It stores my images the way I like, but it *still* can't print worth a damn.
That says that Adobe knows it is a terrible printing program, but it still hasn't been addressed.
But you still buy it, and you spat on Qimage. Tsk Tsk!

I really cannot imagine why you think that I like or bought LR, or that I spit on QI. Neither are true. I dislike LR a lot. It strikes me as far too clever for its own good, and the Prodig list is daily awash with real and imagined problems with LR catalogues, LR and PS CM issues. No thanks. And I think I made it very clear that I regard QI as without peer as far as printing goes. FGS man, I like QI, have been using it for years and recommending it. At least half a dozen people have bought it because I've told them they're idiots to try printing photos any other way.

All that I am expressing here is personal bewilderment about the strategic thinking behind QIU.  Attempting to ride two horses at once usually is a bad idea. The printing model is a compromised workflow unless you just want to process selected Raw and go straight to print. If that's what you want, ideal.

Quote
If you have a problem with any other software, you wait until next year and pay for the fix in an upgrade, or at least wait another 6 months for a free one.
I know people that call Tech Support on their credit card billed at so many $ per half hour for help.
Mr. Chaney is here every day, listening to what people want and need, and putting out new versions at no charge as often as 3 times a week.

Sadly perhaps, that is the lot of the small software company. They don't have the market power to twist users' arms like the majors do.

Along with QI, I am a long term fan and user of iMatch and Vuescan. Both are also produced by solo authors with the same dedication to endless revision and improvement. Each has succeeded in producing niche software that is best in class. Mario (iMatch) charges for major upgrades, whilst Ed doesn't charge at all for VS upgrades. Both, like Mike Chaney, are sort-of  legends among the photo community, their marketing is done by word of mouth - user loyalty and appreciation that has been earned by their unconditional support of what they sell. But if either suddenly decided to deprecate their existing products in favour of new versions that incorporated features few wanted yet had to be bought all over again, I'm not sure they'd be quite as popular.

Interestingly iMatch has basic Raw processing built in. VS has had pretty good Raw processing in it for years. But they don't sell themselves as RP's and nobody buys them for that, they buy then because they are *the* DAM prog, "the" scanning prog. QI is *the* printing prog. There are at least 20-25 Raw processors to choose from, and some are extremely good, with dedicated user bases. QI as also *the* RP, is a much tougher sell.

Quote
Have you ever heard the expression: "Shooting yourself in the foot" or "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

I think you've read what I didn't write and ended up arguing with what I didn't say. For clarity : QIU is better, nicer to use for its core purpose. This is good. But the improvements are quite small, and have no great impact on print quality which was already the best there is.

I am just - and this is only my personal opinion - perplexed at the discontinuity between old QI and new QI, given that the main difference is that new QI includes a load of stuff that a relatively small proportion of photographers may use or want to pay for. Usually vendors try to seduce their existing users to move along with them. MC seems to be saying, well, you bought a product that is now really a dead end, so now buy QIU which isn't - but look, it does Raw!

It's barely 9m since I u/g to Studio, and that's not currently a pitch with much appeal. I accept that eventually I will likely move to QIU but it will be for the printing. I have at least 8 or 9 Raw processing progs I've paid for and don't use, plus a bunch of abandoned evaluation versions, because they don't do what I want the way I want. I really don't need another one. In this forum there are others asking for a cut-down QIU that only does printing, so it isn't just me. YMMV of course and clearly does. We'll just have to see what Mr Darwin thinks.
Logged
Thomas Krüger
Newbie
*
Posts: 49



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2010, 11:35:10 AM »

@halftone: It seems that we will both getting old with Qimage 2010.209.   Grin
Logged
darkroomdevil
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2010, 05:24:03 AM »

Wow - what a lot of discourse! 

I am a new user of Qimage, purchased the studio version months back and then did not use it when I discovered that the images did not snap next to each other the way layers do in Photoshop.  I print on a Epson 9600 with 36" roll paper, I have been creating a new image in PS - usually 10" x 35.75" and dragging flattened images to the new image which of course is for printing.  PS layers snap to each other with precision - I have short cut keys to speed everything up and it is a breeze ... except that PS can have problems while printing so I have to take a break ... so I took another poke at Qimage.

Well guess what, even though images don't snap to each other for quick manual placement there is a command buried half way down in the context menu to auto sort the images for best placement - it seems that the sort list to the right of the size drop down list doesn't do that ... who knew? Wink

Yes, I am implying that the user interface is quirky.  My first impression of Qimage design philosophy = "If when explained, and with a little practice, if the software is easy to use it is golden".  I believe that that is not the way the best software is designed.  I subscribe to the 'it has to feel easy to understand and to use to be golden' idea, no matter how complicated the programing is under the hood.  Sit someone who has never seen the program before - the first 30 minutes of assumptions the new user has is the most important feedback a program can get.  I see QUtimate as an attempt to possibly move in more of the easy to use direction.

On the comment of 19.95 a year for upgrade protection - it is not a subscription, $20 a year to be able to use the software model as I understand it.  If Mike doesn't prove the value then folks will just not pay for the upgrade protection after they buy the program.  He is not guaranteeing himself an income by switching to this model - he will still have to provide value just as he does to get new users of the older qimage versions.  I don't blame him for wanting to get paid for program improvements - for those that want the improvements.  He probably didn't envision Qimage program becoming more than a printing program when Qimage started ...

I purchased the upgrade to Qimage Ultimate, not because I need it.  I can use the Studio version that I own.  But because I am a very strong believer in the importance of efficiently working systems.  Programs typically focus on features, not real improvements in the work flow and user interface.  High five to Mike for giving it a go! Smiley

Roger
www.eleakis.com for the curious

Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3247



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2010, 06:16:45 AM »

Hi Roger,
Quote
Well guess what, even though images don't snap to each other for quick manual placement there is a command buried half way down in the context menu to auto sort the images for best placement - it seems that the sort list to the right of the size drop down list doesn't do that ... who knew?
"who knew?", well, quite a few of us, just ask here next time.  Wink
In fact it's not buried, the Placement method is there as a button on the main screen, 4th in from left, below the page preview - it's a basic function of Qimage.
Quote
I discovered that the images did not snap next to each other the way layers do in Photoshop.
Well, PS is not exactly a printing program is it!
As mentioned above, you have various ways of automatically placing images on a page and in the Full Page Editor there is a snap to grid feature, the ability to move images by dragging or the arrow keys and CTRL Arrow snaps the selected image to line up with others on the page.
Quote
I subscribe to the 'it has to feel easy to understand and to use to be golden' idea, no matter how complicated the programming is under the hood.
Tell me a program which has the number of features that Qimage has that fits this description, and don't say Photoshop  Shocked
Qimage is different because it's the only decent printing program around and like all good tools, needs some effort to learn how to use it.
Regards,
Terry.
Logged
darkroomdevil
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2010, 03:43:52 AM »

Quote
"who knew?", well, quite a few of us, just ask here next time.  Wink
Thanks - I will next time ... Smiley
Quote
In fact it's not buried, the Placement method is there as a button on the main screen, 4th in from left, below the page preview - it's a basic function of Qimage.
Which is exactly my point, I kept clicking in that list to get placement.  That is where placement is controlled, in that general area of the user interface is where I would expect the resorting command to be.  Determining an area of the user interface that is responsible for a function and then not incorporating such an important control of that function in that area is counter intuitive.  I am not putting Qimage down, I am supporting Mike's intention of improving QImage and I am supporting that the program is both exceptional and can use refinement.
Quote
Well, PS is not exactly a printing program is it!
No it is not, but my point was that in this area Photoshop handles the placement of the images much more easily than Qimage does.  I would be using PS to print if it did not slow down retouching.
Quote
As mentioned above, you have various ways of automatically placing images on a page and in the Full Page Editor there is a snap to grid feature, the ability to move images by dragging or the arrow keys and CTRL Arrow snaps the selected image to line up with others on the page.
Thanks for the heads up, I will give that a try ...
Quote
Tell me a program which has the number of features that Qimage has that fits this description, and don't say Photoshop  Shocked
Definitely not Photoshop!  Photoshop is a toolbox, not an intuitive program!  Actually I have no idea how many features Qimage has as I am just learning the program Wink  I was judging the program based on the primary feature of the program - it's ease of use in printing and that work flow!

Thanks for the heads up and comments!
Roger
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Security updates 2022 by ddisoftware, Inc.