Title: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: admin on March 02, 2010, 05:48:48 PM March 2010: Smart Photo Printing
Jump to Qimage: the smart photo printing software featured in this article Jump to old/archived quality challenge w/resolution charts and examples
Background , I cringe. My face automatically makes the same frowning contortion that it does when I'm watching a football game in HD and then the network switches to the blurry SD feed from the blimp above. I can almost not stand to look at it and I turn away until the crystal clear HD feed comes back. ;-) My fear of printing from software that employs "dumb printing" may sound a little over the top, but it is not unfounded and is shared by many who have found how smart photo printing by "Qimaging" your photos can change your opinion of what really constitutes a "photo quality print". In this article, I refer to dumb printing as the photo printing process used by all photo applications other than Qimage, including high end photo editors, image/asset management applications, software bundled with new printers, image viewers, and other photo tools. Let's take a look at what I mean by "dumb printing" with respect to printing photos and how to print smarter, clearer, and more accurate photos.
Smart photo printing versus dumb photo printing
Dumb Printing Disadvantages
Qimage Smart Printing Benefits
Trust Qimage! Compared to Photoshop
Mike Chaney Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Fred A on March 02, 2010, 06:26:39 PM Well, let me the first to tell you that I saved both sample images.
I opened them in the queue in Qimage and looked at them in the Qimage comparator, side by side. One has the jaggies and the other does not! Then I printed one each 5 x 5 prints side by side on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of glossy. Even a cave man can see the difference! (To borrow the phrase from the GEICO insurace company) For anyone that just takes Qimage for granted, this is another wow factor eye opener for me. I have been printing with Qimage since either 1998 or 1999, I forgot. I take it for granted that my prints will be unbeatable. Thanks, Mike Fred Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Ernst Dinkla on March 11, 2010, 07:54:56 PM Mike,
Will there be a follow up to sketch the differences between Qimage and Lightroom? I have done my best to praise the virtues of Qimage in discussions like that but could use some good ammunition for another encounter. Not on this list. To mention are the Softproof not available in Lighroom, the not so transparant ProPhoto based CM solution, the arbitrary choices to control print sharpening with gloss or matt papers. The lack of anti-aliasing on downsampling. I guess there are way more. met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: DdeGannes on March 11, 2010, 10:47:10 PM Mike, Will there be a follow up to sketch the differences between Qimage and Lightroom? I have done my best to praise the virtues of Qimage in discussions like that but could use some good ammunition for another encounter. Not on this list. To mention are the Softproof not available in Lighroom, the not so transparant ProPhoto based CM solution, the arbitrary choices to control print sharpening with gloss or matt papers. The lack of anti-aliasing on downsampling. I guess there are way more. met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ My experience has been that its very difficult to convince anyone, particularly users of Adobe products that there is anything available to do better than what they can achieve in Photoshop. If they have spent in excess of US$600 for a product they refuse to accept that a product costing less than $100 can do a better job. Monitors just do not convey the true difference, the only way to see the actual difference is to convince others to do their own tests with actual prints. If they are not prepared to do the actual tests then they will never convert. Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Ernst Dinkla on March 12, 2010, 08:28:01 AM If they have spent in excess of US$600 for a product they refuse to accept that a product costing less than $100 can do a better job If they are not prepared to do the actual tests then they will never convert. Very true. You see that behaviour in humans, companies and governments. An expensive decision can never be a bad decision. I do have an expensive RIP that I hardly ever use. There is something else going on too. Several guys with interests in Adobe and its products give courses on image editing and printing and they dominate some of the fora too. Qimage is a dirty word there, messages with that content are ignored. Not that they can put a finger on where it lacks. It hurts their interests if the use of Qimage is advocated. Nevertheless there are people new to image printing that can be convinced of Qimage's qualities. They come to the fora too. Typical discussion: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41974&hl met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Jeff on March 12, 2010, 08:43:12 AM [/quote] My experience has been that its very difficult to convince anyone, particularly users of Adobe products that there is anything available to do better than what they can achieve in Photoshop. If they have spent in excess of US$600 for a product they refuse to accept that a product costing less than $100 can do a better job. Monitors just do not convey the true difference, the only way to see the actual difference is to convince others to do their own tests with actual prints. If they are not prepared to do the actual tests then they will never convert. [/quote] Exactly same at my local club, plus most members do not believe in profiling their monitors, but then on the other hand they create some very good prints so I have to watch my mouth. Jeff Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Terry-M on March 12, 2010, 09:30:06 AM Quote the not so transparent ProPhoto based CM solution Because of this "solution", I understand from a talk given by a CM "pro", that it is impossible to print a calibration target with LR.Quote Typical discussion: I find it hard to believe there is all this drivel being written when Qimage had the solution to the "problem" years ago.http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41974&hl When I first bought Qimage, the thing that seemed self evident, once it was stated, was the principle of using the printer's native resolution. Terry. Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Terry-M on March 12, 2010, 10:00:35 AM Quote If they have spent in excess of US$600 for a product they refuse to accept that a product costing less than $100 can do a better job. The same applies to the RAW processing abilities of Qimage. OK I'm not a pro and do very little "fancy" stuff with images, but I know my results from the technical/conversion point of view, are as good as, or better than as any others I see at my photo club including those brought by visitors. I can achieve results with Q where others seem to need HDR features to do the same.Terry. Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Jeff on March 12, 2010, 11:28:40 AM I have had some further thoughts/questions.
How far do Mike's comments apply to Print to file and printing at lab printers? I do not do my own printing. I use two Labs - http://www.proamimaging.com/index.html at 402ppi with their Fuji printer profiles http://www.dscolourlabs.co.uk/ Fuji Frontier 570 printers @ 300dpi again with their Fuji profiles Both produce excellent prints up the 18 x 12 inch, I have tested one against the other, same print, same size, (but with different profile) and I cannot tell the difference. Jeff Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: admin on March 12, 2010, 05:14:07 PM Will there be a follow up to sketch the differences between Qimage and Lightroom? I've updated the article to include an actual print example from Lightroom 3 versus Qimage. Just look at the bottom of the article. Since I'm focusing on print quality with this article, I don't want to get into the ins and outs of the interface, function vs function comparisons, and so on. Even though Qimage can do a lot more than LR when it comes to printing and printing features, my new "campaign" is focused on print quality as I believe that's what sells Qimage. Mike Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: rayw on March 13, 2010, 02:35:04 AM If you want to convince club members of the benefits of qimage, then maybe you could arrange a half hour or so demonstration. it would need a bit of preparation and organisation, and possibly a laptop and a printer, but compared to using the usual editing software that most folk will use, it should be pretty easy to impress the unaware members.
On the few fora that I look in on - getdpi.com - (a fairly professional group of folks) and fredmiranda.com/forum - a huge fast moving place - qimage is mentioned favourably, and quite frequently. I think Qimage's main selling point, as well as the print quality, is the relative ease in which images can be arranged on the page, the fact that any alterations to get the print does not involve altering the original image, and the fact that the settings are remembered so that you can run reprints as required. For folk who spend time editing and perfecting their photos, they will most likely already be using other raw processors and editing software. And of course, this forum is a worthy bonus - it's not often you can get into a public slanging match with other software authors :D . Best wishes, Ray Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Terry-M on March 13, 2010, 07:51:11 AM Quote If you want to convince club members of the benefits of Qimage, then maybe you could arrange a half hour or so demonstration. I did this in 2008 but did not actually print on paper but to a pdf file that was viewed on screen. I prepared a Power Point presentation, used a laptop (it was my excuse to buy one at the time ::)) and the club projector. We have a members evening now and again and I volunteered. I concentrated on the quality aspects, the principle of using the printer native resolution and the ease of making multi-image, multi-size, page layouts as well as easy colour management set-up.Out of the total who attended (~ 35) 3 that I know of bought Qimage and use it regularly. Regarding one guy I know who specialises in African wildlife, the difference in his A3 prints is very noticeable. I've had one person recently say they tried the demo but could not see any difference but I've not yet had a chance to question him in detail, I suspect he may have re-sized his image in PS first and thus spoilt the pixels before printing in Q. I do find many photographers are stuck in their ways :o Terry. Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Owen Glendower on March 14, 2010, 04:05:54 AM Quote There is something else going on too. Several guys with interests in Adobe and its products give courses on image editing and printing and they dominate some of the fora too. Qimage is a dirty word there, messages with that content are ignored. Not that they can put a finger on where it lacks. It hurts their interests if the use of Qimage is advocated. Nevertheless there are people new to image printing that can be convinced of Qimage's qualities. They come to the fora too. Typical discussion: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41974&hl Thanks much for the link, Ernst. I gave it a quick read. I can hardly believe what these non-Qimage users are going through to get a good print. "Jumping through hoops" comes to mind. There was a time when all I did was open an image in Qimage, set the paper type & print size, hit "print," and then go drink coffee until the printer spat out a better print than I could get with any other program on the planet. I use more of Qimage's capabilities now, but if there's another program out there which will allow you to produce a drop-dead 18x24 enlargement from an 8-megapixel P&S, I'd like to know what it is. Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Owen Glendower on March 14, 2010, 05:45:09 PM Quote I think Qimage's main selling point, as well as the print quality, is the relative ease in which images can be arranged on the page, the fact that any alterations to get the print does not involve altering the original image, and the fact that the settings are remembered so that you can run reprints as required. You've summed it up in a nutshell, Ray. A few months ago, thanks to a thread on this forum, I started printing greeting cards & note cards with Qimage. It might take me 45 minutes, including a bit of editing and cropping, to set up a 4-card batch exactly the way I want--but calling up & reprinting the job is child's play. But when all I want is the best possible 12x18 print, Qimage makes that child's play, too--at least compared to all of the manipulations described in the thread Ernst cited in his post. Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: Seth on March 31, 2010, 11:26:14 AM There is no doubt that QImage is the printing godsend. Printing from PS lacks the Smart Sharpening--or other--that QI applies, so I don't know if we are comparing apples to apples. That said, it would take a lot more work in PS to equal what QI does in printing.
On the other hand, statements that QI handles RAW better than PS are questionable. PS and ACR have many definite advantages. Isn't saying this just the same as those who disavow QI advantages in printing? Title: Re: March 2010: Smart Photo Printing Post by: MyronGochnauer on July 12, 2010, 07:49:38 PM Even if the Adobe and Apple (Aperture) people cannot or will not see the improvement that Qimage makes to what hangs on the wall, they surely must be able to recognize the convenience and flexibility of printing with Qimage. It beggers belief that Photoshop has never figured out that it is really, really, really inconvenient to interpolate in Photoshop (perhaps by means of an expensive plugin), sharpen specifically for printing on the material chosen, print, and then remember not to save the interpolated, sharpened image instead of the original. The people working on LightRoom have made some moves in the right direction, but are far behind Qimage.
|