Appreciate it, guys.  I'll probably play it safe & order from B&H, since their prices appear to be competitive with other suppliers.

I note that one reviewer on the B&H site uses this paper specifically for that purpose.

I've played around with printing on watercolor paper.  A softly-diffused "misty day" photo reproduced well.  Other than that, I wasn't happy with the results.  However, the matte cardstock I get from the supplier I mention above, Desktop Publishing Supplies, is coated for inkjet-only printing, and until I found this paper, I had no idea that it was possible to print on matte stock with that level of quality.  Now everybody in the family loves my photo note cards, and I've even sold a few.

Of course, as I've said before in earlier threads, producing items like notecards with Qimage had never even occurred to me until I ran across your explanation of making Christmas cards.  That thread was a year or more ago, I believe.  Takes a bit to get things set up properly the first time, of course, but after that, it's a matter of minutes to create new versions.  It was quick & easy--once you showed me how!

Thanks, Johsef.  I'll probably try the canned profiles first, but I've been thinking of giving Profile Prism a try, anyway.

When I'm ready to order paper, just how do I know whether or not I'm getting the new versions?

Appreciate it, Terry.  I see the Pearl papers mentioned and praised quite often in my online browsing, so I'll probably try them first.  And I'm glad to hear that one of the "canned" profiles worked well for you.

Just downloaded the Ilford profiles for Classic Gloss and Classic Pearl.  They appear to be identical.  Interesting.

Thanks again, Terry.

I have no complaints about the prints I'm getting from my HP B8550 printer (not to be confused--as it often is--with the 8850) using HP's recommended Advanced photo papers.  And I've found a matte cardstock from Desktop Publishing Supplies (desktopsupplies.com) which gives great results when I print photo note cards.

For some time I've wanted to try some specialty papers, but couldn't find any suppliers who provided profiles for my not quite "true" photo printer...until recently, when I learned that Ilford does indeed provide B8550 profiles for many of their papers, namely:

Classic Gloss
Classic Pearl
Smooth Gloss
Smooth Pearl
Smooth Fine Art
Smooth Heavyweight Matt
Smooth Lustre Duo
Premium Photo Glossy, Pearl, & Satin
Premium Plus Glossy & Pearl

I of course do all of my photo printing from Qimage, and I'm hoping that some forum members who use Ilford papers could share their knowledge and perhaps make some suggestions.  Which Ilford papers have given you the best results?  And who's your supplier?

My "art" prints, pardon the expression, are usually landscapes and nature macros/close-ups, like flowers.  I occasionally print b/w.

Any information will be appreciated.

Thanks, Mike.  This is a point which needs to be made more often...perhaps replacing "HDR" with "post-processing."  If more people were aware of this, we might see fewer overprocessed photos, and fewer people shooting with in-camera processing cranked up to 9.  For example, on another forum, I once saw someone say that he shot EVERYTHING with his camera set on "Vivid" (whatever that means).

My initial photographic experience back in the last century took place at a company which published several magazines.  Being able to see the original chromes compared to what came out of the back end of a 4-color, high-speed web press was an education in itself.  There were times when we saved ourselves much grief by never showing the client anything but a proof.  Seeing the original chrome would have created some unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps we'd also see fewer underprocessed photos, since this works both ways.  Browse some photo forums and it won't be long until you find a comment similar to this: "I do no/very little/hardly any post-processing.  My goal is to reproduce the scene as I saw it."  [Quoted from memory.]

Really?  Your camera sensor captures the scene "as you saw it," without any limitations?  All colors correctly rendered?  All edges properly delineated?  All details captured just as sharp as you saw them?  And both your monitor and printer also reproduce the scene just as you saw it?

Mike and many other people have written intelligently on this subject, but I repeat: Mike's point above that I've quoted needs to be made on a regular basis.

I often try to do this myself, with less than satisfactory results.  TTCM would indeed be a great feature.

Yep, ExifToolGUI is handy.  You can't edit ALL fields, as I assume you can with ExifTool itself, but it's all I need at present.  The default backup is indeed a convenient feature.

Ditto for the "All Metadata" option under "Remove."  Have you seen the recent news stories about people who have unwittingly revealed their exact location by innocently posting photos from their brand-new GPS-enabled camera?  A great way to reveal to the world exactly where you're getting all of those great shots of unspoiled nature, wildlife, etc.  And as a matter of safety, I guess it would be okay to post a picture of your new and expensive flat-screen TV to your Facebook page, but stripping the GPS metadata before you post might be a good idea.  Modern life.

Me, too, evidently, because until you posed your question, I thought that we had lost the display of print-queue filenames in QU.  Now, of course, I see that I had overlooked the "Print Queue" tab next to the "Job Properties" tab below the queue on the right half of the screen.  Previously, print-queue filenames were displayed in the window below the thumbnails on the left half of the screen.

I was getting Comparator to work, but only by control-clicking on the images themselves in the queue...a slight nuisance when they're on different pages.  Now I can do it properly.  Thanks again for posing the question, Jeff.

ExifToolGUI (http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm) isn't a perfect solution, but so far, it's been sufficient for my needs.

Yes, but the blouse I edited was a buttonless pullover.  If you pull-processed from bottom to top, it was much faster & easier to reverse than a blouse with buttons, especially since dodging & burning by hand was all we had available in those days.  However, the inside seams showing on the outside were a dead giveaway.  In the midst of a major brain cramp, tried the "mirror" function.  No joy.  Had no choice but to go back into the darkroom.  Got it done and met the midnight deadline, too.

Did something similar once.  Fortunately, my subject noticed in the nick of time that my clumsy editing had somehow left the blouse inside-out.  I hasten to add that this oversight was partially attributable to the poor lighting in my motorized darkroom ('57 Plymouth Belvedere, if I recall).

Best customer service on the planet.  Ever land on any of the HP support forums?  Discussions of printer problems can go on for days without anyone from HP ever chiming in.  Here, we get support and a software fix in hours.


Same here.  Can you believe these forums are free?

For me, the Christmas-card thread from a year ago (see below) opened the door to the "other half" of Qimage, so to speak.  Now I'm printing my own greeting cards and photo note cards, motivational posters for gag gifts, return-address labels incorporating a photo, you name it...all thanks to a guy who already had it worked out and shared his knowledge.  And of course, the photo is optimized in everything I print.  I'm too embarrassed to admit how I once printed some photo greeting cards using a M-------- program starting with W.

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage/qimage-challenges/msg1648/#msg1648

Amen.  Great improvement, Mike.  Coincidentally, I've been working on an underexposed b/w photo my son shot on his Italy vacation.  Needed lots of fill & contrast adjustment.  The first test print (from Studio) clearly showed just how badly I'd oversharpened.  Ultimate made it easy to toggle JUST the sharpening and see exactly how much to back off.  Wonderful feature.

Good one, Fred!  Wish I could be that witty at 4:56 a.m.