Thanks, guys.  Fred, I didn't know that you could see the zoom factor and the ppi with just a click...although I wonder what "8X" means.  Eight times what?

Terry, I'll experiment a bit with the slider.  8X appeared to be about the same as 100% on my monitor, and in any case will be close enough for what I'm trying to do, which is:

1.  Earlier in this thread, I mentioned how easy it is to use the Comparator to check for lens diffraction at small apertures.  It is of course very easy to set up on a tripod and shoot a subject at several (or all) different apertures, and it's child's play to use the Comparator to compare the photos side-by-side.  My Nikon kit lenses show noticeable diffraction at small apertures.

2.  I mentioned this finding on a Nikon forum and was promptly asked to post photos, so I started looking for a way to:
   a.  apply the exact same 100% crop (preferably) to about four of my test photos (no problem in QI)
   b.  create new email/web size copies (ditto)
   c.  arrange the new images side-by-side for easy comparison (Freehand placement in QI, right?
   d.  create a single new image from the four test images (Print to File, right?)
   e.  post the image to the forum (this I know how to do!)

An EXACT 100% crop isn't absolutely required, of course.  And I believe that I can use the Floating Text tool to identify the aperture used for each photo.

Now...what have I overlooked?  Your comments, please.

Qimage is indeed the only program on my computer I am enthusiastic about.

Good post, here.  In other programs, I've certainly had the frustrating experience of trying to re-create a crop.

You mention the zoom bar in the Full Page Editor.  Just this past weekend, after using the Comparator feature, and then switching to the FPE and using the zoom bar, it occurred to me: If I zoom to the max, am I viewing that segment of the image at 100%?  If so, printing a 100% crop and saving it as a new image would be child's play.

I'm hoping that's correct.  If so, it will greatly simplify a little job I want to do.

Definitely the easiest way to do it.  I regularly produce photo note cards in sets of four.  When I need to produce a new set, I simply recall any one of the several existing jobs, plug in the new photos, and save the new job under the appropriate name.  Couldn't be simpler.

Also note Fred's related post today on the Automated Job Log, which explains how you can recover your settings even if you didn't save the job.  Can you believe that we get all this for $100?

Nice quick-ref table of paper sizes here.

http://www.dpandi.com/paper/index.html

Thanks, Fred.  I had literally forgotten about this feature, even though I've used it exactly as you describe.

Terry, you should also post this to the "Qimage--Documented & Undocumented" thread.  Great stuff, thanks much.

Good post, Ray.  I started using these so-called "daylight" tubes like the GE Chroma 50, 5000°K, several years ago and must say I've been pretty happy with them.  A 48" standard fluorescent tube was around $5 then.  They've certainly come down in price and are much more readily available now, although most "daylight" tubes seem to be spec'd at 6500°K these days.  They of course do not produce full-spectrum light, but for the price, I find them a bargain.  I've done some informal product photography in this lighting and the color rendition is surprisingly good.

Somewhere on the internet I once saw some guaranteed-full-spectrum fluorescent tubes, but nearly had a coronary at the price.  I'm going to keep using the ones I can get at the big-box store.  Also, I've completely switched to daylight tubes in the tax & accounting office where my wife & I make our living.

I was just about to ask the same question, having read this yesterday on the Nikon site:

Capture NX 2 is a full-featured non-destructive photo editing program that provides photographers powerful tools to quickly and easily edit their photographs.

Welcome, new user!

You already know that you get prompt, helpful replies from experienced users when you post a question to this board.  Don't hesitate to ask.  The posts last Fall (I think) about greeting cards opened up an entirely new category of Qimage uses for me, and I've been using the program ever since I was shooting with a Sony Mavica.  (Yes, friends, it was indeed possible to get an acceptable 5x7 from a 640x480 digicam...if you printed with Qimage.)

That's an accurate estimate, Ernst, according to this:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/12/03/mac_sales_projected_to_grow_26_in_2010_outpacing_pc_market.html

The third paragraph refers to a "4 percent projected total market share in 2010."

Thanks for the tip on the Swap function.  I'll give it a try.

Nikon used to publish (and perhaps still does, though I can't find any) detailed lens specs which identified the sweet spot, often f8, if I recall.  Beyond that, you got greater DOF, of course, but more diffraction.  I remember seeing lens reviews which indicated that even Micro-Nikkors exhibited diffraction when stopped down beyond f8 or f11, even though they could be stopped down to f32.

But you're certainly correct that many lenses show improved performance when stopped down a few notches from their wide-open aperture.

Oh, well, I've been meaning to try a focus-stacking program, anyway.

Thanks for the inside view, Mike.  Sounds like you gave it your best shot.

In another thread, I commented about the Mac fanboys who seem to go out of their way to say, "Tut-tut, this program doesn't run on Macs."  I find that sort of thing tiresome, especially since it appears that 85% of Mac households include a PC: http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html

I've used the Comparator tool in Qimage many times, but usually to compare images taken at slightly-different exposures, or to confirm point of focus.

But I just used the Comparator to determine that my Nikon 18-55 kit lens exhibits severe diffraction at smaller apertures.  The texture of a leaf and the wood trellis behind it are clearly rendered at 5.6.  At f22 or 32, the fine detail suffers badly.

First time I've used the Comparator in this context.  The EXIF info displayed at the top of each image is a great convenience.

The only improvement I can think of would be the ability to load more than two images into the Comparator.

Thanks much for posting that solution, Terry.  I've had the same problem.

AutoCollage is indeed a fun program.  Almost addictive to watch as it re-shuffles the images.

Try making a collage from multiple copies of the same image...something like a close-up of a flower, for example.  Give priority to one image (thus making it larger) and shuffle until it comes out in the middle, with the smaller images arrayed around it.  Interesting effect.

"It's just PC envy."  Good one, Dennis!  How about, "That's why I'll never have a Mac.  It won't run Qimage."

You're probably right, I was less than charitable in my remarks.  I must admit that I have occasionally been irked when I've run across an interesting-sounding program only to learn--whoops--it's Mac only.

But it seems like some Mac users go out of their way to point out programs which don't run on a Mac--especially since, last I saw, Macs had about a 4% market share.