Yeah, like I'd tell YOU! 

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 8½x11 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.


+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.

...it makes me happy all over again that I'm a Qimage user.

http://photocamel.com/forum/photography-talk/146837-how-does-pixel-size-equate-physical-print-size.html

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:

http://robertariail.com/2011/04/10/abstract-expressionism/

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looking forward to more info on cutouts, especially the name of Terry's program.

Replaced the image, as noted above.  The previous image had been reduced & saved twice.  Terry & Fred, thanks again for a very illuminating lesson.

Per your request.  Might be some jpeg artifacts in this one.  Replaced the photo.  Slider was indeed all the way to the right.

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%.

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.

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.