I am testing Qimage Ultimate at work where I do not have another version of Qimage installed.  In this case, where do I place the camera profile for my D2H so that QU reads it?

Thanks,
Chris

I add a later caveat.  While I tend to find Lightroom's sharpening algorithm very good.  One can also use the USM and sharpening equalizer in Qimage to great effect for capture sharpening if one does not have Lightroom.  I find a setting of 1 250 50 to work very well.

- Chris

Mike is referring to a sequence of sharpening that is sometimes called three-stage sharpening which is popularly associated with the late Bruce Fraser (http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow).  I process my NEF files in Lightroom and apply capture sharpening there (what Mike refers to as restoring the image sharpness at 100% view).  I find that its sharpening algorithm is quite good for this.  I usually use 80 .7 40 40 as a starting point.  I also have some presets from different sources.  I save final files as TIFs in a separate folder titled "Final Prints" and make the prints through Qimage with Smart Sharpening at its default setting.  I also use Qimage to prepare files for printing at Costco using profiles from Dry Creek Photo (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/).  The results are always outstanding.

You can also try the USM feature in Qimage with the print equalizer for capture sharpening, although I find the results less satisfactory than Lightroom.

- Chris

Thanks!

My DVD drive is the E drive and flashpipe does not have a box to select the E drive when I pull up the settings menu.

Thanks Terry.

I thought that I had tried that.  I will try it again.

- Chris

Is there a way for FlashPipe to transfer files from DVDs or CDs?

Thanks,
Chris

I'll reply as one of those who originally requested this feature (but later discovered that he did not need it as much as he thought he did).

Thank you, Mike.  It is a testament to the excellent response to your customers that you have provided in the last seven plus years that I have owned Qimage, Profile Prism, and now FlashPipe.  It is why I purchased FlashPipe over other competitors, even when it did not have the feature that I thought that I needed.   

- Chris

I tried DLP and found it more complicated than I needed.  Plus, I could not find out if it also downloaded videos as FP does.  Since we do take some video on my wife's cameras, this is a useful and time-saving feature.  FP's interface is very easy to use without too much switching between different tabs and menus.  Finally, the introductory price for FP is $10.00 cheaper than DLP.  As a matter of pure cost, I did not feel that DLP added enough to merit the additional expenditure.

- Chris

As one who once wanted Mike to implement the by-day-and-date folder system, I believe that FlashPipe in its current form works quite well with Lightroom given that LR has the option to move files once they are on the hard drive into this kind of system.  See my post here: http://ddisoftware.com/tech/flashpipe/now-i-see-the-light!/.

Mike, you have already implemented the date-span folder system in the latest upgrade.  Might there be a way to add an option to download photos into folders arranged by month, but not specifically by day?

- Chris

Thanks,
Chris

Okay, perhaps not as dramatic as the heading and certainly not a religious experience.  However, I was one of those who acknowledged the benefits of FlashPipe but could not see how it fit with my preference for a folder structure that included folders arranged by day.  I was one of those who wanted Mike to include this feature in FP.  I also was not sure how to integrate FlashPipe with my workflow in Lightroom.  Yesterday, I decided the purchase FP (given the reasonable price) and can now report that it works very well with a workflow that includes Lightroom.  I cannot attest for other programs.

My preferred directory structure is as follows:
Year
     Month
          Day

Thus...
2009
     10-Oct
          2009-10-08

Lightroom will download files in this manner.  Flashpipe will not.  However, Lightroom cannot download files from multiple cards at the same time; FP can.  Also, while it does have a custom file naming feature, the choices in Lightroom do not include the camera.  The camera name can be entered in the "customized text" section; FP can insert the camera name into the name for each file from every memory card from which it reads.  Lightroom will not download video files; FP will to the folder that I select.

So, until yesterday, in Lightroom I would go to the "Import from Device" selection and be able to choose one card.  I would write in the name of the camera in the "customized text" section and then import.  Then, go back to "Import from Device" and select the other card and enter the name of that camera in the "customized text" section.  With FP these settings are already part of the downloading of photos from all cards.  I also discovered last night, as someone else has mentioned in this forum, if you decide to rename your files in Lightroom after downloading them, there is a bug that interrupts the process on a regular basis.

So now with FP I select the "10-Oct" folder as the "To Folder" into which all files from all cards will be downloaded.  I can select another destination for videos if I want.  My settings already tell it to include the camera name in the file names from all cards.  I leave the "Subfolder" section blank because I do not need to know what date I downloaded the files.  I hit "Go" and FP downloads all the files into the "10-Oct" faster than Lightroom does with a single card.

I then open Lightroom and choose "Import from Disk" and select the "Move and Import Files" option.  I hit go and the files are moved into date-specific folders in the manner that I like and I can add the IPTC data at this stage if I want.

The overall result is a net reduction in the amount of time that it takes me to download my files and still get them into a folder structure that I prefer with names that prefer.  As I wrote earlier in this post, this works for me and Lightroom.  I cannot attest to whether or not this process will work with other DAM programs.

Thanks Mike, I'm a convert!

- Chris

P.S. - Is there a way to enter a customized folder name in the "Subfolder" section rather than the download date?

Leroy and Mike:

Thank you for your thoughtful exchange.  Like Leroy, I am currently set in my ways and I like downloading my files to date specific folders and it is not as complicated for some of us as you make it sound Mike.  I use Lightroom as my DAM (always Qimage for printing  ) and I can import the files directly to a folder designated by month and Lightroom places the pictures in date-specific folders.  So, for example, my current directory structure looks like:

2009
   01-Jan
        2009-01-10
        2009-01-15
        etc.




However, Mike you raise an important point which, admittedly, I have not considered.  Given your clearly stated intentions for FlashPipe some files clearly cannot be moved or copied into date specific folders.  It sounds self-evident, but I admit that I had never thought of it before (probably due to my being set in my current ways), but there does not seem to be anything that prevents me from using FlashPipe to download files to an existing folder already specified by month and turn off the Subfolder option.  Am I correct in this understanding?

There are many features that I do like about FlashPipe, especially its ability to upload from multiple cards at one time, its ability to upload videos at the same time, and its ability to copy files to multiple drives.

It would help me to hear from others who are using FlashPipe and Lightroom as their DAM.

Thanks, as always, Mike for your creativity and responsiveness to your customers.

- Chris

To clarify my position on this matter.  The desire for some form of separate sub-folders is merely that: a desire for some of us who prefer that method.  I, and others, have also expressed a willingness to look at other options in addition to the method that FlashPipe currently employs.  Mike--in his usually attentive way--has proposed some alternatives and has communicated that he is working on some form of our request (Thank you, Mike).  I have no aspirations to be a pro or to be like a pro, but I currently like for my files to downloaded and managed in a certain way.  That is all.  Nothing more than a request.

I have now been playing with the trial version for a couple of days and I can say that I like the speed with which the files are downloaded and I very much like the choices for file-naming; they are very flexible.  However, I am still not sold on having all files downloaded to one folder that is named for the download date.  I would like more choices here.  And, yes, I remain stuck on the comfort (perceived or otherwise ) of having the files downloaded to sub-folders by date.

- Chris