Nitpicking some more...

Adobe - $200 upgrade versus $700 new (PS Standard).  With an 18 month renewal cycle that works out to $133 per year or 19% per year (133/700).

QU - $20 yearly subscription versus $90 new.  That works out to 22% per year (20/90).

I think I have those numbers right.

I don't see people saying they feel cheated.  Maybe I missed it.

How is QU "already proving that?"  How does it prove it's a new product?

When Adobe started bundling Bridge with Photoshop did anyone consider that a "new product?"  I didn't think so.  Adobe didn't think so - they charged current PS owners an upgrade price for the new version (the Photoshop, Bridge bundle).

Most users think of a "new product" in terms of what the product can do - to a user it has nothing to do with how much new code there is or how nifty that feature is they worked on.  It's about function, to users.

So what is Qimage to users?  For most users it's the best printing program out there.  For some users it's also a handy/good RAW converter.  From a big picture perspective, those are Qimage's core functions (I apologize if I missed something(s) but I don't think it's matters to my point).

What does Qimage Ultimate bring to the party, core function-wise?  Nothing that I'm aware of - again, I'm sorry if I missed the big new core function.  There were enhancements - from what I've read some of those enhancements are really, really good.

Even if there is some big core function that has been added to Qimage, it's still an upgrade - much like when Adobe bundled Bridge with Photoshop (with Bridge, they added the core functionality of an image browser (view images and edit metadata)).  Qimage Ultimate to me is still the best printing program out there (I don't convert my RAW images with Qimage) - in other words, its core function did not change for me and many, many others.

Even if the code were rewritten from the ground up, it's still an upgrade to users.

The bottom line, if Qimage Ultimate really was a "new product" people would use Qimage Studio alongside Qimage Ultimate.  Or Qimage Pro and Qimage Ultimate, etc.  They would use both in tandem because the two products would serve different purposes (provide different functions).  I don't think people use these products that way at all (in tandem).  If you buy and use Qimage Ultimate, you very likely stop using Qimage Studio/Pro/Lite.

Conversely, when I bought Lightroom I did not stop using Photoshop.  Lightroom really was a "new product."


Of course not.  We're not suggesting that at all.


Of course not.  We're not suggesting that at all.


This is where you lose many of us.  The logic doesn't sync with reality.  When I bought Qimage Studio it was the best printing program I had tried.  That scope has not changed.  Not for me, not for many of us.  A new product is "born" if it provides a whole new core function(s).  It's a "new product" if it is meant to be used alongside the "old product," not replace it.  A replacement is an upgrade.

Maybe I'm missing what you're saying.  Show me an example in the photo software world of what you're talking about.  Show me a software product from another vendor that you see as a good Qimage Ultimate "new product" example.


Well, I don't agree with the "new product" part but I agree that it is a bargain for new users.  Not so much for existing users.

Like egale said, I'll use Qimage Studio until it works no longer and then I'll buy the best printing program for the buck (probably QU or it's replacement).  That is the cost effective choice you're forcing me to make.  If that's five years from now, DDI lost $100 from this user.  I would rather give you a reasonable upgrade payment and the $100.  You're a tough guy to give money to Mike.

I don't think that's quite the same thing.  From what I've read here, QU is essentially QS with a fresh GUI and some new features.  Lightroom is not Photoshop with a fresh GUI and some new features.  There are hundreds of things Photoshop can do that Lightroom cannot and dozens of things Lightroom can do that Photoshop cannot.  Lightroom and Photoshop are truly different tools.  QU and QS, not so much.

I don't have a problem at all with QU and it's pricing.  Like Marc though, I do think more existing customers would make the QU move if there were a significant discount.  I think that's a given.  But that obviously is not one of Mike's objectives - I mean getting people to make the move with an incentive is not Mike's objective.  I think Mike wants people to make the move on the merits of QU alone.  Quite understandable.

There are some people, like me, that would like to give Mike more money because we think it's fair but have no avenue except QU at $90.  I would rather sign up for a $20 QS subscription.  Granted, I haven't yet tried QU so my opinion may change.

Just voicing an opinion.  It's not a big deal either way to me.

Leroy

Chris did.  Reply #44 in this thread.  I thought there was another one but I couldn't find it.






To my way of thinking, it's an afternoon of programming at most to get it roughed in.  Then another half day of playing with it and finding the gotchas.  What are we talking about here?  Adding one character to your 'Renaming Parameters,' the "\".  Then changing the way you parse the string and adding some code to create directories if they're not there.

If you want to pretend that I'm all alone and that my way is extremely complicated, then yes, don't implement it.  If you want to make a flexible tool for your clients, reconsider.  Why on earth would you care how we choose to organize our images?

Sure, let's move on.  Vendetta?  Really?  Some mess that no one else on this planet will ever use?  Some people in this thread have said they use a structure very similar.  You're not listening, Mike.  As to why I'm doing this?  To help you.

Once again you're not understanding what I'm saying.  I never claimed most people find photos the way I do.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite.  If you remember, I mentioned the way I usually find photos to show that not all people think along the same lines.  Something you refuse to acknowledge.

Also, if you remember, I said I don't always find images that way - sometimes I have to use my DAM.

Because you can't admit other people are put together differently than you, I have to yet again endlessly argue for the benefits of my way.  Ugh.  Here we go...

As far as my way of storing photos being convoluted, please.  I'll say it again, what seems complicated, convoluted or cumbersome to one person will be perfectly straightforward to another.  My structure is not any more complicated than yours.  You are limiting your idea of complication to how many directory levels there are even though there are close to the same number of directories in either structure.

Open up your thinking.  Directory levels are not the only thing involved here.  There are other things that make looking for images convoluted.  One, the FP way of having 200-300, or more, sub-directories listed in one directory.  That scrolling mess is convolution, IMO.  Two, the FP way of having images from numerous cameras in the same directory.  That is convolution, IMO.

If dumping images from different cameras into one directory is a good idea because 1, it limits the directory levels and 2, you have the date and camera in the file name anyway, why not dump all images into one directory?  I mean one giant directory for all of your images.  Why not?  Why not dump video and audio in there too?  You have all of that intelligence built in the file name, why not use it?

A structure with no directory levels.  Why not force your customers to do it that way?  By your definition (as near as I can tell), that would be zero convolution.

I didn't want to get into the 'my way is better than your way' discussion because it's silly.  But you insist on directing the discussion that way.  Please try to understand we don't all think along the same lines.  I understand perfectly why you think the FP way is the best way.  That makes perfect sense because I understand that not all people think the same way I do.  Would you please return the favor?

Further, because you think the FP way is the best way and it makes perfect sense to you, I believe you will be more productive with that method.  You understand it and it is in sync with how you think.  If you open up your mind, you might see that the same can be said for those of us that organize our images differently than you.

Leroy

I do shoot most days but not with all of the cameras.  Like I said before I almost always use one camera and download those images the same day.  So I don't have to "switch directories seven times just to find all your images for that one day."  It would be close to the same number of directories either way (my way or the FP way).

I'm not going to endlessly argue the benefits of doing it my way.  I've done that with myself years ago and settled on what works for me.  Because of FP, I have revisited the mechanics of doing it the FP way.  It just seems a bad way to do it (for the reasons I've already stated).  But that's me.  To many others it will work great.

What I'm getting out of this discussion is that you think my way is dumb and cumbersome and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.  That's fine.  And I would argue that the FP way is cumbersome, for me.  I'm not alone though, just as you're not alone.  Surely you can see that what seems cumbersome to you might work well for others.  And what seems cumbersome to others might work well for you.

Leroy

Yes, ACDSee and Photoshop are flexible in that they don't force a certain structure.  Easy to live with.

I have seven cameras so using FP would require I create up to seven new directories a month.  That's getting to be kind of a pain.  Also I'm not sure whether FP recognizes different cameras - I apologize but I didn't get that far - and if it doesn't, I'll need to keep telling FP which camera the images are from because my directory structure is camera/year/month/day.

I'm not asking you to customize it just for me.  Many people work the same way I do or very similar.  To be fair, IIRC the downloaders in ACDSee and Lightroom are not as flexible as I wish either.  But Downloader Pro is and it's not that tough to set up, IMO.  If you want to use a directory structure similar to mine, for each camera you will need to tell DP the make and/or model.  And then tell DP what structure you want, camera/year/month/day, in my case.

I fear I've upset you with my tone or something.  Very sorry about that.  Like almost everyone else here, I use and love Qimage and wish you much, much success with Qimage and FP.  I'm trying to be constructive with my FP remarks so that it can be a tool for the widest possible audience.  The more money you make, the stronger the future is for Qimage and FP.  And that's good for all of us.

By the way the converting as you download is a very slick idea.  Kudos.

Leroy

I don't think I said I "always" remember which camera and lens I used.  I said most of the time I remember one or the other and can find my images pretty quickly that way.  Believe that or not but it goes to my original point, my mind likely does not work the same as yours.  Again, I've never lost an image.  Which brings me to:

Point 6.  98% of the time I go out with one camera and download the images that day.  Therefore, the FP scheme will give me about 98% of the number of directories my way will.  Further, with FP I'll have a directory called 2009 then under that I'll have 100-300 directories (one for each day I shoot).  That is a long scrolling mess to me.  Granted, many people will like it that way.  But many of us won't.  I much prefer one more level in the tree.  By the way, that's all we're discussing.  One more level.  One more level and now it's "dangerous?"  That's a reach.

Point 7.  Actually it is two levels, not one, because my first level is camera.  But that is the way I work best.  The nesting of the structure is the way I like to work.  Am I stuck in my ways?  Well I guess you could say that.  But I'm stuck in this way because it works.  I've tried other ways and they don't work.  For me.

Where would I put those other files?  The first time they're found on the card, I would ask the user.  User, where do you want your audio files, with your images or elsewhere?  Where do you want your video files?  Where do you want your other files?  In other words, do not assume where to put them.  Correct me if I'm wrong but the vast majority, if not all, of the images have the make and model of the camera in the EXIF, right?  So we're only talking about the exceptions and with those exceptions you can tell what type of file they are.  So I assume the best you can do is allow them to be stored in a more generic structure like, type/year/month/day or something simpler if the user prefers like type/year-month-day.

You say, "when you use a new tool, you learn to use that tool to the best of its abilities and often you find that you can work quite well under a different setup."  I buy that except that the tools I learn to use to their best are those tools that don't force me to redo things that already work for me.  Imagine how successful Lightroom would be if it forced a specific directory structure on it's users.  Or Photoshop, etc.

Worse yet, what if ACDSee forced one directory structure, Photoshop another and FP yet another?

Leroy

Point 1.  I think you're missing something significant here Mike.  Several times you've called the FlashPipe way the "better" way.  Some/many people will agree that the FP way is the better way.  Many other people will not.  We just don't all think along the same lines.  Your brain is organized differently than mine.  Since I know my brain better than you know my brain, I know what layout will work best for my images.

To my brain, the FP way is definitely not the "better" way.  Like many of us, I use a DAM product and with that I can find those difficult to find images.  However 99% of the time when I'm looking for an image I remember the camera I took the image with and that automatically gives me a date range.  Usually, I can remember roughly how old that camera was when I took the image which further narrows the search.  Or maybe I can remember that was my second outing with a certain lens and I remember exactly when I bought the lens.  In no time, I'm onto the right image.  I only mention this to show that we all think in different ways.  Please don't assume your way will be a good match for my way of thinking.

Point 2.  I'm comfortable with my way.  It works.  In fact it works very well, for me.  To work some other way would be very uncomfortable, at least for a time, and it's likely I would never get comfortable with something different.  I didn't arrive at my way by accident - I experimented until I found something that worked for me.

Point 3.  It would take a lot of work to redo my structure to fit the FP method.  And I'm just anal enough to where I would have to do that - re-structure everything if I adopted the FP way.  Who needs all that work?

Point 4.  I've been downloading my images into my structure for quite a while and can't recall ever having lost an image(s).  I think you mentioned that as a worry you had - a kind of nightmare support problem, was your thinking.  I guess I just don't buy that a structure like mine hides images in any way.  I think if you have a client that loses images with my directory structure and drops a support request, they're just as likely to do the same with the FP structure.

Point 5.  The original image names work fine for me.  Longer file names are simply harder to work with in my workflow.  When I edit images I add abbreviations to the file name like BW or IR or V2, etc.  Something to give me a clue as to what I've done to the image or where I am in the editing process.  And those abbreviations might stack up.  I might have something like DSC_0010BWV2Sh or DSC_0010BWR900.  Consequently, it's already a battle to keep the names comfortably short.  To my way of working and thinking, starting out with a longer name like D700-2009-10-07 (or something even longer) is not workable at all.

Summary
Before I retired I was a programmer.  Many times I had a hard time understanding why the client couldn't see things the way I did.  I think I understand where you're coming from and how attached you might be to the FP way - how clean and elegant it seems.  But we all process problems differently and the FP way of processing the problem is not for everyone, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't know what you want your FP client to be.  What I mean is you might necessarily not want the largest possible client base.  If that's what you want, maybe for support reasons, then I wouldn't change a thing.  But I think there are many of us out here that could be FP customers if you made FP more flexible.

Leroy