I always print from Lightroom through Qimage. However, I don't use it as an external editor. Instead I created two Export presets, called Qimage JPEG and Qimage TIFF, where Qimage is called at the end of the export process. You can select an external program to be called at the lower end of the export dialog. Contrary to the external editor, you can specify a separate directory, where the files to be printed should be saved. I have checked the option that the files should be added to my catalog, this way the directory with my prints shows up in the catalog. The export way let's you also t add a watermark, if you want.

As I follow the non-destructive workflow mostly, I discard usually my printed RGBs from time to time, because they are interim files, just send to Qimage. In order to keep track what I printed, I create either virtual copies for crops or special edits necessary for printing and mark them with blue color. A smart collection serves to show me all the images, I have printed.

The pole contains only 15 votes! By all means, I would not call this representative. It might indicate a trend, however, to draw any conclusion from this, there are a lot of more votes necessry.

Thomas

Here in Germany, the GH2 is released for sale since first week of December, it seems quite later in the US though.

It is a phantastic camera. The speed (keeping the burst rate especially) does not fulfill the expectations completely, but the new EVF is really much improved (a much better dynamic range and less noise), so that this alone is a good reason to upgrade.

I guess as soon the GH2 is available in dcraw, you will work on GH2 support in Qimage.

Kind regards

Thomas

I probably missed the corresponding post:

Is automatic lens correction already available for Panasonic Lumix G cameras/lenses, especially the GH2?

Kind regards

Thomas

In order to avoid the large TIFF file, I created an export preset with JPEG (100%) as the output format and Qimage to open once the export has been finished. Works similar to setting Qimage as an external editor.

I could improve the printing quality from Lightroom by setting the resolution to 360 ppi (recommended for Epson printers). I had forgot that and was printing initially with 240 ppi. With that setting the prints from Qimage are still better (especially watermarks) but the results are much closer.

Kind regards

Thomas

Hi

Just tried my new Lightroom 3 (final) installation and compared printing with Qimage.

The first round of testing still shows that Qimage easily beats Lightroom with respect to sharpness and detail. It seems that the quality of Lightroom print engine did not improve over version 2.

It is remarkable, that such a "small" endeavor like Qimage can keep its superiority over the big players. Thanks Mike!

Kind regards

Thomas

Hmm

On my Win 7 32-bit system they disappear, after closing the window. So it is possibly a 64-bit issue (?)

Kind regards

Thomas

Mike,

You are right with your comments, but I am sure that most of the users would not come in touch with the problems you describe. Regarding the explorer.exe issues in Win 7 32-bit they don't stay as orphan processes, they just don't disappear in Task Manager immediately after closing the window.

Certainly Windows 7 has still bugs, which some user may come across or not. But some posters here express their reluctance of using Windows 7 because of the bad experience others had with certain cases, and others claim the superiority of Mac, because such bugs do not exist there and MacOS is much more stable.

In my opinion, this is wrong, as the current printing issues with MacOS show (these issues affect photographers much more directly than the problems you describe as a developer) that a new MacOS version does have its own problems. When my machine was not running stable on Vista, I considered to switch to MacOS. Finally, I did not, went the Windows 7 route, and am now happy that I did not switch - it saved a lot of money, still using the same equipment.

Everybody, who considers to switch to Windows 7 should check if

1) the hardware vendor already supports Windows 7 with drivers (if not, there is a risk that the hardware may not work, but it might work even so, as it was the case with my old HP scanner)
2) there is any piece of software, which a user considers essential for his work, is not supported yet. If there is one, wait with the switch (although, for my case, which is the usual stuff of office, home banking, imaging, and utility software, I did not find any essential software, which was not yet supported)
3) For non essential software, just dump it or give it a try after switching to Win 7
4) Do a clean install, because after some years of use, your machine will have a lot of "abandonware" on it.

I reiterate, that for the average user, I see no reason why Windows 7 32 bit was not ready for prime time.

Kind regards

Thomas

Liz,

You should not take Mike's problems described in his article as representative. I had no issues upgrading my PC to Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit, but I did a clean install.

My Vista machine was running not running smoothly, so I took the chance for the change to Windows 7. Reinstalling my software took me less than a day. Now I have a machine, which runs quicker and more stable.

So, if you have no problems with Vista, you do not need to upgrade, but your judgement should not be based on one person's experience. Mike said that his setup is nothing usual.

I am not a Windows 7 defender, but on the other hand, I don't think too much panic is not wise either.

Kind regards

Thomas

You should also bear in mind, that the majority of Windows 7 upgraders (including me!) do not have any problems so far (or at least no significant problems). Those happy users will not post anywhere about their happiness, only the problem-driven cases usually become public. Mike describes in his article a bad example for sure, but as he stated his setup is not usual.

So, there are issues with Win 7 as they are with MacOS. Are they likely to apply to you? Probably not.

Given the current state of MacOS Snow Leopard with color management and Epson printer drivers, I would say that MacOS is even more problematic for photographers than Win 7, but I am sure that the issue will be solved soon.

So the choice between MacOS and Win 7 is likely more a question of personal taste and budget than an issue of overall stability.

Kind regards

Thomas

Do you really believe that MAC does not have serious problems either? To me the big problems with Snow Leopard, color management, and Epson printer drivers aren't a good advertisement for the MAC either.

Kind regards

Thomas

32-bit. I forgot to mention it, sorry. With 64-bit the situation might be not as clear.

Kind regards

Thomas

Well, before this starts to be a complete Windows 7 bash thread, I can report that a clean update from Windows Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium about two weeks ago, went without any problems. Even old hardware, such as an old HP scanner worked without problems.

Of course, I had to reinstall my software, but that was done in half a day.

- Lightroom 2.5 and 3 beta
- DxO Optics Pro 5.3.5 and 6
- LightZone 3.8
- Photoshop CS3
- Qimage
- Faststone Image Viewer
- Wings Platinum 4
- Spyder Elite and Print
- Epson printer drivers for Stylus Pro 3800 and EPL-6200 Acculaser.

just to name the imaging related software.

Plus some office stuff, media players, browsers, and e-mail clients.

Although the new OS does not have a lot of new features that would warrant an update, the nearly 3 year old system (Intel Core Duo E6600, 2GB RAM, nVidia Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB) feels significantly more responsive, faster, and stable. Whether this is due to the clean reinstall or the OS itself, I cannot say, but definitely the update was worth the price (85 €) and effort. So, I see no point of not encouraging people to do the update.

So far it was the cleanest Windows update I had.

Of course, it is very good that Mike reported about *his* problems, but for people with average configurations, I do not see inevitable hassles.

Kind regards

Thomas

Ed,

After your clarification, I fully agree with you, we use the same type of workflow.
I do input sharpening (ref. to Bruce Fraser) with Lightroom or LightZone and leave the rest for printing to Qimage. Even with this slight sharpening, I find the print results of Qimage very good (Epson Stylus Pro 3800) and preferable to Lightroom.

(However, from a workflow point of you, it would be better if Lightroom was on par with Qimage in terms of printing. That would make the intermediate TIFFs files superfluous).

Muizen, if you make special adjustments for individual prints in Lightroom (i.e. a black & white version or different crops) you should consider the virtual copy function. Maybe you already knew of it. This would not avoid the TIFFs, but your special edits are kept separately.

Another option is to tailor your input sharpening for your printing needs and personal taste, create a Lightroom preset, and apply this to a virtual copy for printing.

Kind regards

Thomas

No idea, why somebody considers Lightroom as an unneccessary element and another potential point of failure.

I use Lightroom for image management, image browsing, and some image editing raw files. Because I think the Qimage print engine does a far better job than I use Qimage for printing and start in from Lightroom as an external editor like you. If you do not any edits in Lightroom to the TIFF file Lightroom generates and sends to Qimage, you can delete it after printing the file, because you can always restore it, since the only image editing parameters are stored in your Lightroom catalog (or in accompanying xmp files). If you do alter the TIFF files as well, you may need to keep them. I would not go the export route. Just call Qimage on the image you select for printing and start Qimage as an external editor.

Export would only be better, if you want to print several images at the same time (i.e. several images on one page).

Both methods should not have any influence on the quality of your print.

Kind regards

Thomas