Is there any way to completely rebuild the RAW cache without having to go to each sub-folder in a folder and rebuild the cache in each sub-folder individually?  Mike's "fix" to the Fuji S9000 raw image parsing only gets applied to images processed with the 2022.109 release.  I have hundreds of raw images scattered among many many sub-folders and was hoping that there would be a way to let my computer chug away unattended to rebuild them all.   

I want to thank Mike for going above and beyond the call of duty with regard to customer service.  There has been a bug in LibRaw that incorrectly parsed raw image files from the Fuji S9000 (and I suspect other 9000-series of this camera).  It's what has prevented me from further updating QU since 2020 when I first discovered the problem and I have had to resort to using QU 2018.113 ever since then.  I recently re-contacted Mike about the problem and he explained that the problem was with LibRaw itself, but took the time to "fix" the problem and incorporate it into the 2022.109 release.  I can't thank him enough for doing this!  I can now enjoy the improvements to QU that have ensued since the 2018.113 release and I bought a lifetime license as a result.  Forty bucks is a small price to pay for such superb customer service and his personal efforts to solve a problem for what is likely effect a very small proportion of QU users.

Did this problem get fixed for the new (QU 2022) release?  I want to upgrade, but it's not worth it to me if the problem still persists in the new release.

When adding a processed RAW image to the queue, I noticed that the dimensions of the preview print were incorrect (square appearance vs. rectangular).  Inspection of the Embedded Information reveals that QU is not reading (or interpreting) the EXIF info properly.  The left side of the attachment below shows how QU "sees" the RAW file.  The right side shows a resultant TIFF made by converting the RAW file, which shows the proper dimensions.  The RAW file is being read as a 48-bit image when it's actually a 24-bit image.  I would like to print by adding RAW files to the queue rather than having to convert them to another format before printing.  Anyone know what's going on.  I've tried searching the forum but can't find anything addressing this.  It started happening when I switched to Windows 10 from Windows XP.

I finally acquiesced and moved to Win 10 64-bit on my newly-upgraded computer.  I have QU 32-bit that I had been running under Win XP and was wondering whether there was any kind of discount on upgrading to QU 64-bit?  Or do I just pay my $19.99 to become current on my present installation and then download the latest version?

Topic removed.  

See jtoolman's method of refilling here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6fi9VCOo0

Topic removed.  See jtoolman's method of refilling here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6fi9VCOo0

Topic removed.  See jtoolman's method of refilling here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6fi9VCOo0

It's much more reliable than what I was proposing, once you get the diaphragm ruptured.

So that leaves two measures.  Is it the one above the waist or below the waist?

Is that age or waist size?

So, to get back to the original question about pink cast, did anyone figure out what was going on?  I assume you all did nozzle checks that showed no clogging?  It doesn't make sense that nozzle checks would be OK but printing photos not OK.  I can't imagine there would be a problem with electronics (ie printer driver board) that would lead to such behavior.  It just sounds really weird.

You'd be surprised how much "clogging" can be fixed with patience and persistence.  If you do the Windex soaking pad of paper towel on the parked printhead overnight several times and the GENTLY push Windex in and out of the take-up ports (with a syringe and piece of plastic tubing) you can often clear what initially seemed like hopeless clogging.  Unlike my old R1800, which suffered from this a lot, the R2000 can sit for several weeks unused and produce a perfect nozzle check when I fire it back up.

A perforated scull will only get water into it and sink

Given the usefulness of the profile editing feature of PP I wonder why Mike has restricted it's use to editing only profiles made by PP?  Is a copyright thing?  I started out with PP about 10 years ago but now use the ColorMunki for creating printer profiles, and while the Munki does have a feature that allows "optimization" by making/scanning additional targets, it would be really nice to be able to tweak the profiles further with a profile editor.

What BrianPrice said can be useful if you run into a bug in a new version that doesn't happen when you run an older version.  It pops up from time to time as new versions are released.