Presumably the new algorithm applies to 8.43.  Does this improvement apply to camera/scanner profiles too?  Would one be advised to generate new camera/scanner profiles using Version 8?

While it may not be particulary difficult, it is bothersome, and requires an additional piece of paper.  It would be extremely useful if the unclog routine could print a nozzel check pattern at the bottom of the page on which the unclog pattern is printed.  Granted it would require reducing the height of the individual stripes in the pattern, but would give an immediate indication of whether another unclog print should be run.  Now, it may be that due to technical reasons this may not be possible, but if it is possible, it would provide a direct metod of determining the success of the unclog operation.

v2014.254 fixed the problem.

v2014.254 fixed both problems.  Thank you so much Mike!

Any RAW file I use (Fuji FinePix S9000) causes the same behavior.  I click on the little icon in the lower left corner of a raw file and bring up the Raw Photo Developing Options screen.  If I make any kind of adjustment (slider movement, sector selection and development choice, hand-drawn box and development choice) I get the hourglass, but instead of going away after a few seconds (as it does in v2014.252 and before) the hourglass stays, and I can only exit by using Task Manager.  The snap below shows the raw refine screen after I click on it a few times, showing "Not Responding" in the title bar.  Task Manager shows "Not Responding" and I have to "End Task" to exit QU.

 

That was the conclusion that I was coming to myself.  Must be a newer version of DCRAW somewhere along the line because when I use QU v2014.127 WB dropper works fine.  In fact it looks like the problem starts somewhere between 2014.240, which works OK, and 2014.250 where the "green monster" takes over.

Thanks Fred.

In Raw Refine (Raw Photo Developing Options), program hangs (not responding) when selecting a sector to do raw refinements. 252 and before work OK, but 253 causes problems.

I bring up the raw refine screen for a particular image (snap 1 below), click on the White Balance Dropper, hover over patch 10 on the gray scale at the bottom of the image (which is pretty close to neutral already:131,132,129), and click the dropper.  The white balance is adjusted, but gives the result shown in snap 2 below.  This happens on two different computers running QU v2014.250 and several different RAW files tested.

So how hard would it be to have a checkbox in the "Copy Raw Refine Settings" dialog box to apply the raw refine settings themselves across selected raw files, rather than the location and method to calculate raw refine settings to the other selected raws?

Yes, I know you "normally" want the image to be right, but there are times when one wants to do exposure bracketing in order to combine images for HDR or to select an exposure to use for camera calibration.  I've done multi-shot panoramas using two different exposures for each part of the scene (one exposed for sky, with no blown highlights, and one for forground, sometimes in shadow, without regard to blown-out highlights in the sky).  Now I know you're going to say "Why not use the built-in HDR in the RAW refine screen", but that only works with a single image.  I use TuFuse Pro to do HDR (which allows multiple images to be stacked and combined) so I need the exposures to be "true" relative to each other in order for the fusing process to work.

This is why I've asked for a separate "Absolute Exposure" slider, or at least the ability to apply a consistant "gain" factor to each RAW image.

I turned off all RAW settings (snap 1 below).
"adjusted" RAW exposures are the same as before (snap 2)
Same images developed in Adobe Camera Raw, under identical conditions, using 400.RAF as "model" (snap 3)

ACR gets it right, but QU isn't honoring exposure value from chosen RAW file.

I can't seem to get the "Copy values" from one Raw to others.  I have 7 images taken at different shutter speeds and as expected, the RAW developer initially adjusts the exposures of each so that they look pretty much alike (see snap1 below).  The image numbers refer to the reciprocal of the shutter speed, all shot at the same f-stop and ISO.  I select all 7 RAWs and put them into the queue. Then, with my cursor in the preview pane I choose "Refine Raw Exposure..." (now at the bottom of the right-click menu in the preview pane).  In the Raw Refine screen, I right-arrow through to the 1/400 image (400.RAF), draw a box around the gray-scale at the bottom of the IT8 and select "Normal (std blk, std clr)", which gives a reasonable exposure for that image inside the blue box.  I then choose "Copy specified settings to all selected thumbnails" and choose "Exposure" from the pop-up menu (all of the thumbnails are also still selected in the images pane).  When I click "OK", the thumbnails rebuild, as expected, but the result is as shown in the second snap below.  I would have expected there to be a gradient of exposures, with 800.RAF being 1-stop darker, and 200.RAF being 1-stop lighter.  But, to my surprise they all still look the same.

For some reason it's not copying the exposure used for 400.RAF to the others.  It's almost as if it recalculates the exposure for the others based on the designated area from each individual RAW image rather than applying the exposure calculated from 400.RAF to the others.

I must be doing something wrong, but I can't figure it out.

For me it's been hit-or-miss for the past several months.  If nothing shows after "Show unread posts....", try clicking on "Click here to try all unread topics." a little farther down the page.  That usually works, but every once in a while even it misses some.  In addition, looking at the menu of topics sometimes fails to recognize an unread post in one or more forums.

I'm using a camera profile for my RAW files (Fuji S9000).  When I convert RAW files in the queue to TIFFs, do I need to do a profile-to-profile conversion if I want to print from the TIFFs instead of from the RAWs?

Just out of curiosity Mike, how much different were the values you read with your spectrophotometer versus the values supplied by Wolf-Faust?  Do you think that a ColorMunki would be up to the task of spot-reading patches from an IT-8?  My original from you is getting pretty old and scratched up, but I acquired a couple from stuff packaged with old AGFA flatbed scanners that are in near pristeen condition.  Being at least 15 years old, (although stored in a cool, dark place) I question whether the data files for them are still accurate.