Way cool, Terry!! 

Hi Jules,

I've had this problem over the last couple years and have never figured out what causes it or a repeatable solution.  However - I've managed to recovered from this crash each time.

It's always been a combination of rebooting and resetting Qimage - sometimes multiple times before it works properly again.

My first thoughts were that it must be a corrupted file and/or a memory problem.  Once it crashes - it would never accept any type of file and once I get it back, I could not make it crash again on purpose.  The files that it crashed on prints with ease.

Installing the program again never helped directly - by which I mean, reinstalling never solved the problem by itself and I've been able to solve the problem without reinstalling.

What worked with the most frequency was 1 - reset the program (clicking the reset button when you get the message that Qimage did not terminate properly) then 2 - before you do anything else - exit the program.  Restart - then 3, load a small simple file and open the full page editor.  I'd say this works -for me - about 80% of the time.  If you've read the the thread that Fred referenced, you know that this did not work the last time I experienced the crash.  But perseverance got it going again.

I'm almost convinced that it's a combination of changing paper and image size along with sharpening that causes the crash.  I only say that because it was something I've done before the crashes although I've never been able to purposely recreate it.  Also - I've never been able to get the program back if I changed anything before that first exit after a reset.  Give it a try and see if it works: reset - open the program - exit the program - open the program - load a simple image - open the full page editor.  Do it twice or three times if you need to.   

Please keep us informed as to whatever happens!

Hopefully this may help a little

Joe

Never had a problem with the preview panel.  The settings in the editor is set for Thumbs/small images.  I changed it to All images and threw some very large files at to see if it would crash - nope - working fine.  Doesn't seem to make a difference - even in loading time.  But that's an interesting thought and I'll definitely add it to my bag of tricks for future diagnosis!

yah - you and me both -- I'm pretty stumped by this too.  I just spent the last 15 minutes trying to get it to fail.  Huge files, small files, jpgs, gifs, psds, tiffs, pngs, opened a few memory hog programs to load memory -- nothing - everything worked fine.  Which is the history I've had with this problem.  That's why I'm here - hoping for some fresh ideas.

One thing about the hold shift and open program that is different than the reset.  When I tried it, it changed my thumbnails to file list only - something I've never seen happen before so maybe it does things a bit differently than reset.  It will be the first thing I try the next time it fails. 

Thanks again for the input!! If you think of anything else, please let me know!

Thanks Fred!!

Everything was fresh on this machine (which I got back in Jan). I did not carry anything over from the old machine.  Ultimate, of course, wasn't out then. 

If this is only happening to me - then yes - there HAS to be something common between the three machines.  What that is and why the steps to get it working again are not consistent is a real brain teaser. 

If I was only able to reproduce it. But so far, I cannot detect any commonality in file types, programs opened, time of day or phase of the moon. 

Don't have time right now to play with the folders (not sure if it will make a difference since this was a hundred percent fresh install on my current machine) but, so far, it has only effected studio. Ultimate works fine, though as I mentioned, it doesn't get the use that studio does - maybe 90% - 95% studio and 5% - 10% ultimate.

Hi Fred,

After Studio crashes and you start it again, there is a dialog box that says that Qimage didn't shut down properly and you are given 2 choices: Start normally or Reset to original specs. 

Never tried holding the shift key down when starting though I suspect that it's the same as the reset as when I just tried it, I get the same tutorial message and the program is, well - reset - to original specs.

Currently I'm running win 7 64 w/12 gigs mem.  The other machines it happened on were running XP pro - both w/4 gigs mem.

This time, I downloaded a fresh copy but I've done it both ways with no difference.

This time, I did not shut off anti-virus but have in the past with no difference.

This is a tough one - especially since it's intermittent and I cannot reproduce it.  I used to think it was a memory problem and was shocked when it happen on my current rig.  I'm also amazed that uninstalling and reinstalling a fresh copy did not immediately quell the problem.

In the current situation, I had created two different crops in the image editor from a multi-layered tiff.  I then went to the full page editor to add some text and printed the full image (not the crops).  Then I went back to the full page editor to add text to the crops and that's when it crashed.

I then printed the crops with Ultimate.  When I got Studio going again, I tried the crops again in the full page editor and it worked fine.

sigh......

Hi all,

I'm wondering if anyone else has had this problem and any insight as to what may be causing it.

This is a very intermittent problem that has followed me over three computer and I have spent many hours over the years trying to trouble shoot it.  I cannot remember what version this started with but has continued for 2 - 3 years through all subsequent releases.

Essentially the problem is that suddenly, when I go into the full page editor, the photo doesn't load and the program crashes (gets a generic message that the program stopped responding and closes down).

To regain use of the editor (the program will continue to work in other functions when I restart it but crash if I try to open the editor), I have tried a lot of things but none work consistently.

Nor am I able to reproduce the problem at will.  My guess is that it's been almost 5 months since the last time I had this crash (that is - previous to the current crash - this is probably the 3rd or 4th time it's happened this year)

Here's what I did this time:  First I opened Ultimate to see if it was effected.  Nope - it printed everything perfectly.  Maybe Ultimate has this problem too in the long run but I hardly use it so it has never received the workouts that I put Studio through.

Then I opened studio normally - still crashed in the editor

Then I reset studio - still crashed.

Then I rebooted the machine and reset studio - still crashed.

Then I rebooted the machine and uninstalled studio.

Then I downloaded a new copy of studio and installed - still crashed

Then I rebooted, reset the new copy and everything worked.

It is currently working and performing flawlessly as every other time after I had this crash.

Any assistance is greatly appreciated!

Owen,

There is slightly different packaging for the new papers.  Overall, it seems that new ones has a picture on it that is enclosed in a frame - the older stuff has a picture that is blended into the background on the box (for the better Galerie papers - not the Premium ones).  If you do a google image search on ilford inkjet papers you'll see the difference (ignore the white boxes with a framed picture - those are for darkroom photography)

Fred,

You are absolutely correct about residual muscle memory!  And please understand that I never indicated in any way that there is something wrong with the software.

The double clicking just works better for me.  It's easier for me to double click a large square than aim for a little plus sign, especially when moving quickly.  I can certainly retrain my stubborn fingers (and brain) but I don't see any advantage in doing so.  Coupled with the print and queue box changes, I find - for my purposes when doing volume work - the Studio interface works better for me.  It's just a personal choice.

Since I have both programs and there is no difference in the printing aspect, it's not a big deal and a pretty easy solution. 

This was brought up a little while ago and still remains a bug-a-boo for me along with the print size and queue box ( http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/can-we-find-a-way-to-tack-down-the-size-drop-down/msg6494 ) 

While Mike's logic is sound as to why the change, my own habits, inclinations and workflow methods have remained stubborn (though I'm still trying to convince my fingers that logically the new way is better -- darn those intransigent fingers!) .

Though this might not be the best solution for you, when I have volume work to perform, I still use Studio - the interface just works better for me.  When I need the features of Ultimate, I engage that version.  If you own both programs, this is an easy compromise as the printing features are identical.

I've used Ilford papers for years after experimenting with many different brands. They are excellent!  Mostly smooth and pearl on epson pigment printers.  And for years I've been getting them at inkjetart.com though they haven't started carrying the new renditions yet.  So far, the only place I've found the new versions with any consistency is at bhphotovideo.com   

As far as profiles go - after much experimentation, I've found that I've got better results by creating my own.  I originally used Profile Prism which I can barely praise enough ( http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism/ ).  For various reason, I eventually bought the Pulse system (now called iOne) but it's HUGELY more expensive than PP (actually MEGA HUGELY).  Once you start creating your own custom profiles, you will not be satisfied with the canned versions.

hmmm - interesting.  I guess I've been using final print sharpening "wrong" for the last nine years on many thousands of images.  I don't have much personal interest in matching sharpness to my monitor.  I'm only interested in how my final prints appear compared to each other and do they have the look I'm after.

And not all my prints are direct photographic images (though many are) - the particular one I was referring to is a highly PS filtered & manipulated image with an artificial sky (actually a gray gradient with white streaks through it), thus the 15 setting is not too high and achieves the effect that I wanted except in the sky.  My normal technique in this situation would be to go back into PS, sharpen the parts I need to there and not use any sharpening in qimage when I print.  TSS provided me a way to print this image without having to go back into PS (which really is not that big of a deal).

I was actually hoping for a bit more technical answer rather than a review on the intended use of the features.  That's fine though & I appreciate the answers.  I'll keep experimenting with it all when I have more time. Thanks!

Thanks Terry.  Yes, I had already read the details.  My assumption is that the final print sharpening should be - in most instances - turned off when using TSS - otherwise we'd be double sharpening.

I've been using qimage final print sharpening instead of doing it in PS for years now. In the particular image I'm playing with currently, any sharpening of the "sky" creates some artifacts.  Using TSS, I'm able to sharpen everything except the sky.  It looks good.  I originally used smart sharpening set at 15.  After some playing with the USM, I found that a radius of 3 with a strength of 300% is close to what I had with the smart sharpening. 

So while there may not be an exact correlation, certainly there must be some relationship between the final print sharpening numerical settings and the USM settings.  I have quite a few older images that I'd like to play with using TSS which already have been printed using just final print sharpening.  Almost all would use "target all except the selected tone".  Without having to experiment with each image, what I'm wondering is that if my original printing used say, smart sharpening at level 7, what would be a good approximation for the USM settings in TSS to match that.

Further - if it's not an exact correlation - then there must be something we're giving up. If smart sharpening, for example, takes into consideration print size, then my TSS & USM setting would be for a specific size and would need to be changed if I printed an image as a 5x7 and a 13x19.

Hope this makes sense!

Just started playing with TSS.

I'm wondering what the relationship of the numerical sharpening choices (in smart sharpening and normal sharpening) to the USM settings.  For example - if the default (5) is used in normal sharpening -- what is the radius and strength of that choice?

Also - what is being given up by using TSS & USM instead of smart sharpening?

There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with the interface in Ultimate.  It's logical and there are certainly good reasons for setting it up as it is.  I just work faster with the way it's set up in Studio.  I definitely admit that some of it is habit that can be relearned.

But after about 10 days of stumbling with the add button vs. the double click and mumbling "go away" to the print size box, I decided that there was no reason to relearn my habits since studio is just as easily accessible.  For me, there is no benefit to relearning.

The queue is convenient for me when I check to make sure I included everything I wanted to.  This morning, in printing out 23 pics from 4 different folders, I was easily able to review my selections (using Studio) in the queue and indeed, I quickly found one I missed and one where I selected the wrong image.  I keep the queue collapsed at the bottom so it doesn't normally interfere with my thumbnails.  When I need it open, one click (or a hover) opens it to maximum size covering almost all the thumbnails -- but I then don't need to scroll much up or down or left and right to see what's there.  The tiny queue box in Ultimate is just not that useful to me.

As for deleting some sizes in the print box - yes - I thought of that -- but I also thought, "why bother since I like the way it works in Studio".

I am ALWAYS looking for ways to make my workflow faster.  Change can be very good but if the change requires learning new habits but provides no appreciable benefits (for me personally), then it's easier and more productive to use the "old" way.

We all work differently and what may be great for one person may be a headache for another.  That's why I always appreciate programs that allow us to modify the layout as our needs warrant.  Since I have both studio and ultimate - I just look at it as two different layouts and could use either one as I need to.  It's not a problem.