Thanks - I will next time ...
Which is exactly my point, I kept clicking in that list to get placement.  That is where placement is controlled, in that general area of the user interface is where I would expect the resorting command to be.  Determining an area of the user interface that is responsible for a function and then not incorporating such an important control of that function in that area is counter intuitive.  I am not putting Qimage down, I am supporting Mike's intention of improving QImage and I am supporting that the program is both exceptional and can use refinement.
No it is not, but my point was that in this area Photoshop handles the placement of the images much more easily than Qimage does.  I would be using PS to print if it did not slow down retouching.
Thanks for the heads up, I will give that a try ...
Definitely not Photoshop!  Photoshop is a toolbox, not an intuitive program!  Actually I have no idea how many features Qimage has as I am just learning the program   I was judging the program based on the primary feature of the program - it's ease of use in printing and that work flow!

Thanks for the heads up and comments!
Roger

Wow - what a lot of discourse! 

I am a new user of Qimage, purchased the studio version months back and then did not use it when I discovered that the images did not snap next to each other the way layers do in Photoshop.  I print on a Epson 9600 with 36" roll paper, I have been creating a new image in PS - usually 10" x 35.75" and dragging flattened images to the new image which of course is for printing.  PS layers snap to each other with precision - I have short cut keys to speed everything up and it is a breeze ... except that PS can have problems while printing so I have to take a break ... so I took another poke at Qimage.

Well guess what, even though images don't snap to each other for quick manual placement there is a command buried half way down in the context menu to auto sort the images for best placement - it seems that the sort list to the right of the size drop down list doesn't do that ... who knew?

Yes, I am implying that the user interface is quirky.  My first impression of Qimage design philosophy = "If when explained, and with a little practice, if the software is easy to use it is golden".  I believe that that is not the way the best software is designed.  I subscribe to the 'it has to feel easy to understand and to use to be golden' idea, no matter how complicated the programing is under the hood.  Sit someone who has never seen the program before - the first 30 minutes of assumptions the new user has is the most important feedback a program can get.  I see QUtimate as an attempt to possibly move in more of the easy to use direction.

On the comment of 19.95 a year for upgrade protection - it is not a subscription, $20 a year to be able to use the software model as I understand it.  If Mike doesn't prove the value then folks will just not pay for the upgrade protection after they buy the program.  He is not guaranteeing himself an income by switching to this model - he will still have to provide value just as he does to get new users of the older qimage versions.  I don't blame him for wanting to get paid for program improvements - for those that want the improvements.  He probably didn't envision Qimage program becoming more than a printing program when Qimage started ...

I purchased the upgrade to Qimage Ultimate, not because I need it.  I can use the Studio version that I own.  But because I am a very strong believer in the importance of efficiently working systems.  Programs typically focus on features, not real improvements in the work flow and user interface.  High five to Mike for giving it a go!

Roger
www.eleakis.com for the curious