Hmmmm, Adobe has new public betas out for LR and ACR/DNG.  They are now including profiles for lenses from the major camera companies, in addition to the camera profiles.  Someone must see the value on the professional side.

What I mean is (before getting attacked) either buy it, get it or make one. 

I agree with you.  Any profile is better than none at all--and should be used.

Customs, OTOH, are for people doing volumes of work and need to shorten their work flow.  Most people here do not need all that, though.

Camera icc profles are a good start.  HOWEVER, I recently bought COlor Checker Passport to isolate things further.  I am not recommending the $100 expense unless it really will improve your workflow.  I just want to point out that there are variables.

1.  No two cameras from the same brand/type are EXACTLY alike.  If they are, it is coincidental.  They are very close though.

2.  Profiles are different between different lenses on the same camera.

3.  Profiles are different between different lighting conditions.  Especially with multiple light sources.

You are correct.  There seems to be confusion in some responses as to the difference between fle storage and caching.  Caching should be done to the non-OS drive, if available.  Just as paging should be done that way also.  I use an older, smaller drive as a totally separate cache drive for PS, etc.  You should be able to delegate where caching is done.

I guess that makes me 1 in 5001.    Large, 32-bit, HDR-based panoramas can get there.

I don't want to go back to a 64-bit 128MB video card either.

Mike-

I merely responded to Fred.  The question was 'is it 64-bit software?'  The answer is no it is not.  Will it run in a 64-bit environment?  Yes, it will.  Does it still address CPU cores?  Yes.  I LIKE Studio.

In defense of QI software, people VERY rarely put the video in the equation.  Appearances and screen writing are affected by that also--sometimes more than CPU. 

Wow, I hope your stress level goes down.  No sense adding more than programming does already  .

Hi Fred!

I think the question is: is it running in 64-bit?  A lot of programs tolerate it but install in the Programs X86 folder.  They are operating in 32-bit.  Studio "takes advantage" of quad processors already (assuming checking the box to do so) but still is a 32-bit program.

You are correct.  They may have been what initially irked me too.  When I got the e-mail I went "WHAT???"  Something (based on what they are doing) like RAW Lightning may have been better.

Well, I have to agree with Ray as to the general usefulness (to me) of another editing program.  Especially, a RAW converter.  I got into QImage as simply the best program for printing that is out there.  I still feel that way.  As a "loyal" customer I upgraded to Studio after that. 

As to dpreview, I don't have much use for those comments either way.  For the most part I have always found it to be lambasted with complainers and those giving advise about things they know little or nothing about.  It's a perfect blind leading the blind forum in many ways.  Here, at least, we get to the bottom of most issues.

I have said the following before, but I'll reiterate:  Mike told me several times, years ago, that QI is a printing program.  The editing part was for tweaking.  That was in response to feature requests.  Then it became a RAW converter for many and "the only editing program you need" for others.  That is all well and good for those that get buy without other options.  And, I hold no grudge since they know how and what they want their end product to look like.

HOWEVER, Mike, I too do not know how you kept "free upgrades for life" this long.  In a constant new sales atmosphere that would work.  As the market gets saturated and the income falls off, things change.  That being said, you were the one that said "free for life" and set the policy.  You made a contract with a lot of people that way.  To question their expectations that you would fulfill your promise or state they got their money's worth out of you just seems wrong.

I, like others, will stay with Studio for obvious reasons.  It's the best printing software going.  I have LR3, but find it totally cumbersome, so don't use it for much at all (I get it free, so am not complaining).  However, CS5 with its new features make photographic things possible that were never there.  Adding the new panorama and HDR upgrades along with content-aware brushes add a new dynamic to all of it. 

The other thing I don't understand here is how those that said and said that Studio is "all you ever need" to totally prepare a photograph for printing can now say that Ultimate is everything.  They all ready had everything.  Sorry, I couldn't let that pass.

Seth

I have to agree with Mike.

Long ago and far, far away I was forced to become an Apple Systems Engineer (along with the PC side) because of the dealer I worked for.  We handled both.

The attitude at all training was "we're it, we don't need to be compatible with anything."  That SE experience made me concentrate on the PC side and never looked back.

Apple was the first to put a school program in place in Indiana and they prevailed--for a while.  When IBM decided to get into the fray, I wound up installing the first five school computer networks in the state. (Remember Baseband and Token Ring?)

Three of those networks replaced existing Apple systems.  I guess teachers are teachable too.  

C'mon, Terry.  Tell them it's another one of those Yank bastardizations!      It's the censorship of "bollocks" in the kinder, more gentle Colonies LMAO.

Glad you mentioned Lightroom.  I know they have a "crowd" and it's all in what you make yourself learn, I suppose.

Even though I get it free, I find it cumbersome.

And, don't get me wrong, IMatch is a power tool.  I switched to it when AXS went under abruptly.  IMatch drug in all my assorted databases and filters and I have been there ever since.   

I mention BreezeBrowser as an initial editor.  (Editing in the choose the good and bad; and, move stuff around.)  IMatch is used for the databasing of what is saved, as it is a little slower in acquiring.  And, yes, I too have been using DL Pro since its inception.

I just wonder if it isn't a basis for another de-noising algorithm.  Especially when not used as intensely as their sample which is way beyond anything I'd attempt to save.

There is no doubt that QImage is the printing godsend.  Printing from PS lacks the Smart Sharpening--or other--that QI applies, so I don't know if we are comparing apples to apples.  That said, it would take a lot more work in PS to equal what QI does in printing.

On the other hand, statements that QI handles RAW better than PS are questionable.  PS and ACR have many definite advantages. Isn't saying this just the same as those who disavow QI advantages in printing?

I agree.  Sounds like the wrong black ink.  I have never heard of metamerism on matte paper.

The color shift in incandescent light would be normal though.  You have to run your test prints under the same light as the final print will be viewed in.  Silver photographicprints suffered the same issue.