Anthony -

Don't know who your e-mail host is, but I had the same problem last month.  My e-mail is yahoo/verizon, and those geniuses had suddenly started putting Mike's mail into my spam folder.

Add Mike's e-mail to your contact list and that should solve the problem

Mel W.

Yep - I agree - Thanks Mike. And if we want wierd results like that, we can use one of the many useless PSE filters that are already out there.

I was thinking about all of the recent features that I am still experimenting with - and I suddenly realized that I have many of these backlit photos where all I really want to do is lighten the faces.  Suppose we had tone targeted fill light?

OK stop laughing everyone.  I'm just wondering.

Mel W

By the way - meant to include in my previous post - thanks Fred for sending me those images - as I said there - I am looking forward to this.

You guys all have a lot more raw talent than I do.  But seriously, I like both examples.  And I'll get there but it will take a while. 

When I first started using qimage in 2003, shooting raw was the last thing I would have thought of - in fact probably did even know what it was at the time as I was still trying to get used to this whole digital thing.  At the time my trusty Mamiya TLR and Pentax 6x7 were still sitting close by awaiting their next use. It never came, and this past winter, I finally packed up my enlarger, analyzer, and most of my darkroom, in the silly thought that someone might want the stuff. 

So I gradually developed my own workflow and techniques with qimage and jpegs, and by the time I bought my D200 I had consistency in my results.  Sometime last year - when Qstudio first introduced raw, I started slowly to experiment with it, and now use it for a lot of the pictures I take in my "studio" (Rube Goldberg version).  Now with Qimage, I can do in about ten minutes, what might have been a half day darkroom session - or more - since you really had to wait for prints to dry to evaluate them. The only darkroom technique I have really missed is the ability to dodge and burn in - and maybe - just maybe - this latest improvement to the fill light gets me closer than I have yet been to having that at last. (By the way - I hate the PSE dodge/burn - you have to select highlights, shadows or midtones - and the darn thing never really looks right).

Just from my little bit of experimenting tonight, even the improvements to the fill light in the image editor are significant.  But in any case, I will now be shooting even more raw and seeing what I can do woth it.

Would like to see some examples with people and backlighting.  Normally, outdoors - especially just shooting "snapshotty" kinds of things, I wouldn't be shooting raw - but I could change if this would work.  Always have problems if I get photo I really like because by the time I have gotten facial featues to the proper exposure and flesh tones, I have often blown out the backgrounds and in fact everrything that's not part of the face.  So, if anyone has fooled around with this enough to have some of those examples - please post.

Mel W

Urban legend or not - I can tell you it has happened to me - not often - and I will have to dig a little for the examples because I don't often shoot that rapid fire - but I do have instances where the image name and the date/time sequence are different.  And how do you suppose I even noticed this?  I noticed because of Qimage of course.  When I sorted by file name, there were one or two pictures in different order than sorting by date time (one or two out of say 200).  Lates this week I will dig up the examples to make sure that I am not the one out of order.

By the way - for what it's worth - numerical file names don't always correspond to time sequence 100% of the time.  On my D200, if I take pictures a repid sequence (3 or 4 frames a second), there will be scattered images out of time sequence.  Has to do with the way the images are buffered before being stored on the flash memory. Other than that Fred has it - as he usually seems to.

Mel

Yep - that did it - thanks - and I like the option too (now if you could just keep it from covering the preview page . . .) 

I clicked for the .114 update, but the e-mail I got just directed me back to .113 download.

And - for what it's worth - I sure don't remember ever being promised free increased functionality when i bought Qimage or Studio.  I thought updates would take care of bug fixes and compatibility with printers, operating systemsn etc.

Sorry, but I need to jump in here.  When I bought Qimage, even when I upgraded to Studio, I never dreamed I would be working with raw images or doing about 50% of what is now my normal workflow.  For each of you who feels cheated, ask yourself how much money you spend annually on your photo profession (or hobby as in my case) in terms of photo equipment, computer and printing equipment, and paper ink cartridges etc.  I have said it before, I'll repeat it, Qimage is a full 30 to 40% of my overall functionality, it is about 3 or 4% of the overall cost.

Well - thank you Fred - I know it's not the camera (Nikon D200) - but the orientation lock thing works - but I don't know why.  What I mean is,  - wait a minute maybe I do know why - and I have probably been misinterpreting that all along.  I always assumed that when I locked orientation, I was locking in to the orientation of the original (uncropped) image as they show in the folders.  Coming from the D200, these are never on their side, whether they are portrait or landscape. So in this case, when I click the rotate button in the pag editor, I change the image from a landscape to a portrait orientation. So what I am now realizing is that I have locked in not the image orientation, but the portrait/landscape orientation. It make sense. Duh - again - I have been doing that all these years. Now i really feel like screaming.
Thank you Fred for the help - again - and for making me feel like a real - well - never mind.

I am a devoted Qimage user of many many years.  Love it! But one problem I have had off and on - very occasionally, is that Qimage will autorotate prints even when I don't tell it to.  Usually, I can play with this either in edit mode or from the main screen and get it right.  Today, Qimage finally has defeated me.  I have a plain vanilla jpg image, and no matter what I do, Qimage will not put it on the page in portrait orientation.  Doesn't matter whether it's by itself, with other images, doesn't matter if I set optimal, optimal spaced template, whatever. The image was taken landscape format, but the subject of interest is in the center, so in the page editor, I have used the rotate click button and slider to crop - I do this all the time - mostly without a problem!!! I go to set print orientation, and it has "same as thumbnail" checked - but the acutal orientation showing is 90 degress counterclockwise.  If I say roate right, it flips it 180 degrees so that it is now 90 clockwise of the thumb - if I then say rotate left, or make oritentation same as thumbnail, it flips it back so that it is 90 counterclockwise - and this goes on and on.
UPDATE - I finally was able to orient it.  I turned on Freehand placement, then went through the routine above several times with no luck (It just would not change it) - fianlly, tried again to say orientation same as thumbnail - and YES.  Is this another one of these strange things that only happens to me?  I go quietly away if it is now that I have once again worked around it - and it probably wont happen again for another 6 months.

Yep - me too - but I am getting used to that and think this interface is much more user friendly and consistent. I especially like the way I can now highlight a thumb and then decide what I wantr to do with it.  I like to drag the size window to keep it just below the page preview, or sometimes just to the left of it.  I just wish it would stay there until I move it again.
Agree also about the queue - it's still nearby if I need it, but prefer having the extra space on the left for folders and thumbs.