Thanks, Terry. I had an uneasy feeling after I bought the upgraded Resize plugin that QU was doing something similar. Fortunately, I also need to be able to display images that were originally 800 x 600 pixels at rather larger pixel dimensions, and this is where Resize excels. For printing, clearly QU is doing a great job. I had already found my way to the "Restless Natives" post, which was what made me think QU could do a good job printing small original images at larger sizes. However, Resize 7 Pro will still be useful in displaying them. Oddly enough, there DOES seem to be some slight advantage in using Resize to create a larger image and THEN using QU to print it. It's very subtle, and I am now checking whether it depends upon the nature of the original image. For instance, one slight advantage I noted was in a B&W print. There was no visible difference between two colour prints. I've no idea why that should be but I am guessing that QU is sometimes able to make good use of qualities that the fractal-based resizing algorithm generates in the larger image. I am increasingly impressed with QU. What incredible value!

We used Genuine Fractals in the office a few years ago and found it a godsend when we had to make a set of oversize A3 prints for an exhibition of photos from tiny originals taken by high-school students. I've just upgraded to the latest version of this as I have a lot of small images, typically 800 x 600 pixels, that I want to print rather larger than would normally be advisable. Has anyone used this (now known as Perfect Resize 7 Pro) with QU? I ask because the pull-downs recommend setting target ppi as 240 or 360 for Epson printers, and I have a feeling it's not quite as simple as all that. Of course it would be great if that's really all I have to bother about... Naturally, I've tried a couple of prints already, and there seems to be a slight advantage in Perfect Resize's favor over a straight QU print from the non-resized original, but I'm so new to QU that I'm probably not getting the best possible results from it. So any advice or comments would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Fred, but I was not looking at those. The actual names and serial numbers, etc., of Epson papers, clearly identified as such, are not the same as the ones I am used to in Japan. That was on a brief search. I've been busy since then, but will visit and look again but I suspect it is like printers: Epson uses different names/codes in different markets outside Japan from those inside Japan. But I have calibrated my own usual glossy grade of Epson paper, and plan to calibrate the matte paper tomorrow. Since I use nothing else that will see me home and dry.

That explains it. I was working on my iPad and I couldn't select and copy text because the iPad is anything but "normal windows." <grin>

OK, I see how to quote--simple when you know how, like so many things. Thanks. Now how do you cancel out of a mail without completing it? For instance, I started this mail with a quote code lifted from the list, as you explained, but in this mode mails aren't accessible for cut-and-paste, so I couldn't insert what I wanted to quote! Argh! Looks as if you have to pick and copy the quoted text before you use the quote code. OK, but then what happens if you want to insert a second quote later on? Excuse my ignorance!

Ah yes, I see. Printer setup not printer profile. That makes sense, as it is easy to forget something when there are so many parameters to set.

Paper profiles for Epson papers may not be so helpful in my case as I don't recognize the product codes. The papers may indeed be different of course, but the codes certainly appear to be. Will check thoroughly, as it is certainly worth saving the time and effort it takes to create one. Ilford papers are nice with my pigment printer as the glossy paper suffers less of that funny bronzing you can get. But it is very expensive here.

Thanks for the suggestions, Terry.

By the way, newby question: how do you quote just bits of a message? I'd like to do that but get all or nothing.

Thanks, Terry, Ray and Fred, both for the warm welcome and for the helpful answers. I find colour management (and most other things) to be simpler and clearer in Qimage than in PhotoShop. The Northlight site appears to be a very useful resource, although the topic is a great deal broader and more complicated than I realized.

I was interested to see that Qimage can process RAW files, but I have got used to DXO for developing my RAW files to TIFFs and will probably stick with that. It gets pretty close to what I want automatically, and there are many subtle tweaks that are easily applied if it isn't quite right. I suppose that Qimage uses DCRAW or similar program under the hood? I will be sticking to Adobe RGB throughout and just preparing sRGB versions for the web.

I am already getting prints that are really close to what I see on the screen... subject to the kind of inherent difference there is between subtractive and additive images, of course!

I didn't realise that a separate profile might be advisable for each different size of paper... For now, I just keep the same paper profile and change the print size with the pull-down. I mostly print A4, though our local camera club has us submit 2L prints for mutual review, and I just print two of those on one A4 page as there's virtually no difference in cost.

I had no idea that Qimage could read images from my camera straight to folders, but I have a system that is working pretty well right now so will leave that on one side  for the time being.

My printer is an Epson PM-4000PX, one of the very first pigment-based printers. That is the name in Japan, not sure what they call it outside (I live in Japan and have done for over 40 years).

Thanks again, everyone!

I tested the trial version of Qimage recently and bought it the day before yesterday. Most of yesterday I spent trying it out. Very happy with the results. But I have a question about best procedures in colour management. Just before getting Qimage I profiled my display and printer/paper combination using DataColor Spyder3 devices. I produce images from my camera either directly (as JPEGs) in Adobe RGB colour space or indirectly from RAW to TIFF via DXO, and convert them to sRGB for upload to the web. Until now I have always printed from PhotoShop, but from now on I intend to use Qimage.

My question is, when working in PS should I convert my image files to my monitor colour space or leave them in Adobe RGB? And is there anything I need to be careful about in switching over to Qimage? I am quite new to colour management and am still feeling my way. I can't see any great differences in the prints working in either colour space, but already I am beginning to be aware of various subtle differences, so obviously some kind of learning process is going on. Would be grateful for any pointers to issues I need to be aware of particularly any "gotchas." Suggestions for a standard workflow would also be helpful.

Thanks, Fred. I will download QImage tomorrow as it's 2:00am and I need to get to bed. I'm sure you're right about soon deciding to buy.

Roger

Yes, Ray, I did notice that--but only after I'd posted my reply! It's probably worthwhile for me to download and try QImage, though, as the main differences that Epson claimed as justifying different product codes were the ROMs needed to handle Japanese printing. They said they couldn't encourage me to try US/UK drivers as they were created for the US/UK models, and they wouldn't speculate on what, if anything, might go wrong. Nothing much has, so far... It's rather trickier with scanners, where I had lots of problems trying to get industry standard software working on Japanese models treated as the near-equivalent US/UK models. Fortunately the digital work-flow has eliminated my dependence on scanners.

Roger

Thanks, Ray. Exactly what I wanted to know. So download, here I come!

Roger

PM-4000PX is the product code for the printer I have been using since it first came out. Epson used to use different codes for essentially the same models sold in different markets, and this made it difficult to identify and use the English-language drivers and other software intended for US and UK models on the printers and scanners I bought here in Japan where I live and which of course come with Japanese language software. I am not sure if this is still the case, but before downloading and trying QIMAGE I wanted to be sure it can correctly identify and properly handle this printer under this designation. I really love this printer, but would like to use some of the features that QIMAGE provides. I don't want to have to download and install it and work through the trial if it doesn't naturally work with this printer. I don't know enough to be able to do any tweaking that might be involved.

By the way, I didn't want to run a poll, just ask a simple question, but somehow starting a new topic seems to have got me into running a poll. Sorry for the SNAFU. Anyway, a Yes/No answer will do fine. <grin>