An update.
OK so I've looked and looked and no sign of any 'luster' setting/options on my 1410. I've downloaded and installed the latest drivers. Nothing about 'Luster'.
I even downloaded and installed the 1400 driver. (As far as I can see the only difference between the 1400 and the 1410 is 120 volts v 240 volts. I'm in Australia).

With the Ilford profile the instructions said media type to select was Epson Ultra Glossy.
So I selected the Moab profile and then selected Epson Ultra Glossy as the media.
Results - The prints are marginally less saturated. BUT more accurately represent the QImage soft proof. Not much difference but just enough for pixel peepers to see the difference.

Conclusion- Don't keep changing the work flow cos my brain can't cope!! But overall I'm now getting a result that more accurately represents what I see on the screen.

Thanks

Thanks Fred. I have a 1410. Same as the 1400 to my best knowledge. I have turned it inside out but no luster of any sort is listed. I'll do a search and see if I can find a new driver.

regards

Sorry but there is no 'Luster' option on a 1410.

regards

I've been using Ilford paper forever. Well almost! Now that it's not available I had to find an alternative. So I've gone with Moab. I've downloaded and installed the correct profile. And installed it in QImage.
My question is - I use an Epson 1410, (same as 1400). What Epson paper do I choose to match the Moab Lasal Exhibition Luster 300 (Alpine pearl)? ie under Paper Options/Type should I select Ultra Glossy? Premium Glossy or Premium Semi Gloss. Ilford gave that information but I can't find it for the Moab paper.

regards

Mike I've sent a PM with the WeTransfer link.

Fred A I've shot off a raw to Mike. Please keep in mind though that I'm heavily editing my files. So the issue itself may not occur with just a raw conversion. (It does if you push the conversion. I've tried that> I also realise that editing will highlight any issues). It maybe/is my work flow that's exagerating the problem. My testing has always been with the full edited version/s. The file we have been using is about the worst of the examples. I have others where you really have to look hard and only experience the 'jaggies'. The example I sent you does have a 'conflict' area with the siding/boards in the background. The horizontal grain is a problem! On the sample I've sent you take note of the horizontal lines or straight lines. They get the 'jaggies'. Look at the top of the Firestone sign. Those get very jagged and don't do so with other programs.

I'm interested in what's happening. Why is the issue only apparent in QImage and not in other programs? (It is in the files. But in QImage they appear at 25% while other programs I have to zoom into 200-300% to see the problem which is not realistic). And why is it only from files/nefs out of the D7100? Everything else works just fine. Good god I've converted, edited many files from the D7000 and D7100 and run them through various converters testing. Only the D7100 files present a problem and only in QImage.

I know I'm spending too much time on this. I can ignore it and the prints are just fine out of QImage. My files are fine in other programs. I just want to know WHY? And sleep at night!!!

Regards

Thanks Mike. I followed your advice and tried a few images using QU for raw conversion. Sorry to say that I still get the same results. Even the same NEF. It's something more than antialiasing/demosaicing. Even uniform surfaces and their edges come up with the 'jaggies' in QU.

For some reason QU is doing/highlighting an issue that other programs can handle.

Thanks for the help. I'll stick to my known work flow and hope that the penny falls at sometime.

regards

OK I've got a big spoon for my share of humble pie!!!!!!!

I've been doing some MORE tests!

I went back to an old version of AfterShotPro. Converted said files and started over. Guess what? Go on guess!
The issue all but disappeared. (Caveat. At 100% in PSPx6 neither conversion shows any sign of the problem. At 200% the first signs begin with the NX-D conversion. At 300%, a silly pixel peeping exercise, both files show the problem).

So somehow Nikon's Capture NX-D and the D7100, without an antialiasing filter, can't handling the files as well. Well does Nikon have a problem???
AfterShotPro doesn't give as clean/sharp a result but nor does it bother the issue.

Leaves just one question though. Why does QImage 'exaggerate/show' the problem even on a relatively small soft proof screen? ie the soft proof screen on my work computer is about 25% view. Yet at 100% in PSPx6 there is no sign of the issue let alone at 25%. Only at much high zoom rates.

regards

Thanks Mike.
I see what you are saying, But? There's always a BUT!!!!!

But why is it only an issue in QImage. Especially the soft proof view. If I view at 100% in a number of other programs I don't see the demosaicing. (100% is a realistic limit without pixel peeping). Sure if I keep zooming in as you have done it is there. So yes it's there but only obvious in QImage.
I use Nikon's own Capture NX-D, (yes it's a beta version), one would think Nikon knows how to convert an NEF. The rest of my work flow has been the same forever.
So the question comes back to why only in QImage with only tiffs out of the D7100? And why at views far less than 100%? ie a 20% view in QImage still shows the problem. Almost as though QImage is exaggerating it.

I'll continue to use QImage as I believe in the printing capabilities of it. It's just unfortunate that the issue with soft proofing has an influence on what you see.

regards
Bruce

Hi Guys,

I've sent the file via WeTransfer again. However in the rush to do so I screwed up a wee bit. I inserted Mikes email instead of mine. So you'll get the notice!!! I won't get a notice.

Bruce

Thanks Fred A.

1/ only received the one email from WeTransfer. Confirmation that it had been uploaded. No indication that it had been downloaded.
2/ i 'played' with various monitor profiles. sorry but it made no difference.

If it was a monitor profile issue wouldn't it be a problem with other sized files? My brain tells me that there is an issue with large files using 300ppi. Note that all my files are 300ppi. It's only once I downsize by down sizing the resolution that things improve. 150ppi looks great. Until you zoom in!!!! Changing pixel width/height doesn't fix the problem. Just 300ppi files out of the D7100 that create the problem.

Prints are fine. Nothing else is an issue. I just like to use Qimage soft proof and worry that my files may have an issue. I sent a large number of these files off to a client today. I hope they don't come back to me with the same issue.

regards

Just another note that may help.
My files are 6000x4000 tiffs. 300ppi. 160meg. (Originating from a D7100). Files from my D7000 which are 4928x3264. 300 ppi. 92 meg, have no problems. If I resize the large files down by changing the 6000x4000 to 4928x3264 and stay at 300ppi I still have an issue. However if I simply resize the files by changing the ppi to 150 then every thing is fine. If I take the 6000x4000, 300ppi tiff file and simply save it as a jpeg, no other changes, still at 300ppi, I get the same problem!!
It seems to be that the higher 300 ppi files at 6000x4000 are having a resolution problem. (I get the same problem on various computers). Change the pixel size ie height and width, and the same issue. But change the resolution and problem solved. No it's not because I need/want the 300ppi.

As I said above. Other programs handle the files just fine. It's only QImage and the softproof screen that the issue becomes an issue!!! And only on the 6000x4000, 300ppi files. (Plus the jpegs of 300 ppi).

regards

I sent the files via WeTransfer and received their confirmation email on the 28th of June. No other emails from them. Unfortunately time has now run out for them to hold the files.
As I pointed out I'm on a very limited internet service. I can't resend the files again at the moment. When the opportunity comes I'll have another attempt.

Bruce

Thanks Fred n Mike. I sent two files to mchaney@ddisoftware.com via WeTransfer on the 28-06-2014.

Bruce

I've guessed by now my problem is not an issue as I can't seem to get a response to my queries. Sad because I believed QImage had an excellent reputation for user support. I'll just revert back to my old work flow.

Regards
Bruce