Sorry to return here so long after your post, Mel, but I'll add a big +1 to your comment.

Mike's continuing work on Qimage and his responsiveness to User queries and issues is indeed worthy of loud applause.

Colin P.

Thank you Brad for raising this query. And thank you Mike (especially!), and again Brad for getting us to this point where I (and other QU Users) now have a work-around for 'lost', former printer-driver names.

I was struggling with a similar problem. When I updated the drivers for my HP OfficeJet 8600+ I took the "opportunity" to delete the clunkily-named WSD Port that I had added years ago.  But that WSD-port-name was (as I now know) being used ONLY by Qimage.

This is a much less serious issue for me than for you Brad because I rarely depend on my previously-saved Job logs.  In addition I have recently re-arranged my image folders, therefore (knowingly) decoupling / breaking the links between those older logs and the images to which they referred.

However - although I am very late in saying this - your change Mike in Version 2016.133 to allow Qimage to handle this situation more gracefully is hugely appreciated 

Colin P.

  

Thank you Fred.
Colin

I thank you too Fred for your "early nudges" on some of Mike's updates.

But am I the only one who still hears these ticks (or micro-beeps) even when I have set Sounds to OFF?

When I toggle the new toolbar button to its Off state I get the neat little mid-screen acknowledgement pop-up OK, saying "UI Sounds muted", the toolbar button icon changes as expected to its 'red'-crossed-out 'Off' version, and my Menu | Edit | Preferences | Sound setting also shows sounds turned (ostensibly) "Off" - yet I still hear ticks, exactly as though they're still turned On.

(When I toggle the new toolbar button to On I get the other acknowledgement pop-up saying "UI Sounds on", plus the neat, short micro-beep that accompanies it - and the other 'indications' show the appropriate On state too. It all seem fine!)

I get ticks as follows ...

(a) one tick when thumbnails have initially been rendered after I browse to a new folder,
(b) two ticks shortly afterwards when cache activity has finished on the last of the RAW files in that folder.

I don't hear tick(s) on printing, but perhaps any tick at this stage is buried below the noise of my printer rattling, or by the Windows "Asterisk" 'beep' that's emitted each time a job is launched from Qimage to my printer.

I hope I'm not alone - having "Sounds Off" not actually being "Off" - and that there's a fix in the works ... but if I can help diagnose this in the meantime then please ask.

Windows 7, 64-bit, 16 GB RAM, all patched & up to date.
Audio is working OK otherwise on my system.
Sound Card is a motherboard-integrated, "AMD High Definition Audio Device"
  on an ASUS P7P55D EVO motherboard, Intel i7 CPU
Audio driver is the standard Windows-provided "Version 6.0.1.7500"
Direct X is Version 11
....

Edited to add ...
I do have another USB Audio device installed and connectedin this PC, but it is totally dormant and is only 'accessed' when I activate its specific software, which isn't running when I do photo-editing etc.. Also, all my 'default' Windows audio is directed through the on-board AMD Sound Card I mentioned above.

This other audio device is a Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 (external) USB box and its Driver version is "focusrite-usb-2-driver-2.5" - but again, it has no speakers attached, and is 'idle' - but I thought I should mention that it's sitting as a Windows 'device' alongside my 'active' Sound Card.

Colin P.

I agree!

I also like this new Darkroom skin, a LOT!  It really is superb, crisp and clear, and I'd even say it's welcoming!

I'll admit that after my first quick dabble with the skins that were available when I first used Qimage Ultimate (in v2012.221) I just took the program's "workplace" for granted ... and got on with my work, but - at the risk of over-stating things a bit - this new skin adds a hard to define "polish" to my QU environment.  It's beautiful, especially when I'm working with black & white images!

(I haven't been printing much recently, hence my late response.)

Thank you Mike for setting this standard in sheer workspace clarity.  I forget when I last felt so comfortable with a Windows program User Interface, and I've used hundreds over the years.

Colin P.

Incidentally: In case it's relevant - I use Windows 7 with all of that Windows 7 "Glass" stuff turned OFF, and I've got my Windows-component preferences (the 'Window furniture' stuff) wound back to look as close to XP as is possible - so it's a testament to you and to your Darkroom skin that everything (here) is rendered so well, given that my Desktop and my Windows 7 preferences are so far from "normal", in Microsoft's presumed terms!!

Colin P.

Ah! Drat! Yes ... that's a rather critical point that I missed!!!  I was being carried away with my optimism earlier!!

In my 8600's "Customize Your Printer" dialogue, if I click the tantalizing tab called "Color Management"  it simply brings up Windows 7's Color Management dialogue, which of course isn't what I/we want?  Sighhhhh ...!

A lovely idea    (though she'd need to do that somewhat indirectly ... not to drift off topic ...  )

Thanks Fred for your sage reality check on my 8600's colour limitations.
Colin P.

Thanks Fred for that nudge about the HP paper.

Your experience-based recommendation on paper-types is worth a thousand test-prints    so - coupled with my new-found confidence in my 8600 as a moderately capable colour printer - I've added a box of HP Advanced Glossy paper to my shopping list for this weekend.

I'd been wondering if was worthwhile to get a calibration profile for this printer, given that it's only got 3 colour-inks plus black, but perhaps it would be worthwhile after all.  I haven't bought Profile Prism (yet), but I have already used an IT8-target-based profiling scheme (from Wolfe Faust) to calibrate my scanners (I've got an Epson 3170 as well as the scanner in the 8600) ... so I've already done some of the preliminary stuff.  Another 'plus' point (although it's a bitter-sweet one) is that the 8600 printer insists on using only HP-branded inks, so I should at least have consistency in the 'inks' department.

So yes ... a printer profile would nicely close that "colour management loop", and I'd be happily liberated from the "default sRGB presumption" that's locked into the 8600!  I'll review the Profile Prism pages ...

@To Darius, acknowledging your original query:
Sorry if I've slightly hijacked your post with that detour onto paper-types, but hopefully my thinking-aloud to Fred on printer profiles will add some insights to help answer your query.  I'm sure that the absence of specific printer profiles from HP for the OfficeJet 8600 is an exception in the printer market, and (to recap ...) we then have no choice but (a) to presume an sRGB colour space for our "final printer profile", even when we want to print onto different papers, or (b) to take the rather more exotic route of generating our own printer profile(s) (one profile for every permutation of paper-type + ink-brand!), using additional tools like Profile Prism, plus some extra hardware like a scanner.

The HP OfficeJet 8600 is a Curate's Egg of a printer for sure!!!

Colin P.

Hello Darius,

I use an HP 8600 OfficeJet printer too, and although I never had any hopes (or intentions) of using it to print photos, after a few experiments I'm very pleased and slightly surprised that I am getting fair-quality colour prints from it!  The absolute control over the printer that I'm enjoying with Qimage, and the confidence it gives me to run comparative test-prints is bliss - pure bliss!

I can confirm this!  (As also mentioned by Terry) It's a fact that HP don't supply any ICC profiles for this printer, which I think is very very odd, even though it's marketed primarily as an office-machine.

So even though I've got a fully colour-managed workflow - with a calibrated monitor especially - the only "color-management" option we've got for this printer is to trust it to render our prints with its built-in sRGB "profile", and to prepare our photos accordingly.  In other words, to trim our colours in our image editor to suit an sRGB printer gamut.

This is giving me very respectable prints, with colours and tones that do match those on my monitor, but with some understandable variations based on (a) the well-known fact that the reflective print surface will never have quite the same 'fidelity' that we see on our radiating monitors, and (b) the annoying fact that the names on the packaging on HP's free-sample papers don't exactly match the names provided in the 8600's print-preferences drop-down list of paper types! and (c) when using a third-party/non-HP paper type with this printer then of course we'll get variable results, because the HP driver doesn't "know" how best to manage its impressively high-definition ink-flow onto that alien paper. Hence the need for some test prints.

On that last point, when I'm doing comparative tests I keep careful notes about the "most successful" prints so that I know which "HP printer paper" was theoretically set in my 8600 driver, coupled with which paper-type was physically loaded in my printer-tray.  I record the 8600-driver-named paper type in a meaningfully-named Qimage "Printer Setup", knowing I can reliably return to exactly that driver setting.

As an example, when I load my paper tray with Kodak Premium Photo Paper (250gsm, Gloss)(currently available at good discounts!) I get optimal colour rendition when I "tell" the 8600 driver that it will be printing onto either of "HP Premium Plus Photo Paper", or "HP Advanced Photo Paper".  But conversely, onto that same paper, if I "told" the 8600 that it would be printing onto "HP Bright White Paper" then I'd get wishy-washy pale colours in comparison. (Of course some good or silly permutations can be guessed-at in advance  )

I agree. Setting Qimage to "Let printer/driver manage color" in the "Prtr ICC" option on the Qimage Job Properties tab is working well for me.

I concur.

In fact - on the setting for "best quality output" - although I might be wrong to give credit for this to Qimage, I do thank Qimage and it's marvellous interaction with my printer for the fact that whenever I set my preferred paper type using that Printer/page setup button (the "3rd icon in from the top right" mentioned earlier by Terry), then my printer driver / 8600 preferences are automatically set to "Output Quality" = "Best".  I haven't had to set this myself so far.

I still hope to buy a "proper" colour printer some day!  But in the meantime, for my "not for serious sale" photo prints, I'm rather pleased with this "sRGB only" 8600 OfficeJet printer!

Colin P.

Hello again.

As promised, here are some results from tests I made on a collection of what I hope are representative images. I attach a one-page PDF-rendering of my hurriedly-made spreadsheet, showing my tabulated results (so far). The table in the PDF/spreadsheet shows a number of permutations of original .JPGs and RAW files from different cameras, and the editing steps I took on them prior to asking Qimage Ultimate to make Print to File versions of them.

I admit the test results will only interest someone (if anyone at all!) who asked themselves this same question about retention of EXIF or IPTC data in QU's Print to File process!

On my setup here (on Windows 7 etc.), I see a clear pattern for when Quimage Ultimate (version 2012-221) embeds the EXIF metadata into the new files it creates in the Print to File (P2F) phase, and a quick summary of my results would be -

1. When QU makes a new P2F image in .TIF format, then in addition to the standard .TIF header information plus the User-specified ICC profile, QU embeds a small and logical sub-set of EXIF data relating to that file's creation by QU.

... however, on my setup here, so far ...

2. None of the .JPG files made by QU's P2F phase contain any EXIF metadata. They contain only the standard JPEG header information plus (again) the User-specified ICC profile.

So I was wrong when I said earlier in a previous post that "there is no new EXIF data relating to the (new) file's genesis in the P2F stage of QU ...". I'm sorry for that. I simply hadn't looked close enough at the one or two .TIF files that I'd "Printed-to-File" at the time.

On the principle that I'm aiming just to "get to know my tools" while I work with QU, I'd be glad to know whether this is "simply how it is" in QU ... at least in this version   

Best regards for now.
Colin P.

No problem, ta. I mis-spoke also when I said earlier that "there is no new EXIF data relating to the (new) file's genesis in the P2F stage of QU ..." - because I do now see some EXIF data, but only in .TIFs created by QU's P2F phase!

I'll be posting another reply in an hour or so (I gotta break for a meal!) showing the full results of my tests today, but for now, can I offer you a peek at what I understand to be the new EXIF data in the P2F .TIFs ...


Thanks for that snap, but (ummm...) how do I say ... that QU Info Panel - for that file - is showing some file data, but it's not actually the EXIF data!  Here's a short series of snaps from here, showing what I mean, and the Info Panel snaps include Qimage's EXIF Hot Bar along their bottom edges - (sorry the shrunken-quality is so low) -

i. Qimage's Info' Panel showing the portions of EXIF data drawn (by QU) from an 'original' sample file. The sample file's thumbnail is 'Selected' in QU's browser pane, and I've highlighted the QU-extracted EXIF data in yellow.

ii. A snip from EXIFToolGUI that shows the newly embedded EXIF data in the .TIF version of a QU Printed-to-File image. The specific file (called _C7P3473{ViaJPG-Q-P}.tif) is highlighted (selected) in the left-hand pane and (of course) its embedded sub-set of EXIF fields appears on the right.

iii. Qimage's Info' Panel showing that the newly embedded EXIF data is not revealed (by QU), even when that file has been 'printed' as a .TIF.

iv. Qimage's Info' Panel showing the still-absent EXIF data from that same sample file, after it has been 'printed' as a .JPG.

(Sorry I haven't included a snap here to support my assertion that - when examined in EXIFToolGUI for example - the .JPG-emitted QU-Printed-to-File images do not carry any new or old EXIF data.  I'd be very glad to know if (or that) my setup here is amiss somehow, so I'll welcome any news that refutes this.)

Colin P.

Thankyou Terry,

I do have those excellent tools in my armoury, and I keep my ExifTool.exe up to date when I (regularly) run my copy of GeoSetter, which (as you may know) checks for and downloads each ExifTool-update each time it (GeoSetter) is launched.  Then, before I run ExifToolGUI (which I use much less often), I trigger a quick batch file which copies the latest-GeoSetter-updated copy of ExifTool.exe from my (Windows 7) "C:\Users\Colin\AppData\Roaming\GeoSetter\tools\" folder, into ExifToolGUI's working folder.

These are indeed superb programs, and we can only hope that ExifToolGUI's very useful though no-longer-maintained life is a long one!

But on your main point about restoring EXIF and IPTC data into my images when necessary and as appropriate, I already use the tightly standards-compliant tools included my IMatch database program.

(Drifting off-topic briefly - It's ironic that - because I'm one of those pedantically-anti-Adobe-upgrade-bandwagon / non-Photoshop users - the only "flaw" with using IMatch to maintain my metadata is that Adobe keeps re-inventing the "standards", so I still need to tweak one "Photoshop-specific" XMP field that's not readily settable in IMatch, before I can send a photo into my Picture Library.  This is in spite of the continuing efforts by IMatch's author Mario, to keep up to date with Adobe's arguably conceited disregard for "standards".)(End of rant! Sorry.)

Thanks again.
Colin P.

Thanks again Fred,


Thanks for the reassurance. I was afraid I'd missed a key point somewhere.


Not exactly a "complaint" ... rather, I'd hoped it was a pragmatically-presented question     but I probably over-egged my query - as I'm inclined to do!!


Now we're hitting the nub of my original question, because (as I'd mentioned) my Printed-to-File (P2F) images contain absolutely no EXIF or IPTC data.  So - based on what you say - I'm now deducing that there's something askew on my system that's (apparently) blocking QU's intended "metadata" behaviour.  In my P2F images there is no new EXIF data relating to the (new) file's genesis in the P2F stage of QU ...


... and - to paraphrase my original query - none of my existing IPTC data has been carried across.  (I populate a set of IPTC fields in all of my images as I extract them from my camera or memory cards.)


I tried it multiple times too, but (of course) my results don't match yours, so I'll detour here and compile a quick matrix showing the files, the formats and the different pre-QU steps that I've used in my tests, and I'll report back.


I'm an optimist too Fred    but clearly our "mileages" differ here 

Thanks for your help so far, and I'll come back soon.
Colin P.

Thanks Fred,


Ah! An excellent point!! And I admit that - because my use of QU so far has been to operate on one image at a time - I hadn't considered this! I now see that some key elements of the original EXIF cannot logically (nor legitimately!) be 'passed on' to the new image!  I also know from other contexts (such as in ExifTool's amazing complexity for example, and in the sparsity of EXIF data provided by most film scanners) how difficult it can be programmatically to regenerate and inject new EXIF data into "new" images!

So I accept that the EXIF data can't survive the Print-to-File operations, but - I wonder if Mike would consider giving us an option in some future QU version to let us "copy across" the IPTC info from the original image (such as my Copyright string and my Keywords) for when I know that they're still relevant to the "File" version of the image?


Hmmm! I'm intrigued by your question, and I notice that you'd asked the same "why print to file" question in another post (on a different topic). Given my inexperience with QU, I wonder what I've misunderstood from the "Online Printing" Tutorial video? (That's the link to the 720p video, or here's the 480p version.)  I'm intrigued because this enhancement for "Online Printing" is (I think!) one of the QU features I expected to use the most in the short term! But maybe I've got it wrong?  See also my reply to your next point ...


Yep! This is how I've been working for years with my online print services, namely, sending them high-quality .TIFs in AdobeRGB colour space (for the arty pictures), or sending first-time-saved / max quality .JPGs in sRGB colour space for everything else.  I've spent a lot of time and money having test prints made through some of these companies, with varying degrees of sharpening applied to my test images. And then, in order to negotiate their presumed PPI values and the dimensions of the non-printed borders around my (essentially bespoke) 'arty' prints, I've held many long telephone conversations with (for example) the helpful people at The Dot Foundry or at Digitalarte - just two of the services I've used.  In all these cases I've crossed my fingers and hoped that I'd "guessed" a good-enough degree of sharpening, and that I wouldn't need to cut yet another new cardboard mat to fit my (too often mis-calculated) 'final' printed area on my new prints ...

But now ... by using Qimage's Print to File feature (if I understand it correctly?!) - after a bit of normal trial-and-error - I hope to be able to send off repeatable, reliable, correctly dimensioned and "bordered" final-versions of my images, with an appropriate ICC profile embeded, and always optimally sharpened (thankyou 'Fusion'!) - and to save money on cardboard mats too!

Is one of us up a "Print to File" gum-tree Fred   


I've very likely skulked around on a Qimage-related Group    but I've never registered on one until this "Home Port" for Qimage.  Perhaps we've metaphorically met in one of my other much-enjoyed photo-Forums - ImageKind? Nikonians? RedBubble?, or Luminous Landscape (hardly been there recently), or even the hugely inspirational Martin Bailey Photography? (which again I've neglected recently.)  I'm on some others (e.g. IMatch) but those are the ones where I'm registered as "KolinP".

Thanks again for your feedback Fred, and I'll watch out for some nudges about my Print to File presumptions!

Colin P.

Hello all,

I apologise for such a long first-posting.

I've added my query below, but as this is my first posting I'll offer you some background about me, and about my intended use (at least in the short-term) for my happily installed and working Qimage Ultimate (QU).

I'm new to Qimage, although I've known about it since my days on the ImageKind Forum (circa 2006 and later) where it was cited many times as the "essential & definitive" printing tool.  I'm still discovering wonderful new QU subtleties every time I consult its excellent built-in Help, and I've watched 22 of the 33 superb video tutorials 

My setup here is: Windows 7, 8GB RAM and acres of free disk space, with a superb NEC colour-calibrated monitor, hopefully to do justice to my Nikon D700 photography. I "went digital" in 2005, and I use Capture NX2 and/or (as needed by the image) DxO Optics Pro for all my editing. (I have no plans ever to buy PhotoShop.)  I've already used QU to take a handful of photos completely through from .NEF to 'final product', and I look forward to learning and employing QU's strengths on those photos that simply must be printed!

The majority of my photos exist only as digital images, so I can't (yet) justify the cost and enlarged desk-space needed for a fully-specified colour printer.  When I do need to print something I'll use an online printing service - and Qimage's ability to Print to File was the key feature that tipped the scales on my decision to buy it.

For my occasional "arty" work on high quality papers I'll send my photos to my preferred "serious" printing-company in south Wales (UK). For less demanding stuff such as 10 x 8's or A4 prints for my camera club competitions etc., I'll (typically) use the fast and cheap PhotoBox UK, and suffer their small colour inconsistencies. And finally for "office" type work I've got a 4-ink-only "utility" printer (an HP OfficeJet), which I don't plan on using for any serious photo printing.

The great news is that - once I've tapped into it's huge potential - I can use QU to improve all three of these printing scenarios

Now to my query, and sorry for the long preamble  ...

I've noticed that all of the EXIF and IPTC data has been stripped from my QU Printed to File images. EXIF gone! IPTC fields empty!  Yes, I can understand that the only metadata that my online print-company actually needs from me is the image's embedded ICC colour profile (which is still comfortably in place), but Drat! I don't want to send my images off to any 'external' agency without at least some of my carefully managed metadata on-board!

If I'm doing something wrong then please help me fix it, thanks - or, if this is by design in QU, then please Mike, re-interpret this "lost metadata" query as a new "feature request"

(Qimage reports that the files do still contain their embedded ICC colour profiles, but because the QU Printed to File images appeared so bereft of metadata when checked with ExifTool, or with my copy of Picture Information Extractor (version 6.40), I took the liberty of verifying that the ICC profile was really 'intact' by using the excellent GNU-licensed Argyll CMS utility called "extracticc".)

I've got a long-established workflow based around my Imatch database, and I can use IMatch to re-inject the EXIF and IPTC metadata into my QU Printed to File images, but this would become awfully tedious for more than a few images at a time.

I tried this Forum's Search facility to see if this (lost metadata) has been mentioned or 'acknowledged' previously, but on the contrary, the vibe that I'm picking up is that Qimage strives to protect and to propagate all metadata in the files that it processes. So I really hope that I'm goofing somewhere, or that I've met another "Windows 7" quirk!

Thanks in anticipation.
Colin P.

Ummm ... sorry to disturb the quiet ambience (and I agree it's a welcome lull that reflects the maturity and stability of this superb product  ) , but I'm about to post a query!

It'll be my first post, so please allow me a few more minutes to get it together, and hopefully Fred and/or Terry will tell me where I've goofed, and we can quickly restore the peace 

Colin P.