Thanks for the info, Graham

Ray,

Thank you very much for that link.

I've printed to canvas (13x19) without much difficulty, but it was in the form of pre-cut sheets (flat). I want to move up in size but found that cutting a roll seems to be the only option - thus my concern about curl in the sheets.

Here's an example of what I want to do http://edkphoto.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/gallery-wrap-photo-grids/. Each panel is 10x15 with a 1.25" "wrap border" for a print width of 12.5x17.5. I want to increase the panel to 14x21 (16.5x23.5 print) and need the 17x24 canvas for that. The final multiple-part image will be a 3x3 panel abstract photo.

Ed

I thought there was something here on this topic - once upon a time - but searching didn't turn it up.

I would like to buy a roll of canvas - 17" x 40' - and cut it into 17" x 24" sheets. Probably use my mat cutter for the job.

Might there be printing problems? I'm thinking especially about the residual curl when feeding these sheets (Epson 3800 which will accept 17" width).

EdK - guilty as charged. Thanks for the compliment.

Unfortunately, the current timing is bad since - after posting daily for months - I'm dealing with a few home issues like my wife's new pup who is running us ragged and have missed a few days as a result. How can 3.5 pounds of fur contain so much energy? 10 weeks of energy trumps a combined 150 years of "wisdom" every day.

I'll be back on the regular schedule by the end of the week and will work up a print related set of posts including Qimage. My Nik Software tutorials' hit count is north of 25,000 since 3/11 when I first started doing them (Nik beta tester). It helps that Nik's documentation has lots of holes - Mike's seems better since the UTube videos.

Feel free to subscribe to the blog at http://edkphoto.wordpress.com/ 

PS - I am "guilty" of at least one of Mike's "multiple factors" that might cause problems.

My setup is "backwards" with the 2nd monitor on the left (the "main" monitor is a laptop which doesn't cut it for image processing, especially color adjustments/management IMO). I run my image processing software on this "2nd" monitor and use the main (laptop) for house keeping sorts of things and for the image processing software's palettes, etc.

Never really thought about frontwards/backwards - just fits my office work space best that way. 

Mike,

What else can I say  - You're the man!!!!!

V206 = problem solved.

I do a daily (almost) photo blog, 500+ posts, and have never done one on QImage. Consider that error on my part soon to be corrected. Not a giant readership, about 350 a day, but every little bit helps and I'll be sure to tell what a great program QU is but, also, support that is unsurpassed. Any points you'd like covered other than "you PS & LR users are missing the boat"?

Many thanks.

I'll double check possible settings options and get back. In the meantime, of the 100+ programs (my system monitor keeps nagging me to remove some) only QU is having problems. The other 100+-1 must be doing something right. You say that "....it is the display software...." and may be right in a strict sense - maybe. The fact that QU did what was expected when I shut down my 2nd monitor doesn't necessarily incriminate Ultramon - it simply says that the QU & Ultramon don't play well together and that maybe QU has dual monitor issues. Which, if either, is "to blame" is another matter entirely, but another view might be that if 100+ other programs seem to work correctly maybe something else is wrong. Programs like Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture NX and others that use dual screen in a manner similar to QU are not just hacks so I know that what I expected when launching QU Image Edit isn't impossible. Why do they work as they should?? I'll keep an open mind and not place the blame anywhere just yet - just askin'. I'll also try using just the Win 7 dual monitor option - no Ultramon.

Not a total show stopper but it is what caused me to go back to SE after buying QU. I needed to get work done and not fight with software. Hopefully I'll get it resolved - but not at the expense of making changes to accommodate one program at the expense of losing my normal workflow for all of the rest. I'll work it out one way or another; just hoped maybe there was a simple solution that caused me not to have wasted the cost of replacing SE with QU.

I've been using this Ultramon dual-monitor setup - albeit different PC's & monitors - for years and so it's not like stumbling across an problem due to lack of familiarity. I know this wasn't suggested by you but wanted to establish that what I'm doing is nothing new here and occasionally in the past a problem has occurred - and like Photomatix it's because of some small oversight at the other end. But there's a first time for everything so we'll see.

Keep well.

Background -
I bought QU a few weeks ago, but continued using my older Studio Edition until I had time to delve into QU. Before continuing here's where QU lives & plays (not without problems). 
LAPTOP #1 - Dell Studio 1747 Core i7 (Q720 1.6GHz) 8GB RAM + Dell U2311H dual monitor (Ultramon)
Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650
Internal HD - Seagate ST9500420AS 500GB 7200RPM SATA 16MB Cache
External HD - 2TB WD in a BlacX docking station with eSata connect

NOTE the dual monitor part.

The problem.
The image edit screen doesn't display properly. The edit control panel is in the upper left corner of the overall edit window and only a small slice of its right side is visible. Totally unusable.

After searching this forum it became apparent that dual monitors and QU don't always play nicely together. To test the theory, I turned off the dual monitor controller (Ultramon) and turned off the 2nd (my main image processing) monitor. After doing this I restarted QU and the image edit page displayed properly. Cause of problem identified - but the solution??

The question(s).
Any suggestions? Anyone using a similar configuration - especially the Ultramon part - and, if so, what???
I'm hoping that since the time frame of the QU forum threads I found that things have gotten better and that I just didn't search long enough to find the holy grail. Help?

This is the 3rd different program where dual monitors cause glitches in my setup. The last was Photomatix and they fixed it in their next bug release. In their case, as in the first, they don't routinely check dual monitor functionality thoroughly.

Thanks, Terry.

I had noticed the areas of "almost" black and accepted them as being almost black - but a little lighter because of the nearby ambient fireworks light.

I was totally blown away when those blacks printed closer to middle gray.

Solved the problem by 1) doing a print head check (guess which one needed cleaned?) and 2) doubling down by making everything that was "almost" black 0,0,0. I'm sure that the clogged black (2 or 3 in fact) print heads were to blame.

Thanks again for your time & interest.

Ed

When printing this image http://ed-k-photo.smugmug.com/Other/HHPC-hall-prints/19733105_CpbQ8h#1552702480_GFJP3dt-A-LB, the black sky prints mostly charcoal gray (with some areas of black - mostly outlining the bright fireworks). Qimage slide show & soft proof options show the image correctly (correctly as measured by what I see on my calibrated monitor during post). I get the same incorrect result using both the correct printer ICC as well as "Let printer manage...." and with several rendering intent options.

I suspect the answer is in the various rendering intent options. I've tried several and Relative + BP compensation get me closest with the black but then warm colors are off.

Epson 3800; never had any problems of any sort before.  ??

Ideas? Suggestions?

TIA

Thanks, Terry.

I found the Learn by Example piece on printing a Multi-page Poster and will study that - and then move on to addressing how to translate that to the wrap.

I haven't decided on the wrap style yet; the current image is more or less an abstract so there are lots of possibilities.

I read Mike's piece on making gallery wraps. Tried it & it worked fine - started with paper on a CD case as he suggested and then graduated to the real thing.

Next I'd like to take a 3:2 image and print it across 4 pieces of 13x19 canvas in gallery wrap fashion. The final display would be panels hung in a 2x2 grid with a small space (about 2") separating each panel. Each gallery wrap panel would be 15x10 with a 1.25" thick frame, so I'll be printing four 17.5 x 12.5 images (allowing for the wrap).

I know how to do this if I take just the image into an editor, break it into four pieces, and then do what I did before in QImage - four separate times. My question - is there some clever way to have QI do this for me by giving it just the original image? Just thought I'd ask since I may doing more of these in various sizes and configurations and having a template of sorts might save me from future dumb mistakes.

I know that Fred & Terry like challenges. 

Fred,

Different strokes for different folks. I'm a volunteer photographer for the National Park Service at Shenandoah NP. I schedule my trips around weather forecasts for inclement weather - the worse, the better and throw in some fog to make my day. 

Since my post last week on this topic I purchased a Dell U2311H.

It is connected to my Dell Studio 17 laptop (Core i7 8GB RAM) as my primary monitor for image editing. It is kept company by 3 other monitors for a total of four (yeah, I know) - two on the laptop and two on a 5 year old desktop. They are literally side-by-side which happens to make for easy screen quality comparison. When it comes to the new Dell, it is visibly superior in terms of lack of banding in a typical grayscale test such as at http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_gradient.htm when I load this page on all four monitors and look at them side by side. All monitors are calibrated (regularly) using Eye-One.

For others contemplating or using multiple monitors and/or multiple PCs, I've found the following more than a little useful.
1. Ultramon - a multi-monitor utility which I find more useful than adding a 2nd monitor and allowing it to be just an extension of the 1st monitor's screen
2. Synergy - which from Synergy's website "....lets you easily share a single mouse and keyboard between multiple computers with different operating systems, without special hardware. All you need is a LAN connection. It's intended for users with multiple computers, where each system uses its own display." This program is only a bit removed from magic when it comes to working with multiple computers (how about being able to "cut" on one and "paste" it on the other as an example). With a single left-to-right roll of the mouse I can move from the left end of the laptop, across the new Dell, onto and across the desktop's "primary" monitor and finally to the right side of the desktop's "text-only" monitor. The keyboard works on which ever monitor the mouse is over at that instant.

I have no affiliation with the purveyors of any of the aforementioned products - just a satisfied customer.

I've avoided any QIU comments since some emotions seem to be high - it may be time for a switch to decaf. IMO, it's Mike's business and it's up to him to do as he chooses without my help . The only vote that really counts is the one that folks make with their wallets and Mike is astute enough to count those ballots and alter (or not) his business model. Best wishes with whatever you decide, Mike - just as long as it keeps QI alive and well.

Now to the real reason for jumping in here -

I ran tests recently to compare several RAW conversion programs. For each program, I asked it to create a "no adjustments" JPEG - that is, give me exactly what the camera would have provided if I shot the photo in JPEG rather than RAW. You might feel that this is not a real world test, but I would disagree - read on.

One of the things that I did was to shoot the same scene at -1, 0, +1 EV. QI differed from each of the other packages in one notable respect when processing these three RAW files (I'm not talking about slight tonal or color differences). QI to its credit (or not - depending on your objective) made all three appear to have been shot with the same (or nearly so) exposure. The other programs showed the images as one underexposed, one properly exposed, and one overexposed. Now granted QI's result is what one is looking for under most circumstance and QI gives it to you without any fiddling - and with the other programs there is one extra step required, to adjust the EV by +/-1 as appropriate.

However, I would prefer that I at least had the option in QI to not have it "help" me with everything - especially exposure. There are many times when I intentionally over/under expose and don't want to have to "correct the correction" applied by QI if I don't want that correction.

In the spirit of the OP suggestion to turn off RAW processing, or whatever, I would suggest that an option to disable (all or selectively) the QI corrections made to the RAW file would be useful.