Guys,

Thanks for the suggestions. After Terry's original reply I dug into the files he mentioned and compared a few between the two machines. Even though the files structures are similar, they're not the same, and going through every file looking for paths that might need changing (with the inevitable missing of some) didn't seem to be worth it. And then there are things like monitor profiles that I didn't have the foresight to name identically between machines - how many other similar gothcha's await? It will take me less time to recreate what I need as I need it. I still think that an "auto" new install would be a great feature in some future version, Mike. 

Thanks, Terry. And here I thought it was just me not researching it thoroughly.

Mike, this might make a worthwhile addition to your to-do list. 

Is there a simple way to transfer Qimage settings and data (like job history) from my desktop to a new install on a new laptop?

Qimage SE - original PC is XP SP3, laptop is Windows 7.

TIA

My 3800 monitors the amount of ink in its maintenance tank; the 3880 does the same. I'm reasonably certain that this is the measure used for triggering the message you mention and not any print count. An estimate of the maintenance cartridge service life is provided on the status monitor (when printing) directly below the ink level display. When the message you mention appears, it will tell you that the maintenance cartridge must be replaced. If you don't have a spare on hand - all stop!

Here's a link that discusses the Epson tank. Although it refers to a different printer model, the idea is the same for your 3880.
http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/ink_dump.html

Fred,

Like beauty, saturation must be in the eye of the beholder.

Just to put this thread to rest from my end, I'm posting the NX2 and Qimage versions side by side. The NX2 is the default (no tweaks). NX2 defaults, to answer your question, are the exact setting applied in the camera when the image was made. As I noted, I keep every in-camera setting that affects image quality to its lowest (most subdued) setting available in the camera's menu options. Since I shoot 100% RAW, any and all settings can be changed before the RAW conversion - but in this instance nothing was changed. The result is the plainest vanilla jpeg possible from the Nikon D300 (plus or minus any Nikon secret special sauce as suggested in my earlier reply).

In summary, I'm satisfied with the Qimage results - certainly as a starting point.

Here's a link to the images as they contain a caption with pertinent details which seems to get lost when just adding an image. As I look at them here I almost prefer the Q-version as the NX2 appears to have a slight greenish cast - or maybe it's my eyes. But never mind, its just a starting point and any cast, if present, is easily removed.
http://ed-k-photo.smugmug.com/Other/Demo/7110830_brEmW#920764957_4NgX8-A-LB

Terry,

I "passed the test" for items 1 & 2

Regarding #3, conversion was done using Convert Images with settings as follows -


Yes, I refined the image.

The NX2 version wasn't overdone. I have all camera settings at the lowest possible option (or normal, which ever applies) for parameters such as color, contrast, sharpening, etc. I you looked at the photo course post that I included in my previous reply you'll see that I describe my preference for captured images from the camera to be RAW and on the "flat" side as I prefer to add rather than subtract "pop" to my images. My NX2 jpeg test image was the RAW>jpeg result with zero adjustments - my normal "flat" starting point.

There have always been complaints about Nikon have a "secret sauce" embedded in their RAW files (WB related comes up most often) which results in the NX2 default output looking better than that from other RAW converters. That might be the case here - or, as I said, my test sample was too limited (that will be corrected).

Thanks for all of your help & suggestions. You're a true Qimage treasure. Tell Mike that I doubled your salary. What's two times zero by the way?

I did use the default settings which are the same as yours except -

• USM & NR as you noted
• Default has Pattern Noise box checked; your preferences do not

Before receiving the camera profile, I tried both sRGB & Adobe and arrived at the same conclusion for both in comparison to my NX2 result - both were "flatter". Perhaps I should explain "flatter" further - Q's results weren't bad at all. My only quibble was with the greens which were "duller" (flatter = duller??) in the Q results. Having said that, the scene was mostly green (and the difference wasn't that great really, it's just that I was looking for differences). I will definitely go back and test with a wider sampling of colors & contrast in my test images.

Retrying the test with the camera profile when Mike sent it (I used Adobe since, yes, in my initial sRGB vs Adobe comparison the Adobe was better), to be honest there wasn't much change from the prior Q result without the profile. Again, testing with a single image doesn't tell much and so I'll explore further. All that said, I'm pleased with what I see. Since I almost always do minor color & contrast tweaks before displaying my images, the slight differences that I'm seeing aren't worth worrying about.

I do an on-line photo improvement course and yesterday I just happened to do a post using the same image that I tested with Q. Included are a before/after (all with NX2 plus the Nik Color Efex Pro 3 plug-in for NX2) and a 1 minute slide show illustrating my "tweaks" in going from before to after. You can see it at -http://edkphoto.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/post-processing-example-1/

Thanks, Terry.

I was generally pleased with the process and the result. In comparing Qimage's jpeg output with my default (no adjustments) jpeg from Capture NX2 the most notable difference was that Q's colors were very flat. With that in mind, I purchased Mike's camera profile for my D300 upon reading that improved colors were the big plus with a profile. We'll see - although approaching 2 hours after the purchase I have the receipt but not the file thus far, but it's on its way I'm sure. I'll report back for those who are curious.

You should tell Mike that I said you're owed a finder's fee as I wouldn't have plunked down $17.95 without your input. 

Long time Qimage-SE user - but for printing only.

I'd like to compare Q's RAW conversion against my current program. I made a quick pass with a sample image and at the end chose to accept the changes via the save & close option. However, I did not see a new file created - neither NEF nor JPEG. I did this via the Refine RAW Exposure option - not seeing any other obvious choices. Did I mention that even after several years the QI UI leaves me puzzled more often than not if I try anything new? 

Am I missing something? Probably, but what? Further, I assume that the changes made by Q are non-destructive to my original RAW file - true?

TIA for your help.

Tongue in cheek - yes, the funeral part was recognized. I was just wasn't sure about the part about the printer at the edge of the driveway waiting for trash pickup. Around here, that's too often the case as folks don't seem to realize it's not a good idea to put electronics curbside with the rest of the trash.

I envy you the special pickup. Around here it's up to the resident to find a suitable "resting place" and to provide the hearse.

Be well.

I'm surprised that Florida has no recycling laws for electronics. Many (most?) jurisdictions do but FL apparently has only guidelines to encourage keeping devices such as your dear departed out of landfills. I won't lecture on the related environmental problems.

I too have a recently departed i960. It sits in my garage waiting for me to take it to a local electronics recycling center. If it's not too late to save your i960 from the compactor hearse, I encourage you to send it to its final resting place in a more fitting manner.

Different strokes, I guess. I use IMatch for browsing as the very first step after downloading with Downloader Pro. Its so much more than just a DAM tool. Here's my IMatch flow following a shoot -
1. I make an initial pass through my downloaded images in slide show mode (manual steps) and bookmark keepers.
2. Out of slide show; filter to show non-bookmarks; delete
3. Turn off filter (to see all keepers); select all; delete bookmarks
4. Another pass through slide show, this time bookmarking those I want to work with right now
5. Out of slide show; filter for bookmarked images; voila - the ones I want to do more with
6. Send this bunch off to NX2 via my IMatch interface

Steps 1-5 usually take me about 5 minutes (more "think" time than waiting on IMatch) for a normal day's shoot of about 100 images. I shoot RAW only and IMatch provides an instant full screen visual in the slide show mode which allowed me to stop doing RAW + JPEG. Further the "side-by-side" comparison mode for up to 4 images is great when trying to decide among several similar shots. Although I do most of want I want in screening just with bookmarks, there are also five label colors and 0-5 star ratings when fine tuning is needed.

Bottom line - for me, IMatch as a browser is just as important as its more obvious DAM role. It's probably my lack of understanding, but I can't imagine what any "pure browser" could add. Like I said - different strokes, but want to clarify for those not familiar with IMatch that it is far more than a data base program. As another example, it even provides basic editing features. Lastly, I have no speed issues with IMatch - but of course that depends on lots of things. 200K+ indexed/categorized images in the DB.

Returning to the OP - even as gifted as Mike is, I'd be surprised if the effort to introduce yet another browser/organizer into this market would be worthwhile. It would be difficult to get folks like me (or the Lightroom crowd) to shift without some whiz-bang pain free feature that would automatically move everything we have from our current solution to something new and untried. Browser/organizer is basic fundamental infrastructure stuff. It's not like trying out a new noise elimination program that you can try & toss in a few minutes.

As a long time very satisfied IMatch user, I believe it would satisfy all of your needs. My workflow for 99+% of my images uses -

1. Download - Downloader Pro (sorry, Mike. Used this long before your alternative came out; not broken then don't fix)
2. DAM - IMatch which I believe handles everything in your list (with a developer who is Mike-like in terms of access, response, & professionalism)
3. Post-process - I'm a Nikon user. Capture NX2 (with Nik Color Efex Pro 3 plug in); for B&W, Photoshop Elements (only because I need a plug-in platform for Nik's Silver Efex Pro).
4. Print - Qimage to help my Epson 3800 do its magic

I admit to not being very familiar with BreezeBrowser, but the little that I know suggests that IMatch does as much plus a lot more. I especially appreciate that I can go from "I wonder where those shots of x at y might be" to "now let's send them to Qimage" in usually a minute or less for 200K+ images. I use IMatch as my "home-base, control panel" for everything and have it pass images to all other programs like Qimage for processing. I also use IMatch for a lot of the little "fiddling" tasks like resizing for my web gallery, rotating, etc. via its versatile batch features (and scripting for more specialized work - it's completely customizable).

Disclosure - No financial interest in any of the above although I am a Nik Software beta tester.

Fred, I've been enjoying this thread. I reminds me of all of the Qimage features left to learn.

This latest on selective (more or less) color adjustment may be useful in some instances, but I prefer to be able to be really selective. Here's an example of what I mean. This is two images - the top row is #1; the bottom #2. #1 shows a standard color reference chart displayed on two monitors (running in two separate browsers). #2 shows #1 after post-processing the right hand chart in row #1. (I did not do this in Qimage. I was finishing a color management tutorial, got bored, read your latest, and decided to take a break. Sorry that it's a bit off your Qimage topic, but I thought it might be interesting to anyone who saw use for your trick - but with more control over the bollixing.)

In the right hand chart of row #2 (the "after image") you'll notice that the red square had its color changed. You'll also note that the change didn't affect any other colors at all. In fact, I did not even allow it to affect the same red square in the left hand chart. The entire process took less than 30 seconds. Capture NX 2 with U-Point technology (which works for cameras other than Nikon - except the RAW conversion is Nikon only.

If this post is too far off topic, feel free to kill it. As I said, I was getting bored and thought - there's a maybe better way to skin that cat without "bollixing" up everything else.

FWIW, I use SyncToy for exactly what Jeff is trying to do and it works fine (have used it for a year or two). Price is right, too - free.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Ed