...it makes me happy all over again that I'm a Qimage user.

http://photocamel.com/forum/photography-talk/146837-how-does-pixel-size-equate-physical-print-size.html

There's some good info in this thread...most of it "old hat" to Qimage users, I suspect.  But it turned into something of an argument about uprezzing, interpolation, etc.  I cannot believe how some photographers jump through hoops just trying to print large at the proper resolution.  Just sample some of the posts in that 10-page thread and you'll see what I mean.

However, I must admit that at least a few posters in that thread are aware of what all Qimage users know:

"Hence, optimal results are obtained by resampling the image to the native PPI that your intended printer uses, then applying Sharpen or USM, and then printing."

But even that's much more work than we have to do, of course, considering that all we have to do (after editing) is set the print size, hit "print," and go for coffee.

Incidentally, a few months ago, more or less by accident, I came up with a "plain paper" test of Qimage's ability to improve a low-res image.  See the editorial cartoon at the link below:

http://robertariail.com/2011/04/10/abstract-expressionism/

(If you saw a map of my congressional district, you'd know why I like this cartoon.)

It's a small, low-res file, of course.  Just print it on plain paper, fit to page, using the Windows photo-printing wizard or the equivalent.  Then print it from Qimage on plain paper, with interpolation.  The difference is obvious even on plain paper.  Quite enjoyable to show the results to the heathens.

Yes, one poster in that Photocamel thread was still using the method of uprezzing 10% at a time until he got to the "recommended" resolution.  Someone else explained that uprezzing should now be done in one step and suggested a $200 piece of software...which you could get for as little as $100 on sale!  (How exciting! Just $100 for a program which interpolates?  Such a deal!)

The good news is that most of the Photoshop users who were posting in that thread are aware that interpolating in Photoshop is not the optimum solution.  The bad news is that I've seen more than one person here on the Qimage forums say that Photoshop users--even after a demo--refuse to believe that there's a $90 printing utility which will do something that Photoshop can't do.

Originally, years ago, I bought Qimage because it made it convenient to print multiple images per sheet.  That was the only feature I cared about.  I printed everything at the default parameters.  Did that for years, all very routine.  I literally didn't know I was getting superior results until I printed a Sony Mavica photo from outside of Qimage.  A year or two later, when I knew what I was doing, people looked at my 8½x11 borderless prints from my 4mp Canon G2 and said (#1) "Well, that can't be digital," and (#2) "You printed this yourself?"  Yes, very routinely--and that was when my photo printer was a Deskjet 9650.


+1, right on, amen...but let's not forget Terry, a guy named Fred, and all the other evangelists on these forums who are eager and willing to share their knowledge.  I know that the benefits I've received here far outweigh my contributions.

Got to run, have a few photos to print.  Just routine stuff, with no doubts about the quality of the output.  Almost boring, really, with the program I use.

Yeah, like I'd tell YOU!