I think you are correct based on your scenario.  You'd need to do HDR in another application because HDR isn't suitable for automatic raw processing.  Qimage is best for individual shots rather than HDR's or panorama stitching.  You could always do that in another program and then use any "flavor" of Qimage to print if you like.

Regards,
Mike

The are RAW files, you would not see them without the processing. 
Terry

I guess I should have said: "It seems like a checkbox to turn automatic raw processing off would greatly enhance the appeal of this software".  I am fully aware that RAW files need to be "processed", but as the OP pointed out, there are occasions where the RAW conversion parameters need to be held constant for a group of images.  In ACR, you can easily synchronize settings across several images, and I was just wondering whether this is possible in QIU, without having to manually adjust all the parameters to the same values on individual images.

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.

Ed,
Try this.
I think it might be what you are looking for.
Whyen you have your three sample raws open in qimage, and they look pretty close, Put them into the queue,
Right click on the image in the preview panel, select ALL. Right click again and select EXTRACT Embedded Images Raw.
Qimage will pull the internal JPG out of your raw image. It will look different; over or under or blown, etc.

Fred

Ted,
This is not new to Ultimate. This is in Studio too and always has been.
It was the solution for Ed who wanted to shoot a set of Raw images with varying EV settings and wanted to see the JPG differences between them.
It is simple, sure, and fits what Ed was asking for.
Those JPGs are embedded in there by the camera, not Qimage.

You can always waste space and shoot Raw+ Jpg. That's over the top.
Fred

I've tried to follow this thread and others which talk about 'shooting raw' and 'shooting jpeg', but like all of them it misses the point.
The camera NEVER shoots jpeg. It always shoots raw, then you decide whether to convert it in the camera using the Canon or Nikon or whatever algorithm the camera uses, or convert it in your computer using an algorithm of your choice. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and the same goes for raw converters - the best one is the one which gives you the results YOU like best, which will probably be different to the one the man next door likes. The same goes for filters and the like. Personally I don't like HDR stuff - the prints invariably look flat to me. I don't everyone to agree with me, and I know there is no reason why my opinion should be any more valid than the next man's.
When someone points me at a fantastic photograph and says it's great because they used this converter, this effect or that filter they are wrong. It's a fantastic photograph because the photographer is a fantastic photographer.

Brian