|
Owen Glendower
|
 |
« on: April 28, 2010, 04:32:37 PM » |
|
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/getting-the-big-picture-from-phone-photos/Yes, Qimage fans, it's yet another article on how you can spend up to $250 on a Photoshop plug-in and get good prints from your low-res photos (although Genuine Fractals is only $160, it says here). After I wiped off the coffee I spewed all over my monitor, I added a comment mentioning Qimage to the story. Also emailed the author politely suggesting that if he ever wanted to do a follow-up, he should take a look at Qimage. All joking aside, it's frustrating to read articles like this, and I'm just a Qimage user. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for Mike--unless he's learned just to laugh, shake his head, and then move on to the next Qimage improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2010, 07:49:16 PM » |
|
Hi Owen, I subscribe to the NY Times daily e-mail and the Tech Update (even though I'm in the UK) but had not spotted that one. I added a comment too about Qimage but could not see yours. Maybe it's waiting moderation, I think mine is. We'd better keep an eye on it. 2 comments recommending Qimage from locations ~6000 miles apart, can't be bad  Edit: whoops, just saw another post from you, not from the US but a Nederlander, only a few 100 miles then, so what. I stayed in Vlissingen for 6 months many years ago. Terry. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 07:53:04 PM by Terry-M »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2010, 07:54:35 PM » |
|
It's evidently still awaiting moderation. I can see it, but of course I'm logged in, and it's my comment. I'll check back later to see yours. Here's mine:
Use Qimage instead. It's a stand-alone program for less than $100 which has been demonstrated to give better results than Genuine Fractals. Invaluable for anyone who wants photo prints larger than 8x10. Just a very satisfied user; I have no financial interest in the company.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2010, 07:59:44 PM » |
|
It's evidently still awaiting moderation. I can see it, but of course I'm logged in, and it's my comment. It's the same for me. Here's what I said just to complete the record. You asked the question "But there is software to solve that problem". (printing big from phone cam files) May I say that you have not mentioned, what is regarded by thousands of users, pro & amateur, the printing software Qimage by Mike Chaney. http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/This has been in the business of printing big from small images for many years. It has superior interpolation algorithms and is very versatile for laying out pages of prints as well as enabling huge banners to be printed. The best part is, it only costs $100 for the top Studio Edition that also has superb raw processing abilities making it possible to print directly from a raw file. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2010, 08:04:32 PM » |
|
Terry--You must have seen my "hammer-headed Hollander" comment, referring to myself, but I'm in the USA, NW Illinois, actually. It's not unusual over here (or at least in the Midwest, where I grew up) to hear anyone of German/Dutch/Swiss ancestry refer to himself as a hammer-headed Hollander or Dutchman.
Another variation: "You can always tell a Dutchman. Not much, but you can tell him."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2010, 08:53:06 PM » |
|
"The best part is, it only costs $100 for the top Studio Edition that also has superb raw processing abilities making it possible to print directly from a raw file."
Glad you mentioned the price, too. What a bargain!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 08:55:21 PM by Owen Glendower »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2010, 06:40:31 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2010, 12:50:57 PM » |
|
Yes, I saw that late last night.
The author of the article replied to my email and said, "Qimage is a good suggestion" for a follow-up article. I replied with a few more comments and suggested that he download the 30-day trial. He replied with, "Thanks for the tip," so let's hope he follows through.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2010, 01:11:26 PM » |
|
Thanks for the support guys! I'm fighting the good fight to keep up with the economic strain but it seems there are just so many programs out there now that it is difficult for anyone (consumers or reviewers) to REALLY know which ones are good, much less which is the best. So I really appreciate people like you who help spread the word. My loyal users are my most cherished commodity, and I know it!
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2010, 05:38:09 PM » |
|
Now your comment shows, Fred, along with a couple of others. Good job including the link. Mike, can you track incoming traffic to your site? Seen any action?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2010, 03:49:32 PM » |
|
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/getting-the-big-picture-from-phone-photos/A few more comments have been posted to the NYT article, including--inevitably, I guess--the following one, from the typical Mac fanboy: I wondered why I'd never heard of Qimage. I found out when I went (immediately!) to the site. Doesn't run on macs. I'm sure there are a lot of graphic artists who use pcs, but more of them use macs. Silly not to get in on the mac market. This appears to be the only time he has posted a comment on the NYT site. Does anyone else find this sort of thing as tiresome as I do? I couldn't resist posting this reply: 1. Qimage is a photo-printing utility, not a graphic design program. 2. 85% of Mac households include a PC. http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dennishays
Newbie
Posts: 3
Studio, PP, FlashPipe
|
 |
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2010, 01:57:26 PM » |
|
It's just PC envy  - Seriously, though, if I parse the statement, it reads to me as: "Qimage looks like a great application and I wish I could use it (but I don't have the right equipment)." I don't necessarily see it as tiresome as much as I see this as being affirming. I set up my home office to process images and chose components to support the software. Since Qimage is an important application to my workflow... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex
Newbie
Posts: 49
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2010, 04:37:16 PM » |
|
Well to be fair Qimage is (in my exposure) not primarily marketed as an image up-sizing software like these other ones are - The Qimage catch phrases include 'Professional Batch Image Printing Software" with feature notes about 'optimization resolution for printers and the print' (only a side-bar talks about interpolation) While the engine is the best out there the core (or perhaps the roots) of the product is about ease of printing, layouts, multiple images on pages, batching, matching output resolution to printer, accurate color...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 04:39:49 PM by Alex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Owen Glendower
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2010, 06:26:00 PM » |
|
It's just PC envy Grin - Seriously, though, if I parse the statement, it reads to me as: "Qimage looks like a great application and I wish I could use it (but I don't have the right equipment)."
I don't necessarily see it as tiresome as much as I see this as being affirming. I set up my home office to process images and chose components to support the software. Since Qimage is an important application to my workflow... "It's just PC envy." Good one, Dennis! How about, "That's why I'll never have a Mac. It won't run Qimage." You're probably right, I was less than charitable in my remarks. I must admit that I have occasionally been irked when I've run across an interesting-sounding program only to learn--whoops--it's Mac only. But it seems like some Mac users go out of their way to point out programs which don't run on a Mac--especially since, last I saw, Macs had about a 4% market share. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MelW
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2010, 12:08:25 AM » |
|
I don't think I would call it upsizing, but I know that a number of people look at my portraits - and remark that they look lifelike - as if they could touch the person. Since I am certainly not that talented as a photographer, I credit Qimage, its interpolations, and smart-sharpening. I really don't think there's a better bargain. I have said this before in another forum, there are 3 equal partners in making my pictures, 1) my photographic equipment, 2)my computer and printing equipment, and 3)Qimage.
Thhe first of these equal partners is about $3000 investment, the second a bit more than half that, and you all know how much the third costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
