Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

I am using Qimage Studio Edition v2010-210.
I created and saved a Template (using size 16 font) in Qimage with only the  &N  from the displayed choices – so when used, the Template should  place only File Name on the Photo Image in the selected position.  Source Image is for 8 x 10 and template was created using the 8x10 size.  The Template was saved in the SAVE area along with other (tpl) files.

When I click Custom, Layout, and select the Template file:   File Name 8x10 16.tpl   then load an 8x10 image into Queue, it does not place the File Name on (or in) the image.
I have no ides what I may be doing wrong.  Any help or suggestions.
Is there other software necessary when using the various & items such as the above &N.

Other Templates I have prepared (using normal Text in the Template) have functioned properly.

It's actually $f (dollarf) for file name
You must use the Link To feature when using the image related information as text - it sounds like that is the problem.
See attached screen shots.
Hope that does it.
Terry

Thanks Terry, It must be related to the Link To that you mentioned
I will go back and try again.  I used the (Dollar N) for file name (without Extension) and of course the (Dollar f) is for file name with Extension

I have other software (such as ProShowGold that uses the (Dollar items) and their use is direct without and Link To.  I expect your suggestion will fix my reported issue and I will soon know after preparing another Template file.
Thank You again....

You would not expect Qimage to be the same as PSG because with Qimage it is possible to have multiple images on a page. It is quite logical to have "link-to" for those situations where you must specify which image the printed information relates to.
Terry

You are (of course correct) that functions are used differently in different software.
Some of my (past years) of Computer Programming using many Programming Languages helps me to fully understand this.

Prior to posting I reviewed everything in the latest Qimage User Guide as well as viewed the applicable Video files that are available for review and training and was not able to find anything relating to "how to use" the various features relating to the (Dollar Functions) so it certainly is good to have the Qimage Forum where helpful Members "fill in the gaps" if that is one way to describe.

Using your information, my new Template now works properly
Terry, Thanks for your help

Glad to hear you are "sorted"  ;)
In Help, under Q Functions or F1 with the Floating Text dialogue open, there's a paragraph called Linking Tip and it clearly says on the dialogue above the $ functions, "Special Text - linked text only, exc page#".
This is in Qimage Ultimate and I'm fairly sure it's no different from Q-Studio.
Terry

Terry, thanks for the info:
It may be in the Studio Edition but I did not find it.  I searched for  Linking Tip  , Linking,  Tip and viewed all the items in that area of Help and did not find.
I also (again) tried to find any applicable data in the user guide.
The main thing is that what you advised (in a previous post) worked for what I needed.

Usually I use any PDF type Manual since it is easy to search (or find) the subject of interest.

See attached screen shot from QU. I would have thought that is sufficient - if it's there in Studio. I've asked Fred if Studio is the same in this respect.
Help -Functions - Floating Text has a Linking Tips paragraph which strongly hints that linking is required.
I searched using "linking" and it came up straight away in the Help - you must display topics and then search on the text on rhs using CTRL F, standard Windows method.

Terry

Terry asked me to post this for you since I have Studio running on my machine.
Here's the same Floating text box from Studio.
The caveat is saying that you can link the preset texts except for Page numbering

Fred

Thanks Fred.  The original issue is that I did NOT have the "Link To" checked to use for the $ function I was testing.  Also, I never have found any information in the User Guide, Help, etc that discusses this feature must be used in order for the $ Functions to operate properly.
Terry advised regarding this being needed -- (not pertinent any more) but I still have not found any User Guide (or Help) that discusses this being required for using the $ items.

I got the normal Text added to images with no issue -- but when I started to try using the $ function for File Name (without Extension) this did not work until Terry advised what to use.

What Terry indicated (in his last reply) that is in his Qimage Ultimate: "Help -Functions - Floating Text has a Linking Tips paragraph which strongly hints that linking is required" is what I was looking for last since I rarely use the Help if and when I have the User Guide on my Hard Drive(s).

Is the above that Terry referred to in your Qimage Edition which is same I use?

Thanks again Fred....

You're welcome any time!
Maybe it's time to take the plunge to Ultimate?
Then we can do videos on a personal one on one basis, and everything will be up to date.

 :) ;) :D ;D 8)

Fred

Hello Fred,

I would like to find features that would justify my Change to The Ultimate Edition, however; so far – I have not found them.  That consideration is what initiated my research and inquiries.

Since both of the features that I contacted you several days ago by Email are in both the Studio and Ultimate Editions **AND** they appear to function the same in both, there is no incentive (so far) for me to change to the Ultimate Edition for these features.  There are many other features but most (or possibly all) of them are not applicable to my current needs.

Regarding entering  “Variable Text” while using the “Batch Filter screen to create Template(s)”:   
I had hoped when Mike included this feature (after my inquiry in Dec 2002) that he would also include provisions for Landscape and Portrait Orientation so the entered text would NOT be along the Vertical Side of the image for Portrait Oriented Images – and would provide the “Variable Text” to be at the bottom of the Portrait Oriented images to be the same as for Landscape oriented images without any intervention (or special/added processing) by the user.

In Programming Coding, this would be a rather basic thing to check for when the Height is (>=) greater than or equal to the WIDTH, the text would be placed at the bottom of the shorter image width.  Also, when Width is (>=) greater than or equal to the HEIGHT the text would be placed at the bottom of the wider image width – as it currently does this.

NOTE:  I have prepared Photoshop Actions (including Scripts) that process ALL Orientation images combined and without any special or added processing by the user.
However, this places the information (such as file name, etc) directly on (or in) the images and NOT with the same versatility of Qimage that place this in flt (Filter Files) which is a VERY good feature of Qimage.
_
Inclusion of this versatility would be best applied when placing images in the Queue and NOT during the preparation of the Template – meaning, only one template would be prepared but the template placement would be applied during the actual process of using the Template.

The method  (in Qimage) that you illustrated in your Video is the same method as used in the Studio Edition and both saves the Template file in the same “Save” folder.

The above “effectually” **NOW** requires Portrait and Landscape Images to be processed separately instead of being handled by the Qimage program that allowed BOTH orientations to be processed together and without any intervention (or special/added processing) by the user.

I have contacted Mike regarding this and I have not received his reply to my last email.  I prefer to allow adequate time for Mike to consider and that we **NOT **continue with a “long  Dissertation” in this Forum – since certainly Mike (without a doubt) has many things to consider along with priority for each.

My Regards,
Vernon….

You are absolutely correct in that we not waste any more effort on auto template orientation.
All I point out is how you can do the job, which I showed in the video.
If Mike finds enough 'calls' for the feature, or has reasons to implement or not implement, is totally up to Mike.


Here I heartily disagree.

There is far more than enough reason to upgrade to Ultimate than even the Tone Targeted Sharpening, and all the Raw refine features.
It's called SUPPORT!!
Not only does Mike put out a wonderful product with integrity for the product, but that integrity continues to the customers too.
You can see how Mike is working with the gentleman with the multiple profiles embedded. We all know that it isn't a Qimage bug. Yet he continued on to track down the problem even though the problem was *not* in his product.
Did we not all learn from this issue?
We learned who is Mike, and what is he made of!
That calls for support and loyalty in return.

You upgrade your Photoshop to the tune of multi hundreds. You support them. You do that every year.
You bought your Qimage (as per your own admission) in 2002. You probably bought a Studio last year, 2010.
It's just shy of 2012.... you do the math!!

So there's your reason to upgrade.
I tried to be tactful when I suggested in my previous post


But since you decided to poke me in the eye with a stick on why you don't want to, (you could have left it alone) I found it incumbent on myself to let you know how *I* and *OTHERS* feel on reasons to upgrade.

Now I promise, there will be no more posts from me on this issue.

Fred

+++ Hello Fred,  This post is certainly venturing into the area of OFF Topic but certainly is applicable.   My comments are preceded with +++ .

_____________
QUOTE:
I would like to find features that would justify my Change to The Ultimate Edition, however; so far – I have not found them.  That consideration is what initiated my research and inquiries.

Since both of the features that I contacted you several days ago by Email are in both the Studio and Ultimate Editions **AND** they appear to function the same in both, there is no incentive (so far) for me to change to the Ultimate Edition for these features.  There are many other features but most (or possibly all) of them are not applicable to my current needs.
______________

Here I heartily disagree.

There is far more than enough reason to upgrade to Ultimate than even the Tone Targeted Sharpening, and all the Raw refine features.
It's called SUPPORT!!
Not only does Mike put out a wonderful product with integrity for the product, but that integrity continues to the customers too.
You can see how Mike is working with the gentleman with the multiple profiles embedded. We all know that it isn't a Qimage bug. Yet he continued on to track down the problem even though the problem was *not* in his product.

Did we not all learn from this issue?
We learned who is Mike, and what is he made of!
That calls for support and loyalty in return.

+++ Fred, if this is the first time you have experienced situations that Mike has “went the extra Mile” to provide support – then, you have not been using Qimage quite as long I would have assumed.  I became aware of the Outstand Support supplied by Mike – MANY years ago and He has not changed regarding support and Commitment.  Certainly, (both you and I) should realize that Mike does not need a “Cheering Squad” since his “Track Record” has always been that of a “One of a Kind Professional” that was earned by Mike, Himself. 

You upgrade your Photoshop to the tune of multi hundreds. You support them. You do that every year. 

+++ NO, I do NOT upgrade to Photoshop (or any other Software) EVERY year.  I upgrade software when it has features that I need and/or are useful for me.  The same applies to purchases relating to Software, Computers, Printers; etc.  I have absolutely no intention to just “Keep up with the Jones” or to do something just because someone else has.  That may be your reason to upgrade but it should be obvious it is NOT my reason.  The 2002 you refer to was for the contact with Mike for the mentioned subject and NOT necessarily when I licensed and started using Qimage.
+++ In fact, during using and testing with the (then) Qimage Trial Version, (prior to licensing); I found images printed with Photoshop 7 to be sharper than when printing the same images with Qimage.  I communicated with Mike regarding this (including sample printed Photos for comparison) and thankfully this led to Mike making changes to include the excellent and improved Qimage sharpening method(s) to Qimage.  Then, after this enhancement; is when I paid the Licensing  fee and it WAS then and Continues to be (with my currently used Issue and version) my best software value and what I use to print ALL my photos.   Support (by Mike) has ALWAYS been excellent and without change. 
You bought your Qimage (as per your own admission) in 2002. You probably bought a Studio last year, 2010.
+++ I upgraded to the Studio Issue because (with my “then” new Computer) Qimage would execute somewhat faster.  That feature could not be used on my older Computers so I didn’t upgrade until getting the newer Computer.
It's just shy of 2012.... you do the math!!

So there's your reason to upgrade.

+++ That may be your reason to upgrade but it should be obvious it is NOT my reason.  Again, when I upgrade --  it will be for features that are useful for me.

I tried to be tactful when I suggested in my previous post
Quote
You're welcome any time!
Maybe it's time to take the plunge to Ultimate?
Then we can do videos on a personal one on one basis, and everything will be up to date.

But since you decided to poke me in the eye with a stick on why you don't want to, (you could have left it alone) I found it incumbent on myself to let you know how *I* and *OTHERS* feel on reasons to upgrade.

+++ You perhaps should have continued to be tactful instead of resorting to being rather Un-Tactful……..
+++ Your comment appears to be that of a rather young Juvenile and to be more specific (that of a spoiled Brat).  According to your Profile, you are NOT a Juvenile.  I don’t recognize even one paragraph that could be considered as    “Poking You or anyone else in the eye with a stick”.  Also, none of my comments were intended to do that. 
+++ Also, it may be worthy for you to considering to NOT expect others to accept things “exactly” as you do and to NOT be so offensive when others don’t think as you do.
Certainly, not everyone always agree or think as I do – or as you do. 

+++ It is good to be helpful as you (and selected others on the Qimage Forum are), however; suggest you try to be LESS offensive (or perhaps less defensive) when others are NOT agreeing with you or doing things the same or for the same reasons as you.  You apparently spend enough time (on the Forums) attempting to be helpful for others – so, try to be “slightly” more considerate plus less offensive and perhaps you will be just as helpful and also enjoy yourself. 

+++ I do hope you accept my comments as trying to encourage you to continue to be helpful but without thinking that “everyone” should (or will) have the same reasons (as you) for their choices. 

+++ I fail to believe that any of us frequent the Qimage Forum as a “Salesman” for Qimage.  In my opinion, Mike and his dedicated support handles this function immensely well. 

Now I promise, there will be no more posts from me on this issue.

+++ Vernon…. 

I would agree that my support alone is not a good reason for most to buy Ultimate.  One thing I am fairly sure about: most people who buy Qimage are interested in optimal quality prints.  If you take a look at the feature table that compares all the editions (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/features.htm), you'll see that Ultimate has an improved interpolation method that leads to sharper, more detailed prints and a completely new color engine that gives more accurate color via ICC profiles.  If more detailed prints with more accurate color isn't reason enough to buy Ultimate, probably nothing would be a good reason!

Mike

Mike, as far as I remember I don't believe I have mentioned in any of my posts that I have NOT (yet) downloaded Ultimate trial and actually tested the features you mentioned.   I viewed (several Months ago) the Comparative features Table. 
However, my beginning review has been items that I (some time ago) communicated interest in being added to Qimage and this is before Ultimate was issued.

So far, I find one was added (Mouse Over thumb to display FULL file name).  I actually didn't know it had been added since I had always used 800 x 600 (because of on screen text size, etc) since my vision is not "the best".  I was advised (a few days ago) that it was visible when using 1024 x 720 (or above) since it was at lower part of the displayed screen and NOT visible when using 800 x 600.

The other that I emailed you during the past week or two Variable Text (and Cutouts)  "placement" (such as file Name)  with both Landscape and Portrait being processed together without effectively having to process Portrait Oriented images separate form Landscape.

Based on our previous correspondence, I expect you already know that I want the best possible printed Photos.  I must confess that it is difficult (for me) to understand how my printed photos can be better than what Qimage Studio produces.
I will test this when I get to that Phase of my Review.
 
Do any of the features (in Ultimate) provide for the Soft Proof function being improved.
This was discussed (with you and others) some time ago (as far as I remember) on the Quimage Forum.
I don’t use Soft Proof in Qimage since it really (for me) is of little help due to being somewhat different (such as the image being pail) and provides very little assistance for evaluating images before printing – so (when needed) I have continued to select a portion of the image to print using same information as used for the final and complete image.

Also, the print preview images (in Studio) many times are a VERY unusual color.  Has this been addressed in Ultimate to (at least) somewhat resemble the colors of the normal displayed image and/or the printed Photo.  I know the overall purpose of the Print Preview image but it would be better if improved.

Vernon….

Just try to remember, you are not the only user.  This is not a per-user customization party we have going here.  I was simply pointing out that you can get better resolution and color from Ultimate.  That's usually enough for most people.

As for the soft proof, the soft proof is as accurate as they get.  If you search through other threads, you'll find where Adobe doesn't do soft proofing properly.  Example: they don't know how to do proofing or profiling in a proper manner when going from and to profiles that have different illuminants when using absolute colorimetric intent.  Also, as you should know from my previous articles on the subject, soft proofing is not the panacea that some people make it out to be.  If you want to see how something is going to look, you need to print it!  Having said that, there are plenty of people who still use soft proofing to get a general idea of color and saturation, and you are the only user to ever claim that it doesn't work properly.  It does.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with the previews either, with respect to color or any other aspect.  Again, no one else is having a problem.  All of the previews, even the small/draft ones like the preview page are fully color managed and accurate.  Now, if you've identified an improper profile or you had a faulty monitor profile enabled when you first build your thumbnails, you may need to rebuild thumbs after correcting the problem.  Don't know if that's what you are seeing (the need to rebuild thumbs) but that's the only way you'll get inaccurate color.

Mike

You don't mean the DRIVER print preview by any chance? That is always wrong when using colour management, because it isn't managed.
Just checking  ;)
Terry

Your Comment:  “Just try to remember, you are not the only user. This is not a per-user customization party we have going here. “

I wonder what part of my posts or Emails prompted your above comment.  Obviously, I should have realized during all the years of using Qimage that all the Nice and useful Features (that I use) in Qimage were included just for me – [Grin]….

Perhaps, what “triggered” your comment was my Email inquiry to you during the past week or two regarding Variable Text (and Cutouts)  "placement" (such as file Name)  with both Landscape and Portrait being processed together without effectively having to process Portrait Oriented images separate form Landscape.
Is what “triggered” your comment.

As previously mentioned:
I have prepared Photoshop Actions (including Scripts) that process ALL Orientation images combined and without any special or added processing by the user.
However, this places the information (such as file name, etc) directly on (or in) the images and NOT with the same versatility of Qimage that place this in flt (Filter Files) which is a VERY good feature of Qimage.

Regarding Soft Proofing in Qimage:  I have again reviewed all the information that I had done previously and it appears even more obvious that what I have been doing (as needed) over the past many years is to print an image (or selected parts of an image) for evaluation instead of trying to use the Soft Proof function to be of value for me to evaluate an image – prior to printing.

You indicate (in one of your articles) that my inquiry is a GENERAL complaint about soft proofing and has nothing to do with Qimage: it's simply a weakness of soft proofing.  You also indicate: As for the soft proof, the soft proof is as accurate as they get.  If so, evidently accurate (as they get) is all you can do with it in Qimage.
 
Also, based on your present comments, Soft Proofing in Qimage has not changed in the latest Qimage Ultimate to be any different than in Studio that I use.  So, please (if you have not already done so) just drop my comments and/or inquiry regarding Soft proof in the “Waste Basked” since I will not be using (or commenting) on it in the future.


Your comments:
“Finally, there is nothing wrong with the previews either, with respect to color or any other aspect.  Again, no one else is having a problem.  All of the previews, even the small/draft ones like the preview page are fully color managed and accurate.  Now, if you've identified an improper profile or you had a faulty monitor profile enabled when you first build your thumbnails, you may need to rebuild thumbs after correcting the problem.  Don't know if that's what you are seeing (the need to rebuild thumbs) but that's the only way you'll get inaccurate color”.

++++
Mike, perhaps you missed ONE word (PRINT) for Print Preview in my post.  This “PRINT Preview” image is what many times displays somewhat different colors.
I have observed many comments regarding this in the last several years – so I am NOT the only one noticing this.

I believe you may have commented regarding other type displays for images such as Thumbnails, Image in Queue display, or perhaps the image displayed in the Editor.  I observe NO issue with any of these.
Instead, I am discussing the “PRINT Preview” image.  Certainly, I have NO idea if this is “controlled” by Qiamage or is a function of the Print Driver.

Terry’s last post has some helpful information regarding the PRINT Preview being discussed. 
+++++++

My Regards to ALL,
Vernon….
 

For Terry:
Thanks for your help.  Please see the last part of my previous post.
It appears (to me) that you have "pointed out" the issue regarding Print Preview.
My Regards,  Vernon....