|
Terry-M
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2009, 05:04:07 PM » |
|
Whatever floats your boat, I'm not telling my answer to that  Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2009, 05:38:40 PM » |
|
I'm not telling my answer to that Grin
There is another answer you know. Instead of trying to get teh Qimage author to rework Qimage to better interface with Lightroom, one could ask Lighttroom to purchase the Qimage print engine. That would be equally effective.  :-\ Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gnits
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2009, 06:11:50 PM » |
|
There is another option (but I have done a bad job previously of trying to explain this to Mike in a direct email. Let me try again).
If Mike developed a Qimage plug-in for Lightroom !!!!!!
Before people go crazy with this idea, let me expand a little bit.
Imagine a Qimage Export Plug-In for Lightroom which allowed the user to;
a. Select images (raw or tiff or jpg)....standard Lightroom functionality
b. Select from Qimage a template or job or printer set up.
Hit the Export button in Lightroom.
Boom.......Qimage opens up with all of the selected images already populated in a Qimage que, with templates and printer settings in place. Nirvana.
The advantage of the Plug-In structure is that it would allow Mike to open up a dialogue box to select required parameters to send to Qimage (ie template or job or printer or size). This creates Qimage inside of Lightroom.
This would achieve the streamlined workflow I was looking for earlier.
Now pause to consider the following.
Mike does not have to develop the plug-in. He has it already developed and it works (if you use the 3rd party application feature of Lightroom. I am now using this feature every day. All Mike needs to do is package it into a plug in using the available Lightroom SDK. I was afraid to try the 3rd pary application bit before, but picked up how to on this forum. It works a treat.
What are the advantages for Mike.
He can now market a Lightroom Plug In.
He can sell a Lightroom plug-in... so garner real revenue.
He could decide to make it a feature of say the Studio Version to add value to Studio version sales.
He could use it as a marketing tool for Qimage.
Open up the massive global Lightroom market to Qimage, so extra Qimage sales.
He has the plug-in already, it just needs to be packaged as a plug-in.
I monitor most of the Lightroom blogs and discussions. Let me be the first to say that Lightroom has strengths, but also considerable weaknesses. I can give you a long list as I am very familiar with the tool for volume use. Specifically, there is major grief with the short comings in the Lightroom Print Module, so there is a market for real printing functionality that would work seamlessly with Lightroom. Qimage is that product.
What are the advantages for Qimage users.
No change if you do not use Lightroom.
No change if you do not use jobs or templates.
Major gains in workflow if you use Lightroom and love Qimage.
There are overlaps in both products (eg Raw/Printing), but there is also massive synergies (ie there not mutually exclusive).
Let me step back now for a while. I am very interested in the response.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2009, 07:46:59 PM » |
|
There are some things already in the cross-hairs that will make things easier. Ability to have layouts in the size dropdown is one of them. That's one of those things that has sunk to the bottom of the barrel and hasn't bubble back up from there because people rarely ever request that feature.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2009, 08:57:09 PM » |
|
I could say have you tried asking the Lightroom programmers to reduce the number of clicks in their program, but of course, we don’t expect such things from the “big name” software companies.
Actually, Terry, that is NOT a true statement. Chris Cox and several of the other Adobe programmers both get onto and monitor the Photoshop discussion lists. AND, they take things back as I have seen some show up in updates/upgrades. Nikon and Canon do likewise. Posted on: July 21, 2009, 18:46:05Posted by: Fred A
Actually, you would be asking the programmer to change a lot of code to save you two mouse clicks.
As I think about it, that's not a fair deal. Fred- I, too, have an IT background in a former life. Although not a programmer, (I hate it but respect) I was a Systems Engineer in both the IBM and Apple side. Your statement may or may not be correct, but how do you know how much code it would take? It depends what language it is done in; and, it may bhe just a boilerplate insertion. Seth |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2009, 08:59:15 PM » |
|
It may be just a few clicks, but if you use a lot of layouts in a production environment they soon add up. Ditto. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2009, 09:15:08 PM » |
|
I don't intend to get into a QI/Adobe contest, any more than I like PC/MAC battles.
I have always said that QI and PS are two different animals. I tell MANY more people they need to be using QI for printing.
"Fill light" in QI was recently changed from "Gamma," which is what it is. However, it is not a cure all. Learning to use the midtone slider in Levels is just as important to image quality since Gamma alone can do some deadly things.
Those not using selective dodging, burning, local tone adjustment, History Brush, etc. are losing some options. (NO, Mike, I am NOT asking for those in QI!) Photomatrix (though I do not own it) has its place for HDRI also. One does not reach nirvana (if it's reachable) with any of these programs alone. Anyone without any experience with another product really has no credibility talking about that product. IMHO, saying that any one of these programs is the end to a means is nuts.
Anybody that thinks good enough is good enough is not REALLY producing the best quality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2009, 10:01:28 PM » |
|
There is another option (but I have done a bad job previously of trying to explain this to Mike in a direct email. Let me try again).
If Mike developed a Qimage plug-in for Lightroom !!!!!! I have no intention of making Qimage, an application that already has vastly more printing functionality than Lightroom, subservient to Lightroom and therefore bound by its many limitations. This would be a poor business decision for many reasons, but these should be enough: - Qimage gets much of its functionality from the fact that it is its own application, can browse/organize jobs, thumbnails, albums, etc. Crippling Qimage by making it a "back end" for an interface that simply wasn't designed for efficient batch processing would remove one of the biggest benefits of Qimage.
- Qimage is already bound by Windows limitations such as RAM. Now you want to limit it further by loading a memory hog on top of it.
- Adobe doesn't support my programming language in their SDK.
- Fiddling with plug-in code will amount to almost as much work as porting Qimage to another language. I know many people who won't want me to spend my time trying to figure out how to nurse an Adobe product with my code, taking valuable time from real development.
- As others have pointed out, you can already send photos from Lightroom to Qimage and get the full functionality of Qimage without being limited by a third party SDK.
Honestly, Adobe is just starting to dabble in some of the things I did a decade ago like non-destructive filters, output sharpening, batch importing and renaming, etc. so staying the course and not getting mired up in smaller distractions makes sense. A lot of people are looking for a way to batch process/print photos for a reasonable price. There are two target audiences for Qimage. The people who have already paid $700 for PhotoShop, $300 for Lightroom, and hundreds more on print sharpening plugins don't mind paying another $89.95 to get the best print output and printing options available. On the other hand, for the non-pros who don't want to spend $300 on a glorified raw converter that can't print (I say that because that's how many of the non-pros use it), Qimage is an attractive option as well. Bottom line: Being a one man show has it's advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that I get to stay on top of things and provide better service. The down side is that I don't have time to dabble in the "lesser" things that might make some income like plugins. I have to stick with the biggest hitters and right now, that's still a standalone program. Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DdeGannes
Full Member
Posts: 175
Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.
|
|
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2009, 11:29:21 PM » |
|
I support Mike's position. LR's print module is trying to play catchup.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 11.2.3; 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2009, 11:37:54 PM » |
|
I have no intention of making Qimage, an application that already has vastly more printing functionality than Lightroom, subservient to Lightroom and therefore bound by its many limitations. Amen. As others have pointed out, you can already send photos from Lightroom to Qimage and get the full functionality of Qimage without being limited by a third party SDK. Although I am not a phone of Lightroom (cumbersome!) I do just as you say with CS3. I still use the full editor for final "tweaks" such as color shift, contrast, some levels adjustments, etc. It's a life saver. There are two target audiences for Qimage. The people who have already paid $700 for PhotoShop, $300 for Lightroom, and hundreds more on print sharpening plugins don't mind paying another $89.95 to get the best print output and printing options available. IMO, QI is a complemental program to PS. I am glad you will stay the course. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
gnits
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2009, 01:57:31 PM » |
|
My objective in starting the thread was to find a more efficient way to process templates. My specific focus was to be able to - Start Qimage with a default template (ie one I select )
- More easily change from one template to another with the min no of clicks.
As is normal in any thread, we have veered in a few directions incl (raw / jpg), (Adobe / Qimage) and then into (Qimage +/-, plug-ins etc). I would like to close this discussion with the comments that I feel Mike understands my request, I have got and use some very good suggestions, the idea of using the size button has been suggested and may be an option and look forward to ongoing evolution of the product. Yours sincerely. Thanks for all the feedback. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sunnyk
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2009, 01:49:43 AM » |
|
I have ask this question before on yahoo groups, but didn't really get any way to work it out.
The problem is I have a hp z3100 and using 24 inch paper, I have created a 11x24 page(for ease of handling in the cutter), but would like to be able to put more than one predefined layout on the page. When I try this it automatically creates a second page, which is a pain. feeding 8x10 sheets on this is out of the question. I don't have an 11inch roll either but probably should. Are there any work arounds, I have tried creating my own layouts but it is such a hassle to get the little boxes all lined up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2009, 08:14:59 AM » |
|
I can't help with your main question but: I have tried creating my own layouts but it is such a hassle to get the little boxes all lined up. You can use the arrow keys when in the Full Page Editor and CTRL Arrow will align a print or template with another on the page. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JohnF
Newbie
Posts: 22
|
|
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2009, 11:13:39 AM » |
|
A most interesting thread, discussed amicably and sensibly. Thank you all
John
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
