Relation between Monitor profile and Printer profile

[on30trainman]

stratman,
Rather than use the "quote", I copied and pasted the pertinent questions and will answer each:

Once you alter and save an image, can you open it and peel away the alterations made, or is the altered file once saved no longer capable of being taken stepwise back to its original state?

Yes you can load in the edited picture, right click on the image in the main window (not in the thumbnail view) and then select Delete Associative Filter(s). Probably can just delete the .flt file associated with the picture - should work but I have never tried it yet.

Also, while working with the original file, are there any steps in the work flow that once done are impossible to undo (destructive editing) without starting over from scratch with the original image?

Don't think so - you hit Done when finished then the save option comes up. Before you save, you should be able to step back on any changes you make as long as you kind of remember what they are.

Last, are you using any other image manipulation software besides Qimage?

As I mentioned - Corel Photo Paint - used it for years before I found QImage. Have played around with some low priced or freeware/shareware programs also. So far I like QImage best. Once you buy it you get free updates for life - at least I think so. Or as long as the program exists. Mike Cheney updates the program quite often - mostly minor changes but sometimes a biggie. Corel Photo Paint has much more function, but for what I need to work on photos, QImage works for me.

Hopes this helps - Steve W.

 

[stratman]

Grandad35 and on30trainman:

Thanks for the detailed posts!

I downloaded the demo of Qimage and the Canon test images. I followed the instructions and turned off "final print sharpening" in Qimage but was unable to find "Custom" and "Use original/embedded size" when adding the test image to the queue. The "restest.tif" image I printed out using Qimage on plain paper and the results were quite nice even for the 600 PPI sections. Then I tried the "restest-photo.jpg" of the insect and ran into some difficulties. First, Qimage listed the image as having less than 600 PPI which I thought it was supposed to be. Then I couldn't get Qimage to print out the 4"x6" image completely onto 4"x6" photopaper. From what I did see, the results looked good but I couldn't differentiate between the PPI's.

At first blush, the controls of Qimage, while not exactly intuitive, may be a bit more intuitive than Adobe Lightroom. Qimage has a LOT available considering the cost of the software. I need to work with it for a few days to get a better idea.

What are you using Qimage for: Interpolation, contact sheets, white balance, luminance, red eye removal, etc? Reason I ask is that you both have image editing software which Qimage duplicates some of those functions. What does Qimage do for you that Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo Paint don't, or, what does Qimage do better?

 

[Grandad35]

What are you using Qimage for: Interpolation, contact sheets, white balance, luminance, red eye removal, etc? Reason I ask is that you both have image editing software which Qimage duplicates some of those functions. What does Qimage do for you that Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo Paint don't, or, what does Qimage do better?

I do all of my photo editing in Photoshop, and use Qimage only for printing. Most of my printing is 4x6 images, printed 3 to a sheet of 8.5x11 photo paper. I can set up to batch print an entire set of images in only a few seconds with Qimage, and let it process the images in background. I don't know about Lightroom, but this isn't easy to do with Photoshop. I also occasionally have the need to print contact sheets, 5x7, 8x10 or 12x18 shots, and this is quite easy with Qimage.

Take a sharp image, downres it to 50 ppi in Photoshop (e.g. 200x300 pixels for a 4x6), and print it at 4x6 with both Photoshop and Qimage. This is an extreme example and a bit unfair, since the Qimage version will automatically be upres'd (select Hybrid) while the Photoshop version will not, but the point is that Qimage does this with no additional effort on your part. I like the idea that my prints always appear to contain the maximum possible detail.

There are obviously other photo printing packages that are easier to use than Photoshop, but how many of them are "color aware" and can use custom profiles?

 

[stratman]

Grandad35:

I rarely have the need to print contact sheets since most everything I print is for personal consumption and soft proofing is all I would usually need. I print single images typically 8x10 to 4x6.

Qimage looks geared to multiple images on a single page. Can I use it to print single images on borderless 4x6 paper to gain any benefit from its interpolation algorithm? (Ditto for 5x7 and 8x10 images)

I can already manipulate images without using Qimage's filters. So I'm trying to figure out how/what Qimage is going to add to my workflow or final product.

 

[Grandad35]

.... most everything I print is for personal consumption and soft proofing is all I would usually need

You should be able to soft proof directly in Photoshop once your system is calibrated - that's why they call it "soft" proofing (http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/proofs/g/digitalproof.htm). If your final output is generated on something other than your printer, even a "digital proof" from your printer may not be an accurate representation of the final print (it's likely that they have different color gamuts).

Qimage looks geared to multiple images on a single page. Can I use it to print single images on borderless 4x6 paper to gain any benefit from its interpolation algorithm? (Ditto for 5x7 and 8x10 images)

Yes - it will do all of the above.

So I'm trying to figure out how/what Qimage is going to add to my workflow or final product.

If you only print single images on a single sheet of paper and batch printing isn't a requirement, you don't need Qimage. Improved interpolation on proofs is probably not of much value.

 

[stratman]

If you only print single images on a single sheet of paper and batch printing isn't a requirement, you don't need Qimage. Improved interpolation on proofs is probably not of much value.

This has been my perception. The only question left is whether Qimage's interpolation algorithm (automatic upresolution) is enough to justify using it for printing of my 4x6 to 8x10 single images on single pieces of paper.

I suppose for heavily cropped images that Qimage's interpolation would be useful. Do you find it so? Would you purchase it just for that reason?

 

[Grandad35]

The only question left is whether Qimage's interpolation algorithm (automatic upresolution) is enough to justify using it for printing of my 4x6 to 8x10 single images on single pieces of paper.

I suppose for heavily cropped images that Qimage's interpolation would be useful. Do you find it so? Would you purchase it just for that reason?

I took a 100x100 pixel crop of my granddaughter's hair, and presented it in 3 versions below. To view this comparison properly, you have to load it into Photoshop and display it at "100%" (Keyboard shortcut=Control-Alt-0) to eliminate aliasing errors.

Top - upres'd to 600 pixels using "Nearest Neighbor" in PS. This is what the Canon printer driver does when it is sent an image at other than 600 ppi, and is what would be printed if the image wasn't upres'd before printing (typical of most people's workflow).
Middle - upres'd to 600 pixels using "Bicubic Sharper" in PS. To make a "best case" comparison, we have to assume that you would upres each of your images with PS if you did not have Qimage.
Bottom - upres'd to 600 pixels using Qimage's "Hybrid" setting. Note that the color is slightly different in this one because it was processed through my printer's icc profile (because the file is meant to be sent directly to the printer). Upres'ing an image in this manner is transparent to the user once the program is configured.


Clearly, the middle and bottom images are better than the original - I leave it to you to judge which version is better. Since you have already downloaded the Qimage demo, do the same test on one of your own photos, printing the original (low res version) directly to Qimage and PS and then upres'ing and printing through PS (with all 3 versions printed at the same final print size).

Note that there are other interpolation programs that claim to be even better, but I have no experience with them (e.g. http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2.

 

[mikling]

I have tried Genuine Fractals in the demo to compare it against Qimage. It was superior in certain pictures to Qimage but fell short in some. I found that when there are curves and lines that stand out, I preferred Genuine Fractals. My comparison was limited, but I think it was a draw overall. Genuine Fractals, I found to be clearly superior when there was a massive ( 6+ increase in uprezzing..... but who does that anymore?) that Qimage couldn't quite pull off. YMMV depending on the image chosen.

What is evident though is that as digicams capture multimegapixels (6+) as a normal thing today, the requirement for Qimage uprezzing is fading and quickly too. As we approach 10 megapixels , the requirement will decrease furthermore.

Photoshop focuses on manipulating one image at a time from a set, Qimage allows outputting and controlling the printing of multiple images with hardly any restrictions from that set. Lightroom is meant to extract the best pictures from your DSLR, create a set, and if desired, output that set either to an electronic display or print.

The overlaps are a matter of convenience to polish off each package but the core mission of each package is really different in my view.

Qimage print functionality ought to be a plug-in for Lightroom or a version made for it. If Adobe or some other third party upgrades the print module in Lightroom then Qimage as a standalone will no longer be attractive.

 

[Grandad35]

I would add the comment that Qimage is the only printing package that I am aware of that can automatically upres to the printer's native ppi (600 for Canon, 720 for Epson). Even when starting with a sharp 300 ppi image, the print made with Qimage is slightly sharper than a print made using the printer's driver to upres. This results in a very large file being sent to the printer (ca 80 megs for an 8x10), but with today's high speed printer communication it isn't a problem.

The 600/720 ppi values aren't normally published (unlike the touted "dpi" values), so it would seem that Canon and Epson must think that these higher native resolutions have a benefit.

Obviously, this feature could be added to any of the other packages.

Qimage would still be attractive for those who don't use Lightroom or PS.

 

[stratman]

Genuine Fractals turns me off because it requires .NET to work, so, I won't be demoing it.

Qimage does improve output slightly over Photoshop's bicubic sharpener in your example Grandad35. I need to try your printing challenge.

Thanks for the detailed discussion guys! The differences in the programs are not always apparent at first blush.