Qimage

Absoblinkinglutely, especially if using roll paper or large format sheets, but even if not it is def worth the money.
The new Qimage Ultimate is more intuitive menu wise and now I have that as well as the prev studio version I only use the ultimate.
The repeat fee for ultimate seems to lock you in but you do not have to pay it yearly, just whenever you wish to update to whatever the latest version is after first year.
HTH
 
Yes!
 
Yes. Weird interface though.

Haven't tried the Ultimate - don't like the pricing structure
 
john-oh said:
Yes. Weird interface though.

Haven't tried the Ultimate - don't like the pricing structure
Click to expand...

As I said above, the interface is much improved and the pricing structure is not bad really, after all how can we expect himto update it for nothing?

Seems fair enough to me that you can pay a quarter of the price anytime in the future to get bang up to date again, after all $19.99 is not bad for a years worth of updates when you can choose the year period at will?

Also currently, he gives you all the raw profiles free, which used to cost several hundred dollars to buy, so at the moment I would say it is the best value around and I don't think you can find anything to compete with it without adding at least one zero to the price ;)
 
Yes, to be fair, the guys got to eat, so Qimage was (is) a bargain.

I might try ultimate, but to be honest I'm not sure I need the extra features at the moment.
 
POAH said:
I print with photoshop and I've never come across anything that I can't do with it
Click to expand...

When you print using a good rip you will be astonished by the difference in prints, i don't use qimage, but Colorbytes imageprint rip, that's expensive but well worth the money.

As proper rips bypass the crap interfaces and drivers built by adobe and canon or epson hp etc much more control can be had over the printer and what it does as it communicates directly with the printer.
 
B1ts said:
Absoblinkinglutely, especially if using roll paper or large format sheets, but even if not it is def worth the money.
The new Qimage Ultimate is more intuitive menu wise and now I have that as well as the prev studio version I only use the ultimate.
The repeat fee for ultimate seems to lock you in but you do not have to pay it yearly, just whenever you wish to update to whatever the latest version is after first year.
HTH
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
mho said:
When you print using a good rip you will be astonished by the difference in prints, i don't use qimage, but Colorbytes imageprint rip, that's expensive but well worth the money.

As proper rips bypass the crap interfaces and drivers built by adobe and canon or epson hp etc much more control can be had over the printer and what it does as it communicates directly with the printer.
Click to expand...



my prints match my screen what more do I need
 
"My prints match my screen what more do i need" is a very nieve way of looking at your print process.

You will get better tonal graduation, and separation, better application of the rendering intents, along with an ink saving, vastly improved b&w printing, the rip will also raster fonts better, and will interpolate an image better than photoshop or any other pre print program can as it will do this exactly for the desired print size and in a way the printer expects to see the data unlike how this data is handled from a program like photoshop acrobat or indesign. They get the full capabilities out of your files and equipment, using any Epson pro printer without a good rip is like getting half the performance out of the equipment.

Just some of the benefits from using a rip.
 
don't see how it is nieve. my prints match what I see on the screen. the images are sharp, they look good. spending more money on a program thats not going to make the images visably better is not worth the money.

I don't print documents with my photoprinter so I have no need for rastering fonts better and I use a CIS so have substantial ink savings already. I have used Qimage and its not as easy to use as my current work flow, there is no difference in prints (I don't use a loupe). I have no need to print several different print sizes on one sheet or roll.


So for me using Qimage is not worth the money. It may be for someone else though which I'm not disputing.

mho said:
"My prints match my screen what more do i need" is a very nieve way of looking at your print process.

You will get better tonal graduation, and separation, better application of the rendering intents, along with an ink saving, vastly improved b&w printing, the rip will also raster fonts better, and will interpolate an image better than photoshop or any other pre print program can as it will do this exactly for the desired print size and in a way the printer expects to see the data unlike how this data is handled from a program like photoshop acrobat or indesign. They get the full capabilities out of your files and equipment, using any Epson pro printer without a good rip is like getting half the performance out of the equipment.

Just some of the benefits from using a rip.
Click to expand...
 
Its good to see that many photographers value a good RIP - and its good that their experiences can help others
 
POAH - each to their own.

But a rip will help give you better detail, better tonal graduation, and ultimately a better final print.

Snappingsam - I find the colorbyte imageprint rip one of the best pieces of kit i have in my digital system, just as important as everything else, i wouldnt print without it.
 
mho said:
POAH - each to their own.

But a rip will help give you better detail, better tonal graduation, and ultimately a better final print.

Snappingsam - I find the colorbyte imageprint rip one of the best pieces of kit i have in my digital system, just as important as everything else, i wouldnt print without it.
Click to expand...



but ultimately if I can't tell the difference its not worth it.

the OP should give the trial verson ago and see if he likes it. no point taking mine or your word for it
 
mho - I use studioimage - and some really specialist custom stuff - but have helped a number of photographers set up - and qimage has been a real boost to their throughput as well as to the visible print quality
 
POAH said:
but ultimately if I can't tell the difference its not worth it.
Click to expand...

so your proclaiming yourself the master of printing ?.;) :lol:

like i said each to their own.
 
mho said:
using any Epson pro printer without a good rip is like getting half the performance out of the equipment
Click to expand...

As Poah has suggested, would I actually see an improvement in my prints if I try out a print RIP.
I get great quality prints from my Epson Pro3800 and printing with Photoshop.
What improvements in print quality would I actually be able to see and is it really worth all the time to learn how to use another piece of software?
 
18% - you can normally download the software - and try for free - you'll get a watermark so the image is not usable - but you'll be able to see the difference in the output. You might need to set aside an evening or two to fully appreciate. You might need to make a custome profile to get the best too...
 
For me - it was very worth it. It has an absolutely fantastic way of getting multiple smaller prints on larger paper.

The queuing fornmultiple pages is excellent too.

Can be difficult to get the hang of though.
 
snappingsam said:
18% - you can normally download the software - and try for free - you'll get a watermark so the image is not usable - but you'll be able to see the difference in the output. You might need to set aside an evening or two to fully appreciate. You might need to make a custome profile to get the best too...
Click to expand...

Thanks David for advice. I've downloaded the trial version of Ultmate and I will watch a few of the on-line video tutorials later.
 
Image RIPs can cost thousands to buy.... and yet QImage is pennies by comparison.

The Hybrid SE interpolation is also fantastic.
Biggest print I've made with it was 90x32 (inches). Photoshop plain refused (see below).


POAH said:
I print with photoshop and I've never come across anything that I can't do with it
Click to expand...
Photoshop has a lower size/pixel limitation (see above)

QImage also lets you batch process images which is particularly useful if you print from an autofeeder or rolls of media.

The Hybrid SE Algorithms are better than bicubic interpolation
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/qimage.html

It lets you save print jobs.
So what right? ;) Say you have a catalogue of images that you print when one is ordered. You're 2 clicks away from selecting the right papersize, layout, ICC profiles, printer setup, rendering and so on for each of your archived images.

It has an easy layout interface to maximise your paper space. Lightroom can do that too, but QImage is faster and costs only $89.

I could go on....

All I know is that it's saved my butt a few times when PS couldn't cope, it costs pennies and saves me a huge amount of time from faffing about in LR or PS when QImage just does it better. Still takes a bit of time to learn, but I know it now and it was time well spent
 
Last edited:
callumw said:
The Hybrid SE interpolation is also fantastic.
Biggest print I've made with it was 90x32 (inches). Photoshop plain refused (see below).

depends on your printer. you can't print longer than 37.5 inches on an epson pro 3800 with Qimage since it still uses the printers own drivers. photoshop can fail because your computer can't handle the size of the image.

Photoshop has a lower size/pixel limitation (see above)

QImage also lets you batch process images which is particularly useful if you print from an autofeeder or rolls of media.

The Hybrid SE Algorithms are better than bicubic interpolation
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/qimage.html

one image is sharp with jaggies, the other is soft without jaggies. its also a hugely magnified image and not a true representation of real life viewing.

It lets you save print jobs.
So what right? ;) Say you have a catalogue of images that you print when one is ordered. You're 2 clicks away from selecting the right papersize, layout, ICC profiles, printer setup, rendering and so on for each of your archived images.

It has an easy layout interface to maximise your paper space. Lightroom can do that too, but QImage is faster and costs only $89.

I could go on....

All I know is that it's saved my butt a few times when PS couldn't cope, it costs pennies and saves me a huge amount of time from faffing about in LR or PS when QImage just does it better. Still takes a bit of time to learn, but I know it now and it was time well spent
Click to expand...



I'm not saying Qimage is not worth it for some people - the amature printer than does not need these functions its not worth it. if you do need them, then yes it is worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top