Will Qimage Improve My Prints?

PR
Posted By
PS_Rookie
Apr 26, 2004
Views
1301
Replies
46
Status
Closed
Background:
I’m strictly an amateur and I’ve been using PS701 for about a year, strictly for generating prints of my 35mm slides & negs. I’m using a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III and a Canon i950 printer. About 80% of my printing is on letter-size paper (I bring my file to Costco when I want anything larger).

Question:
I happened upon Yahoo’s Qimage group forum and from what I’m reading over there, Qimage sounds like photo-printing’s Holy Grail. So I’d like to ask you guys and gals who know – if I were to just use PS for editing and then import the edited file into Qimage for printing, would that likely improve the prints I now generate from PS?

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

CC
Chris_Cox
Apr 26, 2004
If you’re printing them correctly, no.
P
photobug
Apr 27, 2004
Well, I’m sure that Chris has forgotten more about Photoshop than I will ever learn, but I have to disagree with him on this. Before downloading a Qimage demo and taking their quality test, I had no idea what I was missing (I wound up buying a copy a week after trying it)!

Besides the many Qimage manipulation features, there’s no question in my mind that when printing from Qimage my prints are simply better than printing from Photoshop! Rather than my attempting to explain why this is so, I suggest that you visit…
<http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/>
where the developer explains why no image-editor can deliver comparable print-quality. Then to prove to yourself that it’s not just sales-hype, take their free quality challenge.

Btw, besides being a satisfied Qimage user, I have no association with the developer or his company.
CC
Chris_Cox
Apr 27, 2004
Sorry, but all of that can be done in Photoshop.
RL
roger_leale
Apr 27, 2004
I agree with photobug. Not only is the quality of most prints better but there is no need to resize pictures in Photoshop before printing. In Qimage it is only necessary to select the size that you want the print to be and Qimage will print it that size, from contact size up to poster. The only drawback I find is that there always seems to be another free update available. !!
PR
PS_Rookie
Apr 28, 2004
Photobug and Roger, thanks much for your inputs. It’s somewhat confusing to get mixed feedback (ie., yours and Chris’), although I suppose that’s to be expected. 😉

Anyhow, I just downloaded the demo version and as soon as I think I know what I’m doing (the interface is really different!), I guess I’ll see for myself if it indeed can produce better prints than PS701.
P
photobug
Apr 28, 2004
PSR: Roger failed to mention the reason he and other Qimage users ‘suffer’ through frequent updates is because the developer is very responsive to user requests for new features (btw, those updates are free forever)!

Jesting aside, you have quickly discovered what I consider to be Qimage’s Achilles heel… a cluttered interface.
CC
Chris_Cox
Apr 30, 2004
Roger – again, that can be done just as easily in Photoshop’s Print with Preview dialog.
MS
Mike_Saxon
May 2, 2004
Re: Chris Cox #3 "Sorry, but all of that can be done in Photoshop."

I use PSCS for most printing needs, but there are certain layout situations for which I prefer Qimage’s automation – which cannot be done as easily using the PSCS Contact Sheet II or Picture Package:

(1) Producing multiple contact sheets using the Folder Name as Page header or footer, and the file name WITHOUT extension, as thumbnail caption, e.g. The thumbnail of name.jpg would be captioned "name"

(2) Multiple images with different sizes and orientations, laid out over several sheets to optimize the paper space. Qimage is very good at automatically fitting as many images as it can on to one page, whereas Picture Package only automates the standard ‘school photo package’ templates; others have to be done manually, or using layers manually.

But for one image per page, I am quite happy with PS Print with Preview, and have no problems with the quality aspect from high res originals.

Mike
PC
Pierre_Courtejoie
May 2, 2004
Mike, you can automate a lot of things in Photoshop… we have actiosn for titling our contact sheets…
DZ
Dan_Zimmerman
May 3, 2004
Not everyone gets the same results from using Qimage. Most will find it better than PS, some will not. Not sure what causes the difference in test results as the reasons could be many. But for me (and others Ive personally seen results from) Qimage can make a big difference in bringing out shadow detail and pastel colors that PS has problems with. On my system, it also has a better interpolation algorithim in "Pyramid" and a better system for RAW conversion than PS.

That said, it is a difficult application to learn, and the GUI is very cluttered, but once learned I actually prefer its methodology over Windows.

Since not everyone benifits from it, it is best to demo and do test prints in both PS and Qimage.

Dan
CC
Chris_Cox
May 4, 2004
Mike – then why not put those in as feature requests?

Dan – if you have any print color better from QImage, it would be due to user error (bad settings in Photoshop or the print driver dialogs). Photoshop has more control and far more correct color conversions than QImage.

And what kind of RAW files are you using where QImage gets better results (it normally doesn’t even come close to PS)?
DZ
Dan_Zimmerman
May 4, 2004
Sorry Chris, but its not bad settings. Photoshop is great for graphics and retouching, but a printing app its not. But just consider that my opinion and we’ll just agree to disagree. Its also the opinion of many in other forums like dpreview and epson wide format. And some of them even know how to properly set PS and the printer drivers. Amazing huh.
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
May 4, 2004
QImage must be subsidiary of Bayer Corp. Amount of aspirin needed to make it work will get anyone trying under DEA surveillance…
P
photobug
May 4, 2004
That is funny Andrew, but while Qimage’s interface is admittedly cluttered and ‘different’, I didn’t find it all that difficult learning to use it (no more than learning PS). DDI’s manual and ‘learn by example’ tutorials are very good in that respect. Another definite plus for Qimage is that there is a great user-forum on Yahoo that’s almost as helpful as this forum! 😉

Best of all, Qimage is a highly specialized printing app for only $50(US) with FREE upgrades forever! 🙂 🙂 🙂
CC
Chris_Cox
May 4, 2004
Dan – it’s not an opinion. If you’re getting bad color out of Photoshop (because Photoshop can do anything required to get good color), then you are doing something wrong or there is a serious bug in the printer driver (which would generally affect all applications).
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
May 5, 2004
Photobug,

while Qimage’s interface is admittedly cluttered and ‘different’, I didn’t find it all that difficult learning to use

I agree, anything can be learnt; I just couldn’t get enough aspirin to see it through before my printing needs shifted. 😉

I out source 95% of my printing and for remaining 5% Photoshop is more than enough. I also agree with Chris, if one can’t get the color right (printing from PS) another application is not going to solve the problem.

BTW: QImage or Bibble for that matter didn’t cut it for me as RAW processor for my Nikon NEF files but I must admit it’s been a while since I quit trying.

Andrew
DZ
Dan_Zimmerman
May 6, 2004
Chris and Andrew

I think we are discussing apples and oranges. The greatest difference I have found with QImage is detail in shadow areas that didnt exist when printing through PS. Now Im not talking about a wide difference, but a noticeable difference for sure. This increased detail was also apparent in highlight areas. Everytime Ive done a side by side test Ive made sure that all settings were the same, though for awhile I was forgetting to turn off QImages final sharpening. Even so, this final sharpening did not affect shadow detail as later tests showed.

Yes PS can produce the right colors. Its the lost detail in shadow areas and pastel highlight areas (whitish light blue clouds for instance) that bothered me. Now I have to admit that I havent tried a side by side test since upgrading to PSCS. I will soon and if I find the difference no longer noticeable Ill say so. But I have come to appreciate Qimage and now use it exclusively for interpolating, printing and most sharpening. Please understand that I am not only not affiliated with Qimage, when I first started using it I bashed it on forums because I considered it a pain to learn. But I stuck with it because of results I started getting and am now a very vocal convert.

I use PS for hours on end to do photographic impressionism (art photography) and love PS to death. But when it comes time to do certain things Ive found other apps better suited, and in the end it only helps to highlight the original work done in PS.

Dan
CC
Chris_Cox
May 6, 2004
PS can produce the right colors – and detail in shadow and highlights would be included in that.

Either you are doing extra sharpening or tone adjustments in QImage that you aren’t doing in Photoshop, or you aren’t doing something correctly in Photoshop.
DZ
Dan_Zimmerman
May 6, 2004
Dang Chris, you aint listening. First off, color tone and shadow detail are two separate issues. Second, when I do testing now nothing is different, and yes I know how to set optimum printing parameters in PS. But if you want to just flat out state something that others disagree with thats your right and so lets just agree to disagree then. Out.
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
May 6, 2004
Dan,

Chris and Andrew I think we are discussing apples and oranges. The greatest
difference I have found with QImage is detail in shadow areas that didnt exist when printing through PS

Apples to apples, given ACCURATE printer profiles I don’t see Photoshop compromising my shadow details. If QImage can create detail where detail does not exist I’m all ears…
DM
dave_milbut
May 6, 2004
If QImage can create detail where detail does not exist I’m all ears…

sounds like magic to me… or voodoo!
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
May 6, 2004
I dont use QImage (I´m not much of a printer either), but I have to say that PS could take some hints from it (and has, I believe). Stuff like vector/fractal interpolation and the likes.

Photoshop could also expand the ‘picture package’ (is that what it is called?) part to something smarter. Saving paper by printing several files at the same time, calculating space for each would be nice.
IL
Ian_Lyons
May 6, 2004
If you have ideas put them into the Feature Request thread. Ensure that you explain what it is you’re hoping to achieve. If you have examples then refer to them. The more info you provide the more likely the engineers will be able to decide whether it has merit and/or is achievable.

The engineers, etc DO read the Feature Request and have in the past implemented some. If YOU can’t be bothered to do all of of the above then you don’t deserve and shouldn’t expect your request to be considered.

Here’s the link:

<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.eeadf6e>

Ian Lyons
CC
Chris_Cox
May 6, 2004
Mathias – we’ve been testing some other interpolation techniques. In blind tests, the reviewers always rate them worse than bicubic.

But I’m always open to suggestions.

Ian – I object to that. I’ve implemented a LOT of stuff from the feature suggestions!
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
May 7, 2004
Hi Chris,

Thanks for your forthcomingness.

Bicubic is definately not ‘bad’, I´d just like some more options. Say a user definable bicubic method (or sampling area), and/or Lanczos methods. I would take any performance hit when doing the best upsampling possible. Vector interpolators are gaining popularity, because they can yield a better enlargement with more data (bicubic doesn´t).

One interpolator I´ve been following with great interest is the Xin Li interpolation by Xin Li, Ph.D. University of Nevada. I´m not saying it is perfect for everything, but it does look like he´s got some worthy compromises. I believe it involves anisotopic filtering, based on the visual smoothness but hey what do I know.

It is included in his SAR image processing software <http://www.general-cathexis.com/>.

Look carefully at the triangulation example, and the ‘Isophote smoothing’ examples. suave!.

If it was up to me, I´d say you should talk to this guy.

BTW, if you want another blind tester, sign me up. I´m not a mathematician, but my eyes are ok.

Mathias
CC
Chris_Cox
May 7, 2004
Lanczos (actually Lanczos windowed sinc) always gives ringing. We tried it, nobody wanted to use it. The only time it’s useful is when you prefilter the image to remove high frequencies – but you don’t want to do that for enlargements!

Xin Li – It was tested, and ranked near the bottom of the pack. (artifacts galore)

There are lots of interpolation methods that are better "in theory" – but when used on real images they don’t work so well. There is a difference between "numerically best" and "visually best".
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
May 7, 2004
Allright.. So how about user definable bicubic sampling areas? (or whatever the scientifically correct term is? Sinc #?).

Oh, and since I havent upgraded to CS yet (sorry!), can you, since we´re already spinning so off topic here, give me a lay man brief on the new interpolation in Camera Raw / CS (Bicubic Smooth?).
CC
Chris_Cox
May 7, 2004
sinc = (sin(x)/x)

There isn’t much you can change about the cubic kernel that isn’t already available between bicubic, smoother and sharper. You can go farter with the parameters, but they’re not useful.

What you want is better upsampling (enlargement), and we’re looking into it.
LE
Lin_Evans
May 7, 2004
The simple answer to the question of whether Qimage will make "better" prints than PhotoShop is that it depends on what you are trying to print and what you are using to print with.

Qimage has interpolation algorithms which PhotoShop does not. For very large prints, Vector is preferred by most professionals to Bicubic as implemented in PhotoShop. If you are printing extremely large as with an Epson 9600 PhotoShop doesn’t have the spooling capabilities of Qimage and I find Qimage to be the better tool.

The primary difference is that Qimage is a dedicated print utility and PhotoShop is the premier photo manipulation tool. For me it’s simply "horses for courses." I can do things in a few seconds with Qimage which take considerably longer to achieve with PhotoShop. I don’t use Qimage for photo editing, and I don’t print with PhotoShop.

Lin
IL
Ian_Lyons
May 7, 2004
Chris,

Ian – I object to that. I’ve implemented a LOT of stuff from the feature suggestions!

I don’t dispute that you have. My post was suggesting that folk looking for a feature to be included should at least make the effort to explain what it is they are looking for.

BTW: I wrote "some"!

some : a grammatical word used to indicate an unspecified or unknown quantity of people or things.

Objection overruled! 😉
DZ
Dan_Zimmerman
May 7, 2004
Chris wrote "Lanczos (actually Lanczos windowed sinc) always gives ringing. We tried it, nobody wanted to use it. The only time it’s useful is when you prefilter the image to remove high frequencies – but you don’t want to do that for enlargements!

Xin Li – It was tested, and ranked near the bottom of the pack. (artifacts galore)"

Chris, I agree with both observations. Even Vector, which was a step up from Lanczos, tends to introduce a fair amount of artifacts, though less than most other algorithims. However, Qimage’s new Pyramid interpolation seems to have solved that problem, producing stunning results with few, if any, noticeable artifacts.

Lin wrote "The simple answer to the question of whether Qimage will make "better" prints than PhotoShop is that it depends on what you are trying to print and what you are using to print with."

There seems to be one other variable, and it is an unknown factor. Even identical systems configured the same have produced slightly different results. Just as the same printer models may produce different results, so do computer systems. When all of the variables are added together, the results one may get will not necessarily be the same that someone else gets. I always advise people to test their own system for best results. But I agree that when producing large format prints from small files, Qimage is pretty much in a league of its own.

Dan
DL
Daniel_Louwrens
May 7, 2004
Don’t forget that Qimage resizing and sharpening etc is the best, the quality of the result has to be seen to be believed.

Daniel
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
May 7, 2004
If QImage can create detail where detail does not exist I’m all ears… sounds like magic to me… or voodoo!

I forgot to add <Evil Grin> behind my response Dave. I don’t believe in voodoo, I do believe I can tell the difference between noise and detail. 😉
P
povimage
May 7, 2004
Ok, I’ll agree with Chris Cox on one thing. Photoshop is more than able to "get the colors right" by properly handling printing with multiple profiles, etc.

Of course, so does QImage.

The two applications work well as a team.

One should think of QImage as a RIP without the independent ink control, features.

It resizes images to print size, allows you to gang up prints on pages, allows you to print via profiles, etc.

One huge advantage for me of using QImage is that I can continue working in Photoshop while I print from QImage. Also, as others have said, in addition to not having to resize every image to print size in Photoshop before printing, I can simply let QImage do it.

Is the Qimage interface non-intuitive to some extent? Yes, but then most RIPs have the same non-intuitive interfaces.

One thing I should note is that if one is doing custom profiling, you should build independent profiles for printing from QImage. Good color management rules say that shouldn’t be so, but even Qimage recommends that in its documentation. However, those same Qimage targeted profiles still work quite nicely for soft-proofing in Photoshop of my images before saving them.

Keith
BO
Burton_Ogden
May 7, 2004
Chris,

What you want is better upsampling (enlargement), and we’re looking into it.

Have a look at wavelets, if you haven’t already. They aren’t just good for image compression.

— Burton —
CC
Chris_Cox
May 7, 2004
Burton – we’ve been looking at them. Wavelets and FFT upsampling share the same problems – and there’s a reason they’re not in common use.
BO
Burton_Ogden
May 8, 2004
Chris,

Wavelets and FFT upsampling share the same problems – and there’s a reason they’re not in common use.

I would be curious about the problems and what that reason is, if that’s not asking you to reveal proprietary information.

— Burton —
QB
Q.B.
May 9, 2004
I print from Photoshop CS, Qimage (and ImagePrint 5.6, but let’s leave that aside for the moment). I have used Photoshop since version 3 and Qimage since goodness knows when.

Chris is right, for a single print, Photoshop is going to be the best choice. I do all my Image editing in CS and most of my raw conversions using ACR 2.2. It makes sense to print from CS also, but there are two reasons I sometimes use Qimage:

– It’s great for layouts. As Keith said, it’s like a RIP but without replacing the standard printer driver. I have just used Qimage to run off some proofs for a client, and for that, it is great.

– It has excellent interpolation (Pyramid) and smart sharpening, and it can recall different user settings, including those for the printer driver, speeding up workflow and minimising errors.

However, like Photoshop, you need to use good quality printer profiles with Qimage. If your colour looks a lot better in Qimage than in Photoshop, you are doing something wrong in Photoshop. My Qimage prints look idential in terms of colour to my Photoshop prints. That is because I have set up both programmes to use colour management properly.

Qimage and Photoshop compliment eachother and work well together.

Quentin
BO
Burton_Ogden
May 9, 2004
Quentin,

It has excellent interpolation (Pyramid)…

In your opinion, is Qimage’s Pyramid interpolation better than the best interpolation offered by Photoshop?

It seems that many people think that Photoshop’s interpolations are just a starting point for developing better interpolation algorithms, and a cottage industry seems to be growing up to fill this perceived void in Photoshop’s capability. See, for example Comparison of Image Enlargement Methods <http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html> and Image Resampling Algorithms <http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/graphics/resampling.htm>. On that last webpage, Alexey Lukin’s "Smart-Edge" algorithm looks very competitive to the the best that Photoshop can offer.

— Burton —
CC
Chris_Cox
May 10, 2004
Burton – in addition to being slow, they both are essentially blurs when enlarging — they can’t synthesize edges that weren’t already present (which some of the vector algorithms can do). Some wavelet bases can do a little better, but not much.
DW
David_W_Zimmerman
May 14, 2004
Chris, out of curiosity, have you ever used QImage? If so, what version? I am at a loss to explain your dogmatic responses.
CC
Chris_Cox
May 14, 2004
David – yes, about a year ago (don’t recall the version).
DW
David_W_Zimmerman
May 15, 2004
There have been some changes of course in the past year, but I doubt enough to sway you. But then again, if Photoshop is meeting all of your printing needs, there is no need to learn a new program.
ND
Nick_Decker
May 15, 2004
OK, I know nothing about Qimage, but that’s worth a chuckle!
I
ID._Awe
May 15, 2004
I agree with Chris "You can go farter with the parameters"
CC
Chris_Cox
May 17, 2004
Ok, so my typing isn’t always 100% accurate….

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections