Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@y...> wrote:
> I don't find Qimage destructive with color, just unnecessary and
> awkward unless high production is the goal...but B&W (per this Group)
> seems to require more care than can be delivered through Qimage... 

I have found some B&W images where halos can be a problem.  FocalBlade
has options for dealing with this.

As I understand it, smart sharpening in Qimage is supposed to give you
the same sharpness in a print that you see on the screen.  It is
supposed to avoid the problem whereby you oversharpen on the screen to
get the print sharpness.  But this means that by its very nature it
can't be previewed.  You need to get the right level for each paper
and ink combination through trial and error.  In theory this means
that you can't use it as a substitute for USM or similar tools, but I
get the sense that people do anyway.  

I don't find the USM feature of Qimage very helpful (hard to preview),
and so if I need additional sharpening other than smart sharpening, I
tend to use USM in PSCS2 or a sharpening plugin like FocalBlade.

I have been very happy with Qimage colour sharpening, but as you say,
this is a B&W group.
 
> Do I read you correctly: is convenience is the only reason you'd
> advocate Qimage ?

For me this is a big advantage.  I do a lot of A3 mini-posters, where
I have a template that inserts title and date information from IPTC
data, and my signature.  However the big selling point for most people
is indeed supposed to be its ability to resize up dramatically (but
not using fractals), although personally I don't do much of that. 
Others find that smart sharpening takes the worry and hassle out of
sharpening.

If you don't want fancy layouts, don't resize much, only print in the
one size and need more sophisticated sharpening, then you may not need it.
 
YMMV

F_P