Digital BW, The Print

Richard,

I use Qimage, and there is really only one reason I use it.  I think
it makes my prints look better.  They claim they optimize data sent to
the printer better than PS, and it's possible that part of the
difference I see is this optimization.  But the program also has a
very interesting printing-side sharpening filter which seems to
outperform anything I've seen anywhere else - in PS or using
Focalblade or whatever).  Photos look noticeably sharper without
looking digitally sharpened at all.  Again, I have no idea how much of
this is the sharpening filter, and how much is the superiority of
their data optimization, but my images flatly look better using it. 
(I'm using good lenses - Rodenstock and Schneider despite my screen
name, and am not making up for lack of good glass or good view camera
focusing technique with digital sharpening filters; I am just looking
to get the same sharpness I see in my negs onto the paper.)

How good is the program at printing sharp images?  I have been
experimenting with QTR and Cone's K7 inks in my R2400.  So far, the
main thing that keeps me from switching to the K7 inks permanently is
that I have to give up using Qimage, which relies on the Epson drivers
to work.  When I print with the K7's and QTR, the image is subtly but
visibly softer than when I print with Qimage.  I think Cone's K7 inks
and QTR do a visibly better job of printing than PS, I just think
Qimage goes a step further still.  I'd probably be happy with QTR and
K7 if I had never seen what Qimage will do.

That's my 2 cents worth.  It is true Qimage is primarily designed for
people with a much higher volume than I print and for controlling
image placement on the paper. Still, I don't find it's overkill for
the less frequent printer to use it for single image printing if it
really improves the printed image.  Others may have different
experience, but if you want one reason to experiment with Qimage, it's
that it may make your prints look better than they do already.

-Gary Gervin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard
Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being
pleased with my 
> output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.
> 
> Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I
prefer not to 
> upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their
improved 
> algorithms may not be that important to me.
> 
> I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not
sure their 
> pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.
> 
> However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is
really, 
> realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> www.richardsmallfield.com
>