Digital BW, The Print

>>"no need for Qimage ..."

>Are you serious?

>QImage is THE printing program to use, no matter what printer you are using.

Scott --

I have used Qimage in my former Photoshop -> Qimage -> QTRGui -> 2200 workflow.

I have read of all of the advantages of Qimage especially related to resizing of images. But to be honest it's never been really clear what it is actually doing for me in the way of improving my printed images. (Recently my experience had it unexpectedly reducing the size of a 5x7 image printed within a 8.5x11 page for some unknown reason.)

I used Qimage basically because of the hype and my faith that it is doing what everyone says it does.

But I cannot say for certainty that I have ever SEEN a visual difference in prints that I have made.

I'd be welling to pay for the postage if you (or anyone) would send me two prints that will everything else being equal that was printed with and without Qimage in the path where the difference is obvious.

The challenge is on... :)

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 12/8/2005

I'm assuming you own QImage. Make a print through QI and then one 
through PS or whatever you are printing through.

IMO, QI's pyrimid interpolation  (as well as Vector) is better than 
anything that Photoshop has to offer.

But, to each his own...

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Keenan 
<ausdlk@s...> wrote:
>
> >>"no need for Qimage ..."
> 
> >Are you serious?
> 
> >QImage is THE printing program to use, no matter what printer you 
are using.
> 
> Scott --
> 
> I have used Qimage in my former Photoshop -> Qimage -> QTRGui -> 
2200 workflow.
> 
> I have read of all of the advantages of Qimage especially related 
to resizing of images. But to be honest it's never been really clear 
what it is actually doing for me in the way of improving my printed 
images. (Recently my experience had it unexpectedly reducing the size 
of a 5x7 image printed within a 8.5x11 page for some unknown reason.)
> 
> I used Qimage basically because of the hype and my faith that it is 
doing what everyone says it does.
> 
> But I cannot say for certainty that I have ever SEEN a visual 
difference in prints that I have made.
> 
> I'd be welling to pay for the postage if you (or anyone) would send 
me two prints that will everything else being equal that was printed 
with and without Qimage in the path where the difference is obvious.

> 
> The challenge is on... :)
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> David Keenan, ausdlk@s... on 12/8/2005
>

>I'm assuming you own QImage. Make a print through QI and then one
>through PS or whatever you are printing through.

>IMO, QI's pyrimid interpolation  (as well as Vector) is better than
>anything that Photoshop has to offer.

Yes, I own Qimage. I did as you suggested.

I printed an ~8.5x11" print on Epson Premium Luster using Photoshop CS at 1440 and 2880 dpi on my Epson R2400 with standard K3 inks.

I made the same prints on Kirkland Glossy.

I also made the same prints through Qimage using both Vector and Pyramid interpretation.

These are color prints. (I know that this is a black and white forum but I am working on a color image at this time.)

There is absolutely no visual difference in the PS vs. Qimage prints. Even under a 8x loupe I see nothing that would suggest that one print is better than another. 

The loupe does reveal slight differences between the 1440 vs. 2880 PS prints. 

I have used Monaco EZColor to profile my printer and Pantone ColorVision to profile my monitor. This profiles where used in both PS and Qimage.

Maybe the R2400 and/or the Epson driver has been significantly improved over earlier model printers or I am lucky but in my setup I see no value to Qimage.

If am missing something or if this application is not one that brings out the best in Qimage please share your suggestions with me.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 12/8/2005

David Keenan wrote:
>> I'm assuming you own QImage. Make a print through QI and then one
>> through PS or whatever you are printing through.
> 
>> IMO, QI's pyrimid interpolation  (as well as Vector) is better than
>> anything that Photoshop has to offer.
> 
> Yes, I own Qimage. I did as you suggested.
> 
> I printed an ~8.5x11" print on Epson Premium Luster using Photoshop CS at 1440 and 2880 dpi on my Epson R2400 with standard K3 inks.
> 
> I made the same prints on Kirkland Glossy.
> 
> I also made the same prints through Qimage using both Vector and Pyramid interpretation.
> 
> These are color prints. (I know that this is a black and white forum but I am working on a color image at this time.)
> 
> There is absolutely no visual difference in the PS vs. Qimage prints. Even under a 8x loupe I see nothing that would suggest that one print is better than another. 
> 
> The loupe does reveal slight differences between the 1440 vs. 2880 PS prints. 
> 
> I have used Monaco EZColor to profile my printer and Pantone ColorVision to profile my monitor. This profiles where used in both PS and Qimage.
> 
> Maybe the R2400 and/or the Epson driver has been significantly improved over earlier model printers or I am lucky but in my setup I see no value to Qimage.
> 
> If am missing something or if this application is not one that brings out the best in Qimage please share your suggestions with me.
> 
> Dave.

What is the size of the file you are feeding both methods with ?

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

>> Maybe the R2400 and/or the Epson driver has been significantly improved over earlier model printers or I am lucky 
>> but in my setup I see no value to Qimage.
>> 
>> If am missing something or if this application is not one that brings out the best in Qimage please share your 
>> suggestions with me.
> 
> Dave.

>What is the size of the file you are feeding both methods with ?

Ernst --

I see where you might be going with this...

The image file I used in both cases is large, 117MB.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 12/9/2005

David Keenan wrote:

> > I have read of all of the advantages of Qimage especially related
> to resizing of images. But to be honest it's never been really clear
> what it is actually doing for me in the way of improving my printed
> images. (Recently my experience had it unexpectedly reducing the size
> of a 5x7 image printed within a 8.5x11 page for some unknown reason.)
> >
> > I used Qimage basically because of the hype and my faith that it is
> doing what everyone says it does.
> >
> > But I cannot say for certainty that I have ever SEEN a visual
> difference in prints that I have made.


David;
More anecdotal information:
I was curious too, so when a client asked me to enlarge a very small image
(8 x 10 at around 180 ppi) to fit my largest sheet size (35 x 47), I thought
this a good test. I printed a detail using PS Bicubic, and Qimage Pyramid.
The Qimage sample was the better image . . . much better. Less fringe, fewer
artifacts. A much bigger difference than I would have thought.

-PC


Carr Imaging
patcarr@...
www.patrickcarrimaging.com

>I was curious too, so when a client asked me to enlarge a very small image
>(8 x 10 at around 180 ppi) to fit my largest sheet size (35 x 47), I thought
>this a good test. I printed a detail using PS Bicubic, and Qimage Pyramid.
>The Qimage sample was the better image . . . much better. Less fringe, fewer
>artifacts. A much bigger difference than I would have thought.

I think I figured out my situation with the assistance of a forum member in The Netherlands. 

I'm not doing any upsizing. I am printing a high resolution image. That is what I was missing.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@swbell.net on 12/10/2005