Does Qimage produce better prints than Photoshop CS?

[aaron_w.]

I am an amateur using Photoshop CS to edit and print my scanned 35mm

shots. Qimage seems to have a following of loyal users who

apparently believe that it's better (for printing) than Photoshop.

 

Aside from any batch-printing features that Qimage may offer (which

I would hardly use), can it actually produce better prints than

Photoshop CS?

[beauh44]

Hi Aaron, I've never used Qimage but it would seem to me that it's more the *person* making the print and not the software that will determine whether it's better or not. Then of course there's the hardware, the inksets, the paper, etc. etc. - choices that no software can make for you, no matter how good. Best wishes . . .

[john_gill]

Aaron, this one could run and run if the Qimage news group is anything to go by. I use both and despite wanting to believe the Qimage "technical talk" about native resolution etc, I can't see any difference in absolute quality.

 

I do still use and like Qimage though - for multiple images or for several different sized versions of the same image QImage is (to me) quicker than firing up Photoshop and provides excellent results.

 

I tend to to all the editing in PS save the file at the highest quality possible and then run off any future prints through Qimage.

[zhi_da_zhong]

If you make large (significantly over 8x10) prints or print small crops of your 35mm scans,

you might want to give it a try. Qimage's quality promise mainly rests on its

upsampling algorithms. It certainly offers a larger selection of algorithms than PSCS. Are

they actually better? Possibly. But I don't know since I haven't used it myself.

 

Other than the upsampling and the related sharpening features, I don't see what Qimage

has to offer over PSCS -- they don't even claim any. The rest are convenience features for

batch printing, etc.

[kaiyen]

the comment about really large prints seems most applicable to me, too. Qimage _seems_ to be particularly useful when doing dramatic upsizing. I was testing the Epson 9600 44" wide-format printer we got at work, using mostly Qimage but also one print directly from Photoshop. It wasn't dramatic, but I did notice a difference between the two methods, with the Qimage print looking better. Several folks agreed that the Photoshop output definitely looked like I had pushed the enlargement too far. Many even thought that I must have used a higher res file for teh Qimage print (meaning that I did less enlargement). Again, not dramatic.

 

allan

[aaron_w.]

While I usually generate letter-size prints, most often they are from a cropped 35mm frame. If I knew that Qimage really employed better methods for resizing and/or resampling than PS CS, I would definitely get it.

 

Qimage is inexpensive, so price isn't a factor at all - it's simply a matter of whether its 'learning curve' is worth the effort (its interface appears cluttered and awkward compared to PS CS)!

[kaiyen]

There is always a lot of talk about the user interface. What I've found is that, to produce a print with a normal amount of smart sharpening, with one of the better interpolcation methods, using a profile, to a desired size takes about 5 minutes to learn. Throw in cropping and other filters in maybe another 10-15.

 

It's getting really into those things - how much sharpening, how to use _all_ the filters, doing other stuff - that takes a lot longer. I think just getting going is easy, though.

 

allan

[phil_v.]

Perhaps the following webpage can help you see some potential differences:

 

http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm

[aaron_w.]

Allan, I'm going to download the Qimage trial and make some comparisons. Just to save me some time getting started, would you mind outlining your Qimage-workflow "to produce a print with a normal amount of smart sharpening, with one of the better interpolcation methods, using a profile, to a desired size"? Thanks much.

[john_pavlakis]

I find Qimage massively easier than Pshop for printing (and only printing). Quality is the same to me, but it's been a sound investment in terms of sanity.

[kaiyen]

My usual workflow is very simple. I dont' do _that_ many "fine art" prints - I have only ever sold a couple of prints, and for hanging stuff up around the house I don't need to squeeze the last drop of sharpness/accuracy out of stuff. When I do need those things, I spend a bit of time with Qimage. But for generating a quick print, contact sheet, etc, I spend maybe 5 minutes.

 

Therefore, I don't even really have a workflow, now that I think about it. Once you get the hang of some simple UI stuff (the UI is a bit idiosyncratic, but not at all difficult to get the hang of, in my opinion), it's pretty straightforward. In fact, for a long time I left everything at its default setting. I think I've lowered the sharpening just a hair since then (since I use PK sharpener now), but that's probably about it. If I want to make a "straight" print, I just load the image, select the size, and go.

 

I realize that doesn't help that much. My point, however, is that one can take all the default settings and get a good-to-great looking print right off the bat. That's what I did with our plotter testing (I was simulating the experience of our users, which is probably minimal in terms of tweaking), and, as I said, many could see the subtle but definite difference vs. photoshop. The "hard" part is figuring out, for instance, how to view the thumbs by name, ascending (rather than descending, which is the default), or how to set up a crop. And, as I said, that takes just a few minutes.

 

allan

[kaiyen]

Oh yeah. for some specifics...I work almost entirely with images I've scanned from film. I do all my editing in Photoshop - levels, curves, etc. I then use Photokit Sharpener Pro for capture sharpening (sometimes at just default settings). I then bring into Qimage, navigate to the folder, select the image, select the desired size, and print. I use a custom color profile I had made via Cathy's Profiles for my Epson 960, or no profile when printing B&W with my Epson 1280 with Ultratone2 B&W inkset.

 

The only occaisional change I make is to use a filter to specify how the image is cropped. All other settings (sharpening, interpolation) are default.

 

allan

[bobmichaels]

I agree with Beau. Sometimes we fall into the trap that more technology, more multiple programs, etc. will compensate for our own lack of skill.

 

And don't get me started about the return on time / money invested in new programs vs. time / money spent on image capture / more film exposed. Something about "silk purse from a sow's ear"

[tom_swanson]

What on earth is bob going on about?

 

Anywho, I found Qimage made it easier to print but I didn't see any significant difference in quality. But then I never used it to print beyond 8x10. Windows built in viewer could probably handle 8x10 without much of a problem.

[nick_bryans3]

I've been using Qimage for a while now, I printed an A3 with PS6 & the trial Qimage, and while the difference was not great the Qimage print was visbly better close up, I bought Qimage & have been using it ever since. Apart from any quality issues I find Qimage very easy to use.