# LR / Qimage Printing



## RubyRed1720 (Jun 8, 2008)

Mod Note: Off-topic thread portion moved from "Trouble shooting"

If Q gives you accurate results then why don't you set up your own templates within it? The details can be found in the Help menu.

If you've made the choice to pay good money for Q then I imagine that you will be aware that it will lick Lightroom anyday in the printing stakes.

Sure, both ultimately use the Print driver (neither are RIPs), but only Q uses a unique selection of interpolation options and handling of data to send to the printer rather than dumping it all in Spool and letting the printer get on with it.

But then you know that, don't you?


----------



## bob16946 (Jun 10, 2008)

RubyRed172' said:


> If Q gives you accurate results then why don't you set up your own templates within it? The details can be found in the Help menu.
> 
> If you've made the choice to pay good money for Q then I imagine that you will be aware that it will lick Lightroom anyday in the printing stakes.
> 
> ...


 
Actualy, I was not aware of the differences between LR and Q. I purchased it out of desparation and was pleased to see how well it colored matched my monitor. When I chose one of my print templates in LR, all of my printer settings were adjusted properly. So far, when I create a Layout in Q, I still need to go to my printer properties and change those settings myself. I'm still in the learning process with Q and need to work through more examples in the Help section. Are there any good resources for Qimage other than the Help menu?


----------



## RubyRed1720 (Jun 10, 2008)

bob16946 said:


> Are there any good resources for Qimage other than the Help menu?


 
It never ceases to amaze me that when it comes to software, people lay out the cash and then never really know what they've bought; it wouldn't happen if it were a new car. :lol:

The Help menu is a good start - it's one of the better ones - you can save preferences for Print driver options, layouts, templates etc.

Which version of Q are you using?

Working now, will respond this evening.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jun 10, 2008)

RubyRed172' said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that when it comes to software, people lay out the cash and then never really know what they've bought; it wouldn't happen if it were a new car. :lol:



I understand your point, but when dealing with a new class of sortware for the first time, there are a frequently a number of paradigms and concepts to swallow whole, which the manufacturer typically glosses over, or delivers in "marketing-speak". The "hows" are explained, but not so much the "whys".

Imagine teaching yourself  expressway driving by reading the car's owner's manual.

I'm speaking in general terms here, no personal experience with Qimage and its manual/help/support apparatus; it could well be "best-in-show".

I know darn well the Adobe provided LR documentation can stand a great deal of improvement.

I believe that's why forums like these, and the attendant user-to-user communities, are vital and important to the whole process.


----------



## RubyRed1720 (Jun 10, 2008)

<snip>I understand your point, but when dealing with a new class of sortware for the first time, there are a frequently a number of paradigms and concepts to swallow whole, which the manufacturer typically glosses over, or delivers in "marketing-speak". The "hows" are explained, but not so much the "whys".<snip>

Erm. Yes, well. Interesting, it's like this, on discovering which version of Q the OP was using, I was going to direct them to a suitable helpful source. I felt that a topic on Q was inappropriate for a LR forum - I had not planned a discussion about it; in a lounge or otherwise.

So, OP, which version of Q did you purchase?


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jun 11, 2008)

I know this is user opinionated but I have been using Qimage for the past 6 years and LR has some way to go to catch up with this program in terms of output quality. I also use PS CS no competition.

I am using LR 1.4.1 and while I have done some work with LR 2.' beta I have not run any printing test vs Qimage.

I will await the release version of LR 2.' to do my tests.

Its difficult to post comparisons, since this cannot be seen on screen, and you will need to do the printing test yourself.


----------



## bob16946 (Jun 11, 2008)

RubyRed172' said:


> <snip>I understand your point, but when dealing with a new class of sortware for the first time, there are a frequently a number of paradigms and concepts to swallow whole, which the manufacturer typically glosses over, or delivers in "marketing-speak". The "hows" are explained, but not so much the "whys".<snip>
> 
> Erm. Yes, well. Interesting, it's like this, on discovering which version of Q the OP was using, I was going to direct them to a suitable helpful source. I felt that a topic on Q was inappropriate for a LR forum - I had not planned a discussion about it; in a lounge or otherwise.
> 
> So, OP, which version of Q did you purchase?


 
Sorry about wandering off topic. I am using the Professional edition version 2''8.213.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jun 11, 2008)

bob16946 said:


> Sorry about wandering off topic.



Not a problem, now that we have a better title for the thread


----------



## RubyRed1720 (Jun 13, 2008)

*Q*



bob16946 said:


> <snip> I am using the Professional edition version 2''8.213.


 
QImage Professional is actually the middle of the three versions. It's a little bit confusing, but QImage Studio has the most features.

QIS includes the option to save more preset image print sizes and the 'best' interpolation algorithm, Hybrid SE, and also dual core technology, among other things.

As you've already invested in Q for no other reason than that 'it was in desperation' - suggesting that you have more money than you know what to do with it :lol: - I'd recommend that you purchase an upgrade unlock code. Once you've mastered Q's interface, discovered the options and seen the output results, everything else, unless it's a RIP, will pale in significance. Mind, there are many users that compare QIS with Imageprint for most print uses.

There is a steady learning curve with Q, for example, a person that confuses print size and image size will be challenged but, as you've asked, I'd suggest you check out the following links :
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/editions.htm
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/feature.htm
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/qimage/
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=33

If you upgrade to Studio you will get a passcode to access a QIS only forum but many find the other 'free' forums to be more than adequate.

With the exception of the friendly and intuitive user interface of LR's Print Module (Q has the same functions, however, many users may perceive them as being clunky and not as accessible), and although like LR Q is ultimately governed by the actual printer's Print driver, it's output outclasses that from PS, LR etc.

I'd say it's important that anyone keeping an eye on LR purely for the 'improved' Print Module - but I think we all know what we are hoping to see - that the costs of first purchase, or upgrade of LR, would be better invested elsewhere; it depends upon how serious one is about printing.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jun 13, 2008)

Yes RubyRed it does look as if LR is adopting many of the functions that Q has for many years.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 19, 2016)

Resuscitating an 8-year old thread, how does LR 6/CC compare with the latest and "completely revised" QImage?

Phil


----------



## Gnits (Oct 19, 2016)

I was a big fan of Qimage and used it for years.   I especially liked the ability to create templates and place meta data such as Title exactly where I wanted.   At some stage I moved my printing to Lightroom.  I regularly win competitions with my prints and have professional printers as competitors, so no complaints from me re Lr print engine.   

I adopted InDesign to place metadata professionally under my images ( at the same time I gave up on the Lr Book module and use InDesign instead). 

I am really annoyed with Adobe that they allow me place my metadata where I want in the Slideshow module, but do *not *allow me do this in the print module.  I am even more annoyed that I need to do round trips to InDesign for some of my prints and all of my books.  I have since written my own Javascripts to completely automate my return trip to InDesign to format my image for printing in Lr.


----------

