Qimage

jrkliny said:

Hugowolf said:

Excellent value, excellent algorithms, but it is primarily (and was initially) a printing program, and you should be able to output a print without having to watch a video tutorial.

Brian A

Click to expand...

It would also be nice to be able to pick up a new camera and use it without looking at the manual but that doesn't happen either. Qimage was easier to learn than trying to operate my sound system or my new scanner.

Click to expand...

As I said before, I could print from Lightroom within seconds, it should not take 30 minutes to print from a printing program. Yes Q Ultimate is now more than just a printing program, but essentially, who would use it if it didn't print.

It is a great program with a really, really crappy user interface. I would be willing to bet my life savings (well maybe $10), that there wasn't a female working on the interface. Hell, even Photoshop, which also has a terrible user interface, is easier to print from than Qimage.

Please lets not confuse its capabilities with its usability. It is a very user unfriendly app.

It reminds me of WordPerfect for Dos, which had many adherents. Nothing better they said. Great if you were trying to emulate typescript, only five key strokes would get you italics. And Word and Word Pro had Ctrl+I, wow, that was hard.

The whole point of a graphical user interface seems to have been lost on Mike.

Brian A

Hugowolf said:

It is a great program with a really, really crappy user interface.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is it exactly. Designed by engineers for engineers, not for actual people. As an editor who has written more than 1,000 product reviews over a span of 30 years, I agree QU sports an incredibly un-intuitive and un-discoverable user interface.

I use QU all the time. It does a much better job at sharpening and handling detail than Photoshop, which requires explicit re-sizing for each different print dimension you want, or Lightroom which does an ok job.

I don't mind investing time to make a print, especially when doing my very large canvases or 30x40-inch prints. I spend many, many hours editing an image in Photoshop. For my clients, what matters is the results. QU gives me the best results. Yes, time is money, and invest a lot of time. But, I get paid for it.

DotCom Editor said:

Hugowolf said:

It is a great program with a really, really crappy user interface.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is it exactly. Designed by engineers for engineers, not for actual people. As an editor who has written more than 1,000 product reviews over a span of 30 years, I agree QU sports an incredibly un-intuitive and un-discoverable user interface.

I use QU all the time. It does a much better job at sharpening and handling detail than Photoshop, which requires explicit re-sizing for each different print dimension you want, or Lightroom which does an ok job.

I don't mind investing time to make a print, especially when doing my very large canvases or 30x40-inch prints. I spend many, many hours editing an image in Photoshop. For my clients, what matters is the results. QU gives me the best results. Yes, time is money, and invest a lot of time. But, I get paid for it.

Click to expand...

I just printed, and framed a nationally reviewed show. I did three from Qimage, for a variety of reasons, the rest from Lr. It wouldn't have made the opening if I had done it all with Qimage.

Brian A