Reading mode: Light Dark

Is QIMAGE missing the point?

Go to last post
JLK said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just can't get consistent color with it. I'm back to using my trusty Canon 10D with my sharpness equalizer filter to boost the 3D effect. The Canon gives me perfect color every time, but with the SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust for skin tones, everything else turns strange. I also get strange color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.

Some get great photos with the SD10 but for me, it just takes too much fiddling.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably
on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just
can't get consistent color with it. I'm back to using my trusty
Canon 10D with my sharpness equalizer filter to boost the 3D
effect. The Canon gives me perfect color every time, but with the
SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the
skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to
get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust
for skin tones, everything else turns strange. I also get strange
color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens
turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent
enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.

Some get great photos with the SD10 but for me, it just takes too
much fiddling.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
--
--Jim--
 
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably
on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just
can't get consistent color with it.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
Mike,

Sorry to hear that, although I may look for it on ebay... I'm torn between the SD10 and the D70---the ergonomics of the D70 really set it apart. I am constantly amazed at the quality of the photos that are posted in the Sigma users galleries, but there aren't a ton of people shots, and that's always concerned me.

Thanks for the update.
--
--Jim--
 
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably
on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just
can't get consistent color with it. I'm back to using my trusty
Canon 10D with my sharpness equalizer filter to boost the 3D
effect. The Canon gives me perfect color every time, but with the
SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the
skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to
get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust
for skin tones, everything else turns strange. I also get strange
color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens
turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent
enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.

Some get great photos with the SD10 but for me, it just takes too
much fiddling.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
Mike,

I recently sold my Fuji S2 due to the images being too soft. I am looking to replace this. As a medium format photographer, the sharpness of the sd10 images have great appeal.

I still shoot film when sharpness is of great importance. Things like high school seniors, and children photographs lend themselfs well to the fun stuff we can do in photoshop (when time permits).

With a limited budget I am comparing the 10d, d70 & sd10. The resolution of the d70 blows away the d100.

The biggest problem is I mostly shoot people. I have been reading with great interest posts on adjusting skin tones, and haven't seen a great working solution yet.

The next biggest problem is I currently own some great nikon glass. This won't determine my next camera, but does have an influence.

sometimes we learn the most from failures. Do you have any samples on the web anywhere?
 
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
but with the
SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the
skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to
get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust
for skin tones, everything else turns strange.
Click to expand...
That's metamerism. A problem with the Foveon sensor. I warned you about it back in January.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=7131166
Mike Chaney said:
I also get strange
color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens
turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent
enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.
Click to expand...
The problem with long exposures has to do with the camera's (and SPP software's) attempts to correct for diffusion. Apparently, if you leave charges in the multilayer Foveon sensor long enough, they drift from layer to layer. So the charges from near the beginning of a long exposure drift into different layers of the sensor, while the charges from near the end of the long exposure stay where yhey're suppsoed to be. The end result is that you need different color curves for every exposure time past a certain time.

And, the effect is temperature dependent.

So, if you had a method of logging temperature with the exposures, and you built a 2 dimensional array of profiles moving through different temperatures and exposure times, you could theoretically get the color right.

Except for the metamerism. You can't profile out metamerism. You can fight it with a "memory color" algorithm, but I'm not sure the duel is due.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
David Lobel said:
I recently asked the folks at DDI Software (QIMAGE) if they have
any plans to offer QIMAGE as a Photoshop plugin. Their response was
a bit surprising (to me) stating that they do not have any plans as
"The purpose of QIMAGE is so that you do not have to use Photoshop."

The response didn't make much sense to me as those users I know who
use QIMAGE are already power Photoshop users.
Click to expand...
Heck, Qimage is almost a RIP. That's what I use it as, something that lets me set up print packages, print quickly weather the images are raw from a dozen different cameras, or processed JPEG or TIF files, or JPEG straight from a camera.

It's the program I'm teaching my wife to use so she can get from the point and shoot to a pile of 4x6's. (there goes my ink bill).

In fact, the one change I'd like to see is for Qimage to assimilate to the free, open source Gimp Print engine (which goes from raster to inkjet with all sorts of control) and become a full blown RIP.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Mike Chaney said:
Mike Chaney said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably
on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just
can't get consistent color with it. I'm back to using my trusty
Canon 10D with my sharpness equalizer filter to boost the 3D
effect. The Canon gives me perfect color every time, but with the
SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the
skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to
get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust
for skin tones, everything else turns strange. I also get strange
color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens
turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent
enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.

Some get great photos with the SD10 but for me, it just takes too
much fiddling.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
Hi Mike

Just out of curiosity did you do any flash photography with the SD-10?. I am most interested in flash being used in the TTL mode with the Sigma dedicated units. I have an SD-9 with Sigma dedicated flash. My flash results are unpredictable in auto mode. For the most part they are severely underexposed.
--
Fred R. Elias Jr.
Warren, MI.
[email protected]
 
Fred R. Elias Jr. said:
Mike Chaney said:
Fred R. Elias Jr. said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably
on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just
can't get consistent color with it. I'm back to using my trusty
Canon 10D with my sharpness equalizer filter to boost the 3D
effect. The Canon gives me perfect color every time, but with the
SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the
skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to
get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust
for skin tones, everything else turns strange. I also get strange
color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens
turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent
enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.

Some get great photos with the SD10 but for me, it just takes too
much fiddling.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
Hi Mike

Just out of curiosity did you do any flash photography with the
SD-10?. I am most interested in flash being used in the TTL mode
with the Sigma dedicated units. I have an SD-9 with Sigma
dedicated flash. My flash results are unpredictable in auto mode.
For the most part they are severely underexposed.
--
Fred R. Elias Jr.
Warren, MI.
[email protected]
Click to expand...
--
Fred R. Elias Jr.
Warren, MI.
[email protected]
 
I agree with you,Joe.

As I understand it, Qimage is processing your image(s) to your printer's native resolution, thereby removing the printer driver's need to do any further processing (but still needs the printer driver to control the printer), then there's the print packages, and if you add printer profiling (i.e. Profile Prism or Monaco or whatever), isn't this essentially what a RIP does?

I think the last step to becoming a full-blown RIP is completely eliminating the need for going through a print driver at all, but that becomes very specific to each brand and model of printer, which is why RIPs tend to be so expensive and limited to one or a few printers.
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Heck, Qimage is almost a RIP. That's what I use it as, something
that lets me set up print packages, print quickly weather the
images are raw from a dozen different cameras, or processed JPEG or
TIF files, or JPEG straight from a camera.
Click to expand...
--
-Dennis W. Wagner
San Jose, California

 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
That's metamerism. A problem with the Foveon sensor. I warned you
about it back in January.
Click to expand...
All technologies that are different exhibit different problems that must be overcome: nothing is perfect. That doesn't mean that the SPP software couldn't do a much better job than it does now.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
The problem with long exposures has to do with the camera's (and
SPP software's) attempts to correct for diffusion. Apparently, if
you leave charges in the multilayer Foveon sensor long enough, they
drift from layer to layer. So the charges from near the beginning
of a long exposure drift into different layers of the sensor, while
the charges from near the end of the long exposure stay where
yhey're suppsoed to be. The end result is that you need different
color curves for every exposure time past a certain time.
Click to expand...
I don't think the software is even attempting to account for that. I think that's how they could make the software better in the next release.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
And, the effect is temperature dependent.
Click to expand...
I doubt they are able to read the temperature of the chip so this is probably something that would have to be ignored. I don't think anyone (other than maybe Foveon) knows how much of an affect temperature has on color from the Foveon sensor. If it is significant, it could be the downfall of that sensor design. I suspect, like other CMOS/CCD sensors, the effect is not as great as the layer drift and may not cause very visible differences within "normal" temperature ranges.

The bottom line is that the SD10 and current SPP software are not for me, as I'm not one to tweak every photo: I like the camera to capture the scene accurately up front. Whether or not the current SD10 issues can be resolved by an update to SPP, I don't know, but I would think so.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
Fred R. Elias Jr. said:
Just out of curiosity did you do any flash photography with the
SD-10?. I am most interested in flash being used in the TTL mode
with the Sigma dedicated units. I have an SD-9 with Sigma
dedicated flash. My flash results are unpredictable in auto mode.
For the most part they are severely underexposed.
Click to expand...
Yes. Most of my shots were with the 500 DG ST flash. I found flash capability to be on par with the 10D so I really didn't notice much difference. One thing I miss on the SD10 is the 10D's ability to do a flash exposure lock. Most of my flash shots are bounce flash and the FEL really helps get the exposure right with that. About the only way to do it actually.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
 
although Qimage is the weirdest interface and the
buggiest program I use in my studio I can not support
this view ...

I run Qimage on a separate machine connected to my Epson 9600
and I do not do single image prints .. Even if I do only a view single
photos on my new 4000 I do not wish to do this through PS

Id rather see the effort going into automatic file placing and other
things as well as bug fixing and interface streamlining and not some
gimmiks a few simple minds would want because they have a tiny
workflow for a few hundred images ... just do some useful stuff with
your time ..

Have a good day
gmd
David Lobel said:
I recently asked the folks at DDI Software (QIMAGE) if they have
any plans to offer QIMAGE as a Photoshop plugin. Their response was
a bit surprising (to me) stating that they do not have any plans as
"The purpose of QIMAGE is so that you do not have to use Photoshop."

The response didn't make much sense to me as those users I know who
use QIMAGE are already power Photoshop users.

I shared their response with a good friend Dirk Lesko (fellow DPR
poster) and this was his insight:

--> "Classic marketing mistake - not leveraging pre-existing markets
for your own purposes. Microsoft calls that strategy 'embrace and
extend'".

--> "If, as they say, that QImage's purpose is that you do not have
to use Photoshop, then why is that not one of the reasons listed
that you would want to purchase it?"

--> "Adding a step to the photographers workflow defeats some of the
benefits of QImage and if it were a plugin, then it could take
advantage of [Photoshop] scripting and actions to automate it even
further."

Though I fully second Dirk's thoughts, I'd like to hear how the
communiity feels about the subject.

I believe QIMAGE would have a stronger market presence working with
Photoshop rather than trying to replace it. As a plugin, it would
be a great enhancement to our digital workflow.

If there are many of you who agree with Dirk's and my thoughts,
then maybe we could persuade DDI Software to persue a QIMAGE plugin
for Photoshop.

-Dave
Click to expand...
--
People who quote others have nothing to say - GMD

 
I post-process my raw images in C1, then do a little tweaking in Qimage. Whenever possible, I try to avoid PS as I've recently adopted a "less is more" approach. Qimage keeps things simple, efficient and gives me high quality prints. If it ain't broke....
 
sunflowerflyer said:
Mike Chaney said:
sunflowerflyer said:
(How's the SD10 treating you?)
Click to expand...
I'm going to sell it and the three lenses I have for it, probably
on Ebay. :-( I love the resolution and 3D effect, but I just
can't get consistent color with it. I'm back to using my trusty
Canon 10D with my sharpness equalizer filter to boost the 3D
effect. The Canon gives me perfect color every time, but with the
SD10, it seems like I can get either the vivid colors right or the
skin tones right, but not both at the same time. If I adjust to
get the vivid colors right, skin tones turn yellow. If I adjust
for skin tones, everything else turns strange. I also get strange
color shifts (like faded greens turning gray and bright greens
turning blue) as the shutter gets longer. It isn't consistent
enough to correct with a profile either... tried that.

Some get great photos with the SD10 but for me, it just takes too
much fiddling.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com
Click to expand...
Mike,

I recently sold my Fuji S2 due to the images being too soft. I am
looking to replace this. As a medium format photographer, the
sharpness of the sd10 images have great appeal.

I still shoot film when sharpness is of great importance. Things
like high school seniors, and children photographs lend themselfs
well to the fun stuff we can do in photoshop (when time permits).

With a limited budget I am comparing the 10d, d70 & sd10. The
resolution of the d70 blows away the d100.

The biggest problem is I mostly shoot people. I have been reading
with great interest posts on adjusting skin tones, and haven't seen
a great working solution yet.

The next biggest problem is I currently own some great nikon glass.
This won't determine my next camera, but does have an influence.

sometimes we learn the most from failures. Do you have any samples
on the web anywhere?
Click to expand...
There is a review on the SD10 in this months Studio Photography&Design page 50. It's by a working photographer who shoots models for magazines and he's sold on the SD10. The web address is http://www.imaging-info.com . I've shot with the SD10 and like all digital cameras there are problems, but for the money it's one of the best going right now. I don't have a problem with skin tones, I did with the SD9 a little, but with the firmware up grade it's much better. Sigma and Foveon are work on making things better.
Roger J.
 
I think you all are not familiar with the particular workflow that would benefit from having some features of QImage printing available from within Photoshop. I can see fom the posts here that the majority of you do not use photoshop as a graphics tool.

If you use Photoshop to create any kind of graphics you will know that Photoshop can create humongous PSD files with many many layers.

Having to always save to PSD file before printing with QImage is a tremendous time waster to those of us who use Photoshop to add graphics and effects to our images. It would be sooo much nicer if QImage could spool off the active layers to the printer while working from within Photoshop.

Here's a scenario - You need to add some logos and borders around your images to create handouts or brochures. You have 30 images that you will be printing. You will print varying sizes of the same final output.

First issue is to work out is how would you go about this in PS? Would you create a separate PSD file for each image? Looking at the messages here, that would be the case. But, in Photoshop, this is terribly inefficient since you'd have to recreate the graphics for each image in each PSD file. Since the graphics remain the same, this wastes a lot of time copying layers and repositioning the graphics for each image and then you need to save 30 PSD files.

But wait, we need to print 11x17, 8x11 and 5x7 samples of the same image so now you'll need three PSD files of each image cropped to the right size since QImage cannot Accuratly crop without cutting off stuff around the edges and since we have borders and text near the edges this has to be done manually for each size.

So now you have 30x3 = 90 files to contend with (not counting the original images). Each file is about 45-100mb since each layer is saved expanded within the PSD file - so for instance, a 6mp image takes up 18mb in a one layer PSD file.

Generating 1-3gigs of material just to print 30 brochures is not my idea of good workflow - and do you backup your work diligently? Now you have a backup problem too - but that's for another thread...

The other way of doing this is to create one PSD file with the graphics in the top most layers, and then each image in underlying layers. For each print, just activatate the appropriate layer and print it. For each size to be printed, you'll have to resample but Photoshop will accuratly render the text and graphics to the new size so cropping of any border or text will not be a problem. So at most, you'd have 3 PSD files of each size once you are done but I know that it works just as well to just work at the 8x11 size and upsize or downsize when needed.

This is the preferred method IMO as it saves a lot of time designing each page and the single PSD file you need to maintain will be around 400mb and all your work is saved in ONE FILE! (important for backup).

The problem now using QImage is that it only prints active layers so if I want to do use QImage to print my PSD file I still have to use Photoshop to activate the layers I want QImage to print. That means opening up the PSD file, activating the right layers, and then saving it again. Do you know how long it takes to save a 400mb PSD file? Now you need to do that 30 times for each size... sounds like fun! NOT!

The only real workaround is to use PS to save as TIFF or JPEG for QIMage to print and then just delete those files when done. That's passable, but it would be so much nicer if instead of saving to a file for QIMage I could just use a QImage Plugin that gave me the printing options while I am working within Photoshop.

Alternatively, while not perfect - if I could select the layers to be printed from within QImage and then batch those selections then I would be very happy too! Cropping would still be a problem but that pales in comparison with having to re-save the PSD file for each print when the images are stored in multiple layers.

I'd like to see either of the following or both - a QImage engine printing plugin for PS so I can stay within my main editing environment for printing or give QImage some understanding of PSD files so that I can control which layers get printed for each.

dlesko
 
Patrick Martin said:
Photoshop is great with what it does. QImage is great at what it
does. That doesn't mean the 2 would go great together.
Click to expand...
But yet they are used together... doesn't that mean they go great together?
Patrick Martin said:
Now, having their resampling as a Photoshop plug-in may be helpful,
but the power of the rest of QImage comes from its interface and
its stand-alone nature, I think.
Click to expand...
How would this power of QImage be diminished if there were a PS plugin for the up-rezzing or printing? It's not like the stand-alone version is going to disappear?

dlesko
 
Tricia said:
Tricia said:
"The purpose of QIMAGE is so that you do not have to use Photoshop."
Click to expand...
I think this statement means just what it says - so that you do not
have to use Photoshop;
Click to expand...
That's true, but what if you have to use Photoshop?
Tricia said:
if a person uses Elements or Paint Shop
Pro or Picture Windows Pro or Picture It or Corel Draw or whatever,
they can still use Qimage - which they probably couldn't do if it
were a PS plugin.
Click to expand...
So you are implying then that if there were a PS QImage plugin the stand-alone version would cease to exist? Isn't this an invalid assumption? I would assume that the Plugin would be in addition to the standalone version, and at additional cost.
Tricia said:
DDI is a very small operation. If there were several versions, Mike
wouldn't be able to make the constant improvements he does now.
Click to expand...
Then how does Neat Image do it? how does any small company do it? Size has nothing to do with ability to create software. In fact, smaller companies often produce more software and enhancements than larger ones.
Tricia said:
Just how much more than the current price for
the stand-alone version would you be willing to pay for a separate,
plugin version?
Click to expand...
Huh? so you'd price the plugin version higher than the standalone version?

FWIW, I'd make the plugin version slightly cheaper than the standalone version with an extra discount if both were purchased together.

I paid $44.95 for the standalone version so anywhere from $25-$35 bucks for the plugin version alone sounds about right with a bundle around $64.95 for both.
Tricia said:
Although DDI might be able to overcome this, there are limits in PS
that don't exist in Qimage - such as file size and length of
prints.
Click to expand...
Perfect, you've listed another reason that a QImage PS plugin is desireable for PS users!
Tricia said:
Tricia said:
Would the PS limitations compromise Qimage?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Does it now? Then it shouldn't then either...
Tricia said:
Now, if Adobe wanted to buy a plugin version of Qimage to
incorporate with PS, that would be worthwhile
Click to expand...
But it wouldn't be worthwhile until there were a plugin version! Why would Adobe be interested in a plugin that doesn't exist?
Tricia said:
I have a feeling that the ability to select various photos
from every directory plus CD's plus straight-from-the-camera photos
and print them all in one run would be lost.
Click to expand...
Obviously this is not the reason you would use a QImage plugin for PS.

dlesko
 
UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian said:
I understand your disappointment, but I'd be just as disappointed
if not more so with Adobe for NEVER realizing the need to have
better printing features in their rather expensive "professional"
products. Perhaps lobbying efforts should be focused there rather
on the little guy . ..
Click to expand...
What better way to lobby them then to actually FIX it for them with a plugin.

dlesko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top