Is QIMAGE missing the point?

[David Lobel]

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

 

[Patrick Martin]

Photoshop is great with what it does. QImage is great at what it does. That doesn't mean the 2 would go great together.

To me, they serve very different purposes. I use Photoshop to do image manipulation and editing. I use QImage to print a lot of pictures at once, in the size I want them, several to a page, etc.

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.

--
Patrick Martin
http://www.patrickmartin.com

 

[Tricia]

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.

I believe you misunderstood their statement. Qimage is not meant as a replacement for Photoshop.

"The purpose of QIMAGE is so that you do not have to use Photoshop."

I think this statement means just what it says - so that you do not have to use Photoshop; 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.

DDI is a very small operation. If there were several versions, Mike wouldn't be able to make the constant improvements he does now. That's probably why there isn't a Mac version, which is also constantly requested. Just how much more than the current price for the stand-alone version would you be willing to pay for a separate, plugin version?

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. I make a lot of collages in a little program called LumaPix FotoFusion, most of them 5' to 7', as well as long banners in PS. These files will only partially print on my 2200 with WinXP Pro and PS 7 or PS CS, and I've heard the same about the 7600 - but Qimage handles them with ease. Would the PS limitations compromise Qimage?

Now, if Adobe wanted to buy a plugin version of Qimage to incorporate with PS, that would be worthwhile - then Adobe could do the updates everytime they came out with a new version of PS. However, 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.

--
Tricia

 

[nicola]

The only reason why I would use Qimage as a PS plugin would be the interpolation capabilities of Qimage's pyramid. So, IMO perhaps Mike should consider developing a plugin version only for interpolation. Even if I have to say that, after some tests I have done comparing Pyramid & Vector to PS CS's bicubic smoother, the results are not far away.

Other than that, I am happy the two SW are separate! My prints from PS look exactly the same as those out of Qimage. So, if I am working on a file in PS, I can easily print it thru PS w/out affecting my workflow and getting the same results.

On the other hand, Qimage is an irreplacebale application on its own when printing lots of prints in one time from files alrdy edited, or, as Tricia alrdy pointed out, when printing long banners/panoramas.
that's my 2 cents........

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

--
Nicola (mr)
(Amateur Photographer)
http://www.pbase.com/nicola/galleries

 

[UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian]

..that if Mike wants to put on his pants with both legs in at once then that's his choice and who am I to argue?

The fact of the matter is Qimage stands on it's own to the full satisfaction of it's users and it's creator. If and when Mike isn't satisfied with the market he is in he'll surely do what's best for himself . . again his choice . .

I for one fully appreciate what Mike does for us and the fantastic products he's produced, Profile Prism included. I wouldn't change a thing Mike !

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 . .

--
Gerald
aka. Uzi Lovin Hawaiian - Defender of Common Sense!
Honolulu, Hawaii

 

[Mike Chaney]

"The purpose of QIMAGE is so that you do not have to use Photoshop."

I think you either misunderstood, or our reply needs further clarification. In some respects, Qimage and PS are mutually exclusive in what they do, so the above statement has to be read in the context of "for what Qimage does" added at the end of that statement.

Qimage is standalone software so that you don't have to use behemoths like PhotoShop... to print multiple images... or to make minor touchups prior to printing. There's no need to "fight" the PhotoShop interface to try to print 20 4x6 prints of images that you know are ready to print (with maybe only a few corrections like red eye, blemish removal, some levels, etc.). In most cases, you can load Qimage and you will have already navigated to the folder in question and will have started selecting the first batch of images using the thumbnails before PhotoShop CS can even load!

A full featured program that offers batch processing of multiple images, filtering, borders, cutouts, text, and has low level access to the print driver is not a candidate to be a plugin inside another [large] program. I can see the benefit to having certain small pieces of Qimage in PhotoShop as plugins such as vector/pyramid interpolation, the sharpness equalizer, and other selected "fillters", but to try to "dump" all of Qimage into PhotoShop is to dilute the very thing that makes Qimage what it is today. Stability would be greatly reduced due simply to the added overhead of having to run both at the same time, plus there are some things that just cannot be done as a plugin: plugins are not compilers; they must run under the auspices of PhotoShop and within those limitations.

So no, it doesn't make sense to make Qimage a PhotoShop plugin any more than it would to make something like your favorite word processor a PS plugin. It's the same reason that no one makes a 30 pound sledge hammer with a flat head screwdriver at the other end of the handle. Best to use the right tool for the right job.

Oh, and as for Bill Gates "embrace and extend", I'm happy for him that he makes so much money. A bloated tick on a dog's back has a pretty easy life too, but the difference is, the tick does it out of necessity, not because he just saw an opportunity to take something from the dog! The only reason for me to try to put the entire Qimage program into a PhotoShop plugin would be to dip into Adobe's pot, and that's not the way I do business. I really don't think putting Qimage [as a whole] into a PS plugin would benefit the end user, which is why I don't do it.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com

 

[JLK]

I can see the benefit to having certain
small pieces of Qimage in PhotoShop as plugins such as
vector/pyramid interpolation, the sharpness equalizer, and other
selected "fillters"...

I'd be happy to pay for this, Mike. Especially if the PS plugin would work on the Mac platform as well...

--Jim--

 

[Sunil]

As a developer, it is not always easy to integrate. Mike may have already

gone over this possibility and realized QI would have to sacrifice some features.
Also for those who are bent on having plugin -
When PS changes direction will QI also have to change or can Mike
continue to to roll out enhancements letting PS go it's own way ????
Adobe has it's own direction and tomorrow if I want to use another
program, will I be stuck without QI as it's only available as a plug-in ?

Developing QI as a standalone + plug-in has to require additional overheads. With PS available on the MAC and no QI for the mac how can QI be a plugin without even more resources ??????
Money talks.....

Now if all those users who want QI as plug-in are prepared to finance this venture.........Mike ?????

Sunil G.

 

[Mike Chaney]

Now if all those users who want QI as plug-in are prepared to
finance this venture.........Mike ?????

Given enough money (which equates to resources), anything can be done. I'd still be a little leary of taking people's money to go on this venture when I don't believe in it myself. It's tough to push something that you don't believe in, and I just don't think a full Qimage plugin for PS is going to bring any real returns for customers in the end.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com

 

[Yan Moyaux]

IMO: Bottom line is always that the market (the users) will drive future software development. If enough people (a meaningful market %) would write to Mike Chaney or DDI software, they'll seriously consider it and put it on their list of enhancements (which could still happen). And all sofware developpers appreciate new ideas suggestions. so keep them coming.

Personnaly, I have been using Photoshop, and now Paintshop Pro in combination of QImage for many years now. I have both running at the same time. It's easy enough to switch from one window to another. I don't feel like I would save processing time to have them integrated.

And I like the point that Mike made about stability. Currently if Photoshop or QImage has a problem , it won't take down the other. Not the case with a plug-in.

PS:Here's another idea. Maybe Photoshop should be a plug-in to QImage and follow QImage's associated filters scheme.

Yan.

Now if all those users who want QI as plug-in are prepared to
finance this venture.........Mike ?????

Given enough money (which equates to resources), anything can be
done. I'd still be a little leary of taking people's money to go
on this venture when I don't believe in it myself. It's tough to
push something that you don't believe in, and I just don't think a
full Qimage plugin for PS is going to bring any real returns for
customers in the end.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com

 

[Jeff Kohn]

. . .another [large] program. I can see the benefit to having certain
small pieces of Qimage in PhotoShop as plugins such as
vector/pyramid interpolation, the sharpness equalizer, and other
selected "fillters", but to try to "dump" all of Qimage into. . .

I too would like to see this; it would be great to be able to use your interpolation filters when resizing for the web without complicating the workflow.

 

[Bryon Daly]

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."

That's exactly one of the main reasons why I bought Qimage. Before I did so, if I wanted to print a batch of pictures, I used to go into PS, create a blank 8.5x11 page, and then paste in and arrange all the hand-cropped photos I wanted to print, at the sizes I needed.

With Qimage, much of that process is automated or greatly simplified, so I have no need/desire to go into PS unless I actually want to edit the picture.

Making Qimage a photoshop plug-in doesn't have much benefit as I see it. But I would love to see Qimage's impressive interpolation algorithms made into a plug-in.

 

[Ron Lebel]

Let me add my .02 for the idea of having a Qimage printing plugin. I am organizationaly challenged, so keeping track of various files representing the "same" photo is a problem. What I like to do is just have the original captured image and a psd file and print it. But Qimage doesn't really work with a PSD file so I have to make a tiff and then switch to Qimage. Qimage has lots of wonderful features that I occasionally use, but the main thing I generally want to do is print one wonderful print. So I tend to only use Qimage when I am upres'ing, but if there was a plug in I'd print with it all the time.

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

 

[wmdunn]

Ron . . . not sure what you are referring to. I use QImage to print .psd files quite often . . .

~ Bill Dunn

 

[JLK]

Now if all those users who want QI as plug-in are prepared to
finance this venture.........Mike ?????

Given enough money (which equates to resources), anything can be
done. I'd still be a little leary of taking people's money to go
on this venture when I don't believe in it myself. It's tough to
push something that you don't believe in, and I just don't think a
full Qimage plugin for PS is going to bring any real returns for
customers in the end.

--
Mike
http://www.ddisoftware.com

Hey Mike,

I think a partial Qimage plugin (as you mentioned before---interpolation, sharpness equalizer, etc) would be a great addition to the software stable. I think you've mentioned before that your development tools aren't directly cross-compatible with the Mac platform---but as an interested user, it's my duty to let you know that I'll keep a (small) pile of money on my nightstand waiting for you to deliver...



(How's the SD10 treating you?)

--
--Jim--

 

[ColleenMod]

I always work in PSD and also use Qimage.

The main reason I bought Qimage is because of a major defiicincy in PS. The ability to print different photos on a single page in a single run. I still don't understand why Adobe hasn't done this. But still when you consider that that it's only in fairly recent versions that it has let you print anywhere other than the centre of the page, Adobe must still be trying to catch up.

Ron . . . not sure what you are referring to. I use QImage to
print .psd files quite often . . .

~ Bill Dunn

--
ColleenMod

 

[Lawrence Keeney]

I have read all the responses and I just have to add my 2 cents worth.

I use both Photoshop CS and Qimage. I use each one for its strengths and I have no desire to see Qimage as part of Photoshop.

After postprocessing my photos in Photoshop, I save them as PSD. Once I have all my photos processed, I switch to Qimage for printing. I do not do any photo editing in Qimage. Not that Qimage can't handle my work, it is just that I have used Photoshop for many years and I am comfortable with it.

I would not give up my Qimage for anything. Qimage and Epson 2200 make a good combination.

Good going Mike.

--

'Good judgement comes from experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgement'. - from an Australian Aviation Magazine.



--
Lawrence

 

[jpara]

I agree, the functions they provide are different enough that I do not see alot of benefit from Mike providing QImage as a PS plug-in. I'm sure Mike has a list of new features for QImage that would benefit us all more than re-directing his efforts toward a PS plug-in.

I have read all the responses and I just have to add my 2 cents worth.

I use both Photoshop CS and Qimage. I use each one for its
strengths and I have no desire to see Qimage as part of Photoshop.

After postprocessing my photos in Photoshop, I save them as PSD.
Once I have all my photos processed, I switch to Qimage for
printing. I do not do any photo editing in Qimage. Not that Qimage
can't handle my work, it is just that I have used Photoshop for
many years and I am comfortable with it.

I would not give up my Qimage for anything. Qimage and Epson 2200
make a good combination.

Good going Mike.

--
'Good judgement comes from experience. Unfortunately, the
experience usually comes from bad judgement'. - from an Australian
Aviation Magazine.



--
Lawrence

 

[3dwag]

Amen, Lawrence!

I use both Photoshop CS and Qimage. I use each one for its
strengths and I have no desire to see Qimage as part of Photoshop.

I would not give up my Qimage for anything. Qimage and Epson 2200
make a good combination.

Good going Mike.

--
-Dennis W. Wagner
San Jose, California

 

[UZi_Lovin_Hawaiian]

Yep that's my stance too.

If someone wants PS to have better printing features then they should be lobbying Adobe, not Mike.

I have read all the responses and I just have to add my 2 cents worth.

I use both Photoshop CS and Qimage. I use each one for its
strengths and I have no desire to see Qimage as part of Photoshop.

After postprocessing my photos in Photoshop, I save them as PSD.
Once I have all my photos processed, I switch to Qimage for
printing. I do not do any photo editing in Qimage. Not that Qimage
can't handle my work, it is just that I have used Photoshop for
many years and I am comfortable with it.

I would not give up my Qimage for anything. Qimage and Epson 2200
make a good combination.

Good going Mike.

--
'Good judgement comes from experience. Unfortunately, the
experience usually comes from bad judgement'. - from an Australian
Aviation Magazine.



--
Lawrence

--
Gerald
aka. Uzi Lovin Hawaiian - Defender of Common Sense!
Honolulu, Hawaii