Qimage One -- what do you think?

[Rob de Loe]

I've been peripherally aware of Qimage for many years, but never looked at it until today. When I was printing black and white with Epson printers, I used Quadtone RIP and a custom monochrome inkset -- so it wasn't even an option. Since switching to the Canon Pro-1000, I've gone back and forth between Lightroom's print module, and Canon Professional Print and Layout (CPPL). Both seemed fine.

In a recent thread on native printer resolution, Qimage came up a few times, always positively. So today I downloaded the 14-day trial version of Qimage One for Windows. Note that this is not Qimage Ultimate, but the same developer is involved; apparently it's a streamlined version that focuses on printing.

To cut to the chase, if you're using something else, you should try Qimage One. I haven't put my money down for a license yet (lots more testing to go), but if I keep getting the results I've gotten so far, I probably will.

The Test

I made three prints with image areas of 11" x 15.5" on Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte paper on a Canon Pro-1000. I use this paper for testing and drafts. If there's detail, it will hold it very well, for a matte paper.

The three prints were made using Lightroom's Print module; Qimage One for Windows (via Lightroom plugin); and Canon Professional Print and Layout (CPPL) via Lightroom plugin.

The test image I used has lots of detail everywhere, which helps in a comparison like this. There are also some areas where details are in deep shadows; getting those right is especially important for black and white.


Test image. Fuji GFX 50R on my Toyo VX23D. There's loads of fine detail in every part of the image that isn't sky or moving water.

For each of the three prints, I tried to keep everything similar or the same to make it a fair comparison:

• Same driver settings
• 600 dpi in Lightroom and Qimage; "finest quality" in CPPL. There's no setting for dpi that I can see, and this option was locked in.
• Black and white mode selected in the Canon driver.
• Black and white mode explicitly selected in CPPL (which allows this); "Printer manages color" in LR and Qimage (which means black and white mode via the driver).
• Sharpening set to Default (5) for Qimage; Standard for matte paper in Lightroom; and whatever Canon Professional Print and Layout uses because there doesn't seem to be a setting to control print sharpening
• No fiddling with contrast at the print stage in Lightroom, or in the other tools.

The results

I was going to make some pictures to compare the prints, but that almost never works well. So you'll have to take my word for these initial results.

Detail/Sharpness

• Qimage did the best job with the details. If there was something to see in the original, it was more present in the Qimage print than in the others. Qimage recommends the default setting for most prints, and they're not wrong.
• Lightroom's standard sharpening for matte paper was close to Qimage for preservation of detail. I suspect it could be even closer to Qimage than these prints show, but that it looks worse because of the shadow problem (below).
• CPPL was clearly the worst. It's far from terrible, but areas that showed detail in the other two prints were softer in the CPPL print. Is there an output sharpening setting in CPPL that I'm missing?

To put this in perspective, I doubt the vast majority of people looking at the three prints would notice the things I saw, especially if the prints are not side-by-side. Don't get the idea that the CPPL print is "bad". It's not -- especially at anything resembling a normal viewing distance. It's just that the Qimage and Lightroom prints preserved more of the details I worked so hard to get into this image. If I used CPPL exclusively, I'd have to pay more attention to sharpening specifically for printing.

Tones

Yes, I use a calibrated workflow.

• Lightroom crushed my shadows. If Lightroom was my only choice, I'd have to boost the shadows before printing to get it back to where it needs to be to look like what I see on my calibrated screen. This was surprising.
• CPPL and Qimage both did a good job of producing a print that looked like what I'm seeing on my calibrated screen. However, I still give it to Qimage because that print seems to match what I see on screen just a bit better overall.

For context again, a non-photographer comparing the Lightroom print to the others would easily be able to notice the crushed shadows. Of course I could fix that by adjusting the image for printing, but it's bothersome that I'd have to.

I appreciate that Qimage One and CPPL got me much closer to what I see on my screen. Before I get too excited, I need to do more testing, but I'm curious if anyone else has noticed what I'm seeing.

Setup and ease of use

All three have quirks and annoyances. Pick your poison. I could use any one of them, just with different grumbles.

• I find Lightroom the least intuitive. I realize that's just me. Lots of people love the design of the print module.
• CPPL, launched from Lightroom, is generally understandable, and has a few features I quite like (especially the ability to do toning). I think it should be easier to define the size of the printed area, and where are those sharpening settings?
• Qimage One for Windows reminds me of late 1990s Windows software. Ugh. However, if you can get past that, the overall design is solid. I like being able to specify the size of the paper and the size of the imaged area. The ability to put multiple images on one sheet is a huge plus.

Conclusion

No firm conclusions yet... This post is a conversation starter rather than a conclusive review.

I will say that if you haven't tried Qimage One (for Windows or Mac), it's worth a look. So far, I'm impressed.

 

[Priscilla Turner]

Personally, which is I'm sure what you want, I've never used a better printing programme than QImage One. Among other merits, it prints really plonk in the middle of the piece of substrate. This matters to me especially when I'm printing with a coloured margin or simulated second mat, but also when I want to minimise the loss of image behind any mat. The Canon programme won't load to my older PC; but with my former Epson I could never achieve this centering out of any other programme .

 

[Rob de Loe]

• 600 dpi in Lightroom and Qimage; "finest quality" in CPPL. There's no setting for dpi that I can see, and this option was locked in

Darn it, you can't edit the original post! That should of course be "ppi".

 

[nickbatz]

Thanks for posting that - I've been curious about QImage and posted sort of unanswered questions here a couple of times. Looking forward to reading it in more detail.

Affinity Photo exported TIFFs to Pro Print & Layout is working very well for me (also Pro-1000), and by sheer accident my monitor's color matches what comes out amazingly well.

But if there's a good reason to switch to QImage on a Mac, who knows.

 

[Priscilla Turner]

• 600 dpi in Lightroom and Qimage; "finest quality" in CPPL. There's no setting for dpi that I can see, and this option was locked in

Darn it, you can't edit the original post! That should of course be "ppi".

The trick is to edit before anyone has replied to it. :-D

 

[R M S]

Earlier this year my Q1 license was due for renewal, I remember that last year I renewed for a year, but since I've really gotten to like the software, I decided to go for the lifetime lic this time: no regrets.

btw:
I use a Canon Pro1000 and Epson R3880 (the Epson is about to kick the bucket (photoblack is clogged)).

---
Ron

 

[mujana]

Earlier this year my Q1 license was due for renewal, I remember that last year I renewed for a year, but since I've really gotten to like the software, I decided to go for the lifetime lic this time: no regrets.

btw:
I use a Canon Pro1000 and Epson R3880 (the Epson is about to kick the bucket (photoblack is clogged)).

---
Ron

Same here; changed to lifetime license. Really like it!

 

[Rand 47]

Does the soft proofing function in Qimage work in a similar, side-by-side comparison manner as does the Lightroom Classic’s soft-proofing? I love Lightroom’s workflow for this reason alone. And I’ve been curious about Qimage, but would not sacrifice the ability to do good quality soft-proofing.

Rand

 

[jrkliny]

I cannot comment on Qimage One but perhaps my experience with Qimage Ultimate will help.

For me, QU makes printing easy and foolproof. I especially like the paper/paper size templates that makes it easy to go from uploading to printing. In addition, there are tons of specialized logs, layout, and other functions related to printing that I like even though I rarely use many of them.

That said, if you are expecting Qimage to make a difference in print quality, you need to take a look at your workflow. QU has some post processing functions such as sharpening, noise reduction, and interpolation. Some, or all, of this is better than you can get in Lightroom or Photoshop, but........ there are better tools available elsewhere. For sharpening, noise reduction and interpolation, I would recommend looking at Topaz products.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Personally, which is I'm sure what you want, I've never used a better printing programme than QImage One. Among other merits, it prints really plonk in the middle of the piece of substrate. This matters to me especially when I'm printing with a coloured margin or simulated second mat, but also when I want to minimise the loss of image behind any mat. The Canon programme won't load to my older PC; but with my former Epson I could never achieve this centering out of any other programme .

The centring tool is very effective. I made a frustrating few prints before discovering it... If only there was a way to find out in advance how software works before you use it. Oh yes, RTFM!

 

[Rob de Loe]

But if there's a good reason to switch to QImage on a Mac, who knows.

On one hand, I think we're in, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" territory. In other words, if your current workflow works, switching to something else may be a waste of time

On the other hand, it didn't take me long at all to discover a couple important benefits that produce a noticeable improvement (to me anyway).

The problem of Lightroom crushing my shadows is not minor. If I can confirm that with a few other images, that alone would send me to a different tool.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Does the soft proofing function in Qimage work in a similar, side-by-side comparison manner as does the Lightroom Classic’s soft-proofing? I love Lightroom’s workflow for this reason alone. And I’ve been curious about Qimage, but would not sacrifice the ability to do good quality soft-proofing.

Rand

From what I can tell, Qimage has capable soft proofing tools. For what it's worth, here's a quick comparison of Qimage One to Lightroom. I'm softproofing using my ICC for Premier Art Smooth Fine Art 320 GSM, a warm cotton rag paper (similar to Epson Hot Press Natural).

Without having the actual print as a baseline, this comparison doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the softproofing. What it does show is the following:

• Qimage One takes a shot at getting the paper base the right colour (which Lightroom does not).
• They seem comparable overall, and in shadow areas, which often are trouble spots.

CPPL softproofing, in contrast, didn't strike me as very useful.


Lightroom softproof






Qimage One softproof

 

[PMB]

What is the difference between Qimage One and Qimage Ultimate? They appear to have separate webpages. Price for Qimage One is between $79.99 and $119.99. Price for Qimage Ultimate is $89.99 and $139.99.

And where does Qimage sit in the workflow? For example, today I use Photoshop to print, which interfaces with the Canon printer driver to send files (images) to my Canon PRO-300 printer. Does Qimage replace the role of the printer driver? Or does it sit somewhere between, or along side of, Photoshop and the Canon printer driver? Does it matter whether the printer is hardwired or Wi-Fi?

I am happy with the editing I get with ACR and Photoshop so I am not looking to add to my editing workflow, but I wonder if there are any features/functions that Qimage provides for printing that I can't avail of now with just the Canon printer driver?

I've spent too much for add-on software that I hardly every use (LaserSoft comes to mind), and I'm retired on a modest income, and gas is much more expensive today, that I am watching my pennies more closely.

Thanks,
Peter

 

[Rob de Loe]

I cannot comment on Qimage One but perhaps my experience with Qimage Ultimate will help.

For me, QU makes printing easy and foolproof. I especially like the paper/paper size templates that makes it easy to go from uploading to printing. In addition, there are tons of specialized logs, layout, and other functions related to printing that I like even though I rarely use many of them.

Agree. All three tools I tried get the job done. But overall Qimage One makes it a bit easier, and easier to repeat (which is important to me).

That said, if you are expecting Qimage to make a difference in print quality, you need to take a look at your workflow. QU has some post processing functions such as sharpening, noise reduction, and interpolation. Some, or all, of this is better than you can get in Lightroom or Photoshop, but........ there are better tools available elsewhere. For sharpening, noise reduction and interpolation, I would recommend looking at Topaz products.

Yes... but my take is a bit different. I don't have any complaints about what I could do in Lightroom. Sharpening and noise reduction tools in Lightroom meet all my needs. I can get the image where I want it in Lightroom.

My goal for a printing tool is that I don't have to do all kinds of extra mucking around in Lightroom (or in the tool) to get as close as possible to the screen version as the paper, ink and printer will allow.

It doesn't always work out that way. With Quadtone RIP and Eboni ink on my Epson 3880, I had to give shadows a bump using a tone curve before printing. The result I got from Lightroom during yesterday's test suggests I need to do the same thing, and that I don't like. It could be an isolated problem, so I have to dig deeper into that. But it shows what I'm after.

 

[Rand 47]

Rob, Many thanks …

Rand

Does the soft proofing function in Qimage work in a similar, side-by-side comparison manner as does the Lightroom Classic’s soft-proofing? I love Lightroom’s workflow for this reason alone. And I’ve been curious about Qimage, but would not sacrifice the ability to do good quality soft-proofing.

Rand

From what I can tell, Qimage has capable soft proofing tools. For what it's worth, here's a quick comparison of Qimage One to Lightroom. I'm softproofing using my ICC for Premier Art Smooth Fine Art 320 GSM, a warm cotton rag paper (similar to Epson Hot Press Natural).

Without having the actual print as a baseline, this comparison doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the softproofing. What it does show is the following:

• Qimage One takes a shot at getting the paper base the right colour (which Lightroom does not).
• They seem comparable overall, and in shadow areas, which often are trouble spots.

CPPL softproofing, in contrast, didn't strike me as very useful.


Lightroom softproof


Qimage One softproof

 

[Rob de Loe]

Almost all of my photography (and printing) is black and white, so I'm especially sensitive to what different tools can do for me in a monochrome workflow.

If Qimage One had the ability to tone black and white prints at the print stage, like Canon Professional Print and Layout, I'd own it already.

The ability to warm and cool monochrome prints with a variable tone monochrome inkset and Quadtone RIP was one of the best features of my previous workflow.

I was delighted to see it in CPPL, and miss it in Qimage One. If you use Qimage Ultimate, is that function available with that tool?

 

[Rob de Loe]

What is the difference between Qimage One and Qimage Ultimate? They appear to have separate webpages. Price for Qimage One is between $79.99 and $119.99. Price for Qimage Ultimate is $89.99 and $139.99.

Qimage Ultimate is a Windows application. To satisfy Mac users, as I understand it, the developer teamed up with someone and created an application for Mac and Windows (Qimage One) that focused on the printing side. I haven't used Ultimate but as I understand it, you can do everything you can with Qimage One, plus other things.

And where does Qimage sit in the workflow? For example, today I use Photoshop to print, which interfaces with the Canon printer driver to send files (images) to my Canon PRO-300 printer. Does Qimage replace the role of the printer driver? Or does it sit somewhere between, or along side of, Photoshop and the Canon printer driver? Does it matter whether the printer is hardwired or Wi-Fi?

Qimage is not a RIP, so it uses the printer's driver. Have you used Canon Professional Print and Layout? It's exactly the same idea.

You can use Qimage as a standalone application, e.g., export from Photoshop to a TIFF and then load the TIFF in Qimage. I use it as a plugin from Lightroom. When I want to print, I select the file, and then send it to Qimage. In effect, Lightroom exports it to Qimage as a TIFF.

I am happy with the editing I get with ACR and Photoshop so I am not looking to add to my editing workflow, but I wonder if there are any features/functions that Qimage provides for printing that I can't avail of now with just the Canon printer driver?

It's not the driver that makes the difference.

Qimage may make a difference in ways that matter to you, or not. I spotted a couple things already that it does very well (sharpening, and tone).

I've spent too much for add-on software that I hardly every use (LaserSoft comes to mind), and I'm retired on a modest income, and gas is much more expensive today, that I am watching my pennies more closely.

If it ain't broke, don't fit it.

Having said that... they do offer a 14 day trial so you can give it a good workout before putting money down.

Thanks,
Peter

 

[jrkliny]

Yes... but my take is a bit different. I don't have any complaints about what I could do in Lightroom. Sharpening and noise reduction tools in Lightroom meet all my needs. I can get the image where I want it in Lightroom.

Being satisfied with the sharpening and noise reduction in Lightroom is great since it will simplify your workflow.

Unfortunately when I bought my new Canon camera a few years ago, I found Canon's DPP4 software did a much better job of opening raw files than the ACR software in use for Lightroom and Photoshop. Lens corrections, diffraction correction, noise reduction, and colors were clearly superior with DPP4.

Also unfortunately, I tried and then bought Topaz AI Sharpen several months ago. Wow! You may not need the capability routinely but that software has absolutely astounding capabilities for sharpening and noise reduction when needed. I have started to use it routinely for my macro botanicals where sharpening is an issue due to limited depth of field and where I am also often pressed into shooting high ISO due to limited light and the need to shoot at a tight aperture and sufficient shutter speed to freeze plants moving in the wind.

On the fortunate side, DPP4 is free and Topaz AI Sharpen has a reasonable price and I can use the software indefinitely unless I later find I want to pay for upgrades.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Yes... but my take is a bit different. I don't have any complaints about what I could do in Lightroom. Sharpening and noise reduction tools in Lightroom meet all my needs. I can get the image where I want it in Lightroom.

Being satisfied with the sharpening and noise reduction in Lightroom is great since it will simplify your workflow.

Unfortunately when I bought my new Canon camera a few years ago, I found Canon's DPP4 software did a much better job of opening raw files than the ACR software in use for Lightroom and Photoshop. Lens corrections, diffraction correction, noise reduction, and colors were clearly superior with DPP4.

Also unfortunately, I tried and then bought Topaz AI Sharpen several months ago. Wow! You may not need the capability routinely but that software has absolutely astounding capabilities for sharpening and noise reduction when needed. I have started to use it routinely for my macro botanicals where sharpening is an issue due to limited depth of field and where I am also often pressed into shooting high ISO due to limited light and the need to shoot at a tight aperture and sufficient shutter speed to freeze plants moving in the wind.

On the fortunate side, DPP4 is free and Topaz AI Sharpen has a reasonable price and I can use the software indefinitely unless I later find I want to pay for upgrades.

I think a lot of it has to do with the starting point, subject matter and personal expectations.

I'm shooting a GFX 50R with adapted lenses, and I stick to base ISO except rare cases where I need to go as high as 800. I only have a couple lenses that need more than very minimal sharpening; even with those I can easily meet my needs inside Lightroom.

On the printing side, I like matte paper, which means I'm already comfortable with less on-print sharpness than people who like glossy and metal.

We're very fortunate to have such a huge range of tools. There really is a good solution for (almost) everyone.

 

[nickbatz]

Also unfortunately, I tried and then bought Topaz AI Sharpen several months ago. Wow! You may not need the capability routinely but that software has absolutely astounding capabilities for sharpening and noise reduction when needed. I have started to use it routinely for my macro botanicals where sharpening is an issue due to limited depth of field and where I am also often pressed into shooting high ISO due to limited light and the need to shoot at a tight aperture and sufficient shutter speed to freeze plants moving in the wind.

I use Gigapixel AI all the time. What it does is amazing.

But I downloaded the AI Sharpen demo and have been totally underwhelmed. It looks like it does a good job when you feed it the right things, but it's been a failure on the images I tried it on.

Back to Qimage: I don't need the printing program for processing, it just needs to resize images to the margins I set and print.