apparelpolew.blogg.se

If you use other software for conversion and editing, nothning you do in Qimage can be returned to your original software.

If you're going to keep your work flow in good shape, you're going to either do the whole thing in Qimage, download, convert raw, edit, print, etc., or just use Qimage for layout and printing only. Almost all of the QU "improvements" have to do with things other than "printing."

I doubt that you can see a difference in print quality with the last Qimage (Studio I think) before the current version, Qimage Ultimate. The results of the test was not conclusive enouth to say that one makes better prints than the other. A slight majority selected the LR print, and that was before Lightroom 4.1 which has improved the Lightroom results in great measure. All that the test proved is that both applications make very fine prints. I have made prints of the same images with Lightroom and QU and asked a nymber of unbiased observers to judge the best in a blind test. It is a myth that is circulated by the QU fans that it does better resampleing and sharpening than LR. When compared to apps like Lightroom and Capture One, I feel that QU is in the minor leagues in every respect except some aspects of photo layout, and it is loosing its advantage in photo layout when compared to Lightroom. The main thrust of QU (Ultimate) is raw conversion and editing. The layout routines and printing routnes have what many consider to be only cosmetic improvements. Over time, the application started shifting to RAW conversion and photo editing. Its strength was, as is, page amd multiple page layout, and easier printing than possible with Photoshop. I have used Qimage almost from the time it came out.