Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
 41 
 on: Today at 09:51:28 AM 
Started by Robert Ardill - Last post by Mark D Segal
Yes right, on closer inspection of the list of supported cameras I see it is there - thanks for the correction.

Yes, one can use Windows without Parallels, but that means using Bootcamp, which is much less convenient. Anyhow, Parallels is a relatively inexpensive add-on compared with the price of buying Windows, an OS I left in 2010 and would be very reluctant to return to unless I had no options. I have it on my laptop  - did that for my consulting work "just in case" of compatibility issues for files I receive from others, but so far have made very little use of it. If QImage came out with a Mac version, at least out of intellectual curiosity, I would be interested in testing it versus Lightroom.

 42 
 on: Today at 09:50:13 AM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by mezzoduomo
There was a spokesman from the Palestinians on the radio the other night and when pressed about militants hiding amongst the civilians
his response was where else can they go ?
Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth and it's citizens are not free to come & go and there's no where for anyone to hide.


Yes, it's very crowded there. Thus Hamas has no choice but to put tunnel entrances under people's homes, and no good place to store rockets except the mosques and UN schools.

 43 
 on: Today at 09:49:58 AM 
Started by Phil Corley - Last post by shawnino
I really like the colours and the intensity of the water and sky.

I'm actually of three minds on the composition, specifically the horizon. I actually think the current symmetry works, but I'd like to just-for-fun see if moving the horizon lower or higher drastically changes things... but only because previous posters mention it. Without reading their comments, I doubt I would have thought of it.

 44 
 on: Today at 09:49:26 AM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by trevarthan
I'm not sure if I'm just a little nuts, or if this is a common problem. I reshoot my scenes a lot, because I'm trying to realize (or beat) a vision I have in my head. Sometimes the light doesn't cooperate. Sometimes I screw something up. This scene right now is really starting to be a problem for me:

Downtown Chattanooga from Market Street Bridge by Trevarthan, on Flickr

I don't mind the drive, or the scenery. My biggest annoyance is getting the composition right on the tripod. It takes forever. I have a reasonably sturdy Manfrotto 055XProb with a ball head. It's easy to adjust, but I guess I'm a little annoyed it doesn't have markings so I can reproduce height, tilt, pan, etc easily. I spend up to 20 minutes on it each shoot. Glance at my reference photo on my phone. Tweak. Repeat. Real pain.

Anyone else experience this? Any good ideas or solutions to make it easier?

 45 
 on: Today at 09:48:36 AM 
Started by yalag - Last post by yalag
On the left side of the UI are a list of print templates. It stores everything for the print job and can be updated too. So suppose you click on one and it's set for Luster profile but you change and don't update it after picking Glossy or something else. It can default back to the previous setting. Maybe, maybe not but check. Now I see that you get the same results from Photoshop and LR which is a good sign, indicating you did setup both correctly (or both incorrectly  Huh) and that maybe the issue is Aperture and it's settings.

You might need to download a reference image to test such you know which of the two are wrong (Aperture or LR/PS). There's one here:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip

Does Aperture or PS look correct?

Also, on the left I don't use any of the existing template. I had to click on "page setup" and choose the paper size, orientation and so on. But I don't set the paper type there either. It's set in the Print dialog.

 46 
 on: Today at 09:44:27 AM 
Started by yalag - Last post by yalag
On the left side of the UI are a list of print templates. It stores everything for the print job and can be updated too. So suppose you click on one and it's set for Luster profile but you change and don't update it after picking Glossy or something else. It can default back to the previous setting. Maybe, maybe not but check. Now I see that you get the same results from Photoshop and LR which is a good sign, indicating you did setup both correctly (or both incorrectly  Huh) and that maybe the issue is Aperture and it's settings.

You might need to download a reference image to test such you know which of the two are wrong (Aperture or LR/PS). There's one here:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip

Does Aperture or PS look correct?

Aperture looks correct and close to what the monitor shown though not perfect. LR/PS was both equally incorrect (far off from the monitor and it's soft proofing presentation).

 47 
 on: Today at 09:44:06 AM 
Started by Herbc - Last post by Mark D Segal
Windows or Mac shouldn't make a difference. It sounds like a profiling issue. Are you soft-proofing your images for their printer/paper combination?

 48 
 on: Today at 09:43:00 AM 
Started by Robert Ardill - Last post by Ernst Dinkla
No I have not. My suggestions are based on how I would go about doing such tests if I had the inclination to do so. But I do not, because I am on Mac, do not intend to install Parallels and Windows on this computer for what may be little (if any) incremental advantage (a lot of expense and potential Windows-related security issues) and I have been fully satisfied with the quality of print output I get from Lightroom, including the sharpening, which is very well-implemented. I know a huge number of Windows users think very highly of QImage, so if I were on Windows I would definitely test it quite thoroughly relative to Lightroom.

To be mindful of: I see from their website that QImage does not yet support the Sony a6000, which entered the market about four months ago. I would be frustrated by this because it is the camera I most use these days. Also, I could not find whether QImage supports soft-proofing. If that were correct, I would not use it for printing photographs, because I consider soft-proofing an important final step in adjusting my images for print. If I am wrong about that, so much the better for QImage.

Check Google (no need to install Parallels for that)

Sony A6000 is supported in QU since early July. http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-raw.htm

Softproof existed in the old Qimage Pro already; Ctrl+space gives the softproof image + information of the printer profile/rendering, hit space again and the normal image appears, Esc to go back to the main menu. Robert will know that.

In QU profiling can be adapted per image when several are already nested on the print page. Few applications or RIPs that have that feature. There are more QU features like that. Whether Roberts needs QU given his low print volume is a question I can not answer. Print quality like Qimage can deliver is possible with Lightroom + some other applications Bart mentioned in other threads. Whether it works as fast and easy as QU is another matter. Recalling old jobs with the right QU + printer driver settings is one of the things I would not like to miss. The QU job log is precious data for me.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

 49 
 on: Today at 09:41:39 AM 
Started by yalag - Last post by digitaldog
Sorry, what is a template? How do I build or update it? Where am I looking at again?

How do I make sure I'm not suing version 4 icc profiles? I'm using my own printer and monitor profiles.

On the left side of the UI are a list of print templates. It stores everything for the print job and can be updated too. So suppose you click on one and it's set for Luster profile but you change and don't update it after picking Glossy or something else. It can default back to the previous setting. Maybe, maybe not but check. Now I see that you get the same results from Photoshop and LR which is a good sign, indicating you did setup both correctly (or both incorrectly  Huh) and that maybe the issue is Aperture and it's settings.

You might need to download a reference image to test such you know which of the two are wrong (Aperture or LR/PS). There's one here:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip

Does Aperture or PS look correct?

 50 
 on: Today at 09:40:06 AM 
Started by Herbc - Last post by Herbc
I usually print my own stuff on paper and TRY to print on canvas on my 3800, but when I need a larger print,
my local shop has been quite helpful, especially on canvas.  Their work was always directly compatible with mine.  I take a file to them, they print it on their monster Epson, no problem.
Lately, the prints from this approach are delivering VERY light prints, not acceptable.  They are quite willing to work with me, but the only solution I can think of is to take them a paper print and ask them to match it on their machine with their canvas effort; i.e. when I cannot make my machine print the canvas.
I am hoping there is a way of matching output curves or something similar so as to not have to go the trial and error route.  They use Windows machines, my work is on a Mac.
Any ideas here??

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad