Anyway, QImage Ultimate offers additional features around sharpening as you may have seen? However, I don’t know these myself from practical experience.īy the way, I’ve had the best results in output sharpening with the camera specific Photoshop actions of Roberto Casavecchia, which are distributed by. However, I’m not sure if there is a preview in terms of sharpening under the new versions of QImage Ultimate. But there are 20 sharpening levels that you have to experiment with, depending on the printer-paper combination and the subject, to find the ideal setting. Yes it is correct you do not have a preview for sharpening in Qimage One. If anyone has done A/B comparisons, I’d be interested in knowing what you found. If I’m not mistaken, QImage uses the same approach as Lightroom, but with more than 3 levels to choose from. Most serious printers I know print from Photoshop and don’t consider Lightroom acceptable because print sharpening is determined by the software, after the user selects one of three levels, and you don’t preview the output sharpening on screen. It ends with an assertion that QImage’s output sharpening is ‘second to none’, but they just show one row of small images with no information about how they were created. I knew about that benefit, but I almost never print multi-image pages, so it isn’t relevant to me. The third is mostly about QImage’s superiority in creating multi-image page layouts. I generally use USM only for local contrast adjustments.) The second video is a comparison with Topaz. (I do most of my capture/creative sharpening with the Lightroom/ACR tools, a high pass filter, or Photoshop’s smart sharpen. The first is a comparison of DFS to USM, but I almost never use USM. The videos don’t really answer my question. Likewise, Lightroom’s enhance details option is for capture/creative sharpening (there is no clear difference between them in LR), not output sharpening. Since printing is the issue, I’m concerned with output sharpening rather than capture and creative sharpening. I’ve actually had good experiences printing with Lightroom up to 17 x 22 inches (43 x 56cm), but I’m always open to approaches that are enough better to justify losing the features of Lightroom’s print module, which I find very handy (in particular, the ability to create templates very simply that include virtually all relevant software, firmware, and paper settings). Currently, the model is hardly or not at all available in Germany.Ī few more links that don’t directly answer your question, but go in that direction: Unfortunately, I no longer have an LFP printer here.Īn new Epson SC-P900 will only come on board in 2021. I have not yet seen a direct A/B comparison from others. How good this is then compared to Qimage must be seen.
The days I read that Adobe is recently working with AI technology on such issues: The upscaled (and output sharpened) Qimage prints clearly looked better.
However, I remember printing a few prints directly from Lightroom (upscaliny done by LR) to my then 24″ HP z3100 and then doing the same again with QImage Ultimate. When upscaling was necessary I mostly went via TIFF export to Photoshop and printed from there directly or with the QTR print tool. I’m afraid I didn’t do a hard scientific A/B comparison at the time between upscaling prints from Lightroom and Qimage Ultimate. Have you seen a comparison, or do you have an opinion about that? However, I couldn’t find any comparison of the quality of their output sharpening algorithms. I went through a description of QImage some time ago, and it didn’t seem to offer much that Lightroom doesn’t for people printing single prints. However, my question is how it compares with Lightroom. You’ve explained why you use it with Capture One. Thanks for posting the article on QImage.
0 kommentar(er)
