«

I'm sure a lot of you know about this program, but I got it just a
couple of weeks ago and wow! It has simplified and greatly improved
my ability to get the kind of prints and layouts I have wanted and the
quality is fantastic.

Thank you Qimage ...

Neil Bell
Neil Bell

For e-mail replies remove the "notreally."

|------------------------------------------------------|
|"The greatest peril faced by all people is a failure |
| to question and challenge religious dogma" |
|------------------------------------------------------|

I tried it and it is good. Still, I'd like a printer program that wasn't so
cluttered. Qimage uses a lot of desktop space for the "Pane Selection" and
some view window pane that showed the photos files beneath the thumbnails.

I'd like to see one where the photos were on the left and you just dragged
them onto the right side for the print. Could auo-size depending on the
number dragged onto it. A right click could select the image size or even
edit.

Why do they make the program desktop so cluttered with panes which renders
the thumbnail images smaller? The extra stuff on the desktop I don't need
(i.e. Qimage and ACDSee (which does offer some desktop editing abilty).

B~

I also have Qimage, and like it, but I find I use photo print by Canon much
more often (came with Canon 950i printer).. it's set up for 4x6, 5x8, 8x10
prints, is VERY easy to use, you can print 1,2,4,8 .. prints on paper, but
I use the right size paper and normally make x1 prints, and it's great..
easier than Qimage.

sc

"Mark C" <> wrote in message
news:bemi1q$6qgti$...
> I agree....it is one fast, effecient program. LOVE IT!
>
> Mark C
> Nashville,TN
>
>
> "Neil Bell" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > I'm sure a lot of you know about this program, but I got it just a
> > couple of weeks ago and wow! It has simplified and greatly improved
> > my ability to get the kind of prints and layouts I have wanted and the
> > quality is fantastic.
> >
> > Thank you Qimage ...
> >
> > Neil Bell
> > Neil Bell
> >
> > For e-mail replies remove the "notreally."
> >
> > |------------------------------------------------------|
> > |"The greatest peril faced by all people is a failure |
> > | to question and challenge religious dogma" |
> > |------------------------------------------------------|
>
>

> I tried it and it is good. Still, I'd like a printer program that wasn't so
> cluttered. Qimage uses a lot of desktop space for the "Pane Selection" and
> some view window pane that showed the photos files beneath the thumbnails.
>
> I'd like to see one where the photos were on the left and you just dragged
> them onto the right side for the print. Could auo-size depending on the
> number dragged onto it. A right click could select the image size or even
> edit.
>
> Why do they make the program desktop so cluttered with panes which renders
> the thumbnail images smaller? The extra stuff on the desktop I don't need
> (i.e. Qimage and ACDSee (which does offer some desktop editing abilty).


PaintShopPro v8 has excellent photo editing and even better print layout
features. Just what you've described. A list of images on the left and
you drag and resize to the size paper you've set up.

G.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:26:58 GMT, Neil Bell
<> wrote/replied to:

>I'm sure a lot of you know about this program, but I got it just a
>couple of weeks ago and wow! It has simplified and greatly improved
>my ability to get the kind of prints and layouts I have wanted and the
>quality is fantastic.

I tried the demo of Qimage and I don't see any advantage over printing
with Photoshop 7. It's kind of nice to be able to save printing sets,
but other than that, I don't get any superior results. Maybe because
I'm not making 13 by 19 prints and don't use the superior
extrapolation of it, but I'm now getting real photo prints made,
because they're cheaper and don't fade. Plus they are no work and I
don't have to buy and expensive printer like the 2200.



Jim Davis
Nature Photography
http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/

"Jim Davis" <> wrote in message
news:...
SNIP
> I tried the demo of Qimage and I don't see any advantage over printing
> with Photoshop 7. It's kind of nice to be able to save printing sets,
> but other than that, I don't get any superior results.

Odd, most people do.

> Maybe because
> I'm not making 13 by 19 prints and don't use the superior
> extrapolation of it, but I'm now getting real photo prints made,
> because they're cheaper and don't fade. Plus they are no work and I
> don't have to buy and expensive printer like the 2200.

Apparently you missed the possibility to print to File, perfect for e.g. a
Frontier. It (color managed and sharpened and optimally placed) also works
great on 5x7 or 8x10 inches.

Bart