5 Stars for IMatch 5, 0 stars for Lightroom print formatting!

[Aubrey]

The leader of our photo club has shown users how to set up images for printing.
Placing a border around the photo and then using 2 lines below the image to describe it; first line for a description and second line for photographers name and copyright. He suggests Book Antiquia font with 24 and 14 sized fonts respectively.

The users are doing this in Photoshop and finding it tedious, most are retired and not terribly computer literate. They setup for each photo, a laborious task (perhaps  a template can be created, I probably need to investigate to help them  ) This cannot be done in Lightroom!

With IMatch this is really easy to setup and preview output, the batch processing is excellent.

My workflow is:
1. Import NEF  image I like into LR5 , then make "develop" adjustments then export DNG back to IMatch 5
2. In Imatch 5 prepare the required output format (user template was created using some defaults as starting point)
3. Import prepared image into LR5 and print using the Epson recommended  icm to my R1800 printer.

Works a treat!

Sometimes I like to have images on my ipad. The easiest way to do this is to email the images in the correct output format  to myself ( using the "email 1280 jpeg" - I think this is a default, not something I created    , these are a nice size) I then move the images to the ipad photo album.

IMatch really makes my workflow efficient!

Aubrey.

[sinus]

Ha, wie erfrischend, so was zu lesen! 

Cool, Aubrey, well done!
Best wishes from Switzerland!

[Mario]

 

[Richard]

Cool, Aubrey, well done!

Yes indeed. Well done and thanks for sharing.

[Ferdinand]

That photo club leader was certainly doing it the hard way.  Join another club.

Far be it from me to direct people away from IMatch, but there are quite a few programs that can automate this kind of thing.  You can automate it in PS using an action.  My PS image processor script can drive PS to do this from inside IMatch.  I think most RAW converters could output an image that was formatted like this.  Qimage is a popular Windows printing program that can do this.  And of course there is the IMatch batch processor.

[Mario]

If you have IMatch anyway, the Batch Processor in IMatch is IMHO the best solution. I don't know about Ferdinand's script, but I know the other solutions he mentioned. Often they can only do only the simple things when it comes to formatting, metadata access or more advanced features like image overlays, text formatting etc. And of course IMatch has unique features like support for Annotations or QR code overlays with full metadata access.

If all you need to achieve is rendering a file name and maybe a description under an image, all methods will do.

The Batch Processor in IMatch gives you a lot control and options. You can access all metadata, you can use all the functions for formatting variables, you can use a subset of XAML markup to change font sizes, styles and color - even within the same text block. You can put text anywhere, with very precise control, formatting transparency options. You can use multiple image overlays (typically pro's need several watermarks for comps, or maybe a central watermark plus a logo). You can overlay QR codes (!) with text produced from variables (this feature has made many users very happy, especially the event photographers) and there is a lot more.

I know of at least 10 users who use IMatch only because of the Batch Processor. They index the files, run a Batch Processor template and print the results right on-location. And then sell the images 

[Ferdinand]

I'm still waiting to see that PDF output option ....

[Mario]

I'm still waiting to see that PDF output option ....

That now makes about 4 requests for such a feature.

For me, the costs involved would between 500 US$ and 1200 US$ for the initial purchase of a PDF library, plus annual fees of about 300US$ to 600US$.
I also would have to learn how to program these libraries, write all the IMatch code involved etc. It will take easy two months or more to develop something usable, and then probably two extra months of work for support and feature requests.

I still have not made up my mind if this would be worth the effort and cost.

[Ferdinand]

Oh, I thought it was more definite than that, based on something you said ages ago early in the beta test.  Perhaps my memory is faulty.   There are other, less elegant ways to do this.  I don't use it a lot, TBH.

[Mario]

I once voiced that I had the idea of a contact sheet feature which can output to images, HTML, PDF and HTML. Building such a thing would be a technical challenge and thus entertaining.

But there seems so little demand for it, it's just not worth the months of development time. Much better spend otherwise. Just look at the 300+ feature request we have already. And often a small thing (e.g. a couple of hours of work for me) results in a lot of benefit for many users. These are the features I'd better concentrate on. And on features which may open a new market (attract new users).

[sinus]

Your comments brought me to the "idea", I can simply use my Wordcontact-Script and alternatively "print" from the Word-Doc also a pdf-version.
And, oh, I could do this even in my script ... hmmm, scripting is really a fascinating thing, a pitty, that it is (still) quite difficult.
Thanks to IMatch, that has scripting included!

[Ferdinand]

I think what I would do for a contact sheet is send the files to Qimage where a custom layout is waiting, and then "print" them on the Adobe PDF "printer".  The downside to this is that Qimage is rather limited as to what metadata it can access.  Markus' Word script may have advantages, although I think that if colour management is important then QImage will be better.

[Carlo Didier]

I'm still waiting to see that PDF output option ....

A batch printing option is enough, as there are lots of PDF-Printer drivers out there free, cheap and others 

[Ferdinand]

A batch printing option is enough, as there are lots of PDF-Printer drivers out there free, cheap and others 

That was precisely the point I made in this long-ago discussion.  Mario had a reason why something built-in would be better, but I can't recall what that was.