I have seen the problems people have with it.

The problems fall into three categories … The software, the user, the computer.

The software is good. Actually it is really good. It’s not perfect, but with every iteration it gets better, and if it was ever perfect the developers would be out of a job. It has weaknesses but they are outweighed by its strengths. It could never be perfect because it is constantly evolving to meet the needs of a changing market.  It’s now on its 48th iteration in its current form. There are still people insisting on using the original Photojunction (Retro).

The users are a mixed bag of experience, stubbornness, understanding, creativity and pending deadlines.

The computers are a mixed bag of operating systems, software, technology and faulty broadband connections.

Combining all three can be hell!

In a perfect world all software would work with all people on all computers. This is not the world we live in.

In the not perfect world it is the combinations of these things that creates most of my (and the other helpdeskers’) work. Each of these things functions very well independently.

Some very clever people have problems with Photojunction … sometimes because they don’t read instructions, sometimes because their expectations of functionality are greater than the scope of the product, or sometimes because they expect it to behave like other similar but very different products.  We pass on their requests for functionality to the development team, or we advise where needed.

Some people just don’t know where to begin. Some people don’t use it very often, and some people don’t know where to end.

If we add into the mix a pending deadline things can really start to fall apart.

For every computer there is an operating system and for every operating system there is a variation on how things happen. This is where the crap can hit the fan. Even though the developers test extensively over multiple platforms it is sometimes not until the software is out in the wild that problems surface.

We can fix problems with the software, we can set boundaries for the compatibility of the software with computers and operating systems, but we cannot change who the user is.

For this reason Photojunction will never be perfect. For all of the fixing in the world there will always be a user with a different way of doing things.

I titled this post ‘Thanks’ for a reason.

I just wanted to say thanks to the people who make Photojunction tick. The thinkers, the developers, the testers, the creators, the designers, and also the users. You all have an important part in making the software happen.  I just wanted to say something as a reminder that it’s more than a piece of software, it’s a community.

Thanks

Johannes van Kan

Thank you Johannes, and thanks for your help with support.
You can start sleeping in again now – Ed.

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

I was wondering about the scope of Photojunction as a tool in our business … the list of opportunities to make money from this (very free) software.

I could increase the album sale with…

More pages – fancy covers – extras like flips and wings – cases – digital copies, duplicates and parent albums – press book versions.

I can show some of these (like extra pages, flips and wings) in the software. Others, like fancy covers, may need help from Queensberry’s swatch book.

Actually press books are a huge opportunity because they are affordable and look great, but different enough to be  a unique purchase.

What I am thinking about, as I chew on a purple dinosaur, is making a brag book. It’s a book of favorites with one or two images on a page. It’s not the whole story – that is what the big fat Duo is for – it’s a book that is simple in design, has some great shots, and is affordable enough to merit a couple of copies. Think like a photographic book you might get from a bookshop (remember them – bookshops?). It doesn’t need to be big, just attractively priced.

The purple dinosaur is history and I am eyeing up the yellow one.

But wait, there’s more. I could do a slideshow. Nothing too flash, but flash enough to be worth a couple of bucks at least. And it’s so easy, and I could do an album slideshow too, to help sell extra pages to clients who can’t come to the studio.

If I wanted to get all flashpants on the slide show I could make proof layouts and turn the album into quite a hot little presentation using third party slideshow software to reveal the images on the pages one by one.

The yellow dinosaur is toast (I was having an intense thinking moment and needed the extra sugars).

It’s too easy to ignore these opportunities because of habit, or a lack of knowing.

There are no green dinosaurs!

For some people this is a weird concept (making money from something you didn’t pay for) but why not think about Photojunction as more than just an album planner?

Cheers, Johannes

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

A few thoughts …

Adobe don’t think designing your albums in Photoshop is a good idea. That’s not what it’s for. Adobe’s page layout software is InDesign.

So how much does InDesign know about wedding and portrait photographers, their workflow, their albums and their suppliers?

InDesign doesn’t know what DPI your lab needs, or what file type, or what size the printed layouts should be, or about bleed and trim requirements, or what colour management processes are in place. These cause huge frustration for album makers and their customers when work is held up because production requirements aren’t met … or the results are disappointing.

That’s why we build Queensberry’s specifications into Photojunction – to ensure the work you send us is right first time.

Yes, you could you get around those problems by “getting it right” in InDesign … but in the real world that leaves too much room for error, as the printing industry will tell you.

Commercial printers depend on strict pre-flight processes to ensure that “the digital files required … are all present, valid, correctly formatted, and of the desired type”. They’d grind to a halt without them.

What all that really amounts to saying is that InDesign is a great layout design tool, but it isn’t a pre-flight solution.

The album industry is no different, which is why Photojunction heads you in the right direction with album and lab presets, and why it validates your work before it uploads your Queensberry orders.

(Many other album suppliers deploy software specifically to validate your files before you can upload them, even if they don’t care how you design the albums. Asuka’s File Checker is a good example.)

But wait, there’s more.

You won’t find Photojunction’s template functionality or many other productivity aids in InDesign.

You won’t find Photojunction’s great tools for selling images and interacting with your customers either.

And here’s what really sets Photojunction apart:

InDesign, and for that matter almost all “album planning software”, assumes a book is made out of “pieces of paper”, ie is flushmount or un-matted. And yes, these days they generally are.

But many Queensberry albums are matted (think Pagemount and Overlay, Duo and Musée) and you simply can’t design them with InDesign.

Yes, digital albums and press books can be gorgeous – but now that everybody is doing them, and the prices they command are trending lower and lower, are they necessarily differentiating you in the market?

That’s why we built Photojunction from the ground up to enable you to freely design your albums layouts, print them and cut the mats that frame the images so beautifully.

So don’t use Photojunction just because it’s free! Here are five other key reasons to choose Photojunction over InDesign for albums and photo books: built-in presets, pre-flight checking, productivity tools, presentation tools, and fully customisable matted album design.

Cheers, Ian

PS I hope that also explains why Queensberry asks you to design and order your albums using Photojunction

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

Danny’s Last Day from Photojunction on Vimeo.

Ian talks to Danny about successes and frustrations; wow features he wishes he’d plugged in the webinars; how to be a happy software user (any software); how and why PJ differs from layout programs like InDesign; and why you can depend on the PJ support and development teams.

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

He designed an album in PJ then exported PSDs.

He then flattened the PSDs and imported them into ALBUM_CO_X’s software for ALBUM_CO_X to make.

That is frustrating for me on all sorts of levels – mostly because I tried (and failed) to convince ALBUM_CO_X not to waste time and money developing their own album planning tool… but that’s a different story.

The album came back with a border around every page, about a quarter inch in from the edge.  Somewhere between this client and ALBUM_CO_X’s software the print files that ALBUM_CO_X received had extra white space inserted outside the trim line that Photojunction adds to each layout.

This client, a nice bloke, called ALBUM_CO_X and said, “What the heck?” and the company replied with, “It’s Photojunction’s fault”.

Truth is it’s probably the client’s fault (I did tell him that – and explained why) but the most interesting thing I heard was the album company’s reply to our (their) client’s question: “Didn’t you think to question a border around the edge of the page?”

ALBUM_CO_X replied, “No, do you know how many albums we do?”

Cheers, Danny

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

Even though I tend to ignore MS Word’s spelling and grammar checker, I do try really hard to avoid making mistakes. But if I slip up the world doesn’t end, and I sleep easy.

I don’t think it’s such a good idea to ignore Nana PJ though, because she’s trying to ensure I get a first class album back … and ordering a second-rate album can be annoying, slow and really expensive. A bit like a cringe-inducing spelling mistake in your new print job.

Here’s Nana PJ on the job (click on the images to view them full size) …

1. I’ve edited this page since exporting, so my page layouts are out of date (red warning, lower right)…

2. I haven’t designed my cover (this warning popped up when I clicked Send Order)…

3. And my favourite: the red cross between apertures says they’re too close together, so my album company won’t be able to cut the mat…

Nana PJ’s got a bit bossy of late, and has asked album vendors if she can stop me sending my order if I’m naughty. ‘Cos she knows I’ll be sorry. At least she doesn’t pester me about wearing a vest.

Cheers, Ian

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

The exceptions are PJ and two others. A few more have workarounds where you drag and drop images on to templates that match pre-designed mats … but that’s hardly creative.

Why do so few programs have this ability?

First, it’s quite hard. Hard to create a layout on the fly, and simultaneously capture all the data to create both the prints and the mat. And hard, when you’ve got the data, to ensure that the resulting layout meets all the album vendor’s requirements … and can actually be manufactured!

It gives most people a headache just thinking about it.

Second, matted albums no longer feature on most photographer’s radar. Not everybody agrees that’s a good thing, and that may be an opportunity for bespoke album makers and their clients. Provided their software can capitalise on it.

There is a lot to choosing an album design tool but the power to design pretty much any album out there is surely important.

Warm regards, Danny

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

So what about all the quirky bugs, even in the latest version? Also running latest version of OS X. Used to work in the software industry, and this program is buggy!

Fair comment, although we may need to agree to differ

Here’s our take on it (I also posted about reliability while Remix was still in beta).

Version 1.25 in PJ Support’s experience is very stable. The few bugs in it (no deal breakers) were fixed in v1.26 … which is a beta with heaps of new features … and inevitably, a few new bugs!

If you want stability, stick with the (latest) final version. It’ll be stable and pretty bug-free. But if you stick to finals there’s a bit of a dilemma: any bugs there are won’t be fixed for you until the next final comes out. Unless there are deal breakers of course.

If you want to play with the latest features go for the betas, expect a few bugs – and prompter bug fixes – and accept our heartfelt thanks for helping to make the program even better.

Here’s a real-world observation. There are a few good reasons why PJ may be buggier than some: small user base … very ambitious software … cross-platform … constant development … Which of these would you have us give up on?

I’m proud of what Team PJ have done, and we’re all very grateful to our users, who’ve helped them do it with their feedback and patience. Check out the release notes and look at what they’ve achieved.

Cheers, Ian

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

I love it. How much?

It’s free.

You mean I get a free trial?

No, it’s free.

Yeah, but that’s just the Lite version, right?

No – honestly – it’s free.

OK, but only to Queensberry clients?

No, we decided to make it free to everyone.

So… why? What’s the catch?

Well, we’re building a community around the software… and we want you on our mailing list. Plus there is a charge if you want one-on-one support. And one day we might offer you other stuff that’s not free.

But if I never spend a dollar with you it’s free?

That’s right. The reality is we’re doing it anyway. Queensberry needs free software for its own clients, and like it or not, many of them use multiple vendors. We’re helping them solve their real world problems.

Cheers, Ian

People who like this post would also like:

None Found

Coffee table books are cool, and so are templates – but there are other albums, and other ways to design them.

People who like this post would also like:

None Found