pi-casa su casa

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by norven_munky, Mar 5, 2008.

  1. norven_munky

    norven_munky Guest

    A couple of years ago I bought a dslr and started shooting raw. The change
    to raw combined with my time being at a premium after the birth of my son
    resulted in a mountain of images to be sorted/deleted etc.

    I click the shutter too many times and tend to really procrastinate over
    what to delete, which is the pick of the bunch etc. Raw made that process
    even more complicated and time consuming.

    Up until now I hadn't really found an easy way to quickly assess both the
    raws & the jpg's and decide what needed fixing, what needed deleting. etc.
    and more importantly it was a pita...I'd end up using a windows slideshow to
    decide what to cull but then I'd have to go find the associated raw to
    delete as well and it was just a major put off and made photography less fun
    :(

    Enter picasa. Without knowing too much about it I loaded it, pointed it at
    my image directories and let it go. I didn't even know it had raw support
    till after I started using it.

    It has made managing my photos so much easier.

    - I get to see the raw & jpg side by side.
    - deciding what to delete is a lot easier.
    - I can quickly delete both the raw & jpg without having to go hunting for
    the raw.
    - I can quickly make edits to the raw that result in a much better result
    than the canon jpg
    - when I save the edits as a jpg it quarantines the original raw off for me.
    - I can quickly decide when an image isn't important enough to require the
    raw be kept and quickly delete it.
    - the simplified tools might not be as powerful as PS or RSE etc but they do
    a remarkably good job.

    I'm back in the game!

    Tony
     
    norven_munky, Mar 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. norven_munky

    Pooua Guest

    On Mar 4, 6:55 pm, "norven_munky" <> wrote:

    That's interesting. I use Google's Picasa Website, but not their
    imaging software. I hadn't realized it supported RAW, either.

    I usually put all my photos into files sorted by year, then by month.
    RAW and JPEG would naturally be next to each other, but I put the RAW
    into its own folder, because, for some reason, Irfanview takes 10
    seconds to load the RAW on my home computer (oddly, it takes a second--
    the same time as for JPEG--on my less-powerful work computer).
     
    Pooua, Mar 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. norven_munky

    Matt Ion Guest

    Pooua wrote:
    > On Mar 4, 6:55 pm, "norven_munky" <> wrote:
    >
    > That's interesting. I use Google's Picasa Website, but not their
    > imaging software. I hadn't realized it supported RAW, either.
    >
    > I usually put all my photos into files sorted by year, then by month.
    > RAW and JPEG would naturally be next to each other, but I put the RAW
    > into its own folder, because, for some reason, Irfanview takes 10
    > seconds to load the RAW on my home computer (oddly, it takes a second--
    > the same time as for JPEG--on my less-powerful work computer).


    IrfanView has an option whether to load the full RAW data, or just read
    the embedded JPG. Obviously, the former setting makes images a lot
    slower to load.
     
    Matt Ion, Mar 5, 2008
    #3
  4. In rec.photo.digital Pooua <> wrote:
    > On Mar 4, 6:55?pm, "norven_munky" <> wrote:


    > That's interesting. I use Google's Picasa Website, but not their
    > imaging software. I hadn't realized it supported RAW, either.


    > I usually put all my photos into files sorted by year, then by month.
    > RAW and JPEG would naturally be next to each other, but I put the RAW
    > into its own folder, because, for some reason, Irfanview takes 10
    > seconds to load the RAW on my home computer (oddly, it takes a second--
    > the same time as for JPEG--on my less-powerful work computer).


    Picasa's RAW support, like most of their image editing, is a good
    package deal which is often all you need, but lacks the sophisticated
    capabilities of Irfanview's RAW support. I only use RAW when the
    photographic conditions demand a higher dynamic range or more complex
    colour balancing than the camera can easily handle on its own, and
    when I do, much of the time Picasa's simple RAW editing is all that's
    required to get the extra reach.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 6, 2008
    #4
  5. norven_munky

    ransley Guest

    On Mar 4, 6:55 pm, "norven_munky" <> wrote:
    > A couple of years ago I bought a dslr and started shooting raw.  The change
    > to raw combined with my time being at a premium after the birth of my son
    > resulted in a mountain of images to be sorted/deleted etc.
    >
    > I click the shutter too many times and tend to really procrastinate over
    > what to delete, which is the pick of the bunch etc.  Raw made that process
    > even more complicated and time consuming.
    >
    > Up until now I hadn't really found an easy way to quickly assess both the
    > raws & the jpg's and decide what needed fixing, what needed deleting. etc.
    > and more importantly it was a pita...I'd end up using a windows slideshow to
    > decide what to cull but then I'd have to go find the associated raw to
    > delete as well and it was just a major put off and made photography less fun
    > :(
    >
    > Enter picasa.  Without knowing too much about it I loaded it, pointed it at
    > my image directories and let it go.  I didn't even know it had raw support
    > till after I started using it.
    >
    > It has made managing my photos so much easier.
    >
    > - I get to see the raw & jpg side by side.
    > - deciding what to delete is a lot easier.
    > - I can quickly delete both the raw & jpg without having to go hunting for
    > the raw.
    > - I can quickly make edits to the raw that result in a much better result
    > than the canon jpg
    > - when I save the edits as a jpg it quarantines the original raw off for me.
    > - I can quickly decide when an image isn't important enough to require the
    > raw be kept and quickly delete it.
    > - the simplified tools might not be as powerful as PS or RSE etc but they do
    > a remarkably good job.
    >
    > I'm back in the game!
    >
    > Tony


    When I used Picassa a year ago any editing I did was not automaticly
    recognised by any of my other photo edit programs. Unless they have
    changed this you wont be happy when you open your photos in another
    program to do finer edits and maybe even printing. I spent days
    editing only to find I had to do it all over, going to Picassa support
    group was no help as the answer I got last year was it would be alot
    of work to save changes that would be recognised by other programs, I
    dumped picassa
     
    ransley, Mar 6, 2008
    #5
  6. norven_munky

    -=Rob Guest

    Did you know that Picasa can generate a HTML-web site of your (selected)
    images ??
    Picasa has already some templates on-board.
    There are also several downloadable templates form others.
    A very qiuck and beautiful one is the SimpleViewer template :

    http://www.airtightinteractive.com/simpleviewer/auto_desktop_instruct.html#picasa

    Take a look for an example of a SimpleViewer template:
    http://home.tiscali.nl/weekhout/

    Ok, I've changed the background image but that's all.
    You can easily change the gallery.xml file, even AFTER you have
    generated the HTML:
    - change thicknes of the photoborder and its color
    - change textcolor
    - How many rows and columns of thumbnails and were they are vissible:
    left, right, top and bottom
    - etc.

    And then you can upload all the generated files with FTP-software to
    your site !!
    It all just takes minutes to do so from starting in Picasa
    till the end : your photo-site !

    How do we do it :
    1) select some photos in Picasa (keep the Ctrl-button pressed !!)
    2) Go to the menu-bar : Folder > Export as HTML.....
    3) Choose the size of the pictueres to show.
    4) Picasa chooses the export-folder, but you can change the path and
    foldername
    5)Choose a template (try the default ones for now,
    but really take a look at SimpleViewer later !!)
    6) Picasa automaticly opens your browser to show the slideshow.
    7) Go to the HTML-output folder and upload all the file to your home-page

    -=Rob

    norven_munky schreef:
    > A couple of years ago I bought a dslr and started shooting raw. The change
    > to raw combined with my time being at a premium after the birth of my son
    > resulted in a mountain of images to be sorted/deleted etc.
    >
    > I click the shutter too many times and tend to really procrastinate over
    > what to delete, which is the pick of the bunch etc. Raw made that process
    > even more complicated and time consuming.
    >
    > Up until now I hadn't really found an easy way to quickly assess both the
    > raws & the jpg's and decide what needed fixing, what needed deleting. etc.
    > and more importantly it was a pita...I'd end up using a windows slideshow to
    > decide what to cull but then I'd have to go find the associated raw to
    > delete as well and it was just a major put off and made photography less fun
    > :(
    >
    > Enter picasa. Without knowing too much about it I loaded it, pointed it at
    > my image directories and let it go. I didn't even know it had raw support
    > till after I started using it.
    >
    > It has made managing my photos so much easier.
    >
    > - I get to see the raw & jpg side by side.
    > - deciding what to delete is a lot easier.
    > - I can quickly delete both the raw & jpg without having to go hunting for
    > the raw.
    > - I can quickly make edits to the raw that result in a much better result
    > than the canon jpg
    > - when I save the edits as a jpg it quarantines the original raw off for me.
    > - I can quickly decide when an image isn't important enough to require the
    > raw be kept and quickly delete it.
    > - the simplified tools might not be as powerful as PS or RSE etc but they do
    > a remarkably good job.
    >
    > I'm back in the game!
    >
    > Tony
    >
    >
    >
     
    -=Rob, Mar 6, 2008
    #6
  7. norven_munky

    -=Rob Guest

    How can you use Picasa's web-site without using Picasa software ?

    -=Rob

    Pooua schreef:
    > On Mar 4, 6:55 pm, "norven_munky" <> wrote:
    >
    > That's interesting. I use Google's Picasa Website, but not their
    > imaging software. I hadn't realized it supported RAW, either.
    >
     
    -=Rob, Mar 6, 2008
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital ransley <> wrote:

    > When I used Picassa a year ago any editing I did was not automaticly
    > recognised by any of my other photo edit programs.


    Of course not, because they're temporary and non-destructive edits
    which can all be losslessly undone. All you have to do to get them
    noticed by other editors is to save them, which is easily done either
    on a single image by CTRL-s, or folder batcher by saving all edits at
    once. Whichever you do, because that's the first editing stage which
    introduces losses, Picasa helpfully archives an original unedited copy
    to which you can always revert with a single keystroke, even if you go
    on to do further edits with other editors.

    > Unless they have
    > changed this you wont be happy when you open your photos in another
    > program to do finer edits and maybe even printing. I spent days
    > editing only to find I had to do it all over, going to Picassa support
    > group was no help as the answer I got last year was it would be alot
    > of work to save changes that would be recognised by other programs, I
    > dumped picassa


    And all because you couldn't be bothered to read the instructions
    which explained how easy it was to do manually. In fact I applaud
    Picasa's philosophy of not doing this automatically, and therefore
    giving you the maximum degree of control over the very important
    distinction between lossless editing and lossy editing.

    I bet you haven't read your camera's manual either :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 6, 2008
    #8
  9. norven_munky

    ransley Guest

    On Mar 6, 2:55 pm, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital ransley <> wrote:
    >
    > > When I used Picassa a year ago any editing I did was not automaticly
    > > recognised by any of my other photo edit programs.

    >
    > Of course not, because they're temporary and non-destructive edits
    > which can all be losslessly undone. All you have to do to get them
    > noticed by other editors is to save them, which is easily done either
    > on a single image by CTRL-s, or folder batcher by saving all edits at
    > once. Whichever you do, because that's the first editing stage which
    > introduces losses, Picasa helpfully archives an original unedited copy
    > to which you can always revert with a single keystroke, even if you go
    > on to do further edits with other editors.
    >
    > > Unless they have
    > > changed this you wont be happy when you open your photos in another
    > > program to do finer edits and maybe even printing. I spent days
    > > editing only to find I had to do it all over, going to Picassa support
    > > group was no help as the answer I got last year was it would be alot
    > > of work to save changes that would be recognised by other programs, I
    > > dumped picassa

    >
    > And all because you couldn't be bothered to read the instructions
    > which explained how easy it was to do manually. In fact I applaud
    > Picasa's philosophy of not doing this automatically, and therefore
    > giving you the maximum degree of control over the very important
    > distinction between lossless editing and lossy editing.
    >
    > I bet you haven't read your camera's manual either :)
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm                      DoD #205
    > IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]


    I dont have to waste time with that extra "save" PRicasso step, which
    is a waste of time, for any other program I have, Corel, Adobe, Gimp,
    HP Canon, etc, they all interconnunicate. Its simply a waste of time
    to do somrthing "Special" because PRicasso is different. So I dumped
    free PRicasso since it wastes my time.
     
    ransley, Mar 7, 2008
    #9
  10. norven_munky

    Matt Ion Guest

    ransley wrote:

    > I dont have to waste time with that extra "save" PRicasso step, which
    > is a waste of time, for any other program I have, Corel, Adobe, Gimp,
    > HP Canon, etc, they all interconnunicate. Its simply a waste of time
    > to do somrthing "Special" because PRicasso is different. So I dumped
    > free PRicasso since it wastes my time.


    Wow... that's a lotta animosity for a simple piece of freeware.
     
    Matt Ion, Mar 7, 2008
    #10
  11. In rec.photo.digital ransley <> wrote:
    > On Mar 6, 2:55?pm, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital ransley <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > When I used Picassa a year ago any editing I did was not automaticly
    >> > recognised by any of my other photo edit programs.

    >>
    >> Of course not, because they're temporary and non-destructive edits
    >> which can all be losslessly undone. All you have to do to get them
    >> noticed by other editors is to save them, which is easily done either
    >> on a single image by CTRL-s, or folder batcher by saving all edits at
    >> once. Whichever you do, because that's the first editing stage which
    >> introduces losses, Picasa helpfully archives an original unedited copy
    >> to which you can always revert with a single keystroke, even if you go
    >> on to do further edits with other editors.
    >>
    >> > Unless they have
    >> > changed this you wont be happy when you open your photos in another
    >> > program to do finer edits and maybe even printing. I spent days
    >> > editing only to find I had to do it all over, going to Picassa support
    >> > group was no help as the answer I got last year was it would be alot
    >> > of work to save changes that would be recognised by other programs, I
    >> > dumped picassa

    >>
    >> And all because you couldn't be bothered to read the instructions
    >> which explained how easy it was to do manually. In fact I applaud
    >> Picasa's philosophy of not doing this automatically, and therefore
    >> giving you the maximum degree of control over the very important
    >> distinction between lossless editing and lossy editing.
    >>
    >> I bet you haven't read your camera's manual either :)


    > I dont have to waste time with that extra "save" PRicasso step, which
    > is a waste of time, for any other program I have, Corel, Adobe, Gimp,
    > HP Canon, etc, they all interconnunicate. Its simply a waste of time
    > to do somrthing "Special" because PRicasso is different. So I dumped
    > free PRicasso since it wastes my time.


    I'm very impressed that you are so busy earning so much money that the
    time lost in making one extra keypress per image counts for so
    much. I'm fortunate in being leisured enough to be able to choose my
    editors based on features and perforamnce rather than number of
    keypresses.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 8, 2008
    #11
  12. norven_munky

    Matt Ion Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital ransley <> wrote:
    >> On Mar 6, 2:55?pm, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>> In rec.photo.digital ransley <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> When I used Picassa a year ago any editing I did was not automaticly
    >>>> recognised by any of my other photo edit programs.
    >>> Of course not, because they're temporary and non-destructive edits
    >>> which can all be losslessly undone. All you have to do to get them
    >>> noticed by other editors is to save them, which is easily done either
    >>> on a single image by CTRL-s, or folder batcher by saving all edits at
    >>> once. Whichever you do, because that's the first editing stage which
    >>> introduces losses, Picasa helpfully archives an original unedited copy
    >>> to which you can always revert with a single keystroke, even if you go
    >>> on to do further edits with other editors.
    >>>
    >>>> Unless they have
    >>>> changed this you wont be happy when you open your photos in another
    >>>> program to do finer edits and maybe even printing. I spent days
    >>>> editing only to find I had to do it all over, going to Picassa support
    >>>> group was no help as the answer I got last year was it would be alot
    >>>> of work to save changes that would be recognised by other programs, I
    >>>> dumped picassa
    >>> And all because you couldn't be bothered to read the instructions
    >>> which explained how easy it was to do manually. In fact I applaud
    >>> Picasa's philosophy of not doing this automatically, and therefore
    >>> giving you the maximum degree of control over the very important
    >>> distinction between lossless editing and lossy editing.
    >>>
    >>> I bet you haven't read your camera's manual either :)

    >
    >> I dont have to waste time with that extra "save" PRicasso step, which
    >> is a waste of time, for any other program I have, Corel, Adobe, Gimp,
    >> HP Canon, etc, they all interconnunicate. Its simply a waste of time
    >> to do somrthing "Special" because PRicasso is different. So I dumped
    >> free PRicasso since it wastes my time.

    >
    > I'm very impressed that you are so busy earning so much money that the
    > time lost in making one extra keypress per image counts for so
    > much. I'm fortunate in being leisured enough to be able to choose my
    > editors based on features and perforamnce rather than number of
    > keypresses.


    What strikes me is that Mr. Ransley doesn't appear to actually have a
    clue how ANY of this software works. Most of them, you have to click
    File -> Save, which will simply overwrite your original, or File -> Save
    As... to save a new version of it. In Picasa, you don't have to do
    anything and your changes will still show up the next time you open it,
    or you click File -> Export to save a new copy of the modified picture.
    Seems Picasa actually takes LESS interaction.

    Last time I checked, Corel (.PSPimage) and Adobe (.PSD) won't open each
    other's proprietary save formats either, so with any of these, you still
    need to save your work in a common format before the others will open it.

    If he's simply overwriting his originals in order to achieve this
    magical "intercommunication" with a single Ctrl-S keypress, well... I
    think that speaks to the level of intelligence we're dealing with right
    there.
     
    Matt Ion, Mar 8, 2008
    #12
  13. norven_munky

    Pooua Guest

    On Mar 6, 12:54 pm, -=Rob <> wrote:
    > How can you use Picasa's web-site without using Picasa software ?


    Picasa (Google Photos) website is no different than any other website.
    I go to the URL (photos.google.com/Imagebuffet will work, though
    Picasa switches the URL), log in (if I'm not already), then use the
    navigational controls on the Website to load or browse my photos. I
    don't need the Picasa software because I already have my own.
     
    Pooua, Mar 9, 2008
    #13
  14. norven_munky

    norven munky Guest

    On Mar 5, 10:55 am, "norven_munky" <> wrote:
    > A couple of years ago I bought a dslr and started shooting raw. The change
    > to raw combined with my time being at a premium after the birth of my son
    > resulted in a mountain of images to be sorted/deleted etc.
    >
    > I click the shutter too many times and tend to really procrastinate over
    > what to delete, which is the pick of the bunch etc. Raw made that process
    > even more complicated and time consuming.
    >
    > Up until now I hadn't really found an easy way to quickly assess both the
    > raws & the jpg's and decide what needed fixing, what needed deleting. etc.
    > and more importantly it was a pita...I'd end up using a windows slideshow to
    > decide what to cull but then I'd have to go find the associated raw to
    > delete as well and it was just a major put off and made photography less fun
    > :(
    >
    > Enter picasa. Without knowing too much about it I loaded it, pointed it at
    > my image directories and let it go. I didn't even know it had raw support
    > till after I started using it.
    >
    > It has made managing my photos so much easier.
    >
    > - I get to see the raw & jpg side by side.
    > - deciding what to delete is a lot easier.
    > - I can quickly delete both the raw & jpg without having to go hunting for
    > the raw.
    > - I can quickly make edits to the raw that result in a much better result
    > than the canon jpg
    > - when I save the edits as a jpg it quarantines the original raw off for me.
    > - I can quickly decide when an image isn't important enough to require the
    > raw be kept and quickly delete it.
    > - the simplified tools might not be as powerful as PS or RSE etc but they do
    > a remarkably good job.
    >
    > I'm back in the game!
    >
    > Tony


    couple of things I've found out.

    1) when you save sharpening done by picasa gets 'lost' although other
    edits are ok.
    2) picasa doesn't read the exif info for my canon cr2 raw files. And
    obviously making edits to the raw image then saving it as a jpg dosn't
    preserve the exif info. Although it does preserve the raw original so
    your exif info isn't lost totally, you just need to use another editor
    or exif viewer to get at it. It would be nice to be able to see the
    exif data of raw files in picasa and it would be even nicer if the
    searching by exif values that picasa does would also work on raw.

    Tony
     
    norven munky, Mar 10, 2008
    #14
  15. norven_munky

    -=Rob Guest

    norven munky schreef:

    >
    > 1) when you save sharpening done by picasa gets 'lost' although other
    > edits are ok.


    You have to "export" the image to keep the sharpening.
    I think Picasa sharpens too. Ther should be at lest 2 or 3 more steps in
    between.

    -=Rob
     
    -=Rob, Mar 10, 2008
    #15
  16. norven_munky

    norven_munky Guest

    "norven_munky" <> wrote in message
    news:lcmzj.21$...
    >A couple of years ago I bought a dslr and started shooting raw. The change
    >to raw combined with my time being at a premium after the birth of my son
    >resulted in a mountain of images to be sorted/deleted etc.
    >
    > I click the shutter too many times and tend to really procrastinate over
    > what to delete, which is the pick of the bunch etc. Raw made that process
    > even more complicated and time consuming.
    >
    > Up until now I hadn't really found an easy way to quickly assess both the
    > raws & the jpg's and decide what needed fixing, what needed deleting. etc.
    > and more importantly it was a pita...I'd end up using a windows slideshow
    > to decide what to cull but then I'd have to go find the associated raw to
    > delete as well and it was just a major put off and made photography less
    > fun :(
    >
    > Enter picasa. Without knowing too much about it I loaded it, pointed it
    > at my image directories and let it go. I didn't even know it had raw
    > support till after I started using it.
    >
    > It has made managing my photos so much easier.
    >
    > - I get to see the raw & jpg side by side.
    > - deciding what to delete is a lot easier.
    > - I can quickly delete both the raw & jpg without having to go hunting for
    > the raw.
    > - I can quickly make edits to the raw that result in a much better result
    > than the canon jpg
    > - when I save the edits as a jpg it quarantines the original raw off for
    > me.
    > - I can quickly decide when an image isn't important enough to require the
    > raw be kept and quickly delete it.
    > - the simplified tools might not be as powerful as PS or RSE etc but they
    > do a remarkably good job.
    >
    > I'm back in the game!
    >
    > Tony



    few *big* picasa downsides :-

    1) picasa adjusts the exposure of raws.
    2) no exif info available for raw (and obviously any jpg's you create based
    on the raw won't have exif)
    3) sharpening changes are lost when saved

    1 & 3 have been acknowledged by picasa, not sure about 2

    ..
     
    norven_munky, Mar 18, 2008
    #16
  17. In rec.photo.digital norven_munky <> wrote:

    > few *big* picasa downsides :-


    > 1) picasa adjusts the exposure of raws.


    Anything which displays a viewable image from a raw file must make
    assumptions about exposure etc. in order to display the image at
    all. Picasa doesn't allow you the full control over those that more
    sophisticated raw editors allow. It does allow you do the usual
    tweaking they also permit on jpeg-derived images, and does so on the
    basis of the larger adjustment headrooms available from raw.

    If that's not good enough for you, it's a simple enough matter to pull
    in another editor to process the raw file. As usual, Picasa saves a
    copy of the untouched original whenever you save any changes, so you
    don't lose it.

    > 2) no exif info available for raw (and obviously any jpg's you create based
    > on the raw won't have exif)


    That *is* a real nuisance.

    > 3) sharpening changes are lost when saved


    But not when exported. I believe this is not so much a bug as a design
    decision which may not have yet been fully thought through in all its
    implications. The point behind it is that sharpening should be
    specific to a particular selected resolution of display or print, and
    therefore should always be the last process applied, and not applied
    to any copy which is intended to be the full carefully edited original
    which can be (say) printed from in a variety of sizes.

    It's an interesting point of view, which I hesitate to say is a
    mistake simply because it's different from the assumptions on which
    most editors work, and I'm reluctant to say that the best way to fix
    any annoyances in its current implementation, once properly
    understood, is simply to junk the idea and make it work like most
    other editors.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 18, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Yip Yap

    Casa de Foveon

    Yip Yap, Nov 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    315
    Paolo Pizzi
    Nov 17, 2003
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,390
    mr bean
    Feb 18, 2009
  3. SHAOLIN

    GANHE DINHEIRO EM CASA

    SHAOLIN, May 8, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    445
    SHAOLIN
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page