Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:03:23 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." <> said:
    >
    >> On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.
    >>>
    >>> Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).
    >>>
    >>> US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).
    >>>
    >>> Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;
    >>>

    >>
    >> GIMP is still free. :)

    >
    >Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
    >my computer.
    >GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
    >CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
    >After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both capable
    >of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
    >are all far superior to GIMP.
    >
    >...but GIMP is "free".


    I don't know how you can really compare Photoshop with GIMP. It's
    horses for courses.

    Anyone who has used both will tell you that GIMP is extremely limited
    compared to Photoshop, but that's only a problem if you want to go
    beyond the basic edits. Even GIMP is over-kill for some people.

    Photoshop only becomes superior to GIMP when the user wants to
    progress to more than GIMP can do. I think that if some malware went
    out to all Photoshop users that crippled every function in Photoshop
    that is not present in GIMP, that 90-some percent of the users would
    be able to do exactly what they're doing now. (Professionals
    excluded)

    The same can be said for dslrs. Sneak in and superglue the cameras to
    the AUTO setting and a majority of users would be producing the same
    output they were when using A,S,P, and M...if they ever did.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-29 18:10:35 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:03:23 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>> I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> GIMP is still free. :)
    >>>
    >>> Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
    >>> my computer.
    >>> GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
    >>> CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
    >>> After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both capable
    >>> of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
    >>> are all far superior to GIMP.
    >>>
    >>> ...but GIMP is "free".

    >>
    >> I don't know how you can really compare Photoshop with GIMP.

    >
    >You can't.
    >
    >> It's horses for courses.

    >
    >Yup!
    >
    >> Anyone who has used both will tell you that GIMP is extremely limited
    >> compared to Photoshop, but that's only a problem if you want to go
    >> beyond the basic edits. Even GIMP is over-kill for some people.

    >
    >Undoubtably.
    >
    >> Photoshop only becomes superior to GIMP when the user wants to
    >> progress to more than GIMP can do.

    >
    >No. It has always been superior. The tools have been there regardless
    >of the user's ability to deal with the program.


    That's true, but I think you're ignoring the meaning here. If the
    user isn't aware of what the tool can do, and doesn't get training on
    the use of the tool, it's as if the tool isn't there.

    >> I think that if some malware went
    >> out to all Photoshop users that crippled every function in Photoshop
    >> that is not present in GIMP, that 90-some percent of the users would
    >> be able to do exactly what they're doing now. (Professionals
    >> excluded)
    >>
    >> The same can be said for dslrs. Sneak in and superglue the cameras to
    >> the AUTO setting and a majority of users would be producing the same
    >> output they were when using A,S,P, and M...if they ever did.

    >
    >Unlikely what ifs.
    >
    >I thought you might have got my point.


    I'm not talking about you, Duck. You're in the 10% because you
    understand and use the tools in Photoshop.

    >I have made my attempt at GIMP and found it lacking for me. Others
    >might find it adequate, but those who tout it as a PS replacement are
    >delusional. There is no comparison.


    It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    that are present in GIMP. There are an awful lot of people in that
    group. That's my point.

    >...but it can edit and adjust image files, and most importantly for
    >many, it is free, and open source for the Linux crowd.
    >
    >...and the last time I used "Auto" on a DSLR was the first week I had
    >my D70 some time in 2004.


    Again, this isn't about you.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/29/2012 10:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-29 19:16:00 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-29 18:10:35 -0700, tony cooper <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:03:23 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>>>> I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> GIMP is still free. :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
    >>>>> my computer.
    >>>>> GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
    >>>>> CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
    >>>>> After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both
    >>>>> capable
    >>>>> of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
    >>>>> are all far superior to GIMP.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...but GIMP is "free".
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't know how you can really compare Photoshop with GIMP.
    >>>
    >>> You can't.
    >>>
    >>>> It's horses for courses.
    >>>
    >>> Yup!
    >>>
    >>>> Anyone who has used both will tell you that GIMP is extremely limited
    >>>> compared to Photoshop, but that's only a problem if you want to go
    >>>> beyond the basic edits. Even GIMP is over-kill for some people.
    >>>
    >>> Undoubtably.
    >>>
    >>>> Photoshop only becomes superior to GIMP when the user wants to
    >>>> progress to more than GIMP can do.
    >>>
    >>> No. It has always been superior. The tools have been there regardless
    >>> of the user's ability to deal with the program.

    >>
    >> That's true, but I think you're ignoring the meaning here. If the
    >> user isn't aware of what the tool can do, and doesn't get training on
    >> the use of the tool, it's as if the tool isn't there.
    >>
    >>>> I think that if some malware went
    >>>> out to all Photoshop users that crippled every function in Photoshop
    >>>> that is not present in GIMP, that 90-some percent of the users would
    >>>> be able to do exactly what they're doing now. (Professionals
    >>>> excluded)
    >>>>
    >>>> The same can be said for dslrs. Sneak in and superglue the cameras to
    >>>> the AUTO setting and a majority of users would be producing the same
    >>>> output they were when using A,S,P, and M...if they ever did.
    >>>
    >>> Unlikely what ifs.
    >>>
    >>> I thought you might have got my point.

    >>
    >> I'm not talking about you, Duck. You're in the 10% because you
    >> understand and use the tools in Photoshop.
    >>
    >>> I have made my attempt at GIMP and found it lacking for me. Others
    >>> might find it adequate, but those who tout it as a PS replacement are
    >>> delusional. There is no comparison.

    >>
    >> It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    >> that are present in GIMP. There are an awful lot of people in that
    >> group. That's my point.
    >>
    >>> ...but it can edit and adjust image files, and most importantly for
    >>> many, it is free, and open source for the Linux crowd.
    >>>
    >>> ...and the last time I used "Auto" on a DSLR was the first week I had
    >>> my D70 some time in 2004.

    >>
    >> Again, this isn't about you.

    >
    > OK! OK! I get it. I was just pushing the envelope a little bit.
    >
    > Of course my D300S doesn't have an "Auto" mode, Just "P", "A", "S", &
    > "M", and those are selected via the rear command wheel.
    >
    > ....and not one "scene" mode to be found anywhere.
    >


    Uhm! Why isn't P, with auto WB the same as an auto mode?


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 30, 2012
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    otter Guest

    On Aug 29, 10:31 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/29/2012 10:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2012-08-29 19:16:00 -0700, tony cooper <> said:

    >
    > >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
    > >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >>> On 2012-08-29 18:10:35 -0700, tony cooper <>
    > >>> said:

    >
    > >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:03:23 -0700, Savageduck
    > >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." <> said:

    >
    > >>>>>> On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > >>>>>>> I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).

    >
    > >>>>>>> US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).

    >
    > >>>>>>> Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;

    >
    > >>>>>> GIMP is still free. :)

    >
    > >>>>> Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unusedon
    > >>>>> my computer.
    > >>>>> GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
    > >>>>> CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
    > >>>>> After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both
    > >>>>> capable
    > >>>>> of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
    > >>>>> are all far superior to GIMP.

    >
    > >>>>> ...but GIMP is "free".

    >
    > >>>> I don't know how you can really compare Photoshop with GIMP.

    >
    > >>> You can't.

    >
    > >>>> It's horses for courses.

    >
    > >>> Yup!

    >
    > >>>> Anyone who has used both will tell you that GIMP is extremely limited
    > >>>> compared to Photoshop, but that's only a problem if you want to go
    > >>>> beyond the basic edits.  Even GIMP is over-kill for some people.

    >
    > >>> Undoubtably.

    >
    > >>>> Photoshop only becomes superior to GIMP when the user wants to
    > >>>> progress to more than GIMP can do.

    >
    > >>> No. It has always been superior. The tools have been there regardless
    > >>> of the user's ability to deal with the program.

    >
    > >> That's true, but I think you're ignoring the meaning here.  If the
    > >> user isn't aware of what the tool can do, and doesn't get training on
    > >> the use of the tool, it's as if the tool isn't there.

    >
    > >>>> I think that if some malware went
    > >>>> out to all Photoshop users that crippled every function in Photoshop
    > >>>> that is not present in GIMP, that 90-some percent of the users would
    > >>>> be able to do exactly what they're doing now.  (Professionals
    > >>>> excluded)

    >
    > >>>> The same can be said for dslrs.  Sneak in and superglue the cameras to
    > >>>> the AUTO setting and a majority of users would be producing the same
    > >>>> output they were when using A,S,P, and M...if they ever did.

    >
    > >>> Unlikely what ifs.

    >
    > >>> I thought you might have got my point.

    >
    > >> I'm not talking about you, Duck.  You're in the 10% because you
    > >> understand and use the tools in Photoshop.

    >
    > >>> I have made my attempt at GIMP and found it lacking for me. Others
    > >>> might find it adequate, but those who tout it as a PS replacement are
    > >>> delusional. There is no comparison.

    >
    > >> It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    > >> that are present in GIMP.  There are an awful lot of people in that
    > >> group.  That's my point.

    >
    > >>> ...but it can edit and adjust image files, and most importantly for
    > >>> many, it is free, and open source for the Linux crowd.

    >
    > >>> ...and the last time I used "Auto" on a DSLR was the first week I had
    > >>> my D70 some time in 2004.

    >
    > >> Again, this isn't about you.

    >
    > > OK! OK! I get it. I was just pushing the envelope a little bit.

    >
    > > Of course my D300S doesn't have an "Auto" mode, Just "P", "A", "S", &
    > > "M", and those are selected via the rear command wheel.

    >
    > > ....and not one "scene" mode to be found anywhere.

    >
    > Uhm! Why isn't P, with auto WB the same as an auto mode?
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    P is "Professional" mode :).
     
    otter, Aug 30, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/30/2012 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-29 20:31:47 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 8/29/2012 10:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-08-29 19:16:00 -0700, tony cooper <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-08-29 18:10:35 -0700, tony cooper <>
    >>>>> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:03:23 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> GIMP is still free. :)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits
    >>>>>>> unused on
    >>>>>>> my computer.
    >>>>>>> GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
    >>>>>>> CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
    >>>>>>> After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both
    >>>>>>> capable
    >>>>>>> of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
    >>>>>>> are all far superior to GIMP.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> ...but GIMP is "free".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't know how you can really compare Photoshop with GIMP.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You can't.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It's horses for courses.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yup!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Anyone who has used both will tell you that GIMP is extremely limited
    >>>>>> compared to Photoshop, but that's only a problem if you want to go
    >>>>>> beyond the basic edits. Even GIMP is over-kill for some people.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Undoubtably.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Photoshop only becomes superior to GIMP when the user wants to
    >>>>>> progress to more than GIMP can do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No. It has always been superior. The tools have been there regardless
    >>>>> of the user's ability to deal with the program.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's true, but I think you're ignoring the meaning here. If the
    >>>> user isn't aware of what the tool can do, and doesn't get training on
    >>>> the use of the tool, it's as if the tool isn't there.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I think that if some malware went
    >>>>>> out to all Photoshop users that crippled every function in Photoshop
    >>>>>> that is not present in GIMP, that 90-some percent of the users would
    >>>>>> be able to do exactly what they're doing now. (Professionals
    >>>>>> excluded)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The same can be said for dslrs. Sneak in and superglue the
    >>>>>> cameras to
    >>>>>> the AUTO setting and a majority of users would be producing the same
    >>>>>> output they were when using A,S,P, and M...if they ever did.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Unlikely what ifs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I thought you might have got my point.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not talking about you, Duck. You're in the 10% because you
    >>>> understand and use the tools in Photoshop.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I have made my attempt at GIMP and found it lacking for me. Others
    >>>>> might find it adequate, but those who tout it as a PS replacement are
    >>>>> delusional. There is no comparison.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    >>>> that are present in GIMP. There are an awful lot of people in that
    >>>> group. That's my point.
    >>>>
    >>>>> ...but it can edit and adjust image files, and most importantly for
    >>>>> many, it is free, and open source for the Linux crowd.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...and the last time I used "Auto" on a DSLR was the first week I had
    >>>>> my D70 some time in 2004.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, this isn't about you.
    >>>
    >>> OK! OK! I get it. I was just pushing the envelope a little bit.
    >>>
    >>> Of course my D300S doesn't have an "Auto" mode, Just "P", "A", "S", &
    >>> "M", and those are selected via the rear command wheel.
    >>>
    >>> ....and not one "scene" mode to be found anywhere.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Uhm! Why isn't P, with auto WB the same as an auto mode?

    >
    > First the auto WB is only applicable if you are shooting JPEG, or
    > RAW+JPEG. The "P" mode in the D300/S and the Nikon Prosumer DSLRs has a
    > degree of auto, but does not function in the same way "auto" does on say
    > a D70. "P" stands for "Programed Auto". However it allows a degree of
    > flexibility which exceeds "Auto" in a D70 or such.
    > For example shooting in "Auto" generally means setting to "Auto" and
    > letting the camera do its thing. In "P" mode, you have the ability to
    > adjust aperture via the main Command wheel. The shutter speed will then
    > balance with the selected f-stop and set ISO to reach a metered
    > exposure. You might say that "P" mode is "Auto flex" rather than the
    > hands off approach offered by full auto.
    >
    > Of course in "P" mode, which also exists on the D70, if you don't touch
    > anything you have something of an "Auto" mode, but it is more than that.
    >
    >


    If I RTFM I would have known that.
    I usually shoot in Aperture preferred or manual mode. I then adjust the
    ISO i to change the shutter speed. I don't thin I have ever used P mode.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 30, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/30/2012 12:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-30 07:50:38 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 8/30/2012 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-08-29 20:31:47 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>> said:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >>>> Uhm! Why isn't P, with auto WB the same as an auto mode?
    >>>
    >>> First the auto WB is only applicable if you are shooting JPEG, or
    >>> RAW+JPEG. The "P" mode in the D300/S and the Nikon Prosumer DSLRs has a
    >>> degree of auto, but does not function in the same way "auto" does on say
    >>> a D70. "P" stands for "Programed Auto". However it allows a degree of
    >>> flexibility which exceeds "Auto" in a D70 or such.
    >>> For example shooting in "Auto" generally means setting to "Auto" and
    >>> letting the camera do its thing. In "P" mode, you have the ability to
    >>> adjust aperture via the main Command wheel. The shutter speed will then
    >>> balance with the selected f-stop and set ISO to reach a metered
    >>> exposure. You might say that "P" mode is "Auto flex" rather than the
    >>> hands off approach offered by full auto.
    >>>
    >>> Of course in "P" mode, which also exists on the D70, if you don't touch
    >>> anything you have something of an "Auto" mode, but it is more than that.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> If I RTFM I would have known that.
    >> I usually shoot in Aperture preferred or manual mode. I then adjust
    >> the ISO i to change the shutter speed. I don't thin I have ever used P
    >> mode.

    >
    > I don't want to mislead you with regard to ISO. What I intended to say
    > was it would use the ISO you had set.
    > Auto ISO could be applied and you would be moving closer to a full
    > "Auto" mode. However "Auto ISO has to be selected via the shooting menu,
    > where you can turn it on or off. You can then set the maximum range
    > limit for "Auto ISO". In "P" & "A" modes, the default will be ISO 200,
    > and will only be auto-adjusted if the shutter speed at the particular
    > f/stop would result in an under exposed image.
    >


    Doesn't look like a feature I would use. I guess some would find it helpful.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 30, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    Pablo Guest

    tony cooper escribió:

    <Gimp>

    > It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    > that are present in GIMP. There are an awful lot of people in that
    > group. That's my point.


    <waves>

    I can sharpen, resize, perspectify etc. In fact, I can do some of that
    before even starting Gimp, because I mess with the raws in Canon's DPP
    first.

    People are also saying that in Gimp 2.8 one can do nearly all that can be
    done with PS, but you have to know how. Personally, I neither know nor care.

    What is the convention in these groups about cross-posting? I got shouted at
    once for setting follow-ups, but it just doesn't feel right cross-posting to
    3 groups. Kind of goes against the grain.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > On 2012-09-02 04:08:33 -0700, Pablo <> said:


    >> People are also saying that in Gimp 2.8 one can do nearly all that can be
    >> done with PS, but you have to know how.

    >
    > "People are saying." I guess those are GIMP users justifying using GIMP.


    Seems rather a rash and maybe even petty assumption to make.

    I'm guessing that they have some experience of PS to be able to make the
    comparison ie; they probably have both. BICBW of course.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:57:39 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-09-02 04:08:33 -0700, Pablo <> said:
    >
    >> tony cooper escribió:
    >>
    >> <Gimp>
    >>
    >>> It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    >>> that are present in GIMP. There are an awful lot of people in that
    >>> group. That's my point.

    >>
    >> <waves>
    >>
    >> I can sharpen, resize, perspectify etc. In fact, I can do some of that
    >> before even starting Gimp, because I mess with the raws in Canon's DPP
    >> first.

    >
    >If that is all you need, and it works for you why worry? Just keep in
    >mind there might come a time in the future to reexamine any benefit you
    >might get from CS6 v GIMP. (There is a trial version available.)
    >>
    >> People are also saying that in Gimp 2.8 one can do nearly all that can be
    >> done with PS, but you have to know how.

    >
    >"People are saying." I guess those are GIMP users justifying using GIMP.


    Why should a user of a program works for them have to justify using
    it?

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 2, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > There are some of us who have actually made the comparison, and GIMP is
    > lacking, and comes up short when compared with PS CS3/4/5/6 & and
    > event the latest versions of PSE.


    Have you tried Gimp 2.8?

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 07:18:23 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-09-02 06:32:47 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:57:39 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-09-02 04:08:33 -0700, Pablo <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> tony cooper escribió:
    >>>>
    >>>> <Gimp>
    >>>>
    >>>>> It's a replacement for the people who use just the tools in Photoshop
    >>>>> that are present in GIMP. There are an awful lot of people in that
    >>>>> group. That's my point.
    >>>>
    >>>> <waves>
    >>>>
    >>>> I can sharpen, resize, perspectify etc. In fact, I can do some of that
    >>>> before even starting Gimp, because I mess with the raws in Canon's DPP
    >>>> first.
    >>>
    >>> If that is all you need, and it works for you why worry? Just keep in
    >>> mind there might come a time in the future to reexamine any benefit you
    >>> might get from CS6 v GIMP. (There is a trial version available.)
    >>>>
    >>>> People are also saying that in Gimp 2.8 one can do nearly all that can be
    >>>> done with PS, but you have to know how.
    >>>
    >>> "People are saying." I guess those are GIMP users justifying using GIMP.

    >>
    >> Why should a user of a program works for them have to justify using
    >> it?

    >
    >No reason at all. However there are those GIMP users who overstate the
    >abilities of GIMP by comparing it to PS without ever having used PS.
    >
    >I speak of at least one, who claims he has never used PS, and has no
    >intention to use PS, even as a trial, and will undoubtably make his
    >opinion known within the next few cycles of this sub-thread.


    The way I look at it is that the software processing should not drive
    the photographer. If you go back to film days, most people accepted
    what came out of the camera as-is. Sure, some people went the
    darkroom route, but the majority of people with cameras used what came
    out of the camera as-is. Any improvements in the photographs came
    from improving the technique of taking the photographs.

    I don't think you'd tell a person in those days to set up a darkroom,
    buy an enlarger, and learn to process their own film. That's
    something that people generally did on their own.

    Yet, we think it's OK to make people feel like they're not being
    progressive enough because they don't buy the modern equivalent of a
    darkroom set-up. Jeez...let 'em be. If *they* become unhappy with
    their results, and if *they* ask for suggestions on better ways to
    process their images, that's the time to push the advanced programs.

    Those film as-is efforts fill thousands of photo albums and shoe boxes
    full of memories. I don't know about you, but I don't look at my
    parent's photos, or my grandparent's photos, or the studio shots of
    even earlier ancestors and sneer because they didn't process them as
    we would today. Those GIMP processed images will be just as
    treasured.

    It's a natural tendency for users of a product - whether it is a brand
    of automobile, brand of computer, or brand of software - to be sure
    that their product is the best choice. We do this in order to
    convince ourselves that we are smart people who make good choices. I
    don't think it's necessary to try to convince others, though...unless
    they ask for recommendations.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 2, 2012
    #11
  12. On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Pablo wrote:

    > Savageduck escribió:
    >
    >> On 2012-09-02 04:08:33 -0700, Pablo <> said:

    >
    >>> People are also saying that in Gimp 2.8 one can do nearly all that can be
    >>> done with PS, but you have to know how.

    >>
    >> "People are saying." I guess those are GIMP users justifying using GIMP.

    >
    > Seems rather a rash and maybe even petty assumption to make.
    >
    > I'm guessing that they have some experience of PS to be able to make the
    > comparison ie; they probably have both. BICBW of course.


    Having used both quite a bit, I can qualify that GIMP is a sack of monkey
    nuts. It has all the features that Photoshop had... in 1999. It doesn't
    even do adjustment layers yet. CMYK? Dream on!

    It's not a bad little program for the price, but it's nowhere near being
    able to compete with Photoshop when it comes to use in a professional
    setting.

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bigstormpicture.com
    http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 2, 2012
    #12
  13. On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, tony cooper wrote:

    > The way I look at it is that the software processing should not drive
    > the photographer. If you go back to film days, most people accepted
    > what came out of the camera as-is. Sure, some people went the
    > darkroom route, but the majority of people with cameras used what came
    > out of the camera as-is. Any improvements in the photographs came
    > from improving the technique of taking the photographs.
    >
    > I don't think you'd tell a person in those days to set up a darkroom,
    > buy an enlarger, and learn to process their own film. That's
    > something that people generally did on their own.


    I guess it depends on the person -- for amateur shooters, no. They
    outsourced that to photo labs. But for many professionals or serious
    hobbyists, doing your own development and printing was a step that could
    not be skipped.

    I agree with you that for most people, shooting RAW isn't needed and
    Photoshop or Lightroom isn't needed -- they're happy with the quick snaps
    they fire off. But when those people ask "what can I do to improve my
    photography?", one of the steps that is bound to be suggested is to shoot
    RAW, get good editing software and learn how to use it.

    --
    -Ryan McGinnis
    http://bigstormpicture.com
    http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 2, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    sid Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    > Your points are not invalid but they ignore an aspect of the freeware
    > movement that is part valorous and part zealotry to bring the one true
    > faith of Linux, The Gimp and Libre Office to the unwashed masses.


    What, you don't think that's the case with your and others mad zealotry over
    your wonder macs and adobe software?

    > It is commonly observed that those with such missions in heart do not
    > reason particularly well.


    well that's true enough


    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 2, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > That was a disruptive use of resetting the "Follow-up To" header.
    > Particularly since you made no notification of the change. So I have
    > fixed that.


    We already did this to death as you well know. And stop talking down to me.

    > I downloaded GIMP 2.8 as I said I would, and I maintain the opinion I
    > expressed in my prior post. When compared with any version of
    > Photoshop, Lightroom, or PSE, GIMP does not cut the mustard and I have
    > no reason to use it instead of CS5.


    Pleased to hear it. You seem to think I am championing Gimp. I simply asked
    a question, based on something I'd heard from various quarters.

    > Now I suggest you make a similar comparison.


    I shall not. I'm not interested, as the Gimp does all I ask of it.

    > Re-spammed to multiple groups.
    >


    Well done.

    I really must set some sort of rule that somehow kills cross-posted
    messages.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:08:20 -0500, Ryan McGinnis <>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >> The way I look at it is that the software processing should not drive
    >> the photographer. If you go back to film days, most people accepted
    >> what came out of the camera as-is. Sure, some people went the
    >> darkroom route, but the majority of people with cameras used what came
    >> out of the camera as-is. Any improvements in the photographs came
    >> from improving the technique of taking the photographs.
    >>
    >> I don't think you'd tell a person in those days to set up a darkroom,
    >> buy an enlarger, and learn to process their own film. That's
    >> something that people generally did on their own.

    >
    >I guess it depends on the person -- for amateur shooters, no. They
    >outsourced that to photo labs. But for many professionals or serious
    >hobbyists, doing your own development and printing was a step that could
    >not be skipped.


    I specified "most people". Pros and serious hobbyists have always
    been a minority of shooters. There are more serious hobbyists now who
    do more than accept the out-of-camera-image than there were in the
    film age, but that's because editing programs are so accessible to us.

    >I agree with you that for most people, shooting RAW isn't needed and
    >Photoshop or Lightroom isn't needed -- they're happy with the quick snaps
    >they fire off. But when those people ask "what can I do to improve my
    >photography?", one of the steps that is bound to be suggested is to shoot
    >RAW, get good editing software and learn how to use it.


    Where's someone asking in this thread?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 2, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Pablo <>
    wrote:

    > > Now I suggest you make a similar comparison.

    >
    > I shall not. I'm not interested, as the Gimp does all I ask of it.


    then you don't ask for much.

    nothing wrong with that but don't go claiming the gimp is as good as
    photoshop, because it clearly is not.
     
    nospam, Sep 2, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2012-09-02 10:28:59 -0700, Pablo <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck escribió:
    >>
    >>> That was a disruptive use of resetting the "Follow-up To" header.
    >>> Particularly since you made no notification of the change. So I have
    >>> fixed that.

    >>
    >> We already did this to death as you well know.

    >
    >That might be so, making this incident to appear deliberate.
    >
    >> And stop talking down to me.

    >
    >Who was talking down to you? I just stated my opinion of resetting
    >"Follow-up To" headers without making a notification of such a change.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> I downloaded GIMP 2.8 as I said I would, and I maintain the opinion I
    >>> expressed in my prior post. When compared with any version of
    >>> Photoshop, Lightroom, or PSE, GIMP does not cut the mustard and I have
    >>> no reason to use it instead of CS5.

    >>
    >> Pleased to hear it. You seem to think I am championing Gimp. I simply asked
    >> a question, based on something I'd heard from various quarters.

    >
    >I responded, and you added a question regarding v2.8 as if there had
    >been some major improvement in GIMP I might have missed. So to be fair
    >I took a look at it.
    >
    >>
    >>> Now I suggest you make a similar comparison.

    >>
    >> I shall not. I'm not interested, as the Gimp does all I ask of it.

    >
    >Why am I not surprised?



    And that's not talking down to Pablo?
     
    Bruce, Sep 2, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    Pablo Guest

    nospam escribió:

    > In article <>, Pablo <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> > Now I suggest you make a similar comparison.

    >>
    >> I shall not. I'm not interested, as the Gimp does all I ask of it.

    >
    > then you don't ask for much.


    Correct. I've detailed it elsewhere in this thread.

    > nothing wrong with that but don't go claiming the gimp is as good as
    > photoshop, because it clearly is not.


    Where the hell have I said that? I'm getting a bit fed up with these photo
    froups. Nobody seems to know who's said what.

    Hell, some Charles E something or other is accusing me of selling the
    program.

    <followups removed for Mr Duck)

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > On 2012-09-02 10:28:59 -0700, Pablo <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck escribió:
    >>
    >>> That was a disruptive use of resetting the "Follow-up To" header.
    >>> Particularly since you made no notification of the change. So I have
    >>> fixed that.

    >>
    >> We already did this to death as you well know.

    >
    > That might be so, making this incident to appear deliberate.


    Which just demostrates your ignorance. In that thread I made it quite clear
    that my newsreader sets followups by default, so I have to unset them
    manually just for you and Charles E something or other.

    >> And stop talking down to me.

    >
    > Who was talking down to you? I just stated my opinion of resetting
    > "Follow-up To" headers without making a notification of such a change.


    I think calling someone disruptive is talking down. And you know perfectly
    well that I don't "reset" anything. Or not. See above.

    >
    >>
    >>> I downloaded GIMP 2.8 as I said I would, and I maintain the opinion I
    >>> expressed in my prior post. When compared with any version of
    >>> Photoshop, Lightroom, or PSE, GIMP does not cut the mustard and I have
    >>> no reason to use it instead of CS5.

    >>
    >> Pleased to hear it. You seem to think I am championing Gimp. I simply
    >> asked a question, based on something I'd heard from various quarters.

    >
    > I responded, and you added a question regarding v2.8 as if there had
    > been some major improvement in GIMP I might have missed. So to be fair
    > I took a look at it.
    >
    >>
    >>> Now I suggest you make a similar comparison.

    >>
    >> I shall not. I'm not interested, as the Gimp does all I ask of it.

    >
    > Why am I not surprised?


    I have no idea. Oh, I'm a simpleton hobbyist that doesn't need so many
    features as an expert like you. Well put down once more.

    >> I really must set some sort of rule that somehow kills cross-posted
    >> messages.

    >
    > That should be simple enough, just write a filter which kills any post
    > addressed to more than one group.
    >


    It seems my knode is a little broken where killfiles/filters are concerned.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #20
    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. PeterN

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    PeterN, Aug 29, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    330
    PeterN
    Aug 29, 2012
  2. Bob S

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    Bob S, Aug 29, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    289
    Bob S
    Aug 29, 2012
  3. tony cooper

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    291
    tony cooper
    Aug 30, 2012
  4. nospam

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    nospam, Aug 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    319
    nospam
    Aug 30, 2012
  5. tony cooper

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    296
    tony cooper
    Aug 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page