Re: Your prefered photo editing software?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Stuart, Sep 2, 2003.

  1. Stuart

    Stuart Guest

    WE all have our preferences but would we be having this conversation if we
    were talking about word processors. Here Microsoft Word is the obvious
    choice and you would only seriously even start to consider alternatives if
    there was a very special need - e.g. page make-up (Adobe Pagemaker),
    magazine layout(Quark Express) or say precision typographical adjustments
    (Corel Draw). So we have all invested time and effort in getting to be
    proficient with MS Word - any other product would be a waste of time.

    In photo editing the MS Word equivalent is Adobe Photoshop. For me the only
    conceivable grounds for rejecting it would be cost when Paint Shop Pro is
    the obvious budget choice. Again it is worth time and effort investing in
    proficiency in Photoshop. I reach this conclusion having tried many of the
    alternatives.


    "JMooreTS" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'd like to know the editing program you prefer.
    >
    > I'm heading into doing doing scans of all my old negs and prints. I've

    used
    > Microsoft's Picture It in the past for cropping and light editing of

    digital
    > snapshots. It is much too limited.
    >
    > I used to do a fair amount of b/w darkroom and have a good understanding

    of the
    > principles. I am comfortable with computer programs (system is Windows

    XP). I
    > do not plan to do any graphics work.
    >
    > I am currently trying out Picture Window Pro (like it). I'll try out a

    demo of
    > Photoshop next. But life is too short to try everything (Paint Shop Pro,
    > Ulead, etc. etc.). So, tell me what you like, please, and why.
    >
    > Thanks in advance,
    >
    > John Moore
    >
     
    Stuart, Sep 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stuart

    Dierk Haasis Guest

    On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:42:03 -0700, Hamish Reid
    <> wrote:

    >Hmmmm. Just to pick nits in your otherwise pretty reasonable posting, I
    >think your analogy is badly flawed here: the MS Word equivalent in photo
    >editing would be something like Photoshop Elements or a similar
    >mid-range editor. Photoshop's equivalent in the word processing area
    >would be Quark or inDesign or similar.


    Sorry, but although your principal argument is quite good, your
    specifics are a bit warped. Neither Pagemaker nor Quark XPress nor
    InDesign (not to forget Ventura) are *word processors*, they are all
    layout programs. All of them nowadays offer a very limited text
    editing tool, but it is much better to write up and process all your
    text beforehand in Word or WordPerfect (AmiPro also comes to mind but
    isn't in any way supported with import filters). IIRC it is only
    XPress that needs a hefty priced plug-in to handle Word documents;
    actually XPress needs expensive plug-ins for nearly every task ...

    --

    Dierk
     
    Dierk Haasis, Sep 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stuart

    Hamish Reid Guest

    In article <>,
    Dierk Haasis <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:42:03 -0700, Hamish Reid
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Hmmmm. Just to pick nits in your otherwise pretty reasonable posting, I
    > >think your analogy is badly flawed here: the MS Word equivalent in photo
    > >editing would be something like Photoshop Elements or a similar
    > >mid-range editor. Photoshop's equivalent in the word processing area
    > >would be Quark or inDesign or similar.

    >
    > Sorry, but although your principal argument is quite good, your
    > specifics are a bit warped. Neither Pagemaker nor Quark XPress nor
    > InDesign (not to forget Ventura) are *word processors*, they are all
    > layout programs. All of them nowadays offer a very limited text
    > editing tool, but it is much better to write up and process all your
    > text beforehand in Word or WordPerfect (AmiPro also comes to mind but
    > isn't in any way supported with import filters). IIRC it is only
    > XPress that needs a hefty priced plug-in to handle Word documents;
    > actually XPress needs expensive plug-ins for nearly every task ...


    True enough (I do most text preparation for Quark with Word). I think
    the upshot is that the anolgies just don't make sense -- Photoshop isn't
    the "Word" of bitmap imaging at all. Nor is it the Quark or InDesign...

    Hamish
     
    Hamish Reid, Sep 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Stuart

    Stuart Guest

    A good analogy is like an elastic band - it will stretch and stretch -
    enough to prove the point - but somewhere down the cycle it will break. Dont
    think for one moment that devalues the analogy or even make the person
    stretching it to breaking point appear clever - hope that this point isnt to
    subtle for some of our readers.



    "Hamish Reid" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Dierk Haasis <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:42:03 -0700, Hamish Reid
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Hmmmm. Just to pick nits in your otherwise pretty reasonable posting, I
    > > >think your analogy is badly flawed here: the MS Word equivalent in

    photo
    > > >editing would be something like Photoshop Elements or a similar
    > > >mid-range editor. Photoshop's equivalent in the word processing area
    > > >would be Quark or inDesign or similar.

    > >
    > > Sorry, but although your principal argument is quite good, your
    > > specifics are a bit warped. Neither Pagemaker nor Quark XPress nor
    > > InDesign (not to forget Ventura) are *word processors*, they are all
    > > layout programs. All of them nowadays offer a very limited text
    > > editing tool, but it is much better to write up and process all your
    > > text beforehand in Word or WordPerfect (AmiPro also comes to mind but
    > > isn't in any way supported with import filters). IIRC it is only
    > > XPress that needs a hefty priced plug-in to handle Word documents;
    > > actually XPress needs expensive plug-ins for nearly every task ...

    >
    > True enough (I do most text preparation for Quark with Word). I think
    > the upshot is that the anolgies just don't make sense -- Photoshop isn't
    > the "Word" of bitmap imaging at all. Nor is it the Quark or InDesign...
    >
    > Hamish
     
    Stuart, Sep 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Stuart

    Tony Guest

    Dierk Haasis <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:42:03 -0700, Hamish Reid
    <> wrote:

    >Hmmmm. Just to pick nits in your otherwise pretty reasonable posting, I
    >think your analogy is badly flawed here: the MS Word equivalent in photo
    >editing would be something like Photoshop Elements or a similar
    >mid-range editor. Photoshop's equivalent in the word processing area
    >would be Quark or inDesign or similar.


    Sorry, but although your principal argument is quite good, your
    specifics are a bit warped. Neither Pagemaker nor Quark XPress nor
    InDesign (not to forget Ventura) are *word processors*, they are all
    layout programs. All of them nowadays offer a very limited text
    editing tool, but it is much better to write up and process all your
    text beforehand in Word or WordPerfect (AmiPro also comes to mind but
    isn't in any way supported with import filters). IIRC it is only
    XPress that needs a hefty priced plug-in to handle Word documents;
    actually XPress needs expensive plug-ins for nearly every task ...

    --

    Dierk

    How about Framemaker or Interleaf? (sorry for keeping this tangent going)
     
    Tony, Sep 3, 2003
    #5
    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. =?Utf-8?B?UGllcnJlICBBcmNoYW1iYXVsdA==?=

    want to erase all the Prefered Networks ?

    =?Utf-8?B?UGllcnJlICBBcmNoYW1iYXVsdA==?=, May 18, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    547
    =?Utf-8?B?UGllcnJlICBBcmNoYW1iYXVsdA==?=
    May 18, 2005
  2. Jon Bell

    Re: Your prefered photo editing software?

    Jon Bell, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    JunkMonkey
    Sep 1, 2003
  3. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Re: Your prefered photo editing software?

    Unclaimed Mysteries, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    333
    Mike Graham
    Sep 2, 2003
  4. WebKatz

    Re: Your prefered photo editing software?

    WebKatz, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    378
    FOR7b
    Sep 9, 2003
  5. David J. Littleboy

    Re: Your prefered photo editing software?

    David J. Littleboy, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    310
    Dierk Haasis
    Sep 3, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page