PSP basics
Janet Freeserve
simplest thing with it.
I draw a shape in vector mode but cannot fill it with a colour. When I
select the shape all the colour tools are grayed out. In raster mode colour
just fills the whole drawing area.
All I want to do is simple layed drawings.
The blurb said suitable for beginners. Ha b***dy ha.
Or is there a secret I am missing and yes I have searched the help file.
Can someone please help before I remove it.
tia
janet
old grey and going senile.
Bill Schnakenberg
>
> I must be really thick, installed PSP off mag, disc but cannot do the
> simplest thing with it.
>
> I draw a shape in vector mode but cannot fill it with a colour. When I
> select the shape all the colour tools are grayed out. In raster mode colour
> just fills the whole drawing area.
If you are using the Shapes tool, look in the layer palette for the
vector shape sublayer that holds the color. Double click on it and then
change the color in the dialog that pops up.
> All I want to do is simple layed drawings.
>
> The blurb said suitable for beginners. Ha b***dy ha.
>
> Or is there a secret I am missing and yes I have searched the help file.
>
> Can someone please help before I remove it.
>
> tia
>
> janet
>
> old grey and going senile.
--
Bill - PSP and Media Center Plus Private Beta Tester
PSP Terrorist - D'Lanok de Caresk chapter - Anti-Troll Unit 235
"If you're not making waves, you're not underway!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The new Paint Shop Pro 7 Style Palette:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~willshak/style_palette/
--------------------------------------------------------------
The USS Salem, CA-139. The World's only preserved Heavy Cruiser
http://www.frontiernet.net/~willshak/salem/
Ronald Vick
<ja...@barkaway.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I must be really thick, installed PSP off mag, disc but cannot do the
>simplest thing with it.
>
>I draw a shape in vector mode but cannot fill it with a colour. When I
>select the shape all the colour tools are grayed out. In raster mode colour
>just fills the whole drawing area.
Vectors and raster don't mix too well. A lot of the raster tools we'd
like to use on vectors just don't cross the line. (so to say.) To
work on a vector's colors, use the vector selection tool, right click
the object, and then click 'Properties' from the pop up box.
To fill on a raster layer, get a selection from the vector object,
(Selections>from Vector) then select the raster layer, and fill that.
>
>All I want to do is simple layed drawings.
>
> The blurb said suitable for beginners. Ha b***dy ha.
"Simple" is relative to what you already know. If you know how, it's
simple. If you don't know, it's hard.
>
>Or is there a secret I am missing and yes I have searched the help file.
>
>Can someone please help before I remove it.
>
>tia
>
>janet
>
>old grey and going senile.
>
You'd better watch out, Janet (oh dear, that sounds like something
we'd shout at the Rocky Horror!), you don't want to lose a powerful
program due to a simple stumble.
Jaggiemeister Ron- PSP Terrorist - D'Lanok de Caresk chapter, Executive Officer.
FAQs at http://www.alphageo.com/psp/faq.html
Very FAQ at http://members.aol.com/psptopten/topten.html
My tips at http://hometown.aol.com/ronaldlvick/index.html
Nanette
started. Another excellent place to learn PSP with a great group of people
is over on the annexcafe news server.
news://news.annexcafe.com/annexcafe.people.stationery.newbies
Even if you don't want to learn to do stationery don't let the name put you
off this is an excellent group of tutorials, ask for the FAQ to be posted,
it has the link to the list of tutorials they use. If you get stuck, one of
a dozen people are there most times of the day to help you out.
PSP has to be the easiest program to learn once you figure out the basics.
--
Nanette
nan...@nanettes-place.com
www.nanettes-place.com
d-h stats FAQ http://dh-stats.tripod.com/links.html
"Ronald Vick" <Ron...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u8b2ptsn6cd1p7ofs...@4ax.com...
Don Stauffer
are doing graphic arts things. The things you want to do are things it
would take a couple of years in a trade school to learn. PSP has a good
manual, but graphic arts is still a very deep subject. Even dealing
with vector objects is NOT your basic beginner stuff. Most people
dealing with digital camera images have no idea whatsoever what a vector
object is.
So you are wanting to work in more advanced areas than most beginners.
The PSP manual is very good, but to do true graphic arts stuff on it is
going to take practice. Fortunately, there are MANY good PSP tutorials
available on line. Search on terms 'PSP' and 'tutorial'.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Don Stauffer
enough time even explaining raster files to them :-) To you and I it
isn't black magic, but how long have you been doing digital
photography? I've been doing it about 15 years, I suspect Ron has for a
number of years. You would be surprised at the level many folks are at
who buy a digital camera today. Some have never had ANY camera- not
even a film camera.
Ron Lacey wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 22:38:42 -0500, Don Stauffer
> <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
> >Most folks use PSP for photo editing. It IS easy to use for that. You
> >are doing graphic arts things. The things you want to do are things it
> >would take a couple of years in a trade school to learn. PSP has a good
> >manual, but graphic arts is still a very deep subject. Even dealing
> >with vector objects is NOT your basic beginner stuff. Most people
> >dealing with digital camera images have no idea whatsoever what a vector
> >object is.
>
> Nonesense, vectors aren't black magic and are easy in PSP. The fill
> problem is explained in Bill's Style Palette tutorial at
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~willshak/style_palette/
>
> And I tackle basic vectors at http://ronstoons.com and
> http://www.jasc.com/tutorials/rlacey/
>
> As well as a more extensive introduction to PSP vectors at LVS Online
> http://lvsonline.com/courses1.html#psp7v
>
> Ron
> ***************************
> Ron Lacey
> Murillo Ont.
> http://ronstoons.com
> r...@ronstoons.com
> ***************************
Linda Nieuwenstein
news:u567ptoua2a44tskj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 20:34:25 -0500, Don Stauffer
> <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> Vector graphics, it ain't just for pros anymore<gr>.
>
> Ron
I'd have to concur, PSP certainly has taken the mystery out
of vector. Removing that mystery uncovered the fact that with
a little time, patience, good tutorials like Ron's...and PERHAPS
a wacom pen, almost anyone can create nice vector drawings.
Take care
Linda N.
Rick Simon
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 20:34:25 -0500, Don Stauffer
><stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>>Try teaching a beginning course in digital photography. I have a
>>hard enough time even explaining raster files to them :-) To you
>>and I it isn't black magic, but how long have you been doing
>>digital photography? I've been doing it about 15 years, I suspect
>>Ron has for a number of years.
>
> My interest in vector graphics started two years ago with the
> release of PSP6 prior to that I didn't know my node from a hole in
> the ground.
OK, but how much experience did you have with image editing programs
prior to that? It's quite a bit easier to jump into vectors when you
already have experience with raster editing, than it is to jump straight
into vectors from no image editing background whatsoever.
> Shortly after I launched ronstoons.com and Spike's
> Shapecat Turorial where literally tens of thousands have visited,
> many of whom have been able to navigate their way through the
> shoals of vector graphics successfully according to the feedback
> they've given me. The hundred odd people who've taken my LVS
> course concur, the usual response is "I can't believe how easy it
> is".
Again, is this a representative sample of the (literally) millions of
new users out there? Or are these folks who already have enough computer
savvy to have been on the net for a while and find a place like LVS or
even this newsgroup? Folks who have an interest in learning image
manipulation as versus basic digital photography?
FWIW - I tend to agree with Don. Vectors are a great addition to PSP
and certainly should be available. IMHO though, they shouldn't be the
default for text, line and shape tools. Those should have been left as
raster at default with vector as an option that could be made default
(ala "lock styles").
That way the beginner doesn't run into the proverbial "Why are all the
Effects grayed out?" problem. Or the various stroke and fill questions.
They have a simple and easy way to create text, shapes and/or lines
without having to deal with stroke and fill, nodes, conversion to raster
in order to apply simple effects (with it's requirement for learning
about layers and/or selections), etc. They simply pick a tool, pick a
color and place their content on the image. Simple and easy. Virtually
no learning curve to it.
There was enough flak over that very issue with the text tool during
the beta, that Jasc added a button to the Text tool just so you could
use "Standard Text". Heck, even that particular wording should tell you
something. What does "Standard" mean to you? To me, it means "normal,
usual, regular". Why is it then that one must go through an _extra_ step
of clicking on that button in order to get "normal, usual, regular"
text? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't you have to go
through an extra step or steps to get something that is _not_
"Standard"? <<grin>>
> Vector graphics, it ain't just for pros anymore<gr>.
Yep! I agree! On the other hand, I for one don't think they're quite
ready for newbies though! <<smile>>
I know.... I know.... we've gone through this discussion before and
there are those who believe that as PSP grows in power, "there's just
going to _have_ to be a learning curve" that grows with it. Personally,
I think that attitude is what resulted in that PITA interface that PS
uses though. Nor do I think it is necessarily true in this case.
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com
Ronald Vick
>> Vector graphics, it ain't just for pros anymore<gr>.
>
> Yep! I agree! On the other hand, I for one don't think they're quite
>ready for newbies though! <<smile>>
>
OK, that's enough for me to toss my two cents in...
What you seem to be saying is that nobody can do art unless they start
off with crayons and finger paint before they consider doing oil
paintings.
Also that a program shouldn't have advanced features in it, for fear
that somebody may not be able to learn how to use those features.
I cannot go along with either of those theories.
I started out in vectors, on my own, and learned how to use them
(although it was Corel 2) years ago. I've attended art schools, but
all of the information I've learned about programs, I've done on my
own.
When somebody sees the personal need for a software program or
feature, they can learn it by study and asking questions from those
that know.
Rick Simon
> On 03 Sep 2001 19:30:44 GMT, Rick Simon <rsi...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Vector graphics, it ain't just for pros anymore<gr>.
>>
>> Yep! I agree! On the other hand, I for one don't think they're
>> quite
>>ready for newbies though! <<smile>>
>
> What you seem to be saying is that nobody can do art unless they
> start off with crayons and finger paint before they consider doing
> oil paintings.
Not at all. In terms of your metaphor, I'm saying that not everybody
wants to "do art" with PSP right off the bat. There are some who merely
want to "work with crayons" or do some "finger painting", at least
initially, instead of being forced directly into "oil paintings". Those
who just bought a digital camera for instance. They may merely want a
decent program to "clean up the photo" (ala the photo enhancement
filters for example), perhaps do a little cropping, add some text to it,
maybe even get "fancy" and add a drop shadow, bevel or cutout to the
text, then save it and/or email it to friends and/or family. They're not
looking to "create art". At least not initially. They're looking for
something they can use today, right out of the box, without being forced
to spend hours and hours of study in order to do simple tasks.
> Also that a program shouldn't have advanced features in it, for
> fear that somebody may not be able to learn how to use those
> features.
At no point have I ever said that the more advanced options should be
dropped or somehow restricted. What I have consistently put forth is
that the defaults for PSP should be as simple as possible. Those who are
familiar with the program (or even other image editing programs), those
who have used the beginner stuff and now want to delve a bit deeper, and
even those who merely want to explore on their own can easily access the
more advanced features. Indeed, they'll probably have little to no
trouble at all in figuring out how to do so and never look back.
Can you say the same thing for those who have just figured out that
images can be saved in <<gasp>> different formats? Or that they can
actually change the size of a picture? For many, just getting the image
from the camera into the computer and displayed in PSP is a triumph.
> I cannot go along with either of those theories.
I join you in that! Especially since neither of those theories are what
I was getting at.
> I started out in vectors, on my own, and learned how to use them
> (although it was Corel 2) years ago. I've attended art schools,
> but all of the information I've learned about programs, I've done
> on my own.
I see. And this means you are an average user? No offense Ron, but I
don't think that you, or I, or the majority of folks that regularly
visit this newsgroup are "average users" any more.
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com
Ronald Vick
>Ronald Vick <Ron...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
>news:s5n7ptg91eeh43ser...@4ax.com:
>> What you seem to be saying is that nobody can do art unless they
>> start off with crayons and finger paint before they consider doing
>> oil paintings.
>
> Not at all. In terms of your metaphor, I'm saying that not everybody
>wants to "do art" with PSP right off the bat. There are some who merely
>want to "work with crayons" or do some "finger painting", at least
>initially, instead of being forced directly into "oil paintings". Those
>who just bought a digital camera for instance. They may merely want a
>decent program to "clean up the photo" (ala the photo enhancement
>filters for example), perhaps do a little cropping, add some text to it,
>maybe even get "fancy" and add a drop shadow, bevel or cutout to the
>text, then save it and/or email it to friends and/or family. They're not
>looking to "create art". At least not initially. They're looking for
>something they can use today, right out of the box, without being forced
>to spend hours and hours of study in order to do simple tasks.
Are you saying that the average photo user type cannot find those
features in PSP 7? Or that they're too complex for that person to
use? I certainly think you under estimate the ability of the common
user.
>
>> Also that a program shouldn't have advanced features in it, for
>> fear that somebody may not be able to learn how to use those
>> features.
>
> At no point have I ever said that the more advanced options should be
>dropped or somehow restricted. What I have consistently put forth is
>that the defaults for PSP should be as simple as possible. Those who are
>familiar with the program (or even other image editing programs), those
>who have used the beginner stuff and now want to delve a bit deeper, and
>even those who merely want to explore on their own can easily access the
>more advanced features. Indeed, they'll probably have little to no
>trouble at all in figuring out how to do so and never look back.
You do know that most of the defaults are saved, don't you? Use them
once and they're set to that the next time you use them. Example: the
shapes in vector or raster.
> Can you say the same thing for those who have just figured out that
>images can be saved in <<gasp>> different formats? Or that they can
>actually change the size of a picture? For many, just getting the image
>from the camera into the computer and displayed in PSP is a triumph.
The first time or two, then it becomes commonplace. Time then, to
move on to other features, right?
>
>> I cannot go along with either of those theories.
>
> I join you in that! Especially since neither of those theories are what
>I was getting at.
In spite of arguing eloquently against them? <G> Strange, I thought
those first few paragraphs were refuting those theories.
>
>> I started out in vectors, on my own, and learned how to use them
>> (although it was Corel 2) years ago. I've attended art schools,
>> but all of the information I've learned about programs, I've done
>> on my own.
>
> I see. And this means you are an average user? No offense Ron, but I
>don't think that you, or I, or the majority of folks that regularly
>visit this newsgroup are "average users" any more.
No offense, but now you're saying that the person that has learned or
is learning to use the program isn't an 'Average User'? What is your
definition of an 'Average User', then? Someone that cannot, will not,
or does not use the program? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Possibly JASC could sell such a person the program once, but almost
never twice. Yet I take note of the majority of users that update as
often as the updates come out and buy new versions.
Rick Simon
> On 04 Sep 2001 01:03:45 GMT, Rick Simon <rsi...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>Ronald Vick <Ron...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
>>news:s5n7ptg91eeh43ser...@4ax.com:
>
>>> What you seem to be saying is that nobody can do art unless they
>>> start off with crayons and finger paint before they consider
>>> doing oil paintings.
>>
>> Not at all. In terms of your metaphor, I'm saying that not
>> everybody
>>wants to "do art" with PSP right off the bat. There are some who
>>merely want to "work with crayons" or do some "finger painting", at
>>least initially, instead of being forced directly into "oil
>>paintings". Those who just bought a digital camera for instance.
>>They may merely want a decent program to "clean up the photo" (ala
>>the photo enhancement filters for example), perhaps do a little
>>cropping, add some text to it, maybe even get "fancy" and add a
>>drop shadow, bevel or cutout to the text, then save it and/or email
>>it to friends and/or family. They're not looking to "create art".
>>At least not initially. They're looking for something they can use
>>today, right out of the box, without being forced to spend hours
>>and hours of study in order to do simple tasks.
>
> Are you saying that the average photo user type cannot find those
> features in PSP 7? Or that they're too complex for that person to
> use? I certainly think you under estimate the ability of the
> common user.
The tools are easy enough to find. Too complex to use? Personally, I
don't think so though I suppose some might argue the point. My problem
is with the way the tool defaults are set up.
>>> Also that a program shouldn't have advanced features in it, for
>>> fear that somebody may not be able to learn how to use those
>>> features.
>>
>> At no point have I ever said that the more advanced options should
>> be
>>dropped or somehow restricted. What I have consistently put forth
>>is that the defaults for PSP should be as simple as possible. Those
>>who are familiar with the program (or even other image editing
>>programs), those who have used the beginner stuff and now want to
>>delve a bit deeper, and even those who merely want to explore on
>>their own can easily access the more advanced features. Indeed,
>>they'll probably have little to no trouble at all in figuring out
>>how to do so and never look back.
>
> You do know that most of the defaults are saved, don't you? Use
> them once and they're set to that the next time you use them.
> Example: the shapes in vector or raster.
I'm well aware of that. My question is, why do they default to vector
and stroke and fill? Why not the other way around? Simple raster and
"standard" text/lines/shapes instead? Does it not make more sense to
default to the simplest form so that it is easiest on the beginner? The
experienced users will spend all of a couple of minutes reconfiguring
for themselves and never look back. The beginner however, may very well
not have the slightest clue on how to reconfigure things, or even that
things can be reconfigured.
>> Can you say the same thing for those who have just figured out
>> that
>>images can be saved in <<gasp>> different formats? Or that they can
>>actually change the size of a picture? For many, just getting the
>>image from the camera into the computer and displayed in PSP is a
>>triumph.
>
> The first time or two, then it becomes commonplace. Time then, to
> move on to other features, right?
Sure, provided they haven't been scared off by being forced to have to
learn a bit about stroke/fill, vectors, layers, etc. just in order to do
some simple tasks. From a beginners viewpoint, if they have to delve
that deeply into things just to do simple tasks, how much study will it
take to do any more? And is there a program that doesn't require all of
this?
>>> I cannot go along with either of those theories.
>>
>> I join you in that! Especially since neither of those theories are
>> what
>>I was getting at.
>
> In spite of arguing eloquently against them? <G> Strange, I thought
> those first few paragraphs were refuting those theories.
Chalk it up to my poor communications skills then. I wasn't refuting
your theories so much as elaborating on the points I felt you were
missing. In the first case, you seemed to be saying that everybody buys
PSP so that they can "do art". I merely pointed out that I disagreed
with that premise. That there are some who, at least initially, merely
want an image editor to do relatively simple editing tasks.
In the second case, you seemed to believe that I was against having any
advanced features in PSP. That couldn't be further from the truth and I
went to some length to point that out.
>> I see. And this means you are an average user? No offense Ron, but
>> I
>>don't think that you, or I, or the majority of folks that regularly
>>visit this newsgroup are "average users" any more.
>
> No offense, but now you're saying that the person that has learned
> or is learning to use the program isn't an 'Average User'? What is
> your definition of an 'Average User', then? Someone that cannot,
> will not, or does not use the program? Isn't that a contradiction
> in terms?
On re-reading it, I should have clarified that. To me, there is a
difference between the "average computer user" and the "average PSP
user".
> Possibly JASC could sell such a person the program once, but almost
> never twice. Yet I take note of the majority of users that update
> as often as the updates come out and buy new versions.
Let's assume you're right about that. That begs the questions:
#1. Should Jasc ignore that potential market because they will ONLY buy
one copy? Does that mean that that one sale somehow makes less money for
Jasc than one sale to an already established, repeat customer?
#2. Why would they only buy once? If it is because they have no need for
the new and improved features in the next version (such as the photo
enhancement tools in v7), then that's understandable. If, on the other
hand, it's because they found the program too daunting for what they
wanted to do, that's a different story.
Is that the case? Are there people who are put off by the steepening
learning curve for PSP? And if so, how many? Since I'm not privy to Jasc
marketing data, there's no way I can tell, though I have my suspicions.
Nor, I suspect, can Jasc even tell for sure though a comparison of the
number of eval downloads performed versus overall sales may give some
clues. Marketing studies could also provide some feedback, but you need
some large scale (i.e. expensive) studies if you want any real accuracy.
As far as your assertion that the majority of users upgrade, what do
you base that on? It's definitely a possibility, but again, without
access to Jasc's marketing data to match new sales versus upgrades, how
can you tell? If you're basing it upon your observations in here, how
can you be sure that this newsgroup accurately reflects Jasc's entire
user base? After all, how many people use this newsgroup (including
lurkers)? Several dozen regular posters and perhaps a couple of hundred
lurkers?
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com
baseb...@hotmail.com
[...]
> Is that the case? Are there people who are put off by the steepening
>learning curve for PSP? And if so, how many? Since I'm not privy to Jasc
>marketing data, there's no way I can tell, though I have my suspicions.
>Nor, I suspect, can Jasc even tell for sure though a comparison of the
>number of eval downloads performed versus overall sales may give some
>clues. Marketing studies could also provide some feedback, but you need
>some large scale (i.e. expensive) studies if you want any real accuracy.
>
> As far as your assertion that the majority of users upgrade, what do
>you base that on? It's definitely a possibility, but again, without
>access to Jasc's marketing data to match new sales versus upgrades, how
>can you tell? If you're basing it upon your observations in here, how
>can you be sure that this newsgroup accurately reflects Jasc's entire
>user base? After all, how many people use this newsgroup (including
>lurkers)? Several dozen regular posters and perhaps a couple of hundred
>lurkers?
Just some general comments: It is all about marketing--you have to pay
your employees while they are developing the new version. If it
doesn't sell, you've lost money, and you do that enough times, you go
out of business.
Another marketing question precedes the decision to embark upon a new
version--what are the minimum changes that can be made and still sell
(and I don't mean that in a deragatory sense). Consider for the moment
that Jasc adds every enhancement that is in the "wish list" submitted
by users to version 8. Would there be a version 9, or would we just
see v8.02, 8.07,...,8.26, etc.? There has to room to grow, even if
it's onlu to stay a step ahead of your competitors.
co
Rick Simon
> On 03 Sep 2001 19:30:44 GMT, Rick Simon <rsi...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>> Again, is this a representative sample of the (literally) millions
>> of
>>new users out there? Or are these folks who already have enough
>>computer savvy to have been on the net for a while and find a place
>>like LVS or even this newsgroup? Folks who have an interest in
>>learning image manipulation as versus basic digital photography?
>
> Well I didn't conduct a scientific poll, wouldn't have the
> wherewithal or recourses to do such. I'd suggest that some
> computer savvy is required to as much as open any software package
> or navigate the web so it's a given they have that much. I've had
> feedback from people who've never used PSP until they started doing
> my tutorial who have had no trouble following along. The feedback I
> do receive is universally favourable and on the rare occasion
> someone has problems it is usually cleared up with one email.
Understood, but I'm more concerned with those that don't know about
your tut, or even that tutorials in general exist. I tend to see the
explosive increase in digital camera sales as a golden opportunity for
Jasc and I think they see it the same way ala the photo enhancement
tools in v7. Thousands of people who have never done anything more than
play with MS Paint (if that) are finding themselves moving into the
image editing world, even if only for minor touchup work.
>>Folks who have an interest in learning image
>>>manipulation as versus basic digital photography?
>
> This would depend on the individual's interests but, if they
> decided ventured outside the photo enhancement filters, vector
> graphics would present no steeper a learning curve than many of
> the PSP raster features, less in many cases.
I'm not so sure. Most things are pretty easy with raster. You don't
have to get involved with layers unless you want to. Virtually all of
the Effects and Image menu options are available so long as they're
working with .jpg's (which most cameras seem to be using). With
"standard" raster text and drawing tools, they would work pretty much
the same as in Word, Works, MS Paint, etc. About as painless a learning
curve as is possible to provide, especially now that we have "on image
proofing" available.
> Well I won't get into that again<gr> though it's been my experience
> that when people do run up against this it's easily cleared up.
> Most are happy to find how functional editable vector text is.
> Those tools are best used as vectors and what better way to get
> people to discover vectors. Had Jasc decided to default the three
> vector tools available to users to raster it's very likely they
> would have been buried away undiscovered for the most part.
<<chuckle>>
I tend to disagree, but that's what this discussion is all about, isn't
it? <<smile>>
> This is a pretty small thing though I do agree "standard text"
> should be the default. More to the point imho the fore colour
> should be the default colour for standard text<gr>.
I know what you mean! <<smile>>
To tell you the truth though, that's not even the one that bugs me the
most. The line tool drives me nuts. Why is there a fill on lines? When
you draw a freehand, bezier or point to point line you don't end up with
a line. You get a shape instead! <<smile>>
>> I know.... I know.... we've gone through this discussion before
>> and
>>there are those who believe that as PSP grows in power, "there's
>>just going to _have_ to be a learning curve" that grows with it.
>>Personally,
>
> Seems to me that that's a given, the more stuff in there the more
> you have to learn.
Not necessarily true (IMHO). The more stuff in there, the more that CAN
be learned. That is not the same thing as the more you HAVE to learn in
order to use it. What I had in mind was more along the lines of a PSP
where, default out-of-the-box it was set up to use raster drawing tools
with foreground/background colors. They then match the paint tools which
gives the new user a consistent experience while they're first learning
the program. They don't have to deal with converting vectors in order to
apply effects. They don't have to deal with paint tools that use
fore/background vs drawing tools with stroke/fill. Simple. Easy to use.
Easy to learn. Very similar to the way PSP worked in versions prior to
v6.
And yet, if you want vectors? You want stroke/fill? You simply turn
those options on!
Does a setup like this not give you the best of both worlds? A simple
and consistent setup for the new user to initially learn with? While
providing all of the advanced goodies that the more experienced user
wants?
>>I think that attitude is what resulted in that PITA interface that PS
>>uses though. Nor do I think it is necessarily true in this case.
>
> PITA?
Pain in the a**. I may have small "quibbles" with PSP's UI, but they
pale in comparison to my opinions on that one. <<smile>>
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com
Rick Simon
>
> Just some general comments: It is all about marketing--you have to
> pay your employees while they are developing the new version. If it
> doesn't sell, you've lost money, and you do that enough times, you
> go out of business.
Absolutely. Along with that are the decisions about what market you
want to target. The steeper the learning curve, the less likely you are
to be successful with the new user market (IMHO). Of course, that may
not be of any importance though. That market may have already been
conceded to those programs that come bundled with cameras and/or the
OS/Apps (ala PictureIt). In which case, my quest to see Jasc return the
default setup for the drawing tools to basic raster instead of vector,
is useless. It's simply another case of me 'tilting at windmills' so to
speak. <<smile>>
> Another marketing question precedes the decision to embark upon a
> new version--what are the minimum changes that can be made and
> still sell (and I don't mean that in a deragatory sense). Consider
> for the moment that Jasc adds every enhancement that is in the
> "wish list" submitted by users to version 8. Would there be a
> version 9, or would we just see v8.02, 8.07,...,8.26, etc.? There
> has to room to grow, even if it's onlu to stay a step ahead of your
> competitors. co
Oh.... I don't know.... somehow I think there are lots of things that
can still be done. Let's see.... we've already heard the cry for 'Macros
4 8!' ringing through the cyber corriders. Then there are those who
would love to discuss 3D possibilities, not to mention some artists who
wish to do some revamping of the brushes and paint tools in PSP (IIRC).
And of course, there are always new image formats to add support for
(.pdf, Flash, .swg anyone?). As a rather nice guy (and more importantly
one who actually can affect such decisions) is fond of saying, "All it
takes is time and money!" <<smile>>
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com
baseb...@hotmail.com
>baseb...@hotmail.com wrote in news:3b94f15a.10883958@news:
>> Another marketing question precedes the decision to embark upon a
>> new version--what are the minimum changes that can be made and
>> still sell (and I don't mean that in a deragatory sense). Consider
>> for the moment that Jasc adds every enhancement that is in the
>> "wish list" submitted by users to version 8. Would there be a
>> version 9, or would we just see v8.02, 8.07,...,8.26, etc.? There
>> has to room to grow, even if it's onlu to stay a step ahead of your
>> competitors. co
>
> Oh.... I don't know.... somehow I think there are lots of things that
>can still be done. Let's see.... we've already heard the cry for 'Macros
>4 8!' ringing through the cyber corriders. Then there are those who
>would love to discuss 3D possibilities, not to mention some artists who
>wish to do some revamping of the brushes and paint tools in PSP (IIRC).
>And of course, there are always new image formats to add support for
>(.pdf, Flash, .swg anyone?). As a rather nice guy (and more importantly
>one who actually can affect such decisions) is fond of saying, "All it
>takes is time and money!" <<smile>>
Like lots and lots of money to buy a new sustem that can run the
program. This is another marketing/planning area--if you make the
system requirements for program operation too restrictive (say, a 2G
CPU with 1G RAM) , all the people who just bought 933's won't be
buying your program. On the other hand, it's also bad if you don't
take advantage of newer technology. I don't want Win 3.1 software
written for 75 mHz Pentiums when I have a 933. running Win98, or
newer.
co
Porter
snipped
Thanks for your comments Rick. As someone who interacts with a
number of real people (mostly both computer owners & holders of
disposable income) who all exist completely outside of our
cloistered Online environment (which only represents a tiny
portion of the software buying public), your rational views and
understandings of the wider population, are always appreciated.
I have long observed that the major differences in perceptions
between what software manufacturers want to build, and what real
people seek to buy, has widened by such a huge chasm, it often
seems to beg for clarification on the most important question of
all: How much is it about money & profitability? IMHO,
profitability should always be THE paramount focus, since he's
the only Guy who can insure future survival & grease roads for
new R&D and growth. When profitability is truly the primary
goal, it naturally follows that anything which perpetuates real
obstacle to those mobs of unwashed consumers, (clamoring,
lusting, and hopefully waving their wads of cash outside
currently closed doors), is likely to be self-limiting.
Anything that summarily excludes vast numbers of people, by
instructing them to learn Chinese before they will be allowed to
order Wonton Soup offa Wei-Ling's menu on a Saturday night, is
probably not the tightest profitability focus. Without future
cash flow as the primary goal, things sure can be fun for a
while, but some parties are not likely to be as long-lived, nor
as prosperous.
The kicker is in determining where the firmest lines get drawn in
cash strategy sands. Making those tough calls between
pasteurizing it down to lower common denominators for greater
mass appeal (which makes life on the job suck for anyone with
even half a brain - and IMHO is absolutely never ever necessary)
or staunchly attempting to fulfill our own creator desires, even
when it may be at cross purposes and a real detriment to the
"getting of fatter cash flow". (My own checkered history has me
pleading guilty to this one. :) Traveling the most profitable
roads, while delivering babies, that as creators we can still
enjoy & be proud of, is a far harder nut to crack - but one heck
of a life insurance policy in a world filled with failing and
falling businesses. I've personally taken the bullet with several
non-successes <BG> after indulging in some self-delusional
beliefs that everyone else certainly viewed the world, just like
me. I adored my baby (he was rightfully a spectacularly lovely
child) but it didn't automatically follow that the rest of
humanity shared those views, once it all boiled down to them
giving me money. Especially if he started crying, sporting a wet
diaper, or had a little unpleasantness hanging from his nose. I
somewhat painfully discovered, that those tad less glamorous, yet
cleaner & fresher smelling babies (ones less likely to leave the
public with a wet lap) always seemed to enjoy better receptions,
and marketed with greater successes.
As long as vectors and rasters continue to sleep together tangled
up in the same darn bed: Scores who are itching for a little
Wonton soup of a Saturday night, but required to negotiate their
entry through barricaded doors, with a waiter who only speaks
Chinese; kinda hints that although Wei-Ling certainly does wok up
some kickass food - he also may not be packing his house. Once
he gets his front door propped open so more people can
comfortably walk in and sit right down with less confusion and
hassle, the sooner word'll spread like wildfire about his bargain
prices & those superior meals.
Regards,
Porter
Fugitive
2) Why not make a PSP Painless for simple editing, and the PSP regular
for us types.
Greg
http://www.photoloft.com/view/Album.asp?s=jasc&a=1061143&u=1487314
Rick Simon
news:c5s8rs09so0j1k4kr...@4ax.com:
> 1) You people are downright verbose.
<<chuckle>>
Yep.
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com