Photoline vs. PhotoSlop
LOL!
As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, a Granger
Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
their color-space work-path. From camera, to editor, to print. It requires
that you have an accurate Granger Calibration Chart at your disposal. For
information on how to create one for your own system, refer to
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>
Here's a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools available in
Photoline compared to a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools
available in PhotoSlop.
<http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4333627495_106144740c_o.jpg>
Any questions?
LOL!
LOL!
Oh this is just getting funnier and funnier...
Here's a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools in Paint Shop Pro
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4334891542_3f02f3905f_o.jpg
I even went back to see where PhotoSlop's errors were and corrected its
"Rainbow" gradient to have the proper colors and spacings in it, changed
the color profiles, the color-space, I tried everything, and still I
couldn't get PhotoSlop to create a correct Granger Calibration Chart. They
all looked nearly identical to the example previously posted with its
hideous peaks and ravines and large missing ranges of hues.
And then you fools wonder why you spend days and weeks of your lives trying
to properly calibrate your color profiles and monitors, wasting hundreds of
dollars on extra screen and printer calibration tools, reams of expensive
paper, quarts of ink, etc. etc. All because you are depending on an
outrageously overpriced program, Photoslop, that can't even produce the
right colors on your systems. If this isn't a penultimate case of "Garbage
In Garbage Out", I don't know what is!
Too fuckin' funny!
ROFLMAO!
Anon
"LOL!" <l...@lol.org> wrote in message
news:jdvqm5h31nn5s0ak3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:37:47 -0600, LOL! <l...@lol.org> wrote:
>>
>>As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, a Granger
>>Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
>>their color-space work-path. From camera, to editor, to print. It requires
>>that you have an accurate Granger Calibration Chart at your disposal. For
>>information on how to create one for your own system, refer to
>><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>
>>
Life is linear, film was never linear, and your product isn't going to push
the industry standard off the hill.
LOL!
>
>"LOL!" <l...@lol.org> wrote in message
>news:jdvqm5h31nn5s0ak3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:37:47 -0600, LOL! <l...@lol.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, a Granger
>>>Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
>>>their color-space work-path. From camera, to editor, to print. It requires
>>>that you have an accurate Granger Calibration Chart at your disposal. For
>>>information on how to create one for your own system, refer to
>>><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>
>>>
>Self-serving promoting his own site deleted...
Couldn't even stand to have the 100% proof listed again, could you. Are you
sticking your head in the sand again, or wherever it is that you keep it
these days? Do you listen to others with your fingers in your ears while
humming a tune? Read facts and evidence while poking your own eyes out?
Seems to be the case. LOL!
What "his own site"? I don't own Flickr, I don't own Photoline, I don't own
PaintShopPro.
>
>Life is linear, film was never linear, and your product isn't going to push
>the industry standard off the hill.
>
>
"If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it
remains a foolish thing."
LOL!!!!!
LOL!
Here's another Granger Chart. This time created with an even more dedicated
and older "industry standard" than PhotoSlop, "Canvas". Used for decades by
designers and publishers for the most exacting desk-top-publishing projects
and technical drawings. It can even create maps down to finer than 1mm
precision in relation to GIS world-map coordinates. I'm not overly familiar
with its JPG compression settings so this resulting file ended up being
compressed greatly, but it still clearly shows the original file being an
accurate Granger Calibration Chart.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/4335191188_7aa237fe34_o.jpg
I'll bet you can grab any editor on the planet that allows you to use
gradients, layers, and the proper layer blend modes and it'll still produce
a correct Granger Chart, EXCEPT for PhotoSlop.
I encourage all of you to use your favorite editor as well as any lesser
known editors that you might happen to have installed and use them to
create Granger Charts. Then compare it to the garbage that PhotoSlop spits
out. Post your findings. It would be very interesting. I can't prove it to
the doubters with my samples, you'll claim I didn't use the programs I
claimed to use. You can only prove it to yourself.
Why is it that the only "industry standard" that CANNOT create a proper
Granger Calibration Chart is Photoslop?
LOL!
tony cooper
>On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:55:37 +0000 (UTC), "Anon" <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LOL!" <l...@lol.org> wrote in message
>>news:jdvqm5h31nn5s0ak3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:37:47 -0600, LOL! <l...@lol.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, a Granger
>>>>Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
>>>>their color-space work-path. From camera, to editor, to print. It requires
>>>>that you have an accurate Granger Calibration Chart at your disposal. For
>>>>information on how to create one for your own system, refer to
>>>><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>
>>>>
>>Self-serving promoting his own site deleted...
>
>Couldn't even stand to have the 100% proof listed again, could you. Are you
>sticking your head in the sand again, or wherever it is that you keep it
>these days? Do you listen to others with your fingers in your ears while
>humming a tune? Read facts and evidence while poking your own eyes out?
>Seems to be the case. LOL!
>
>What "his own site"? I don't own Flickr, I don't own Photoline, I don't own
>PaintShopPro.
>
Or even a camera, for that matter.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LOL!
Awww... whatsamatter Boopy? Is the harsh truth about your favorite software
that you've been schilling to everyone all your life got you down? Or was
it all that money and time that you wasted on it?
LOL!
Ray Fischer
>As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows,
That obviously excludes lying trolls.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bristolian
>
> Any questions?
>
> LOL!
>
My only question is: why do you continue to waste valuable oxygen by
needlessly breathing?
--
Regards
Bristolian
Vance
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:22:37 -0500, tony cooper
>
>
>
>
>
> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:16:34 -0600, LOL! <l...@lol.org> wrote:
>
>
> >>>"LOL!" <l...@lol.org> wrote in message
> >>>news:jdvqm5h31nn5s0ak3...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:37:47 -0600, LOL! <l...@lol.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, a Granger
> >>>>>Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
> >>>>>their color-space work-path. From camera, to editor, to print. It requires
> >>>>>that you have an accurate Granger Calibration Chart at your disposal. For
> >>>>>information on how to create one for your own system, refer to
> >>>>><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>
>
> >>>Self-serving promoting his own site deleted...
>
> >>Couldn't even stand to have the 100% proof listed again, could you. Are you
> >>sticking your head in the sand again, or wherever it is that you keep it
> >>these days? Do you listen to others with your fingers in your ears while
> >>humming a tune? Read facts and evidence while poking your own eyes out?
> >>Seems to be the case. LOL!
>
> >>What "his own site"? I don't own Flickr, I don't own Photoline, I don't own
> >>PaintShopPro.
>
> >Or even a camera, for that matter.
>
> Awww... whatsamatter Boopy? Is the harsh truth about your favorite software
> that you've been schilling to everyone all your life got you down? Or was
> it all that money and time that you wasted on it?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like my Photoshop and I know other people, some of them
discriminating, that like it too.
Vance
Robert Coe
: On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:37:47 -0600, LOL! <l...@lol.org> wrote:
: ...
: I even went back to see where PhotoSlop's errors were and corrected its
: "Rainbow" gradient to have the proper colors and spacings in it, changed
: the color profiles, the color-space, I tried everything, and still I
: couldn't get PhotoSlop to create a correct Granger Calibration Chart. They
: all looked nearly identical to the example previously posted with its
: hideous peaks and ravines and large missing ranges of hues.
:
: And then you fools wonder why you spend days and weeks of your lives trying
: to properly calibrate your color profiles and monitors, wasting hundreds of
: dollars on extra screen and printer calibration tools, reams of expensive
: paper, quarts of ink, etc. etc. All because you are depending on an
: outrageously overpriced program, Photoslop, that can't even produce the
: right colors on your systems. If this isn't a penultimate case of "Garbage
: In Garbage Out", I don't know what is!
I can't say anything authoritative about the rest of your diatribe, but I'd
bet money that those last five words are true.
Bob
LOL!
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Ray Fischer
>
>I even went back to see where PhotoSlop's errors were and corrected its
You've yet to show any error, moron. All you've done is screech
like a gibbon, insisting that your incompetance is somebody else's
problem.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Browne
> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
> up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
"It is good for the uneducated man to read books of quotations."
- Winston Churchill
LOL!
You're as oxymoronic (and fuckin' stupid) as one can ever get in life.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Browne
You are nothing but a cretin swimming the internet and spewing factoids
that you find as if they were your original thoughts. An original
thought and a cold glass of water would cause you irreparable brain
damage. Not that much would be lost.
So, how's life in mommy's basement? Got enough corn chips, dip and
Ready-Mart Cola to sustain you for the day?
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:Hb2dna4LaMyjcfPW...@giganews.com...
> On 10-02-07 11:12 , LOL! wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:50:52 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-02-06 21:01 , LOL! wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
>>>> themselves
>>>> up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
>>>
>>> "It is good for the uneducated man to read books of quotations."
>>> - Winston Churchill
>>
>> You're as oxymoronic (and fuckin' stupid) as one can ever get in life.
>
> You are nothing but a cretin swimming the internet and spewing factoids
> that you find as if they were your original thoughts. An original thought
> and a cold glass of water would cause you irreparable brain damage.
Now that's a line that literally made me laugh out loud. :-)
The guy you're replying to is the prolific Troll of a Thousand Names. But
you probably already knew that.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne"<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:Hb2dna4LaMyjcfPW...@giganews.com...
>> On 10-02-07 11:12 , LOL! wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:50:52 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10-02-06 21:01 , LOL! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
>>>>> themselves
>>>>> up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
>>>>
>>>> "It is good for the uneducated man to read books of quotations."
>>>> - Winston Churchill
>>>
>>> You're as oxymoronic (and fuckin' stupid) as one can ever get in life.
>>
>> You are nothing but a cretin swimming the internet and spewing factoids
>> that you find as if they were your original thoughts. An original thought
>> and a cold glass of water would cause you irreparable brain damage.
>
> Now that's a line that literally made me laugh out loud. :-)
I can't take credit for it. I believe it's from a W.E.B. Griffin book I
read (which end as "would kill him").
>
> The guy you're replying to is the prolific Troll of a Thousand Names. But
> you probably already knew that.
I know. I was regrettably engaging it against my best advice to others.
But quotes from Churchill by boobs deserve the beautiful reply that
Churchill so brilliantly provided for the future.
Charlie Groh
wrote:
>LOL! wrote:
>>
>> Any questions?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>
>My only question is: why do you continue to waste valuable oxygen by
>needlessly breathing?
...world champ time waster (both his and whomever reads him) *that's*
for sure...
cg
Jacob Rus
> As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, aGranger
> Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
>
> Here's a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools available in
> Photoline compared to a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools
> available in PhotoSlop.
> <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4333627495_106144740c_o.jpg>
I just sent a message to the alt.graphics.photoshop and
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop groups about this question, but since
this seems to be the original source of the confusion, I might as well
post it here as well.
Notice that neither HSL nor luma/chroma/hue is a particularly good one
for anything, in 2010. They are designed for fast computation on
hardware from the mid-1990s or earlier, and now that computers are
absurdly fast, there's pretty much no reason not to use something
better -- except that most of our software, including Photoshop, GIMP,
Paint Shop Pro, &c. &c., is rather behind the times.
here's a google groups link to that discussion:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/browse_thread/
thread/9ed906cf65c66f70>
* * *
Alan Browne wrote:
> 1) In PS, follow the instructions at:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtmland generate
> the Granger chart as shown. Oddly, it has a strange distribution given
> that the gradient layer is linear top-to-bottom. What is creating those
> diagonals in the chart?
As Mike mentioned, this is because Photoshop's hue/saturation/color/
luminosity blend modes are with reference to what my Wikipedia article
about HSL & HSV [1] calls a "luma/chroma/hue" model. If you look at
the second image in that article, it's the shape at the bottom right.
What Photoshop's blend modes call “luminosity” is close to .3*R + .6*G
+ .1*B, what the blend modes call “saturation” is max(R, G, B) -
min(R, G, B) -- notice that this is different from both HSL
"saturation" and HSV "saturation" -- and what the blend modes call hue
is the same as HSL/HSV hue.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV
So anyway, that "Granger chart" (I've never heard of such a thing, and
can't imagine a use for it; I wonder how the luminous landscape guys
came up with it) basically shows what would happen if you stretched
out the odd asymmetrical bicone shape of the luma/chroma/hue model
into a cylinder. In other words, for each combination of hue and luma,
it shows the color with maximum chroma.
Perhaps the purpose of this is to aid selection of as-chromatic-as-
possible colors, based on some scheme in hue/lightness? If so, this
isn't such a great tool, and really highlights the problems of using
luma as a proxy for lightness (e.g. CIELAB L* or CIECAM02 J): luma is
derived directly from the gamma-corrected R, G, B values stored in an
image in a space like Adobe RGB or sRGB, but human brightness/
lightness perception is a non-linear adjustment to the direct
luminance (Y) signal taken in by the eyes. Basically, using luma as a
proxy for lightness leads to great distortions for bright colors. This
is dramatically demonstrated by the “Granger chart”, which has bright
diagonal bands along the highest-chroma edges. If luma were a good
proxy for lightness, this chart would look pretty smooth.
It's also problematic to use this definition of "hue" based on RGB
primaries, because it's basically arbitrary. Much better would be to
space hue as in Munsell, CIELAB, or CIECAM02 geometries.
So anyway, again, I can't think of a good use for this "Granger
chart", and I recommend ignoring/avoiding it.
> 2) For comparison, see;
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
I'm not sure what this is about. Since I've never heard of a "Granger
chart" before today, I'm not sure what a proper one looks like, but
it's not at all clear to me that the results from these other editors
(the edge of an HSL cylinder) is it. Presumably the luminous landscape
people realize the difference.
If you want to make a chart like this (i.e. the edge of an HSL
cylinder)
using Photoshop, follow these steps:
1) Make a horizontal gradient (smoothness = 0) where red, yellow,
green, cyan, blue, magenta, red are at 0%, 16%, 33%, 50%, 67%, 83%
2) Add a layer above, and make vertical gradient from bottom to top
which has colors (bottom of the gradient interface) go black, black,
white, white at 0%, 50%, 50%, 100% (the two 50%s should be as close as
you can make them, like 1 pixel apart), and which has transparency
(top of the gradient interface) opaque (100% opacity), transparent
(0%), opaque, at positions 0%, 50%, 100%. Make this gradient still
have smoothness = 0. Leave the layer in normal mode, since we just
want to interpolate linearly between red, yellow, etc. and black at
the bottom or white at the top.
Do those instructions make sense?
* * *
All of this is a completely separate issue from Photoshop's non-linear
gradients. I generally turn smoothness on my gradients down to 0, to
make them linear, because I tend to use gradients for making charts/
graphics rather than for editing photos. I'm not sure quite how they
decided on the interpolation method for the 100% smoothness version. I
think it's the same as the interpolation used by the Curves tool (and
I don't understand the particular choice of math used there, either --
it's not the best for the job).
Hope that helps,
Jacob
LOL!
wrote:
>So anyway, that "Granger chart" (I've never heard of such a thing, and
>can't imagine a use for it
Yes, that's obvious. All that you are intent on doing is trying to jump
through convoluted hoops in explaining why your blindly-worshipped
PhotoSlop can't recreate the full range of all available hues in a Granger
Chart. It's used to detect subtle differences in color-rendition in your
camera to software to print path. If the Granger Chart can't reproduce all
the colors available, as is the case when using PhotoSlop, then you can't
find where the errors are.
Keep trying to justify that piece of shit PhotoSlop.
LOL!
Ray Fischer
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:43:25 -0800 (PST), Jacob Rus <jaco...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So anyway, that "Granger chart" (I've never heard of such a thing, and
>>can't imagine a use for it
>
>Yes, that's obvious. All that you are intent on doing is trying to jump
Push your lies somewhere else, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<rfis...@sonic.net> writes
Photoshop and Lightroom used the ProphotoRGB colour space. ProphotoRGB
is somewhat larger that AdobeRGB or sRGB.
The prophoto space is about the same as the LAB colour space.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml
However as the page says it has colours outside the scope of many
screens, jpgs and printers.
It also explains about the gamut changes, which explain the "missing"
colours" in the Granger chart the OP linked to. I think the OP is using
a lamppost for support rather than illumination and has missed the
important points of the information on the Granger Chart. If he knew
what he was looking at it would be clear that the problem is not
photoshop
In short Photoshop (as recommended by the people at http://www.luminous-
landscape.com ) is NOT the limiting factor.
In fact Photoshop in prophotoRGB can handle more colours than most
output devices and humans can handle. The newer printers such as the
epsons using the K3Ink range (with 9 or more inks) can handle most of
it.
BTW does Photoline handle ProPhotoRGB? If not is can not be as good as
Photshop.
All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
The OP is spouting religion with no understanding.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Jacob Rus
> Yes, that's obvious. All that you are intent on doing is trying to jump
> through convoluted hoops in explaining why your blindly-worshipped
> PhotoSlop can't recreate the full range of all available hues in a Granger
> Chart. It's used to detect subtle differences in color-rendition in your
> camera to software to print path. If the Granger Chart can't reproduce all
> the colors available, as is the case when using PhotoSlop, then you can't
> find where the errors are.
>
> Keep trying to justify that piece of shit PhotoSlop.
I'm going to guess that you really don't care, and so it's not worth
answering this, but here, I'll give you one chance. If you follow the
2 simple steps in my previous email, you'll get a result that looks
exactly like the "granger charts" made in gimp, photoline, paint shop
pro, &c. I'd guess that even you would be able to manage finishing
them in less than 2 or 3 minutes. If you make the
The difference has nothing to do with "recreating the full range of
all available hues" (as can clearly be seen by inspection or pixel-
peeping, all the charts in your flickr image actually contain the same
colors, just arranged in a slightly different pattern), but is rather
due to the difference in the "luminosity" blend mode, which in
photoshop is interpreted to mean luma, Y' (look up either the
wikipedia article about it, or Charles Poynton's excellent
nomenclature lament for details).
Anyway, best luck with your experiments. I'm glad you've apparently
found a workflow and set of software applications matched to your
needs.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Push your lies somewhere else, asshole troll.
Chris H wrote:
> [...] a lamppost for support rather than illumination [...]
I think if you all gave up on the pointless insults and banalities,
you'd end up with either useful contributors or trolls bored out of
their skulls (and therefore away) by kindness.
Chris H wrote:
> Photoshop and Lightroom used the ProphotoRGB colour space. ProphotoRGB
> is somewhat larger that AdobeRGB or sRGB.
This has nothing to do with anything.
Cheers,
Jacob
Jeff Jones
>
>BTW does Photoline handle ProPhotoRGB? If not is can not be as good as
>Photslop.
I've used ProPhotoRGB in Photoline but I prefer to use eciRGB v2 ICCv4 as
it is more universally compliant. There are several ProPhoto colorspace
definitions floating around out there for the last 5 years. (Did you not
know this?) I'd never go near adobeRGBullshit.
It's a shame that you've all been floundering in PhotoSlop all these years.
You've no idea what you've been wallowing in. There's a reason that it was
called PhotoLine-32 since 1998 and still uses the domain of www.pl32.net,
it's been a 32-bit math platform all that time, now 64-bit for the last 2-3
years. PhotoSlop only went from a 16-bit to 32-bit math platform in CS4. Do
try to catch-up someday to what's happening in the rest of the world. The
ignorance levels of people who only read and believe in one book is
mind-bogglingly astounding.
LOL!
wrote:
>
>I'm going to guess that you really don't care, and so it's not worth
>answering this, but here, I'll give you one chance. If you follow the
>2 simple steps in my previous email, you'll get a result that looks
>exactly like the "granger charts" made in gimp, photoline, paint shop
>pro, &c. I'd guess that even you would be able to manage finishing
>them in less than 2 or 3 minutes. If you make the
"2 simple steps" Okay, if that's how you see defining all your gradients
and all the other hoops you have to jump through. I already went through
the convoluted nonsense of trying to fix PhotoSlop's gradients when I did
the tests the first time to see where it was making such huge errors.
It doesn't matter if they "look" the same, your Granger Chart, a
mathematical reproduction of every hue possible, is missing millions of
shades and hues that will never appear on your monitor. But when altering
white-balance and other hue adjustments and trying to recover colors from
highlights and shadows, you'll end up with serious gaps because they are
totally missing from your editing platform.
No matter. You don't even comprehend why this is important. I doubt any of
your images will suffer because nobody probably wants to see them anyway.
LOL!
nospam
<jj197...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> It's a shame that you've all been floundering in PhotoSlop all these years.
> You've no idea what you've been wallowing in. There's a reason that it was
> called PhotoLine-32 since 1998 and still uses the domain of www.pl32.net,
> it's been a 32-bit math platform all that time, now 64-bit for the last 2-3
> years. PhotoSlop only went from a 16-bit to 32-bit math platform in CS4.
completely false, no matter how many times you say this. photoshop was
a 32 bit app back in 1990, when it was first released.
> Do
> try to catch-up someday to what's happening in the rest of the world. The
> ignorance levels of people who only read and believe in one book is
> mind-bogglingly astounding.
take your own advice.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
> Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
> The OP is spouting religion with no understanding.
very true.
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <Z+tgJyB1...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
>> Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
>
>it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful
>> The OP is spouting religion with no understanding.
>very true.
Sadly a lot of them about.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
> >> Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
> >
> >it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
>
> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful
it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a
joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible.
there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much
was lifted from the gimp.
Russ D
You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for
Photoslop". Photoline had HDR editing 3-4 years before PhotoSlop stole the
idea and renamed it to HDR. Considering that Photoline has about 80% more
capabilities and features to this day, that gives lots more tools and
methods that Adobe can steal from Photoline. I once tried making a
cross-reference chart for those wanting to migrate from the fewer features
in PhotoSlop, but there were so many features in PhotoLine to which there
were no equivalents in PhotoSlop that it was no longer worth the effort.
Thus, precisely showing everyone how little you know about Photoline. Your
only familiarity with Photoline is by typing the name of it a few times.
You can go crawl back under your bridge now, troll.
nospam
<ru...@myowndomain.org> wrote:
> You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for
> Photoslop". Photoline had HDR editing 3-4 years before PhotoSlop stole the
> idea and renamed it to HDR. Considering that Photoline has about 80% more
> capabilities and features to this day, that gives lots more tools and
> methods that Adobe can steal from Photoline.
nonsense.
> I once tried making a
> cross-reference chart for those wanting to migrate from the fewer features
> in PhotoSlop, but there were so many features in PhotoLine to which there
> were no equivalents in PhotoSlop that it was no longer worth the effort.
there are even more going the other direction.
Russ D
Not true. Except for 1 or 2 novelty things that were put into CS4, with no
real useful purpose, there's not one thing you can do in PhotoSlop that
can't be done better and faster with Photoline. But then you'd know this if
you had ever used it.
Bye bye troll.
Chris H
<ru...@myowndomain.org> writes
>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:51 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <sy0taMNQ...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>><ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
>>> >> Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
>>> >
>>> >it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
>>>
>>> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful
>>
>>it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a
>>joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible.
>>there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much
>>was lifted from the gimp.
>
>You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for
>Photoslop".
I did not realise that Photoline was over 20 years old...
Russ D
>In message <snkap5prdnkc7dan3...@4ax.com>, Russ D
><ru...@myowndomain.org> writes
>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:51 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <sy0taMNQ...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>>><ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
>>>> >> Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
>>>> >
>>>> >it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
>>>>
>>>> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful
>>>
>>>it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a
>>>joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible.
>>>there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much
>>>was lifted from the gimp.
>>
>>You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for
>>Photoslop".
>
>I did not realise that Photoline was over 20 years old...
15 of PhotoSlop's years were spent stealing from newer and better software
and its programmers. Seniority is no guarantee of anything. If anything,
they've had longer to learn how to steal ideas from others because they ran
out of their own ideas sooner. Get your head out of your ass.
Bye bye troll.
nospam
<ru...@myowndomain.org> wrote:
> 15 of PhotoSlop's years were spent stealing from newer and better software
> and its programmers.
more bullshit
Savageduck
> In message <snkap5prdnkc7dan3...@4ax.com>, Russ D
> <ru...@myowndomain.org> writes
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:51 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <sy0taMNQ...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>>> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
>>>>>> Photoshop elements and is a similar price.
>>>>>
>>>>> it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
>>>>
>>>> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful
>>>
>>> it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a
>>> joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible.
>>> there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much
>>> was lifted from the gimp.
>>
>> You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for
>> Photoslop".
>
> I did not realise that Photoline was over 20 years old...
The first public release for Photoline was in 1995.
The first Photoshop prototype, "ImagePro" was developed in 1988 and
renamed "Photoshop" later in 1988.
Adobe purchased a distribution license in September 1988 and Photoshop
1.0 was released by Adobe in 1990.
There was nothing "lifted" from Photoline.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mark L
Photoline had the feature, translated to english, as the tool "Connect
Images". This is identical to HDR in PhotoSlop. This feature was in
PhotoLine 2-3 years before PhotoSlop users even knew of the process or
principle behind it.
Go fuck yourself, LIARS.
Jacob Rus
> It doesn't matter if they "look" the same, your Granger Chart, a
> mathematical reproduction of every hue possible, is missing millions of
> shades and hues that will never appear on your monitor.
This is trivially demonstrated false. :-)
I've even gone to the trouble of uploading a "proper granger rainbow"
file which you can download (it currently has small dimensions to be a
small download. so I've reduced this to 1 simple step for you. Image -
> Image Size -> resize to whatever you like, I suggest something like
1000 x 2000).
http://www.mediafire.com/?2mmam2mdyzt
All the math is done with 15 bits of precision, which is several
orders of magnitude more than necessary for whatever size "granger
rainbow" you try to make. It is trivially easy to verify this through
visual inspection, or looking at the raw data in the resulting image.
> But when altering
> white-balance and other hue adjustments and trying to recover colors from
> highlights and shadows, you'll end up with serious gaps because they are
> totally missing from your editing platform.
This is also false. :-)
> No matter. You don't even comprehend why this is important. I doubt any of
> your images will suffer because nobody probably wants to see them anyway.
It's quite possible, and I never claimed otherwise. :-)
I'm done with this thread now; sorry to have dredged it back up. I'd
suggest, Mr. LOL, that you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable
doubt that you don't care about accuracy, image appearance, or the
features of “PhotoSlop”, but are just trying to stir up trouble. Good
luck, I guess.
Cheers,
Jacob
tony cooper
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Isn't that hook stuck in your mouth painful?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Savageduck
Yup, but if feels so good once I rip it out.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris H
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
Clearly industrial espionage by Adobe to steal photoline's secrets 8
years before photoline was published! Proof of how bad and underhand
photoslop really is....
Obviously the Photoline team completely clean roomed their design and
features. They took nothing from Photslop. They are Gods.
I like this logic. :-)