Re: Which lightweight photo editor?

[nospam]

In article <1302893046388802816.8...@news.aioe.org>,
<ade...@inbox.com> wrote:

> I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
> lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
>
> I just need it for:
>
> colour correctio
>
> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
> by dragging that selection rectangle
>
> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).

if you're on a mac, iphoto (included with the computer) will do that.

otherwise, get photoshop elements. it's easy to find on sale for about
$50-60. don't pay more.

[philo]

On 04/27/2013 07:52 PM, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
> I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
> lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
>
> I just need it for:
>
> colour correctio
>
> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
> by dragging that selection rectangle
>
> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).
>

I do most of my editing with IrFanView ...it's free.


For another with considerably more features but also free, there is GIMP.


Between the above two applications I don't need anything else.

[Savageduck]

Note: He has bought a Windows 8 tablet. I am not exactly sure how PSE
or any of the well known suspects in the Windows World would actually
would function in the W8 tablet environment.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2013042718440624115-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
> >> lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
> >>
> >> I just need it for:
> >>
> >> colour correctio
> >>
> >> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
> >> by dragging that selection rectangle
> >>
> >> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).
> >
> > if you're on a mac, iphoto (included with the computer) will do that.
> >
> > otherwise, get photoshop elements. it's easy to find on sale for about
> > $50-60. don't pay more.
>
> Note: He has bought a Windows 8 tablet.

so he did. missed that.

> I am not exactly sure how PSE
> or any of the well known suspects in the Windows World would actually
> would function in the W8 tablet environment.

windows tablets can run windows apps (other than an rt tablet, which
almost nobody is buying).

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:44:06 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

I've not (yet, at least) tried to install a photo editor on my Windows 8
tablet. My take is that its 2GB memory and its 60GB hard drive would make it a
weak performer for photo editing.

But I have installed Irfanview on a Windows 8 desktop and Digital Photo Pro on
that desktop and on a fairly beefy Windows 8 laptop. All of those
installations work fine.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:21:11 -0500, philo�ｿｽ <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:

Is GIMP color space aware (either embedded or manually specified)? It's a bit
annoying that Irfanview isn't.

Bob

[David Taylor]

On 28/04/2013 01:52, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
> I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
> lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
>
> I just need it for:
>
> colour correctio
>
> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
> by dragging that selection rectangle
>
> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).

Which tablet have you bought - more specifically, /exactly/ which
version of Windows does it run?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[philo]

On 04/28/2013 12:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:

I cannot answer that as I do little (if any) color processing.

I did find this info though:


http://docs.gimp.org/nl/gimp-imaging-color-management.html



FWIW: If you need to use CMYK then Photoshop would be the way to go

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:01:49 +0000 (UTC), <ade...@inbox.com> wrote:

>Thanks. I will download IrFanView and GIMP when I get back later...

GIMP, in my opinion, is not free if your time is worth anything. The UI
is awkward and error-prone.

IrfanView is fine for what it does, but can also be a bit quirky.

PS Elements was already suggested. In that vein, you mught want to look
at PS Lightroom.

Another free option is Picasa.

[philo]

On 04/28/2013 07:55 AM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:01:49 +0000 (UTC), <ade...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> philo <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:
>>> On 04/27/2013 07:52 PM, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
>>>> I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
>>>> lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
>>>>
>>>> I just need it for:
>>>>
>>>> colour correctio
>>>>
>>>> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
>>>> by dragging that selection rectangle
>>>>
>>>> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do most of my editing with IrFanView ...it's free.
>>>
>>>
>>> For another with considerably more features but also free, there is GIMP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Between the above two applications I don't need anything else.
>>
>> Thanks. I will download IrFanView and GIMP when I get back later...
>
> GIMP, in my opinion, is not free if your time is worth anything. The UI
> is awkward and error-prone.
>

I've been using GIMP for years and have no idea what you mean by "error
prone". It's hardly awkward, but yes, it is different from Photoshop.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:17:37 +0000 (UTC), <ade...@inbox.com> wrote:

>i bought the Asus Vivotab Smart which runs Windows 8 (32bit). This is an
>upgrade from my Eeepc Windows netbook, which I had not really used in ages.
>So far it seems to be faster than my Eeepc, which I put down to its new
>dual core CPU...
>
>Quite hard to use though as the controls in Windows 8 desktop are too tiny
>to hit reliably with my fingers.
>
>Irfanview Portable installed. There doesn't seem to be anyway to specify
>crop ratios, which I would need to do as sometimes I need to send photos in
>certain ratios.

I don't use Irfanview to edit, but I have it installed. Crop ratios
are set by clicking Edit - Create Custom Crop Selection. All the
choices are there. You then drag out your crop frame and click Crop
Selection.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Jennifer Murphy]

UIs are inherently subjective. I found it unusable. Just one data point.
Yours is another.

[Peabody]

ade...@inbox.com says...

> Thanks. I will download IrFanView and GIMP when I get
> back later...

There's also XnView, which is free.

[philo]

On 04/28/2013 11:07 AM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> For another with considerably more features but also free, there is GIMP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Between the above two applications I don't need anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I will download IrFanView and GIMP when I get back later...
>>>
>>> GIMP, in my opinion, is not free if your time is worth anything. The UI
>>> is awkward and error-prone.
>>
>> I've been using GIMP for years and have no idea what you mean by "error
>> prone". It's hardly awkward, but yes, it is different from Photoshop.
>
> UIs are inherently subjective. I found it unusable.

<snip>

So did I until I decided to RTFM, then it was not so bad.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <f4bpn8h400oajr827...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
says...

> I've not (yet, at least) tried to install a photo editor on my Windows 8
> tablet. My take is that its 2GB memory and its 60GB hard drive would make it a
> weak performer for photo editing.
>
> But I have installed Irfanview on a Windows 8 desktop and Digital Photo Pro on
> that desktop and on a fairly beefy Windows 8 laptop. All of those
> installations work fine.

But a Windows 8 tablet does not use Intel processors, so (Wintel) SW
will not work.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[David Taylor]

On 28/04/2013 17:52, Alfred Molon wrote:
[]

> But a Windows 8 tablet does not use Intel processors, so (Wintel) SW
> will not work.

Some Win-8 tablets /do/ run on Intel processors, which is why I asked.
As the OP is running IrfanView it rather suggests that tablet is an
Intel one.

[Mayayana]

| But a Windows 8 tablet does not use Intel processors, so (Wintel) SW
| will not work.

Win8 runs on x86/x64 processors, which may or
may not be Intel. WinRT runs on ARM processors,
which could be Intel, but I don't think they're making
ARM processors at this point.

Windows "desktop" software runs on x86. So any
Windows software can run on Win8, regardless of
the hardware. (Why anyone would want to do that
on a tablet is another question.)

WinRT can *only* run Windows store apps for
ARM. The Asus Vivotab does seem to be Win8.
Though it can be tricky figuring out which is which.
I saw an article recently about how common it's
been for WinRT tablet ads to say "Windows 8".
Microsoft has not been clear about making the
distinction.

[Mayayana]

| > UIs are inherently subjective. I found it unusable.
|

| So did I until I decided to RTFM, then it was not so bad.
|

? The help doesn't even have an index! Drawing a
simple line comes under "Drawing Simple Objects". Once
one finally finds that topic it turns out that the Shift
key has to be held down to draw a line. There's no basic
line tool! It has a couple of perspective tools. What's
that? I don't know. I don't see it in the help contents,
and besides not having an index, the help doesn't have
word search.

I want to like GIMP because it can do some things my
old version of PSP can't do, but I've been waiting 15 years
for the rough edges to get polished and it's still not
there.

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:09:03 -0400, "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam>
wrote:

The help is pretty bad. Luckily, there are a lot of YouTube videos that
are actually quite useful. You have to separate the wheat from the
chaff, but there are good videas. Ironically, the videos only reinforced
what I had experienced on my own. When the steps needed to do even
fairly simple tasks were convoluted when explained by people who knew
and loved the product, I could see that it wasn't for me.

BTW: I have found this to be a very effective research technique. When
evaluating software, search YouTube for tutorials on whatever tasks I
want the software to do. It gives me a good sense of how complicated and
effective it will be -- all without installing anything. I then make a
log of the best videos. When I have it narrowed down to 2-3 choices,
I'll install one of them and try the tutorials myself.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2be7722b8...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But a Windows 8 tablet does not use Intel processors, so (Wintel) SW
> will not work.

yes they do, and windows software will work, assuming it runs on win8.

there are also windows tablets that use arm processors which run
windows rt. those won't work.

[nospam]

In article <kljj06$5l0$1...@dont-email.me>, philo�ｿｽ <philo@priv cy.not>
wrote:

> >>> GIMP, in my opinion, is not free if your time is worth anything. The UI
> >>> is awkward and error-prone.
> >>
> >> I've been using GIMP for years and have no idea what you mean by "error
> >> prone". It's hardly awkward, but yes, it is different from Photoshop.
> >
> > UIs are inherently subjective. I found it unusable.
>
> <snip>
>
> So did I until I decided to RTFM, then it was not so bad.

the fact you had to rtfm means it's poorly designed, and even after you
did rtfm, it only reached 'not so bad'.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:03:37 +0100, David Taylor
<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

: On 28/04/2013 17:52, Alfred Molon wrote:
: []
: > But a Windows 8 tablet does not use Intel processors, so (Wintel) SW
: > will not work.
:
: Some Win-8 tablets /do/ run on Intel processors, which is why I asked.
: As the OP is running IrfanView it rather suggests that tablet is an
: Intel one.

I'm running Irfanview on a desktop and a laptop, but not yet on a tablet.

I think all Windows 8 tablets assume the Intel command architecture, but of
course not all tablets run Windows 8.

Bob

[Dave]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:42:52 -0500, philo wrote:


Jennifer, in an earlier post, is quite correct, Gimp is tough to learn,
not saying it's not good but I'll stay with PS Elements. Full PhotoShop is
for the more affluent amongst us. My understanding is Gimp will do some of
the stuff missing from Elements.
But all this is off topic, the original request implied something for
simple cleanup/edits. For this you can use Irfanview or any of many other
free downloads. The breaking point at which I would need something
stronger is when you want to use layers, masking etc.
Personally I use FastStone to review and do minor corrections,it does
quite a lot, but there are many others.

[philo]

Though GIMP has a lot of features, I agree it's probably a bit beyond
what the OP is looking for.


FastStone is also an excellent bit of software...I use it for creating
slide shows.

It is so easy to use and it works so well I actually sent them a
contribution. (Sent one to IrFanView as well.)


As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
it's well worth it.

[nospam]

In article <klmf8e$35e$1...@dont-email.me>, philo�ｿｽ <philo@priv cy.not>
wrote:

> As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
> it's well worth it.

photoshop elements is dirt cheap, and it does more than what most
people need.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:07:17 -0700, Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid>
wrote:

I tried it once a while back, and I tend to agree with Jennifer. Maybe it's
gotten better since; I don't know.

Bob

[Mort]

ade...@inbox.com wrote:
> I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
> lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
>
> I just need it for:
>
> colour correctio
>
> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
> by dragging that selection rectangle
>
> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).
>

Have you checked out Picasa free software? If it does not work with your
tablet, then delete it. Free is nice, especially in this regard.

Picasa can crop by size specs or under "manual" to your desired format.
It can color correct and sharpen, and do limited retouching, as well as
red-eye correction, and straightening. The beauty of Picasa is that it
copies all the pix on your hard drive and then you edit a copy. Thus, if
you make a error, the original image is still there. You can also send
the pix as e-mail attachments with Picasa.

Good luck.

Mort Linder

[jimbok]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:39:42 +0000 (UTC), <ade...@inbox.com> wrote:

>Irfanview's crop rectangle changes aspect ratio the moment I drag it to
>enlarge it.

If you hold down the "Ctrl" key while dragging, it will maintain the
aspect ratio.

--
jimbok

[Richard]

wrote in message
news:1302893046388802816.8...@news.aioe.org...

>
>I have just bought a Windows 8 tablet and I was wondering if there is a
>lightweight photo editor (free or paid) that you feel is good enough.
>
>I just need it for:
>
>colour correctio
>
> cropping (able to specify ratio and also to manipulate the cropping ratio
>by dragging that selection rectangle
>
> and resizing (by pixel count and file size).

Have you considered an online solution?
Search for 'online photoshop tools'
There are several to choose from, including Adobe's own:
http://www.photoshop.com/tools/expresseditor?wf=editor
or this:
http://pixlr.com/

[Jim]

In article <290420131517187444%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
> > it's well worth it.
>
> photoshop elements is dirt cheap, and it does more than what most
> people need.

I believe it's only 8 bit though? If you only shoot jpegs, that won't
be an issue, but if you shoot raw, you'll be throwing away picture
info.

--
Jim

[Whisky-dave]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:09:03 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
>

> I want to like GIMP because it can do some things my
>
> old version of PSP can't do, but I've been waiting 15 years
>
> for the rough edges to get polished and it's still not
>
> there.

I blame low pay ;-)

[nospam]

In article <300420130728571552%no...@here.com>, Jim <no...@here.com>

wrote:

> > > As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
> > > it's well worth it.
> >
> > photoshop elements is dirt cheap, and it does more than what most
> > people need.
>
> I believe it's only 8 bit though? If you only shoot jpegs, that won't
> be an issue, but if you shoot raw, you'll be throwing away picture
> info.

you believe wrong.

its 16 bit support is not as extensive as the full photoshop or
lightroom but does support it, including in camera raw.

[PeterN]

It has only limited 16bit support.
<http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b4tD>

<http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74043>

But then not all the CS6 filtrs have 16 bit support.

--
PeterN
Never let the facts get in the way of a half truth.

[nospam]

In article <51801234$0$10758$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
> >>>> it's well worth it.
> >>>
> >>> photoshop elements is dirt cheap, and it does more than what most
> >>> people need.
> >>
> >> I believe it's only 8 bit though? If you only shoot jpegs, that won't
> >> be an issue, but if you shoot raw, you'll be throwing away picture
> >> info.
> >
> > you believe wrong.
> >
> > its 16 bit support is not as extensive as the full photoshop or
> > lightroom but does support it, including in camera raw.
>
> It has only limited 16bit support.

yes, that's what i said.

> <http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b4tD>
The last several versions of Elements have supported a fair number of
editing steps at 16 bits, including levels, shadow/highlight, and
hue/saturation (in other words, many of the things that benefit most
from the extra bit depth).
...
The processing in ACR will still be high bit when working with raw
data.

> <http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74043>
If you shoot Raw then both Photoshop and Elements will process them
in the Camera Raw Editor as 16 bit files. They work exactly the same.
Once you open them in the Editor as 16 bit files Elements is more
limited in the things you can do. Basic things like Levels work in 16
bit but to use layers you need to convert to 8 bit. That does lose a
little bit of tonal information but to say it's a ton is a huge
exaggeration - most of the time you'd never notice the difference
especially if you've already done most of your basic processing in 16
bit which you can do in Elements.

note the last part,
most of the time you'd never notice the difference especially if
you've already done most of your basic processing in 16 bit which you
can do in Elements.

> But then not all the CS6 filtrs have 16 bit support.

most do.

[Nick Fotis]

well, yes, but is there a "Ctrl" key on a tablet?
(in case you didn't notice, the original poster uses a Windows 8 tablet)
Maybe Picasa should work for these tasks, I do not know if the user
interface works well on a tablet.

N.F.

[PeterN]

It is not worth my tinme to prove you wrong. If you have CS6, just count
them. The reader can decide for himself. According to my count less than
half do. Less tat half is NOT MOST.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <51804b1f$0$10807$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

of course not, because you proved me *right* with your links above.

> If you have CS6, just count
> them. The reader can decide for himself. According to my count less than
> half do. Less tat half is NOT MOST.

that assumes each filter has equal value, which is a very bad
assumption.

all of the important filters currently work in 16 bit (and even 32
bit), the ones people actually use, such as gaussian blur, unsharp
mask, etc. this has been true for years (definitely cs3 but i have no
way to test earlier versions anymore).

the ones that aren't 16 bit yet (and probably never will be) are ones
few people use, such as the artistic special effects. they were written
long ago and it not worth bothering to update them. there are bigger
fish to fry at adobe. these are also filters where it would be near
impossible to tell the difference anyway.

but if you want to count them individually, then go right ahead.

[PeterN]

It assumes a physical count. You used the term "MOST," without any
qualifiers. o stop trying to bullshit your way out.
BTW did it ever occur to you that a filter is quite important if you
want to use it. And don't try to switch by claiming most people don't
use most filters, or something of that sort.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <51806d4d$0$10837$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

i'm not bullshitting anything. you are arguing for the sake of arguing,
as usual.

if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
but as i said, that is misguided.

the most commonly used ones have long been 16 bit (and 32 bit)
compatible.

the ones that aren't are the artistic ones that few people use. very
few people care if they're 16 bit or not, or if they're removed
entirely. if there was sufficient demand, adobe would have updated
them. there isn't.

> BTW did it ever occur to you that a filter is quite important if you
> want to use it. And don't try to switch by claiming most people don't
> use most filters, or something of that sort.

of course it does. that's why unsharp mask and gaussian blur were one
of the first to be 16 bit, not the artistic stuff that almost nobody
uses.

plus, you won't be able to tell the difference for 16 bit anyway since
they distort the image so much. it's a waste of time on adobe's part.

[PeterN]

Just calling you out.

>
> if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
> but as i said, that is misguided.

IOW you didn't mean wahat you said, in plain language. What a surprise.

<double talk snipped>

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518137be$0$10763$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
> > but as i said, that is misguided.
>
> IOW you didn't mean wahat you said, in plain language. What a surprise.

in other words, you're arguing just to argue. if that was my biggest
mistake, i'm doing quite well. it's obvious what was meant. i bet you
haven't even used any of the artistic filters you claim are so
important.

you have nothing better to do than nitpick every word looking for an
opportunity to bash.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:25:53 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <518137be$0$10763$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
><peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> > if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
>> > but as i said, that is misguided.
>>
>> IOW you didn't mean wahat you said, in plain language. What a surprise.
>
>in other words, you're arguing just to argue. if that was my biggest
>mistake, i'm doing quite well. it's obvious what was meant. i bet you
>haven't even used any of the artistic filters you claim are so
>important.
>

It's rather mind-blowing that a person who continually argues-to-argue
is the one who continually accuses others of arguing-to-argue.

>you have nothing better to do than nitpick every word looking for an
>opportunity to bash.

Poor baby.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-01 11:25:53 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <518137be$0$10763$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
>>> but as i said, that is misguided.
>>
>> IOW you didn't mean wahat you said, in plain language. What a surprise.
>
> in other words, you're arguing just to argue. if that was my biggest
> mistake, i'm doing quite well. it's obvious what was meant. i bet you
> haven't even used any of the artistic filters you claim are so
> important.

Boy! You picked the wrong target there. Peter is the individual in this
NG most likely to have used all of the "artistic" filters found in PS
and more.

> you have nothing better to do than nitpick every word looking for an
> opportunity to bash.

Hmmmm... Not from what I know of Peter, at least not without some
provocation or good reason.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <r333o81t8rhi02ck6...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
> >> > but as i said, that is misguided.
> >>
> >> IOW you didn't mean wahat you said, in plain language. What a surprise.
> >
> >in other words, you're arguing just to argue. if that was my biggest
> >mistake, i'm doing quite well. it's obvious what was meant. i bet you
> >haven't even used any of the artistic filters you claim are so
> >important.
>
> It's rather mind-blowing that a person who continually argues-to-argue
> is the one who continually accuses others of arguing-to-argue.

i don't argue for the sake of argument. you are once again lying.

[nospam]

In article <2013050115111953177-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>> if you want to count each one individually, then yes, it's not most,
> >>> but as i said, that is misguided.
> >>
> >> IOW you didn't mean wahat you said, in plain language. What a surprise.
> >
> > in other words, you're arguing just to argue. if that was my biggest
> > mistake, i'm doing quite well. it's obvious what was meant. i bet you
> > haven't even used any of the artistic filters you claim are so
> > important.
>
> Boy! You picked the wrong target there. Peter is the individual in this
> NG most likely to have used all of the "artistic" filters found in PS
> and more.

then he's one of the few who do. the fact is that those filters are
rarely used. ask adobe. that's why they haven't been ported yet. every
release they add a few more. it's a low priority. there are far more
important features to add and/or modify.

> > you have nothing better to do than nitpick every word looking for an
> > opportunity to bash.
>
> Hmmmm... Not from what I know of Peter, at least not without some
> provocation or good reason.

i didn't provoke anyone. he had nothing better to do than attack
because i said most instead of most of the ones people actually use.
plus, the original poster only wanted basic edits anyway and artistic
filters are probably the last thing on that person's mind.

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:50:58 -0500, philo�ｿｽ <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:

What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?

Bob

[nospam]

In article <rb5vo8l3f29nbp8dn...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
> : it's well worth it.
>
> What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
> finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?

where do you get the idea it hasn't been finalized?

creative cloud is finalized. it's a done deal.

adobe launched creative cloud *last* year and they were happy with the
results. if going entirely creative cloud fails, they might reconsider
their strategy, but that will be quite a while, if it happens at all.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:55 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
: In article <rb5vo8l3f29nbp8dn...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

: <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: > : As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
: > : it's well worth it.
: >
: > What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
: > finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?
:
: where do you get the idea it hasn't been finalized?

Sorry, I had previously formed the impression that you were fluent in English.
The word I used was "hadn't", not "hasn't". They mean different things.

: creative cloud is finalized. it's a done deal.

I know. You've been trumpeting that fact for at least a week.

: adobe launched creative cloud *last* year and they were happy with the

: results. if going entirely creative cloud fails, they might reconsider
: their strategy, but that will be quite a while, if it happens at all.

I guess this isn't a point that would appeal to a fanboi like you, but it's
crossed my mind that going this route may suggest that Adobe has a cash flow
problem as they try to fund future enhancements.

Bob

[nospam]

In article <so6dp8tjrdve7ga95...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : > : As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
> : > : it's well worth it.
> : >
> : > What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
> : > finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?
> :
> : where do you get the idea it hasn't been finalized?
>
> Sorry, I had previously formed the impression that you were fluent in English.
> The word I used was "hadn't", not "hasn't". They mean different things.

semantic games, i see.

but if you insist, creative cloud began around a year ago, and over the
past year, the uptake was stronger than adobe expected. whether the
predictions come true remains to be seen but so far, it's doing well:

<http://asset0.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim2/2013/05/13/Adobe-CC-forecas
t_610x305.jpg>

a little over a week ago, on may 6, 2013 at the adobe max conference in
los angeles, adobe announced that creative cloud would continue, but
that cs6 was the end of the line.

<http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201305/050613Ad
obeUpdatesCreativeCloud.html>

this thread started 9 days before that, on april 27, 2013.

if you think that a little more than a week before a major conference
adobe hadn't finalized anything, then you don't understand much about
the industry. this was *not* a spur of the moment decision.

> : creative cloud is finalized. it's a done deal.
>
> I know. You've been trumpeting that fact for at least a week.

no i haven't. i mentioned it once or twice, to correct those who
thought otherwise.

> : adobe launched creative cloud *last* year and they were happy with the
> : results. if going entirely creative cloud fails, they might reconsider
> : their strategy, but that will be quite a while, if it happens at all.
>
> I guess this isn't a point that would appeal to a fanboi like you,

more baseless insults.

> but it's
> crossed my mind that going this route may suggest that Adobe has a cash flow
> problem as they try to fund future enhancements.

since you have said you won't use their products anymore, why do you
even care if they enhance it or not?

and instead of guessing, why not look at their financial statements to
see if they have a cash flow problem or not?

or do you just not like facts, so you can rant?

just because creative cloud is not what *you* want doesn't mean it's
going to fail or that adobe is on the verge of financial ruin.

[PeterN]

Actually this pricing model helps the medium to large users. the monthly
fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming an upgrade
every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability on their balance
sheet. It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me.
Indeed I have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at
least as to Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a
petition, instead of pissing and moaning.


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <5196eeb4$0$10755$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Actually this pricing model helps the medium to large users. the monthly
> fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming an upgrade
> every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability on their balance
> sheet. It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me.

that's a good description.

for the casual user and amateurs, they offer lightroom and elements. if
those don't fit your needs, maybe another product from someone else
will.

> Indeed I have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at
> least as to Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a
> petition, instead of pissing and moaning.

good luck.

[Robert Coe]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00:04 -0400, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net>
wrote:
: Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
: The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming

: an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
: on their balance sheet.

Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
few months. If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
assume they would be, for workflow convenience), won't they be nearly useless
if the user stops paying his bill? From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?

: It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me. Indeed I

: have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at least as to
: Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a petition, instead
: of pissing and moaning.

I sympathize with your position, Peter, but as a lifetime non-user of Adobe's
photo-editing products, I don't think I have standing to sign. :^)

Coincidentally, I had recently been thinking that maybe I'd have to break down
and learn to use Photoshop, since I occasionally run across things I want to
do that my current editor, Canon's DPP, doesn't support. Instead, I'm now
poking around Irfanview to see what nifty features it offers. I was pleased to
see that it can edit 16-bit TIFF files (though it throws away the Exif data
that a DPP-generated TIFF maintains) and that it does a decent job of
TIFF-to-JPEG conversion.

Bob

[nospam]

In article <vbvep8hopsp4vn66f...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
> : The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming
> : an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
> : on their balance sheet.
>
> Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
> user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
> integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
> said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
> few months.

1 month for monthly customers, 3 months for annual customers.

guess what happens if you stop paying your web hosting fees or your
cellphone bill. those stop working too.

> If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
> assume they would be, for workflow convenience),

you assume wrong. the files are .psd, the same format as what exists
now and has for years.

plenty of apps open psd files, including non-adobe apps, and the format
is documented.

> won't they be nearly useless
> if the user stops paying his bill?

the only thing that stops working if you don't pay the bill are the
apps.

the files are yours, forever. where did you get the idea that the files
would be locked down?

> From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
> insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
> to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?

converting what files?

adobe does not own your personal files. where do people come up with
this nonsense?

[PeterN]

Take a look at DXO, combined with OnOne.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/18/2013 10:01 AM, Robert Coe wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00:04 -0400, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
> : Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
> : The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming
> : an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
> : on their balance sheet.
>
> Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
> user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
> integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
> said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
> few months. If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
> assume they would be, for workflow convenience), won't they be nearly useless
> if the user stops paying his bill? From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
> insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
> to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?
>

Several ways of looking at it, depending upon the inventory method used.
Lower of cost or market is the most common. Therefore the images will be
carried on the balance sheet at cost. I doubt they could use the retail
inventory method.
As to the liability, we are treading in unknown waters. FASB generally
provides that it is not necessary to show a liability, unless it can be
reasonably foreseen and reasonably certain. (I am simplyfying) Under the
IRC, the liability cannot be deducted until all events have occurred to
fix and determine the liability. Therefore, I don't think a liability
need be stated for an event that possibly may occur in the future. Of
course if the company knows it will incur a cost, because they plan to
discontinue using CC, my answer could be different.


--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:34:22 -0400, PeterN
<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

--- snip ---

>Take a look at DXO, combined with OnOne.

It's funny you should say that. I've been thinking much the same
thing.

Until now my editing has been done with Nikon NX2, Corel Paint Shop
Pro, Corel Photo Paint and DxO. Each of these have their strength and
their weaknesses but between them there is nothing much I can't do.
However I find it a pain in the plectrum to have to jump from one
application to another, especially when using Photo Paint means that I
have to startup the XP virtual machine within my Windows 7 machine.

More to the point the only way I have of passing an image from one
application to another is via JPG or TIFF files. There are obvious
reasons for not using JPG for any but the simplest tasks. On the
surface this should work well but I have discovered not all TIFF files
are born equal. There are 8 bit and 16 bit, TIFFs which support layers
and Tiffs which don't, TIFFS which use LZW compression and TIFFs which
use JPG compression and so on. All this means that its not possible
for me to pass a work in progress from application to another without
losing layers, masks etc.

It's the frustration arising from this fragmentation that has caused
me to hanker after CS6 no matter what the price. I had almost made up
my mind to spend the money when CC came over the horizon. I am going
away on a trip for several weeks and I have almost made up my mind to
front up with the money for CS6 or CC.

Then you made the comment that you had learned that DxO is likely to
release an upgrade containing some form of layers and masks. I went
back to OnOne and discovered a major upgrade since I last looked.

I've been thinking along the same lines as you that OnOne and DxO
might make a very capable combination but there still remains the
problem of their common interface. Both OnOne and Dxo will act as a
plugin to Photo Shop but will (say) OnOne accept DxO as a plug in? If
they can't do that carying out initial work in DxO and then exporting
to OnOne via TIFF may still be a viable answer. There is too much I
still don't know.

I would be grateful if anyone could help me unravel this tangle.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

OnOne is made up of stand alone modules and plugins workable in PS
CS(4-6), PSE (9-11), LR (2-4), and Aperture (2.1-4). I am not aware of
direct plugin compatibility with DxO. The OnOne plugins & stand alone
do not have the ability to accept third party plugins. However, as you
have said, there is nothing stopping you from working in DxO and using
the OnOne stand alone modules, either with 16-bit TIFF, or if you
choose JPEG. I suspect you will be able to make this move either way.
I used OnOne some time back, but I have never updated as I find the NIK
offerings more to my liking.

Without paying the punitive price of CS6, I would suggest a combination
of LR4 (or the soon to be released LR5 {now in beta}), DxO as an
external editor for LR4, and either the NIK or OnOne Suites installed
in LR4.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

Just to clarify. Both OnOne and DXO can operate as a standalone. AFAIK
neither can operate as a plugin for the other, but both can operate as a
plugin for Elements. If I said that the changes in DXO, would include
layers and masks, I misspoke. I certainly did not mean it would have
layers. According to the rep, it will have the ability to make localized
adjustments. What i like about layers is the ability to use masked
blending modes. If I did not have CS6, I would seriously consider CC,
for a year. @ US $10 a month is quite reasonable. After the price
increases, you can look around and see what works best for you. I
understand the price after one year will rise to US $29 a month after
the first year. I would not be so quick as to purchase CS6 for about
$700, unless I was pretty sure I would be happier with it, than CC.
YMMV
--
PeterN

[PeterN]

From what I've seen DXO is not only an external editor, but it is a
more accurate RAW converter than LR. To explain, DXO will incorporate
all of your camera's adjustments in the RAW conversion, and it can
emulate other camera's settings. Whether that is a feature that you
like, is of course a personal decision.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

Just remember, while LR does not use layers, adding the OnOne Suite
will give you a layer feature without requiring PSE or CS5/6.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

But do the layers contain blending modes and transparency & fill
adjustments. Although I have OnOne, I do not use LR. Also, I like to
make color adjustments in LAB.
My Bible:
<http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-LAB-Color-Adventures-Colorspace/dp/0321356780>



--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

Then you will just have to do what I do, use CS5/6 as the external
editor for LR4. That is my current workflow LR4+CS6. Many times I don't
need to edit in CS6, but it is always there for when I do.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

My current plan is to use DXO in place of Bridge and ACR. The only use
for me for LR is for cataloging, should I feel the need.

--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

I love it!

I now get wonderful prints from what used to be not quite good enough
images.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:44:22 -0400, PeterN

Photo Shop CC for me in New Zealand is Au$19.99 which is about US$20
per month.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

L*a*b* is what is driving me. That's at the heart of the Adobe colour
engine.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

That's what I was planning to do except I was going to use DxO.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:23 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>Without paying the punitive price of CS6, I would suggest a combination
>of LR4 (or the soon to be released LR5 {now in beta}), DxO as an
>external editor for LR4, and either the NIK or OnOne Suites installed
>in LR4.

Elements is far less punitive than CS6, and Nik works as a plug-in in
Elements. When I installed the Nik programs, they automatically went
into CS6, Elements, and Lightroom.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Savageduck]

Eric already owns DxO, and the NIK suite would have also installed in
Aperture if that was a component of your digital darkroom. However, now
that Eric has reported that PS via the CC would cost him about
$20/month vs the $1000+ cost of CS6 from Adobe Australia, the CC might
well be worth him considering.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:53:46 -0700, Savageduck

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2013-05-20 20:36:24 -0700, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:23 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Without paying the punitive price of CS6, I would suggest a combination
>>> of LR4 (or the soon to be released LR5 {now in beta}), DxO as an
>>> external editor for LR4, and either the NIK or OnOne Suites installed
>>> in LR4.
>>
>> Elements is far less punitive than CS6, and Nik works as a plug-in in
>> Elements. When I installed the Nik programs, they automatically went
>> into CS6, Elements, and Lightroom.
>
>Eric already owns DxO, and the NIK suite would have also installed in
>Aperture if that was a component of your digital darkroom. However, now
>that Eric has reported that PS via the CC would cost him about
>$20/month vs the $1000+ cost of CS6 from Adobe Australia, the CC might
>well be worth him considering.

Not if they are going to double the rental.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

I thought you said the price had been set at AU$19.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

I cannot recommend that book strongly enough.

--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 03:42:20 -0700, Savageduck

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2013-05-21 03:20:15 -0700, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> said:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:53:46 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-20 20:36:24 -0700, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:13:23 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Without paying the punitive price of CS6, I would suggest a combination
>>>>> of LR4 (or the soon to be released LR5 {now in beta}), DxO as an
>>>>> external editor for LR4, and either the NIK or OnOne Suites installed
>>>>> in LR4.
>>>>
>>>> Elements is far less punitive than CS6, and Nik works as a plug-in in
>>>> Elements. When I installed the Nik programs, they automatically went
>>>> into CS6, Elements, and Lightroom.
>>>
>>> Eric already owns DxO, and the NIK suite would have also installed in
>>> Aperture if that was a component of your digital darkroom. However, now
>>> that Eric has reported that PS via the CC would cost him about
>>> $20/month vs the $1000+ cost of CS6 from Adobe Australia, the CC might
>>> well be worth him considering.
>>
>> Not if they are going to double the rental.
>
>I thought you said the price had been set at AU$19.

That's now. Some one (nospam?) said Adobe are talking of increasing
the rental after the first year.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:05:17 -0400, PeterN
<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>> But do the layers contain blending modes and transparency & fill
>>> adjustments. Although I have OnOne, I do not use LR. Also, I like to
>>> make color adjustments in LAB.
>>> My Bible:
>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-LAB-Color-Adventures-Colorspace/dp/0321356780>
>>
>> L*a*b* is what is driving me. That's at the heart of the Adobe colour
>> engine.
>>
>
>I cannot recommend that book strongly enough.

I've already ordered it. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <v93op85i1rm7r2ij7...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>> Eric already owns DxO, and the NIK suite would have also installed in
> >>> Aperture if that was a component of your digital darkroom. However, now
> >>> that Eric has reported that PS via the CC would cost him about
> >>> $20/month vs the $1000+ cost of CS6 from Adobe Australia, the CC might
> >>> well be worth him considering.
> >>
> >> Not if they are going to double the rental.
> >
> >I thought you said the price had been set at AU$19.
>
> That's now. Some one (nospam?) said Adobe are talking of increasing
> the rental after the first year.

the standard price is $20/mo (us$) for just photoshop.

existing owners of cs3-cs6 can get the first year for $10/yr. think of
it as upgrade pricing.

[PeterN]

I said the upgrade price for those who have CS6 was $10 per month for
the first year. then it goes to $20. I was referring to PS only, not the
entire suite. In time, we don't know how high the rental will be. Only
the market will make that determination.

--
PeterN