Graphic Converter vs Photoshop
John
--
Are there errors in the Bible? How should a church
conduct its worship services? Is drinking Alcohol a sin? Is racism wrong?
If you want to learn, get answers, and be able to defend
the faith, CERM is your place. http://www.cerm.info
nospam
<jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Which one is better?
photoshop does *far* more things than graphic converter could ever
dream of (and much faster too), but it really depends on what you need
to do. converting obscure file formats is better done in gc, for
example.
David Empson
> Which one is better?
[This is off topic for comp.sys.mac.system, so followups set to
comp.sys.mac.apps only.]
What are your criteria by which you could measure "better"? Exactly what
do you want to achieve when using either application?
If your goal is to avoid spending a lot of money, then GraphicConverter
is better than Photoshop.
If you want to be able to import and export image files in a wide range
of formats, then GraphicConverter is better than Photoshop.
If you need advanced photo editing capabilities such as layers, then
Photoshop is clearly better than GraphicConverter, but there are many
other applications cheaper than Photoshop which support layers, such as
Photoshop Elements and Pixelmator, and one of them may be sufficient for
your requirements.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
nospam
<dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> If your goal is to avoid spending a lot of money, then GraphicConverter
> is better than Photoshop.
maybe for the full version, but photoshop elements is about the same
price.
sbt
<jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Which one is better?
Graphic Converter is excellent for displaying and converting between
myriad (often obscure) file formats and is an adequate painting
environment.
That stated, if you're looking for something with which to create
serious artwork, Photoshop blows it out of the water. Photoshop
Elements, at a much lower price than Photoshop and only slightly more
expensive than GC is also far more capable as an artistic environment,
lacking only such Photoshop features as CMYK color space, Actions, and
a couple of advanced tools.
I paid the shareware fee for GC back in the version 1 days and have
paid two upgrade fees since then. I still use it a couple of times a
month, but I use Photoshop virtually every day.
--
Spenser
Phillip Jones
> Which one is better?
Photoshop might have some features that GraphicConverter doesn't have
but it's very few and you pay a hefty price for those items that are
missing. For My money GC. I use it all the time. many of the photo's
used on my website have been edited by GC.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
nospam
<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> Photoshop might have some features that GraphicConverter doesn't have
> but it's very few
actually, it's quite a bit.
> and you pay a hefty price for those items that are
> missing.
it's only hefty if you get the full photoshop.
photoshop elements is about the same price as graphic converter, and
anyone considering graphic converter more than likely does not need the
full version of photoshop.
sbt
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <houd1e$llf$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Phillip Jones
> <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>
> > Photoshop might have some features that GraphicConverter doesn't have
> > but it's very few
>
> actually, it's quite a bit.
>
Most definitely! Until you've seen what layers, non-destructive
editing, editable type and vector graphics, and all the things that
accompany them offer, you really can't appreciate how much more
Photoshop offers. And, as noted elsewhere, almost all of this is
available in the very affordable Photoshop Elements package as well.
> > and you pay a hefty price for those items that are
> > missing.
>
> it's only hefty if you get the full photoshop.
>
> photoshop elements is about the same price as graphic converter, and
> anyone considering graphic converter more than likely does not need the
> full version of photoshop.
--
Spenser
gl4...@yahoo.com
> Which one is better?
When I use photoshop, I really miss some of the really simple editing
features that are in GraphicConverter. If I need to make quick, simple
changes then GraphicConverter wins hands down because I don't have to fuss
about with so many different controls to get the desired result.
For drawing GIF images for the web, I prefer the older versions of
GraphicConverter, because it has a color picker that limits itself to the
colors that are in that particular image. Photoshop has a much more
complicated color picker, but it won't show you the 256, 64, 8, 4 or 2
colors that are in that particular image to choose from.
Photoshop saves the files in its own native format, with all the layers
and other stuff built right into the file. You then export to GIF, JPEG,
etc., or keep it as a GIF, JPEG, etc. without saving the native format.
GraphicConverter has no such native format. You edit the pixels you have.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
nospam
<gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When I use photoshop, I really miss some of the really simple editing
> features that are in GraphicConverter. If I need to make quick, simple
> changes then GraphicConverter wins hands down because I don't have to fuss
> about with so many different controls to get the desired result.
such as?
> Photoshop saves the files in its own native format, with all the layers
> and other stuff built right into the file. You then export to GIF, JPEG,
> etc., or keep it as a GIF, JPEG, etc. without saving the native format.
> GraphicConverter has no such native format. You edit the pixels you have.
both are editing the pixels you have, and resaving jpeg is not a good
idea.
Wes Groleau
> For drawing GIF images for the web, I prefer the older versions of
> GraphicConverter, because it has a color picker that limits itself to the
> colors that are in that particular image. Photoshop has a much more
The latest GC has the "eyedropper" which sets the foreground color to
the exact color of whatever pixel you click it on. (Including pixels
outside of any GC Window!) So if you want to pick a color that is in
the image, ...
--
Wes Groleau
Standards?a parable
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=145
dorayme
John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Which one is better?
"I like your style John. I have always liked your style..."
Who said these words in what first class movie? I will give
whoever can get this right, a top class joke.
--
dorayme
Király
> "I like your style John. I have always liked your style..."
>
> Who said these words in what first class movie? I will give
> whoever can get this right, a top class joke.
Josef Sommer, as Chief Paul Schaeffer in Witness (1985).
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
dorayme
m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:
Well done Király!
A novice went to a monastery where the monks were
only allowed to speak two words a year, and those
only to the Abbot at a yearly audience with him.
Naturally, they were expected to be along the
lines of "Jesus loves" - in other words, eternal
verities.
However, at the end of his first year, the novice
offered, "Bed hard"
At the end of the second year, "Food bad"
And at the end of the third year, "I quit".
"I'm not surprised", said the abbot after the
last, "you've done nothing but whinge ever since
you came here"
--
dorayme
Johan W. Elzenga
> Which one is better?
That is like asking what is the better plane: a Chessna or a Boeing 747.
Both are good planes, but for very different purposes. You can't fly 300
passengers from New York to Amsterdam in a Chessna. But you can't fly
any passenger at all to a remote airstrip in a Boeing 747.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
dorayme
nom...@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which one is better?
>
> That is like asking what is the better plane: a Chessna or a Boeing 747.
> Both are good planes, but for very different purposes. You can't fly 300
> passengers from New York to Amsterdam in a Chessna. But you can't fly
> any passenger at all to a remote airstrip in a Boeing 747.
A Chessna presumably being a Cessna with built in chess boards.
--
dorayme
erilar
nom...@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which one is better?
>
> That is like asking what is the better plane: a Chessna or a Boeing 747.
> Both are good planes, but for very different purposes. You can't fly 300
> passengers from New York to Amsterdam in a Chessna. But you can't fly
> any passenger at all to a remote airstrip in a Boeing 747.
Nice comparison. I have two graphics programs I actually use. GC is
one, ColorIt!(which is a tiny fraction of the cost of PhotoShop and does
all the things I need it for) is the other. They overlap a bit, but not
enough to give up either one.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> gl4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > For drawing GIF images for the web, I prefer the older versions of
> > GraphicConverter, because it has a color picker that limits itself to the
> > colors that are in that particular image. Photoshop has a much more
>
> The latest GC has the "eyedropper" which sets the foreground color to
> the exact color of whatever pixel you click it on. (Including pixels
> outside of any GC Window!) So if you want to pick a color that is in
> the image, ...
That sounds interesting. Guess maybe I should upgrade next time it asks
me. 8-)
Robert Peirce
a way to add your address to the wallpaper on an iPod Touch that I
thought was pretty cool. I was able to get the image on my MBP, but
then I had to figure out what to do next. He used PS, which I don't
have.
PDFpen allowed me to write on the image and save it as a PDF. GC would
have allowed me to convert that to a jpg or tif, but I didn't have GC
either. Grab allowed me to grab the part I needed and save it as a
tiff. I imported that into iPhoto, synced and turned the image into
wallpaper.
John
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Then my old version of Photoshop must have been really old! It ran in
Classic. And SheepShaver is far from a replacement for Classic.
John
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> What are your criteria by which you could measure "better"? Exactly what
> do you want to achieve when using either application?
>
> If your goal is to avoid spending a lot of money, then GraphicConverter
> is better than Photoshop.
>
> If you want to be able to import and export image files in a wide range
> of formats, then GraphicConverter is better than Photoshop.
>
> If you need advanced photo editing capabilities such as layers, then
> Photoshop is clearly better than GraphicConverter, but there are many
> other applications cheaper than Photoshop which support layers, such as
> Photoshop Elements and Pixelmator, and one of them may be sufficient for
> your requirements.
Being able to edit and retouch photos. How much is Elements? I need
something cheap..... I lost Photoshop when I moved to Snow Leopard as it
tok away Classic.
John
sbt <dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> That stated, if you're looking for something with which to create
> serious artwork, Photoshop blows it out of the water. Photoshop
> Elements, at a much lower price than Photoshop and only slightly more
> expensive than GC is also far more capable as an artistic environment,
> lacking only such Photoshop features as CMYK color space, Actions, and
> a couple of advanced tools.
>
> I paid the shareware fee for GC back in the version 1 days and have
> paid two upgrade fees since then. I still use it a couple of times a
> month, but I use Photoshop virtually every day.
How much does Elements cost and where can I get a cheap version? Ebay?
John
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
I lost it when I bought my new Mac as it wont run Classic. So I need a
replacement. Not sure if Graphic Convert will do the job.
I nee a app to clean up, crop, use filters, retouch, and play with
photos. I am not sure if Graphic Convert will do the job.
John
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> Nice comparison. I have two graphics programs I actually use. GC is
> one, ColorIt!(which is a tiny fraction of the cost of PhotoShop and does
> all the things I need it for) is the other. They overlap a bit, but not
> enough to give up either one.
I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
nospam
<jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> How much does Elements cost and where can I get a cheap version? Ebay?
typically about $50 or so, and it's often bundled for free with
hardware like cameras, scanners, etc.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > How much does Elements cost and where can I get a cheap version? Ebay?
>
> It costs $79.
less if you shop around.
TaliesinSoft
> How much does Elements cost and where can I get a cheap version? Ebay?
If you are looking for a bargain I strongly, and I mean strongly,
suggest Amazon rather than Ebay.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
TaliesinSoft
A new copy of Photoshop Elements 8 (currently the latest version) costs
$80 from Adobe and $64 from Amazon.
TaliesinSoft
> I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
You might take a look at PIxelmator <http://www.pixelmator.com/> which
does pretty much what Photoshop Elements does at about half the price.
nospam
<talies...@me.com> wrote:
> You might take a look at PIxelmator <http://www.pixelmator.com/> which
> does pretty much what Photoshop Elements does at about half the price.
it's a nice app, but it doesn't do what photoshop can do.
TaliesinSoft
And what of significance does Photoshop Elements do that Pixelmator doesn't?
gl4...@yahoo.com
<jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> I lost it when I bought my new Mac as it wont run Classic. So I need a
> replacement. Not sure if Graphic Convert will do the job.
>
> I nee a app to clean up, crop, use filters, retouch, and play with
> photos. I am not sure if Graphic Convert will do the job.
I still use the classic version of GraphicConverter on a computer that
still runs an older operating system. So, GC may have changed. But, the
version of GC that I have is shareware. I downloaded the thing from an
FTP site, tried it out, and liked it. The fully paid version has more
features that are unlocked when you pay the fee.
If it still works the same, why not download a copy and try it? It's not
like it costs anything to try it out.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
No. In its native file format, Photoshop can save such things as vectors
and text for editing afterward. GraphicConverter converts text to pixels
when it is finalized, not allowing one to edit the text afterward. There
aren't layers. (At least, not in the version I have.)
Jeffrey Goldberg
John wrote:
> I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
It depends on what you mean by "retouch", "change" and "mess with".
For some meanings of those expressions GC and iPhoto are enough. For
other meanings it is sorely lacking.
For the record I should mention GIMP. It's free, it's powerful, and it
is a real pain to learn and use. If you can put up with its terrible
user interface, it should do everything you want.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
gl4...@yahoo.com
<jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
One of the things that I really miss about GraphicConverter when I use
photoshop is the cropping tool. Photoshop has probably changed since the
old version I have where I work was put out, but GraphicConverter has a
nice little display in the upper right corner that gives the size of the
resulting cropped image. If you need, say, a 560 x 500 for a web page,
you can select one corner of what you want and as you move the rectangle
it gives you a reading of the resulting image size as you move the other
end of the rectangle. You can then move the other corner of the rectangle
to the exact location to fit the size you want. You then select "Trim
Selection" from the menu.
In Photoshop, you choose the crop tool and just roughly guess at the image
size as you crop it. You then have to choose Image Size from the menu to
see what the actual resulting image size is after the crop.
nospam
<talies...@me.com> wrote:
> And what of significance does Photoshop Elements do that Pixelmator doesn't?
a lot, including camera raw, adjustment layers (major shortcoming),
layer masks, layer styles, healing brush and a huge selection of
photoshop plug-ins.
nospam
<gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Photoshop saves the files in its own native format, with all the layers
> > > and other stuff built right into the file. You then export to GIF, JPEG,
> > > etc., or keep it as a GIF, JPEG, etc. without saving the native format.
> > > GraphicConverter has no such native format. You edit the pixels you have.
> >
> > both are editing the pixels you have,
>
> No. In its native file format, Photoshop can save such things as vectors
> and text for editing afterward.
ok, i was just thinking images such as a jpeg or gif.
> GraphicConverter converts text to pixels
> when it is finalized, not allowing one to edit the text afterward. There
> aren't layers. (At least, not in the version I have.)
that's worse.
nospam
> One of the things that I really miss about GraphicConverter when I use
> photoshop is the cropping tool. Photoshop has probably changed since the
> old version I have where I work was put out, but GraphicConverter has a
> nice little display in the upper right corner that gives the size of the
> resulting cropped image.
it's in the info palette, and it's probably in the version you have.
> If you need, say, a 560 x 500 for a web page,
> you can select one corner of what you want and as you move the rectangle
> it gives you a reading of the resulting image size as you move the other
> end of the rectangle. You can then move the other corner of the rectangle
> to the exact location to fit the size you want. You then select "Trim
> Selection" from the menu.
you can set a fixed size crop and just click, then position the
rectangle wherever you want.
> In Photoshop, you choose the crop tool and just roughly guess at the image
> size as you crop it. You then have to choose Image Size from the menu to
> see what the actual resulting image size is after the crop.
see above.
John McWilliams
>
> Being able to edit and retouch photos. How much is Elements?
Really? You are aware you're 'talking' in public, aren't you? Besides,
it's already been mentioned in threads you've participated in.
--
lsmft
dorayme
<gl4317-3103...@69-30-9-104.pxd.easystreet.com>,
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> In article <jwolf6589-59FA0...@nntp.charter.net>, John
> <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> > that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
>
>
> One of the things that I really miss about GraphicConverter when I use
> photoshop is the cropping tool. Photoshop has probably changed since the
> old version I have where I work was put out, but GraphicConverter has a
> nice little display in the upper right corner that gives the size of the
> resulting cropped image. If you need, say, a 560 x 500 for a web page,
> you can select one corner of what you want and as you move the rectangle
> it gives you a reading of the resulting image size as you move the other
> end of the rectangle. You can then move the other corner of the rectangle
> to the exact location to fit the size you want. You then select "Trim
> Selection" from the menu.
>
> In Photoshop, you choose the crop tool and just roughly guess at the image
> size as you crop it. You then have to choose Image Size from the menu to
> see what the actual resulting image size is after the crop.
No, even in Photoshop 5 (and probably earlier) you get the
perfect thing you want:
1. Go to Windows menu at top of screen. Choose Show Options.
2. Select the crop tool.
3. Tick the Fixed target box and then type in the dimensions you
want - be sure to specify pixels)
4. Crop and (barring complications about resolution) Bob should
be your uncle.
I still have PS5 and it works brilliantly in Classic, *most* (but
not all) of the things I ever do I could happily do in 5 or 6. 6
began to have reasonable text support (before 6 it was all a bit
ridiculous and clunky).
--
dorayme
John
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> In article <jwolf6589-2D7F0...@nntp.charter.net>, John
> <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I lost it when I bought my new Mac as it wont run Classic. So I need a
> > replacement. Not sure if Graphic Convert will do the job.
> >
> > I nee a app to clean up, crop, use filters, retouch, and play with
> > photos. I am not sure if Graphic Convert will do the job.
>
>
> I still use the classic version of GraphicConverter on a computer that
> still runs an older operating system. So, GC may have changed. But, the
> version of GC that I have is shareware. I downloaded the thing from an
> FTP site, tried it out, and liked it. The fully paid version has more
> features that are unlocked when you pay the fee.
>
> If it still works the same, why not download a copy and try it? It's not
> like it costs anything to try it out.
I have the OSX version. Its pretty nice. Locked features? I am not aware
of any that are unlocked when paid. I have not paid yet and not sure if
I will or just buy elements.
Warren Oates
John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
GC will do that. I keep GC around, not because it's an "alternative to
Photoshop" but because it's always been Lemke's claim-to-fame that his
app will convert any format to any other, and that he'll add any format
you find that he hasn't. He's one of the heroes of Mac software, like
Norstad, like Peter Lewis was, and like Simon Fraser still is.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
Phillip Jones
> In article<drache-86BF37....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> erilar<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Nice comparison. I have two graphics programs I actually use. GC is
>> one, ColorIt!(which is a tiny fraction of the cost of PhotoShop and does
>> all the things I need it for) is the other. They overlap a bit, but not
>> enough to give up either one.
>
> I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
Phillip Jones
> In article<300320102333137245%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article<gl4317-3003...@69-30-9-164.pxd.easystreet.com>,
>> <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Photoshop saves the files in its own native format, with all the layers
>>> and other stuff built right into the file. You then export to GIF, JPEG,
>>> etc., or keep it as a GIF, JPEG, etc. without saving the native format.
>>> GraphicConverter has no such native format. You edit the pixels you have.
>>
>> both are editing the pixels you have,
>
>
> No. In its native file format, Photoshop can save such things as vectors
> and text for editing afterward. GraphicConverter converts text to pixels
> when it is finalized, not allowing one to edit the text afterward. There
> aren't layers. (At least, not in the version I have.)
>
don't group and Flatten you can edit text till the cows come home, if
they ever do. I use it for photo touch up cropping reducing DPI and
you can even use a combo of the eye dropper and stamp tool to fix
scratches and remove digital date from digital photos.
erilar
John <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Being able to edit and retouch photos. How much is Elements? I need
> something cheap..... I lost Photoshop when I moved to Snow Leopard as it
> tok away Classic.
I can do some fairly fancy foto editing with ColorIt!, particularly with
the OSX version. I've been using it since its initial version and it's
one of a tiny set of software programs that has NOT thrown out good bits
I use a lot with each upgrade. GC is another such.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> In article <jwolf6589-59FA0...@nntp.charter.net>, John
> <jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me. Just need a app
> > that can crop, retouch, filter, change, and mess with photos.
>
>
> One of the things that I really miss about GraphicConverter when I use
> photoshop is the cropping tool. Photoshop has probably changed since the
> old version I have where I work was put out, but GraphicConverter has a
> nice little display in the upper right corner that gives the size of the
> resulting cropped image. If you need, say, a 560 x 500 for a web page,
> you can select one corner of what you want and as you move the rectangle
> it gives you a reading of the resulting image size as you move the other
> end of the rectangle. You can then move the other corner of the rectangle
> to the exact location to fit the size you want. You then select "Trim
> Selection" from the menu.
>
> In Photoshop, you choose the crop tool and just roughly guess at the image
> size as you crop it. You then have to choose Image Size from the menu to
> see what the actual resulting image size is after the crop.
My cheap little ColorIt! does better than that! I just tell it what
size I want whatever I've cropped to to end up in inches. It's also
really nice for straightening out horizons on fotos grabbed on the run
8-)
erilar
Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
> It depends on what you mean by "retouch", "change" and "mess with".
> For some meanings of those expressions GC and iPhoto are enough. For
> other meanings it is sorely lacking.
Quite. I have a friend who is quite happy with what he can do with
iPhoto. I turned it off because I was NOT.
nospam
<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> GC will allow you to try out for 30 days.
so will photoshop.
Robert Peirce
Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
> I had a situation where I needed one or the other. Ken Rockwell showed
> a way to add your address to the wallpaper on an iPod Touch that I
> thought was pretty cool. I was able to get the image on my MBP, but
> then I had to figure out what to do next. He used PS, which I don't
> have.
>
> PDFpen allowed me to write on the image and save it as a PDF. GC would
> have allowed me to convert that to a jpg or tif, but I didn't have GC
> either. Grab allowed me to grab the part I needed and save it as a
> tiff. I imported that into iPhoto, synced and turned the image into
> wallpaper.
I found out I could also open the file in Preview and save it as a tif
from there. That is even easier.
Phillip Jones
times that much.
If I was Professional Photographer I would have no choice but Photoshop.
But when the most I do is scan old photos to put in a Family Tree
website I have. Does as much as I need. I use to be a Deneba Canvas user
but when it went to almost the same price as Photoshop I never upgraded
when I made the switch to OSX.
nospam
<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> >> GC will allow you to try out for 30 days.
> >
> > so will photoshop.
>
> Ahh Yes but GC is less than 70 dollars while Photoshop is about 5-6
> times that much.
photoshop elements is about $70.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<jwol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> I have the OSX version. Its pretty nice. Locked features? I am not aware
> of any that are unlocked when paid. I have not paid yet and not sure if
> I will or just buy elements.
The earlier versions had the bulk converter locked out, for one thing.
Say you wanted to convert an entire folder of PICT images into GIF images
or some such. One of GraphicConverter's claims to fame is that you can
turn it loose in such a folder and convert the entire pile while you go
have lunch or dinner.
There was a time when anything that came out of the Windows world was
either in PICT or BMP format. These were impossible to deal with on web
sites without converting them to a more web friendly format. Thus,
GraphicConverter was a very useful utility for dealing with large
quantities of images from the Windows world.
The built-in image editing stuff, while very useful, was not the primary
goal of GraphicConverter when it was produced. The primary goal was, as
the name implies, to convert graphics from one format to another.
GraphicConverter's built-in slideshow feature seemed to crash from time to
time in the early versions.
Robert Peirce
Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
I meant jpg. Sorry, but Preview, at least in 10.6, can do both.
Mike Rosenberg
> I am wondering if the current GC will do the job for me.
You've wondered this several times. Here's a radical idea - TRY IT.
--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE>
Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
Walter Bushell
Phillip Jones <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> > In article<hp2nm4$7e5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Phillip Jones
> > <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> GC will allow you to try out for 30 days.
> >
> > so will photoshop.
> Ahh Yes but GC is less than 70 dollars while Photoshop is about 5-6
> times that much.
34.95 half the price and the support is great. You get support
*directly* from the programmer. How cool is that?
And with Photoshop it's not the initial cost, it's the upkeep. That said
if you are semi pro in photo editing, photoshop is a *must*.
>
> If I was Professional Photographer I would have no choice but Photoshop.
> But when the most I do is scan old photos to put in a Family Tree
> website I have. Does as much as I need. I use to be a Deneba Canvas user
> but when it went to almost the same price as Photoshop I never upgraded
> when I made the switch to OSX.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.