cheap way of working with scans
Keith Clark
editing software will appreciate this.
GIMP, the awesome, free, photo editor for the Unix/Linux world is being
ported to the BeOS, which can also be had for free.
There are some drawbacks, like poor scanner support, and no dual monitor
or color management support.
More details here:
http://www.eventloop.com/gimpPR.html
http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/
Dan Baumbach
goes for. Is the scanner support on Linux any better?
- Dan.
Keith Clark wrote in message <39083552...@spiritone.com>...
Keith Clark
Dan Baumbach wrote:
>
> I've seen GIMP on Linux. It is quite impressive considering what Photoshop
> goes for. Is the scanner support on Linux any better?
>
> - Dan.
>
I've played with GIMP on a friend's machine and it is indeed pretty
awesome. Especially for free.
Honestly, I don't know about scanner support on Linux. I hear quite a
few are supported.
The best place to start for Linux info is Slashdot.
Ron Ginsberg
appreciate Micrografx Picture Publisher. It can obtained as part of a
suite (including Micrografx Designer, a vector type drawing package) or
standalone. With various specials and rebates, about $70.
It has many of the features of Photoshop (full package), less screen
clutter, context sensitive toolbars, comes already with a lot of
effects, macros, plug-ins, is Photoshop plug-in compatible, and so on.
I've been using it for a few years and have watched at work our graphic
designers using Photoshop, so I have some familiarity with it. While
tool names might be different, most features are comparable.
Keith Clark
I think I saw there for less than $50...
Cheers...
David C. Ramey
It is now being sold at CompUSA for $50.00..... I paid $129.00 for it when
I bought it *sigh* such is life *grin*
--
David C. Ramey
David C. Ramey Photography
ph...@alaskalife.net
http://www.alaskalife.net/dramey/home.htm
"Keith Clark" <clarkpho...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:390929BA...@spiritone.com...
Keith Clark
"David C. Ramey" wrote:
>
> This is the program I use and love it (Picture Publisher 8.0 by Micrografx).
> It is now being sold at CompUSA for $50.00..... I paid $129.00 for it when
> I bought it *sigh* such is life *grin*
>
> --
> David C. Ramey
> David C. Ramey Photography
> ph...@alaskalife.net
> http://www.alaskalife.net/dramey/home.htm
Hey, look at the bright side - at least you didn't buy a $500 Epson 1200
that was worthless two months later when the 1270 was announced... ;>
Ouch.
Pam Niedermayer
using only Epson inks.
Pam
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Keith Clark
more lightfast then the old inks.
However, that is my impression and I don't wish to argue with you.
Question - what alternate inks do you use with your 1200? Have you had
any head clogging issues? What method do you use to generate new
ICC/Colorsync profiles for your alternate inksets?
By the way, those aren't rhetorical questions, I really would like to
know what people have found to be good with this printer (yes, I love
mine too). :>
Thanks!
Keith
Pam Niedermayer
a CIS (from NoMoreCarts) and big bottles of Generations with
beta black. This plus piles of sample paper to be processed
should keep me busy for a while. However, the best place to
have this discussion is the epson inkjet list (go to
leben.com and follow the links to sign up). There you'll
find a lot of people with much more experience than I have.
The main problem with the OEM inks and papers is severe
fading in very short order, a general lack of longevity.
This is supposedly improved with the 1270; but I prefer to
have more choice in materials than provided by the protected
chip-in-the-cartridge approach new to the 1270. Also, being
able to use bulk inks saves hassle, time, and busted prints
due to cartridges emptying in the middle of printing.
Pam
Keith Clark
brou...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Keith Clark <clarkpho...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> >GIMP, the awesome, free, photo editor for the Unix/Linux world is being
> >ported to the BeOS, which can also be had for free.
>
> In another thread, you were advising photographers against giving away their
> work. Yet, you're plugging other intellectual property that *is* being
> given away for free.
>
> Is this consistent?
Well, you know, that's a good question.
BeOS Personal Edition is a limited functionality trial version of the OS. It's
"free", but people have to pay to upgrade to the full version to get the full
value. Be is betting that people will buy the full version. It's dirt cheap, and
it works really well (on some systems. But that's another issue).
GIMP was started by one college student in his spare time because he couldn't
afford Photoshop and is now being done by several people who work on it in their
spare time.
The motivation for the latter I will never understand. But it's there... It may
be that they are basically creating the software for themselves and others like
them (mostly college students). Will it ever threaten commercial image editing
software companies? Not likely. It doesn't have any method to support a color
managed workflow and without that, no professional will touch it.
I think the chief distinction between free photos and the software I suggested
is this. And please understand that I'm not a writer, I may not express this as
well as it needs to be, so please bear with me.
The difference is the people who will use GIMP and the free trial ware version
of an alternative OS are not motivated by profit. In fact I addressed that first
message to "home users unable to afford much in the way of software". Home
users.
The people who come on newsgroups (with one recent exception - not you,
Hamada.... ;>) and ask for free pictures are almost always corporate types.
They are people who expect to profit by convincing people to give them something
for free which they will use for considerable commercial gain.
A marketing exec at Intel wrote me to ask if I knew where she could get free
photos for one of their corporate websites. The photos needed to be copyright
free, cost nothing, and be very high quality to project that positive corporate
image.
And that attitude is increasing. It's insulting and infuriating.
Nobody is ASKING those college students "Hey would you please make some free
software that I can use to make a few million dollars?" If they did, those
students would tell them to go **** themselves, just like we do to those clowns
asking for free photos for their commercial websites.
Do you see the distinction?
So anyway, to answer your question, no I really don't think it's inconsistent of
me to tell people there are free resources *if they can't afford to pay for
software*.
Me? I spent thousands of dollars on software last year, including some custom
CGI, and I'm just putting the finishing touches on a non-linear (digital) video
editing suite that includes a production music library.
I pay for what I use.
I expect others to also, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WILL PROFIT FROM THE TOOLS (IMAGES /
etc).
However, I see nothing wrong with telling home users on a budget who just want
to make a good print to hang on their wall of their own photos "hey, here's some
free or cheap stuff you can use".
But honestly, if you still feel that my suggestion was inconsistent, well,
that's your right, and nothing I say will change your mind. But I did try...
(laughing ;>)
Have a good weekend.
Peace,
Keith
Keith Clark
But I don't know how you can say that giving a publisher or a 20 billion dollar
corporation a photo for free just because they're too cheap to pay for it doesn't
cheapen the perceived value of photography, of art.
Am I opposed to giving away free photos or free work? Not in all cases. A friend of
mine donates images to WWF (world wildlife fund). It's a non profit with a solid
reputation. He kept saying it would get him noticed. It never did, but his main
motivation was to help the wildlife organization (he would never give something free
to someone who could pay for it). I know photographers who donate their time to the
SPCA pet portrait days during the Christmas season. Again, it's a good cause, a non
profit.
Donating to a cause is one thing. But giving free images to a corporation is stupid.
In my view.
You asked for clarification on a statement I made about "paying for what I use".
No, I don't feel it's wrong to use free software, if it does the job, and if the
license agreement allows use of the software for profit.
That earlier statement (below) was aimed at the warez crowd. The Napster/Gnutella
crowd. 'nuff said?
And it was aimed at those corporate bozos who keep asking for free photos so they can
profit off of our hard work and imagery at no cost to themselves (cheap bastards).
Cheers,
Keith
brou...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Keith Clark <clarkpho...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> >Nobody is ASKING those college students "Hey would you please make some free
> >software that I can use to make a few million dollars?" If they did, those
> >students would tell them to go **** themselves, just like we do to those clowns
> >asking for free photos for their commercial websites.
> >
> >Do you see the distinction?
>
> Yes and no. It's not *just* college students giving away their time and
> talents. Many software professionals also contribute to open source
> projects, like GIMP.
>
> >So anyway, to answer your question, no I really don't think it's inconsistent of
> >me to tell people there are free resources *if they can't afford to pay for
> >software*.
> >
> >Me? I spent thousands of dollars on software last year, including some custom
> >CGI, and I'm just putting the finishing touches on a non-linear (digital) video
> >editing suite that includes a production music library.
> >
> >I pay for what I use.
> >
> >I expect others to also, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WILL PROFIT FROM THE TOOLS (IMAGES /
> >etc).
>
> This, I don't understand. My take from reading this is that you believe
> it's almost a bad thing to use free software if you can afford to buy a
> commercial product. (That's what I get from your emphasis in the first
> paragraph as well as your latter two paragraphs.)
>
> I use free software every time I work.
>
> I also use free images. If you provide credit and a link, you can use all
> sorts of wonderful images from Phil Greenspun:
> http://photo.net/philg/nasty-copyright-notice.html
>
> Free does not mean inferior. Nor does it mean that a person is a thief.
>
> On the other hand, if I were to commission somebody like Phil to go out and
> create some unique images to my specifications, he would probably laugh at
> me if I expected him to do so for free.
>
> The beauty of intellectual property is that it can be shared *at no
> additional expense to the creator/owner.* I am not saying this should be
> used as a rational for stealing anybody's property. I am saying that for
> people who wish to share, intellectual property can be shared at little to
> no additional expense when compared with tangible items.
>
> If a photographer wishes to share his images, I see no harm to the rest of
> the community. If a programmer wishes to share his source code, I likewise
> see no harm. If an engineer wishes to share his patent, once again...no
> harm.
>
> > Have a good weekend.
>
> You, too. Always a pleasure to read your posts, Keith, regardless of
> whether I agree or disagree with what you express. :)
