Graphic Converter vs Photoshop
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: sbt on 30 Mar 2010 23:18 In article <300320102249038235%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <houd1e$llf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Phillip Jones > <pjones1(a)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
From: gl4317 on 30 Mar 2010 23:22 In article <jwolf6589-0E8281.22135230032010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > 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.
From: nospam on 30 Mar 2010 23:33 In article <gl4317-3003102022430001(a)69-30-9-164.pxd.easystreet.com>, <gl4317(a)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.
From: Wes Groleau on 31 Mar 2010 01:13 gl4317(a)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, ... -- Wes Groleau Standards?a parable http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=145
From: dorayme on 31 Mar 2010 02:15
In article <jwolf6589-0E8281.22135230032010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)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 |