Photoline vs. PhotoSlop
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: LOL! on 6 Feb 2010 21:01 On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:32:17 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:48:18 -0600, LOL! <lol(a)lol.org> wrote: >: On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:37:47 -0600, LOL! <lol(a)lol.org> wrote: >: ... >: I even went back to see where PhotoSlop's errors were and corrected its >: "Rainbow" gradient to have the proper colors and spacings in it, changed >: the color profiles, the color-space, I tried everything, and still I >: couldn't get PhotoSlop to create a correct Granger Calibration Chart. They >: all looked nearly identical to the example previously posted with its >: hideous peaks and ravines and large missing ranges of hues. >: >: And then you fools wonder why you spend days and weeks of your lives trying >: to properly calibrate your color profiles and monitors, wasting hundreds of >: dollars on extra screen and printer calibration tools, reams of expensive >: paper, quarts of ink, etc. etc. All because you are depending on an >: outrageously overpriced program, Photoslop, that can't even produce the >: right colors on your systems. If this isn't a penultimate case of "Garbage >: In Garbage Out", I don't know what is! > >I can't say anything authoritative about the rest of your diatribe, but I'd >bet money that those last five words are true. > >Bob "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill LOL!!!!!!!!!!
From: Charlie Groh on 9 Feb 2010 00:54 On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:42:59 +0000, Bristolian <net(a)hereany.more> wrote: >LOL! wrote: >> >> Any questions? >> >> LOL! >> > >My only question is: why do you continue to waste valuable oxygen by >needlessly breathing? ....world champ time waster (both his and whomever reads him) *that's* for sure... cg
From: Jeff Jones on 8 Mar 2010 05:31 On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:19:49 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >BTW does Photoline handle ProPhotoRGB? If not is can not be as good as >Photslop. I've used ProPhotoRGB in Photoline but I prefer to use eciRGB v2 ICCv4 as it is more universally compliant. There are several ProPhoto colorspace definitions floating around out there for the last 5 years. (Did you not know this?) I'd never go near adobeRGBullshit. It's a shame that you've all been floundering in PhotoSlop all these years. You've no idea what you've been wallowing in. There's a reason that it was called PhotoLine-32 since 1998 and still uses the domain of www.pl32.net, it's been a 32-bit math platform all that time, now 64-bit for the last 2-3 years. PhotoSlop only went from a 16-bit to 32-bit math platform in CS4. Do try to catch-up someday to what's happening in the rest of the world. The ignorance levels of people who only read and believe in one book is mind-bogglingly astounding.
From: LOL! on 8 Mar 2010 05:41 On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 02:02:55 -0800 (PST), Jacob Rus <jacobolus.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >I'm going to guess that you really don't care, and so it's not worth >answering this, but here, I'll give you one chance. If you follow the >2 simple steps in my previous email, you'll get a result that looks >exactly like the "granger charts" made in gimp, photoline, paint shop >pro, &c. I'd guess that even you would be able to manage finishing >them in less than 2 or 3 minutes. If you make the "2 simple steps" Okay, if that's how you see defining all your gradients and all the other hoops you have to jump through. I already went through the convoluted nonsense of trying to fix PhotoSlop's gradients when I did the tests the first time to see where it was making such huge errors. It doesn't matter if they "look" the same, your Granger Chart, a mathematical reproduction of every hue possible, is missing millions of shades and hues that will never appear on your monitor. But when altering white-balance and other hue adjustments and trying to recover colors from highlights and shadows, you'll end up with serious gaps because they are totally missing from your editing platform. No matter. You don't even comprehend why this is important. I doubt any of your images will suffer because nobody probably wants to see them anyway. LOL!
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 12:26
In article <Z+tgJyB1EMlLFAPS(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with > Photoshop elements and is a similar price. it looks and feels a lot like the gimp. > The OP is spouting religion with no understanding. very true. |