Photoline vs. PhotoSlop
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 12:27 In article <f0j9p5li9unuadlnf25rifol93au35acn4(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Jones <jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > 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. completely false, no matter how many times you say this. photoshop was a 32 bit app back in 1990, when it was first released. > 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. take your own advice.
From: Chris H on 8 Mar 2010 13:18 In message <080320100926599436%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >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. So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful >> The OP is spouting religion with no understanding. >very true. Sadly a lot of them about. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 13:57 In article <sy0taMNQ+TlLFA5l(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. > > So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible. there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much was lifted from the gimp.
From: Russ D on 8 Mar 2010 14:49 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:51 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <sy0taMNQ+TlLFA5l(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. >> >> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful > >it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a >joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible. >there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much >was lifted from the gimp. You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for Photoslop". Photoline had HDR editing 3-4 years before PhotoSlop stole the idea and renamed it to HDR. Considering that Photoline has about 80% more capabilities and features to this day, that gives lots more tools and methods that Adobe can steal from Photoline. I once tried making a cross-reference chart for those wanting to migrate from the fewer features in PhotoSlop, but there were so many features in PhotoLine to which there were no equivalents in PhotoSlop that it was no longer worth the effort. Thus, precisely showing everyone how little you know about Photoline. Your only familiarity with Photoline is by typing the name of it a few times. You can go crawl back under your bridge now, troll.
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 14:53
In article <snkap5prdnkc7dan3jit6ggkcir43d6lor(a)4ax.com>, Russ D <russd(a)myowndomain.org> wrote: > You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for > Photoslop". Photoline had HDR editing 3-4 years before PhotoSlop stole the > idea and renamed it to HDR. Considering that Photoline has about 80% more > capabilities and features to this day, that gives lots more tools and > methods that Adobe can steal from Photoline. nonsense. > I once tried making a > cross-reference chart for those wanting to migrate from the fewer features > in PhotoSlop, but there were so many features in PhotoLine to which there > were no equivalents in PhotoSlop that it was no longer worth the effort. there are even more going the other direction. |