Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: tony cooper on 23 Feb 2010 17:36 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:23:40 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:19:48 -0800, Savageduck wrote: > >> Oh well, for what it's worth, here is my vote for PS Elements. >> >> The OP is a novice. He is exactly the type of photographer Elements is >> intended for. GIMP is without question a powerful editor, but has a less >> than intuitive user interface. GIMP is not without issues. > >Neither is PS Elements. If it was, there wouldn't be a need for all those >books, support forums and tutorial videos. > You don't read books, go to support forums, or use tutorials because their are issues with the program. You do those things in order to learn how to expand your skills. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 23 Feb 2010 17:40 In article <7uj35qFb4lU13(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > Seems like the PS crowd are either on a religious crusade or have stock > in Adobe - they can't fathom the idea that anyone should even TRY > anything else. nonsense. whenever someone mentions photoshop the linux fanbois come out in droves and push the gimp and ufraw as some sort of equivalence to photoshop and camera raw. those who recommend photoshop do so from experience, many of whom have also tried the gimp and found it to be very lacking in features. why not save others from the hassles? > I just don't see that. If a five minute download will get > you free software that you can try and see whether you like it or not - > why not go for it? because after downloading, one must install it, learn how to use it, etc., all to find out it's not as good as another product. > BTW - the folk who claim that GIMP has a 'non -intuitive' interface are > generally ones who've only ever really used PS. nope. > I find it to be just the > other way around. One usually considers what he is used to to be > 'intuitive'. true, but for someone who has not used either one, that's moot.
From: Chris H on 23 Feb 2010 17:41 In message <4b8430f1$0$22546$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> writes > >I have iPhoto on my computer, and it does OK, but I'm looking for >something that does a bit more processing than what I already have. OK...iPhoto is OK as a catalogue. Though I never really got on with it. Try elements. The full Photoshop is expensive and probalby too complex for what you need. However I am not sure Lightroom or Aperture will be what you want. You can eval versions of both. I did and went for Lightroom BTW do you use a MAC or a PC? > My skill level requires me to either have someone to show it to me, >or a book to make reference to. Then go with elements as there are PLENTY of free tutorial videos. Most of the photo magazines have tutorials on the cover CD. You wont get that for GIMP >My camera store doesn't sell software( would you believe it ), Yes. > so the advice I get from the people there is personal, without a >profit motive. Also, although I'm looking to upgrade my camera now, >the one they sold me three years ago, when I knew absolutely nothing >about digital photography was indeed the correct one, in consideration >of what I told them at the time. So I trust the people there. And >they'll be competitive with price. What have you got now and what are you looking for? >Based on the discussion so far, I feel that something like GIMP may not >be good for me, based on my needs and the lack of support. But I thank >everyone who recommended it anyway. I don't mind spending a few >dollars, although Photoshop CS3 or 4 IS a bit much right now. Go for Elements. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: nospam on 23 Feb 2010 17:43 In article <R3kybYDBmFhLFA+J(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >I have iPhoto on my computer, and it does OK, but I'm looking for > >something that does a bit more processing than what I already have. > > OK...iPhoto is OK as a catalogue. Though I never really got on with it. > Try elements. The full Photoshop is expensive and probalby too complex > for what you need. > > However I am not sure Lightroom or Aperture will be what you want. You > can eval versions of both. I did and went for Lightroom > > BTW do you use a MAC or a PC? the fact that he uses iphoto means he uses a mac.
From: Chris H on 23 Feb 2010 17:44
In message <4b843709$0$22523$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> writes >nospam wrote: >>>Based on the discussion so far, I feel that something like GIMP may >>>not be good for me, based on my needs and the lack of support. But I >>>thank everyone who recommended it anyway. I don't mind spending a >>>few dollars, although Photoshop CS3 or 4 IS a bit much right now. >> you don't need the full photoshop. photoshop elements is around >>$50. > >You would not recommend, lightroom or aperture? They're a bit more >expensive, but is it worth the difference at this point? Try them and see. There are 30 day eval versions of both. BEFORE you download watch the demo videos for both. Both have multiple videos. These are very capable cataloguing systems. (a bit like iPhoto on speed. :-) They will adjust colours to an infinite amount, crop images but not edit them as in changing the image. They also produce web galleries and control print output etc -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |