Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: Better Info on 23 Feb 2010 19:25 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:39:26 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >nospam wrote: > >> In article <4b843709$0$22523$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein >> <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >> >> >>>You would not recommend, lightroom or aperture? They're a bit more >>>expensive, but is it worth the difference at this point? >> >> >> that depends what you need to do. lightroom & aperture combine asset >> management with most of the adjustments people need to do, as well as >> generate web sites, books, etc. while photoshop can do pretty much any >> image editing you could ever want, but not so much on the other >> features. > >I would prefer a better asset management program than what I have. I >also understand that both of these programs have a rudimentary ability >to deal with HDR, which intrigues me, despite the fact that my learning >curve at this time does not permit me take advantage of that. Perhaps >someday. You'll not get any decent results for HDR techniques using any of the programs you are considering nor being recommended. (Interestingly, Photoline was the very first program to introduce this technique to the world 2 years before adobe stole the idea and popularized it under their HDR renaming of it.) You'll need a program dedicated to that technique. I recommend Mediachance's "Dynamic Photo HDR" if you ever want to get into HDR techniques. It's much better than the troll-endorsed Photomatix. Keeping in mind, that even with that excellent software available I've yet to see even ONE HDR result that was really worth looking at. HDR is a new gimmick for those that don't know how to take an interesting photo in the first place. Like those who were all crying "Buy a Lensbaby Lens!" so it can blur your images into a garish and worthless mess! When you have to rely on gimmicks and fads like that to get someone to look at your images you've totally missed the mark, long ago. > >since in my case, the increased expense is not a problem, would you >recommend either of those programs or elements? I would prefer not to >purchase something only to have to make frequent upgrades. While I >understand that upgrading is part of the process, if one could be >eliminated early on, it would be preferable. > >Could I manage either of those programs in a learning curve? > >Your opinion.
From: Better Info on 23 Feb 2010 19:33 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:40:01 -0500, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <63358$4b84441c$546accd9$26261(a)cache50.multikabel.net>, >Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >> There, I DO NOT say that GIMP doesn't have books, support forums and/or >> tutorials ("etc." ?) AT ALL. > >that's nothing more than semantic games. when someone says 'there is no >xyz' or 'nobody uses abc' they don't mean exactly zero they mean close >enough to zero to be considered zero. it's lost in the noise. > >the fact remains that there are orders of magnitude more resources for >photoshop than for the gimp. That's because PhotoSlop is so non-intuitive, limited, and people can never get the results that they want from that software so they HAVE TO have all that help to try to find ways to fix all the problems they get right from their cameras. You're not too bright, are you. But all we knew that. PhotoSlop: the convoluted support system founded on snapshooters that don't even know how to get a decent image from their cameras, and then later, not even from their favored editor. Help is *always* required by people like that.
From: Better Info on 23 Feb 2010 19:44 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:06:51 -0500, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <7uit57Fb4lU7(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >wrote: > >> For the record, there is no 'lack of support' for GIMP. See, e.g. >> Grokking the Gimp - an online tutorial or Beginning GIMP - an outstanding >> beginners reference book - readily available. > >wow, 2. > >walk into any technical bookstore and there are dozens of photoshop >books. there are also photoshop classes, seminars, magazines, even a >photoshop trade show. If people need that much unending help with a product, there's obviously something very very wrong with that product. I am reminded of the time I wanted to buy my first Olympus OM1. Went into the camera store and the salesperson insisted I didn't want one. I wanted a blind-sheep-follower's Nikon. I insisted I didn't. Then he pulled out a book from beneath the counter that was about 5 inches thick. He said, "See this? This is how many places in the world will support and repair your Nikon!" Then he pulled out another book that was about 3/4ths inches thick. Saying, "See this? This is how many places will support and repair your Olympus!" All proud with his chest puffed out. My only comment to him was, "So, what you are telling me is that that many more Nikons break down and need that much support, right? Thanks for showing me that. Ring-up the Olympus." His puffery instantly deflated and he sheepishly rang-up the Olympus. That Olympus and subsequent ones never needing any repair at all. I still have one of them from 1979 and it still works perfectly. If something like PhotoSlop needs THAT much support, I'll easily go another route. You've said all you needed to say about that software. Even an idiot can understand why. Those who are less than an idiot, no, they'll never know why.
From: tony cooper on 23 Feb 2010 19:46 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:51:07 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <b4k8o5h9u83hu4129ra9tlf1kdttuq6g6m(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:39:26 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> >> >>If, by "asset management", you mean a system that allows you to tag or >>keyword images by subject, then Elements has that system in the >>"Organizer" module. Lightroom has a much better system for this, but >>you really don't need this unless you are working with a library of >>over a thousand or more images. With only a few hundred photos, you >>can "asset manage" with a file folder system. > >Trouble is with digital it is amazing how fast you gain pictures... I >outgrew iPhoto in months. Sure, you can add photos hand-over-fist. Some days I shoot over 150 shots. However, on many of those days, I delete 140 or more of them. They aren't photos of 150 different scenes. They are either multiple shots made in continuous shooting mode, bracketing, or different framing attempts. The first thing any newbie in digital should learn to do is to delete the images that there's no need to keep. Otherwise, you end up wading through bad-to-marginal shots trying to find the one that worked best. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: ray on 23 Feb 2010 20:16
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:40:37 -0500, nospam wrote: > 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. Nonsense. I've not done that at all. I've suggested to a neophyte that he check out the free alternatives before blowing a wad of money. GIMP and ufraw may or may not meet his needs better than PS - they would certainly be cheaper and it's his decision to make. > > 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? Even if GIMP is lacking serious features (a point I do not concede) a beginner does not need all the bells and whistles - he needs to be able to do basic photo editing. > >> 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. I see. But it's not necessary to install and learn how to use PS or elements? > >> 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. For a person who has not used either one, they will probably find neither one to be any more 'intuitive' than the other. |