Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: ray on 24 Feb 2010 12:23 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:14:38 +0000, Chris H wrote: > In message <240220101145066458%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >>In article <7ul2ptFb4lU19(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >>wrote: >> >>> And again, OP is not a pro - a rank amateur. Amateurs and pros don't >>> need the same tools. >> >>that's why there's photoshop elements and the full photoshop. >> >>> > In this instance PSE is a better choice than GIMP. Only the >>> > religious would say otherwise. >>> >>> That's very possible - what, exactly, do you have against letting OP >>> try them both and see what's best in his situation? >> >>what do you have against advice from those who have tried both and found >>that the gimp is not worth the bother? > > I note that a lot of those suggesting PSE, like myself, have tried GIMP > and found it wanting..... > > Those pushing GIMP just seem anti PS for religious reasons. I'm not 'anti' anything. I'd just like for the OP to TRY GIMP before he lays out the cash - what are you afraid of? Obviously the ultimate decision lies with the user - he should try everything he can get his hands on to see what meets his needs. If free software does, fine - if not he hasn't lost a damned thing.
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 12:25 In article <OqadnZGSTc5NxhjWnZ2dnUVZ7rVi4p2d(a)bt.com>, C. Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwood2(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Gimp just takes a very little learning that's because it does less. > and I use the way that was > pioneered with the earlier versions ( right clicking on the picture to > get to whatever I want to do instead of going all the way to the top of > the screen to select the tool), there are many ways of doing something and > whatever way one finds easiest is the best. there is no need to go 'all the way to the top of the screen' to change a tool in photoshop.
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 12:25 In article <7ul4ekFb4lU20(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >> That's very possible - what, exactly, do you have against letting OP > >> try them both and see what's best in his situation? > > > > what do you have against advice from those who have tried both and found > > that the gimp is not worth the bother? > > What I have against it is: what is 'not worth the bother' for one person > may be exactly what another person needs - that's the same reason there > is more than one camera for sale. do you buy every camera? or do you take the advice of people who have used them, such as talking to a salesperson or reading reviews? > A point you probably have not considered is 'adequacy'. It's not even > necessary to have 'the best' if what you have is adequate to your needs. > Especially if the adequate solution is free and 'the best' is not. as noted earlier, it's sometimes free, but even at $50, it can be worth getting a pro quality tool and not bothering with a lesser product, only to find out that the 'free' product can't do certain things and wasn't such a good deal after all. > I wonder what you're afraid of. nothing. what are *you* afraid of?
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 12:30 In article <7ul5kfFb4lU21(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > I'm not 'anti' anything. I'd just like for the OP to TRY GIMP before he > lays out the cash lays out what cash? photoshop has a *free* trial version. > what are you afraid of? Obviously the ultimate > decision lies with the user - he should try everything he can get his > hands on to see what meets his needs. why? that takes time. maybe he's busy and doesn't want to try a bazillion different apps. maybe he doesn't know what to look for to even evaluate it. > If free software does, fine - if > not he hasn't lost a damned thing. other than lost time, which might be more valuable than the price of software. i don't know what you get paid, but some people can have the *full* photoshop pay for itself in less than a day, which makes the $50 for photoshop elements become a no-brainer.
From: J. Clarke on 24 Feb 2010 12:26
On 2/24/2010 11:13 AM, John McWilliams wrote: > Chris H wrote: >> In message <4b8540a0$0$22530$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein > >>> My question is therefore, if those are my goals, and I may eventually >>> wind up upgrading to one of the Photoshop CS programs, will I be at a >>> disadvantage if I purchase Aperature rather than Lightroom. >> >> I think the answer has to be yes.... but only a very minor one. Try both >> and see what you like. Use the one you find the best to work with. IF >> you are like me you will only occasionally need something other than LR >> or Aperture. >> >>> I do not think at this juncture, given what I have I would benefit by >>> obtaining Elements. >> >> OK... But you should be able to get elements for (almost) free. > > > > Moreover, Elements integrates well with Lightroom. One way is in LR, you > hit Cmd-E and it opens the image in PS or PSE, depending on which you have. > > I am not sure if PSE does panoramic stitching or HDR, the former being > more important to me than the latter. HDR is way overrated and often, > after hours of work, looks poor. Elements 7 has stitching, Elements 8 can merge bracketed exposures. |