Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." said:

On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.

Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).

US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).

Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;


GIMP is still free.

Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
my computer.
GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both capable
of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
are all far superior to GIMP.

...but GIMP is "free".

righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with your
ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since version 6
10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users posting any pics
that could not be processed using gimp.


--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2

On 2012.09.02 11:51 , sid wrote:

righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with your
ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since version 6
10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users posting any pics
that could not be processed using gimp.

I personally can't point directly to that, but even in my most recent
tests of the Gimp, here are four reasons why it is not preferred for me:

First off, when I open a raw file in GIMP v. PS CS5, it takes 2X as long
for UFraw to open the file and then about 4X longer for the GIMP to open
it after UFraw. That is tedious when you have dozens of photos to
evaluate and process. Time matters to me. I'll eventually upgrade my
computer and it will improve. Moreso for PS.

Secondly, except for HDR (which I don't do much) I do most of my
exposure, brightness, blackpoint and colour adjustment in PS raw. The
facilities for this in UFraw are crude and not very intuitive - and
poorly laid out (IMO). (Note my copy of Ufraw is long in the tooth,
0.16, maybe it's been improved).

Thirdly, I can't seem to open more that one file into Gimp's raw engine
at a time. So while I have a set of similarly subject matter under the
same lighting, I can't set them in raw concurrently (it does keep the
recent setting for the next photo but my setting decisions may be
aggregated in PS raw with all the photos present at any time. eg: I
examine and fine tune one setting for many photos at a time). So I can
go into finder and select any number of images to open raw, but UFraw
does them serially. PS raw import opens them all at once. This is
important to work flow (which is faster on PS in any case).

Fourthly, USM preview in photoshop allows me to preview evaluate the
effect on the whole image, not just a tiny preview screen. This is
important because edge contrast is different in different parts of the
image and what may be just right in one area is too much elsewhere.

As a nit, The Gimp (running under X11) doesn't follow the keyboard
shortcut conventions of OS X - that too slows me down.

If I used the Gimp more I'm sure I'd find other things that just
indicate further its 2nd ratedness.

BTW, next time you set FU for a thread that hasn't drastically changed
scope you'll be transferred to my KF.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012-09-02 08:51:15 -0700, sid said:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." said:

On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.

Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).

US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).

Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;


GIMP is still free.

Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
my computer.
GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both capable
of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
are all far superior to GIMP.

...but GIMP is "free".

righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with your
ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since version 6
10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users posting any pics
that could not be processed using gimp.

I see that you are another one of those guys who likes to change
"Follow-up To" headers inappropriately. I will just have to watch that
in future.

FU reset, and to maintain the thread in the other groups, and with
apologies to those in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems who might have
bothered reading it, I will repost my response to you.

The repeated response:

Certainly PS-6 was in the distant past and CS6 has moved way beyond
what PS-6 offered.
Regarding differences between the two regarding what you might need to
produce the images you do, you will probably get by without being
limited by RGB & Gray Scale as color space choices. You will probably
manage without content aware fill/correction. You will probably never
miss adjustment layers, or "Smart Objects". Most importantly there is
probably no convincing you that these are just a few of the features
available with what I use CS5, which you will find useless, but you
have never tried any of them because the are not replicated in any way
with your GIMP. CS6 has even more to offer.

So my suggestion is to actually check out what Adobe has to say about
their product & its new features, and download and examine CS6 for
yourself:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...es_sl_new.html


I

also find working with GIMP awkward, but that is a personal issue, as I
have said if you are comfortable using GIMP, who am I to criticize you
choice, i just feel that CS5/6 is the better, more capable piece of
software.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-09-02 09:26:46 -0700, Ryan McGinnis said:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, sid wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." said:

On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.

Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).

US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).

Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;


GIMP is still free.

Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
my computer.
GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both capable
of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
are all far superior to GIMP.

...but GIMP is "free".

righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with your
ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since version 6
10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users posting any pics
that could not be processed using gimp.

Dude, this is 2012. It STILL doesn't support 16 bit images, let alone
32 bit images. It doesn't do adjustmnet layers. It doesn't do CMYK.
You may not understand why these things are important to others because
they are not important to you, but I assure you that they are very
important to a lot of professionals that these softwares are designed
for. There is a reason that nearly every graphic design house in the
world runs Photoshop and not Gimp, despite the price difference.

Ryan, you might not have noticed, but both "sid" and "Pablo" have
changed the "Follow-up To" headers in some of their responses without
advising they had done so. I find it somewhat disruptive.

There certainly seems to be a "Cult of GIMP" developing here.

FU reset.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck escribió:

Ryan, you might not have noticed, but both "sid" and "Pablo" have
changed the "Follow-up To" headers in some of their responses without
advising they had done so. I find it somewhat disruptive.

You are somewhat tiring, you know.

Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
for your sake, but sometimes I forget.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
Follow the link at your peril.
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

Alan Browne wrote:

On 2012.09.02 11:51 , sid wrote:

righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with
your ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since
version 6 10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users
posting any pics that could not be processed using gimp.

I personally can't point directly to that, but even in my most recent
tests of the Gimp, here are four reasons why it is not preferred for me:

First off, when I open a raw file in GIMP v. PS CS5, it takes 2X as long
for UFraw to open the file and then about 4X longer for the GIMP to open
it after UFraw. That is tedious when you have dozens of photos to
evaluate and process. Time matters to me. I'll eventually upgrade my
computer and it will improve. Moreso for PS.

Ok, opening a raw file from gimp took somewhere between 2 and 3 seconds for
ufraw to display the file and a further may be 6 or 7 seconds to open the
converted file into gimp. Not that these points reflect on gimp at all as we
are talking raw conversion not editing which was the initial point of
discussion. I don't use ufraw BTW, all my raw conversion is done using
bibble 5 which imo is a far better tool.

Secondly, except for HDR (which I don't do much) I do most of my
exposure, brightness, blackpoint and colour adjustment in PS raw. The
facilities for this in UFraw are crude and not very intuitive - and
poorly laid out (IMO). (Note my copy of Ufraw is long in the tooth,
0.16, maybe it's been improved).

Again you've picked raw conversion which is not the point of discussion.


Thirdly, I can't seem to open more that one file into Gimp's raw engine
at a time. So while I have a set of similarly subject matter under the
same lighting, I can't set them in raw concurrently (it does keep the
recent setting for the next photo but my setting decisions may be
aggregated in PS raw with all the photos present at any time. eg: I
examine and fine tune one setting for many photos at a time). So I can
go into finder and select any number of images to open raw, but UFraw
does them serially. PS raw import opens them all at once. This is
important to work flow (which is faster on PS in any case).

As above

Fourthly, USM preview in photoshop allows me to preview evaluate the
effect on the whole image, not just a tiny preview screen. This is
important because edge contrast is different in different parts of the
image and what may be just right in one area is too much elsewhere.

I don't know about you but I'm able to have that little box about half the
area of my screen. It does have that image at 100% so the whole image is not
visible completely but scrolling around it is no bother. I'm not going to
search for it but I know you have made a point in the past the sharpening
should be previewed at 100% else how can you possibly see the true effect
before committing to the image.


As a nit, The Gimp (running under X11) doesn't follow the keyboard
shortcut conventions of OS X - that too slows me down.

I find it quite hard to edit/keyboard shortcuts too


If I used the Gimp more I'm sure I'd find other things that just
indicate further its 2nd ratedness.

OK

BTW, next time you set FU for a thread that hasn't drastically changed
scope you'll be transferred to my KF.

wow but are you a scary man, as has been brought up in these groups before
that's a function of properly written usenet client. Cross posting
habitually and continually is not how things should be done. We all know
that but whatever...

fwiw I didn't even look at where follow ups were set, as a rule one doesn't
need to, the post replied to should go to the group it was read in. I'm not
in the habit of deliberate disruption but no amount badgering by you or
'duck will change how I believe usenet should be used.

If every post contains three groups in the groups header what is the point
in having three groups?

upon pressing send for this article with no follow up to set this is the
message I'm presented with


WARNING
You are crossposting to more than two newsgroups.
Please use the "Followup-To" header to direct the replies to your article
into one group.
Do you want to re-edit the article or send it anyway?

--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2

"Pablo" wrote in message
...

Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
for your sake, but sometimes I forget.

Actually, I'm slightly ticked off you trimmed the newsgroup headers without
notification and the fact you don't care that anyone else cares pretty much
kills any further involvement with you dead in its tracks.

(All things being equal people don't buy things from people they don't like
so your peddling Gimp just got a lot harder.)

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On 2012-09-02 10:13:57 -0700, Pablo said:

Savageduck escribió:

Ryan, you might not have noticed, but both "sid" and "Pablo" have
changed the "Follow-up To" headers in some of their responses without
advising they had done so. I find it somewhat disruptive.

You are somewhat tiring, you know.

Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
for your sake, but sometimes I forget.

Regardless, it is a PIA and disruptive.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Charles E. Hardwidge escribió:

"Pablo" wrote in message
...

Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
for your sake, but sometimes I forget.

Actually, I'm slightly ticked off you trimmed the newsgroup headers
without notification and the fact you don't care that anyone else cares
pretty much kills any further involvement with you dead in its tracks.

Can you read? I didn't trim anything. Disruptive. What a patronising word.

(All things being equal people don't buy things from people they don't
like so your peddling Gimp just got a lot harder.)


Oh, please buy my hard peddling Gimp!! Please, please!!

No hope for some people.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
Follow the link at your peril.
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

Savageduck wrote:

Ryan, you might not have noticed, but both "sid" and "Pablo" have
changed the "Follow-up To" headers in some of their responses without
advising they had done so. I find it somewhat disruptive.

See the response to Alan for more on that

There certainly seems to be a "Cult of GIMP" developing here.

What's the point of that comment? The simple fact that someone uses a
different set of tools to you does not necessarily mean they are at any
disadvantage to you and definitely does not reduce them to cultist.

--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2