Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software?

Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"? It makes
Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.

Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software. The
world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images created by that
useless POS programming.

On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable said:



Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"? It makes
Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.

Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software. The
world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images created by that
useless POS programming.

For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009062807343444303-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable
said:

Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
mindless herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
created by that useless POS programming.

For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.

And so nicely, too.

I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
page is bloody awful.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:05:50 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable
said:

Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
mindless herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
created by that useless POS programming.


I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
page is bloody awful.



Paint some rouge, lipstick, and a frilly bra on Mona Lisa, maybe you'll
find her attractive.

Is that all it is with you fools? The homepage and software has to "look
purty" or the superior results it can produce doesn't matter? Are you aware
that rarely do the software authors create the websites that sell their
work? Most software authors don't even care who represents it, they're into
the programming, not the cutesy GUI **** that attracts subhuman idiots and
kindergartners like you. Good programmers could care less if their work
pleases you or not, just so long as their method produces better results
than other programmers' methods. That's what drives them, the good ones
anyway, not what moron consumers like you might think of it.

Holy ****. No wonder companies like Adobe can snowball you so easily. Put a
new pretty cover on **** that hasn't changed one bit in functionality for
over 9 years and you're on it like white on rice.

Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.

On 28-06-09 11:48, Unbelievable wrote:

Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.

Please do post your 21 best photos to make us collapse in awe.

Unbelievable wrote:

Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.

The fact that you're so interested in prodding such a bunch of dullards
is telling.

Mooooo.

On 2009-06-28 08:05:50 -0700, "DRS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009062807343444303-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable
said:

Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
mindless herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
created by that useless POS programming.

For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.

And so nicely, too.

I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
page is bloody awful.

I took a look the OSX version, which might do the job, but is a very
clunky rendition of a Windows interface running as an emulation of the
Windows version in X Server.
It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX
software avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these
developers is all too obvious.

The concept is good, and the results may be good, but the overall lock
into an arcane Windows interface is awful.

It needs a lot of work to make it ready for prime time in OSX.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:

It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
is all too obvious.

Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore to
use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
"Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
year).

Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been really
badly designed.

I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second display.

As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.

On 2009-06-28 09:17:18 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:

It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
is all too obvious.

Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore
to use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
"Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
year).

Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been
really badly designed.

I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second
display.

As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.

That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:27:04 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-06-28 09:17:18 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:

It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
is all too obvious.

Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore
to use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
"Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
year).

Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been
really badly designed.

I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second
display.

As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.

That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.

And now the pretend-photographers quickly veer off into an area that they
know a little something about, the computers under their fingers. And prove
that they know absolutely nothing about cameras and photography. They stay
away from those scary topics every chance they get.

Do go on proving how you avoid all topics about photography. It's quite
revealing.