Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner

Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio news cosa ha scritto:

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one
second. batch conversion / advanced / etc

This worked.



if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm



--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

In message 12,
Ammammata writes:
Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio news cosa ha scritto:

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one
second. batch conversion / advanced / etc

This worked.



if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:?


I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from
the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one exception
for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView has lacked
for some time: it has undo, but only one level.)

I've downloaded it. Whether I ever get round to trying it, who knows (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from
| the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one exception
| for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView has lacked
| for some time: it has undo, but only one level.)
|

I think this has been talked about before. Once you
need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor
and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can
do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a
case of diminishing returns.


The learning curve is somewhat extreme with
graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to
stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a
limit.

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to
jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to
spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part,
are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so
there's a lot of software around.

George P has presented a good example of what
IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't
care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to
damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and
resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no
plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He
doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly
crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV.
But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen,
crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc
then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor
rather than trying to do all that in IV.

To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier
time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago
when the functionality it provides wasn't available
without paying a fairly high price. Windows could
display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was
about it.
FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit
silly. They're trying to maintain an outdated business
model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather
than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS
would be claiming I can't legally write a business
letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own
business cards with their software. FastStone is
claiming I can only use their software to look at
pictures and can't do anything that could somehow
lkead to someone making money. Which means I
couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at
work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy
licensing limitation.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to
jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products.

except that they're not limited nor overpriced. in fact, they cost
about the same as psp with similar functionality, but why let that
detail get in the way of a rant.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I think this has been talked about before. Once you
need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor
and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can
do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a
case of diminishing returns.

I find it does virtually all I need to do. I'd need a very good reason
to invest (and sorry to sound like "Arlen Holder" here, but "invest"
includes learning time) in anything else.

The learning curve is somewhat extreme with
graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to
stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a
limit.

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to

But I, for one, am glad they have (-:!

jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to

I'd certainly agree with that.

spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part,
are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so
there's a lot of software around.

George P has presented a good example of what
IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't
care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to
damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and
resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no

Not necessarily: "lossless JPEG crop" is possible. (Including in
IrfanView; I don't know if just the basic IV or with the plugins, since
I always install both anyway.) It is slightly restricted in that it
limits the crop sizes (to a multiple of 16 pixels I think).

plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He
doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly
crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV.
But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen,
crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc
then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor
rather than trying to do all that in IV.

IV has a batch processing ability, which can do some of those things
(not sure which; I think I've only ever used it to rename). Obviously if
he wanted to do _different_ things to each image it'd be no use, the
same applying to any batch processing anything else can offer too.

To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier
time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago
when the functionality it provides wasn't available
without paying a fairly high price. Windows could
display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was
about it.

Ignoring prejudices related to business models and general philosophy,
are you saying the actual software is older or newer than IrfanView? [Or
aren't you commenting on that, just having a rant (-:?]

FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit
silly.

But very common among software.

They're trying to maintain an outdated business
model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather
than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS
would be claiming I can't legally write a business
letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own
business cards with their software. FastStone is
claiming I can only use their software to look at
pictures and can't do anything that could somehow
lkead to someone making money. Which means I
couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at
work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy
licensing limitation.

Each to his own opinion! (I'm not disagreeing with any of the _facts_
you've stated: yes, in theory, those are all true.) Many years ago, I
did actually buy IrfanView because I liked it and was using it a lot,
and I also even bought it for my employer, so I could use it at work
with no worry (I never actually told them I'd done so, or claimed the
cost back). I think FastStone is significantly more expensive, though
(though I've no idea what IV costs these days so may be wrong there).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 03:49:59p, *J. P. Gilliver (John)* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio . Vediamo
cosa ha scritto:

Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:?

maybe George P "cares" about his computer and doesn't dare to install
something new

or maybe my English is slowly getting worse...

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

In message , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
writes
In message 12,
Ammammata writes:
Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio news cosa ha scritto:

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one
second. batch conversion / advanced / etc

This worked.



if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:?


I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from
the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one
exception for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView
has lacked for some time: it has undo, but only one level.)

I've downloaded it. Whether I ever get round to trying it, who knows (-:

I can thoroughly recommend FastStone Image Viewer. It has loads of
tools, and I use it for almost all my photo stuff. It's very easy to
use. It even has an extremely useful screen capture facility (although
FastStone do a dedicated one, which has more facilities). The portable
version seems to be the same as the install version.
--
Ian