Photoline vs. PhotoSlop
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Russ D on 8 Mar 2010 15:16 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:53:00 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <snkap5prdnkc7dan3jit6ggkcir43d6lor(a)4ax.com>, Russ D ><russd(a)myowndomain.org> wrote: > >> You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for >> Photoslop". Photoline had HDR editing 3-4 years before PhotoSlop stole the >> idea and renamed it to HDR. Considering that Photoline has about 80% more >> capabilities and features to this day, that gives lots more tools and >> methods that Adobe can steal from Photoline. > >nonsense. > >> I once tried making a >> cross-reference chart for those wanting to migrate from the fewer features >> in PhotoSlop, but there were so many features in PhotoLine to which there >> were no equivalents in PhotoSlop that it was no longer worth the effort. > >there are even more going the other direction. Not true. Except for 1 or 2 novelty things that were put into CS4, with no real useful purpose, there's not one thing you can do in PhotoSlop that can't be done better and faster with Photoline. But then you'd know this if you had ever used it. Bye bye troll.
From: Chris H on 8 Mar 2010 15:40 In message <snkap5prdnkc7dan3jit6ggkcir43d6lor(a)4ax.com>, Russ D <russd(a)myowndomain.org> writes >On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:51 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >>In article <sy0taMNQ+TlLFA5l(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H >><chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> >>> >> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with >>> >> Photoshop elements and is a similar price. >>> > >>> >it looks and feels a lot like the gimp. >>> >>> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful >> >>it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a >>joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible. >>there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much >>was lifted from the gimp. > >You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for >Photoslop". I did not realise that Photoline was over 20 years old... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 15:57 In article <ogoap59kld408469hs6o70hsj59j8mhnt4(a)4ax.com>, Russ D <russd(a)myowndomain.org> wrote: > 15 of PhotoSlop's years were spent stealing from newer and better software > and its programmers. more bullshit
From: Savageduck on 8 Mar 2010 16:22 On 2010-03-08 12:40:57 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > In message <snkap5prdnkc7dan3jit6ggkcir43d6lor(a)4ax.com>, Russ D > <russd(a)myowndomain.org> writes >> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:51 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In article <sy0taMNQ+TlLFA5l(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H >>> <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>> >>>>>> All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with >>>>>> Photoshop elements and is a similar price. >>>>> >>>>> it looks and feels a lot like the gimp. >>>> >>>> So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful >>> >>> it's not at all. i tried it when trollboy first mentioned it. what a >>> joke. it actually makes the gimp look good, if that's even possible. >>> there was also a striking similarity that it made me wonder how much >>> was lifted from the gimp. >> >> You would be more truthful asking, "how much from Photoline was lifted for >> Photoslop". > > I did not realise that Photoline was over 20 years old... The first public release for Photoline was in 1995. The first Photoshop prototype, "ImagePro" was developed in 1988 and renamed "Photoshop" later in 1988. Adobe purchased a distribution license in September 1988 and Photoshop 1.0 was released by Adobe in 1990. There was nothing "lifted" from Photoline. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Jacob Rus on 8 Mar 2010 18:35
LOL! wrote: > It doesn't matter if they "look" the same, your Granger Chart, a > mathematical reproduction of every hue possible, is missing millions of > shades and hues that will never appear on your monitor. This is trivially demonstrated false. :-) I've even gone to the trouble of uploading a "proper granger rainbow" file which you can download (it currently has small dimensions to be a small download. so I've reduced this to 1 simple step for you. Image - > Image Size -> resize to whatever you like, I suggest something like 1000 x 2000). http://www.mediafire.com/?2mmam2mdyzt All the math is done with 15 bits of precision, which is several orders of magnitude more than necessary for whatever size "granger rainbow" you try to make. It is trivially easy to verify this through visual inspection, or looking at the raw data in the resulting image. > But when altering > white-balance and other hue adjustments and trying to recover colors from > highlights and shadows, you'll end up with serious gaps because they are > totally missing from your editing platform. This is also false. :-) > No matter. You don't even comprehend why this is important. I doubt any of > your images will suffer because nobody probably wants to see them anyway. It's quite possible, and I never claimed otherwise. :-) I'm done with this thread now; sorry to have dredged it back up. I'd suggest, Mr. LOL, that you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't care about accuracy, image appearance, or the features of “PhotoSlop”, but are just trying to stir up trouble. Good luck, I guess. Cheers, Jacob |