From: Chris H on
In message <080320100926599436%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <Z+tgJyB1EMlLFAPS(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

>> The OP is spouting religion with no understanding.
>very true.

Sadly a lot of them about.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: nospam on
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.
From: Russ D on
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". 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. 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.

Thus, precisely showing everyone how little you know about Photoline. Your
only familiarity with Photoline is by typing the name of it a few times.

You can go crawl back under your bridge now, troll.

From: nospam on
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.
From: Russ D on
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.