From: Chris H on
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
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
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
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
From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:22:37 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>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.

Isn't that hook stuck in your mouth painful?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida