PhotoSlop Compared to 4 Different Editors

Discussion in 'Printers' started by Too Funny, Feb 7, 2010.

  1. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
    testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
    people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
    remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


    "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4337905568_55c1e9cfa6_o.jpg

    Isn't this fun? :)
     
    Too Funny, Feb 7, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:07:01 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-02-07 10:52 , Too Funny wrote:
    >> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
    >> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
    >> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
    >> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
    >>
    >>
    >> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
    >>
    >> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
    >>[URL corrected]
    >>
    >> Isn't this fun? :)

    >
    >Pointless is more like it.
    >
    >IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
    >nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
    >on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
    >mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.


    Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,
    all the colors compressed into nothingness in other areas. I'm sure you can
    spot a difference in a location in the PhotoSlop chart where that color
    doesn't even exist. You're a color-psychic, right?

    You're not too adept at color-profiling a computer system, are you. Like
    all trolls online who have never done any of this, you're just pretending
    to know what you are talking about. Go educate yourself.
     
    Too Funny, Feb 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:22:07 -0700, Lon <> wrote:

    >Too Funny wrote:
    >> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
    >> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
    >> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
    >> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
    >>
    >>
    >> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
    >>
    >> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4337905568_55c1e9cfa6_o.jpg
    >>
    >> Isn't this fun? :)

    >
    >Says unavailable. Just for grins, how does GIMP do?


    Had a minor typo in the text in the original. Had to upload a corrected
    version.

    Here's the corrected URL

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg

    Didn't try GIMP, don't have it presently installed on this machine, but
    wish I had. It would been another good one to add to the chart. I have no
    doubts it would match the rest of the world that all see the same blue sky.
    You know, unlike PhotoSlop off on its own planet. :)
     
    Too Funny, Feb 7, 2010
    #3
  4. Too Funny

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Too Funny <> wrote:
    >I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the


    Go away, asshole troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Too Funny

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Too Funny <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:07:01 -0500, Alan Browne
    >>IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
    >>nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
    >>on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
    >>mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.

    >
    >Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,


    And now the asshole troll resorts to lying outright.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:35:40 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-02-07 21:30 , Paul Furman wrote:
    >> On 2/7/2010 6:03 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> On 10-02-07 20:22 , Me wrote:
    >>>> Mike Russell wrote:
    >>>> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:34:07 +1300, Me wrote:
    >>>> >
    >>>> >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>> >>> Can anyone shed light on this?
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>> 1) In PS, follow the instructions at:
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml and
    >>>> generate the Granger chart as shown. Oddly, it has a strange
    >>>> distribution given that the gradient layer is linear top-to-bottom. What
    >>>> is creating those diagonals in the chart?
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>> 2) For comparison, see;
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4337946696_8ef5e104ff_o.jpg
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >> Perhaps simply because the individual gradients themselves are
    >>>> non-linear, compared to gradients applied by other photo-editing
    >>>> programs.
    >>>> >> Gimp "colorcube analysis" shows the non-linearity of the gradients
    >>>> here:
    >>>> >> http://i49.tinypic.com/25jxge9.png
    >>>> >> Gradients produced in Gimp (the same as gradients produced in other
    >>>> programs) are on the left).
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Photoshop can provide linear gradients, but not by default. Use
    >>>> > Photoshop's gradient editor, set the smoothing parameter to zero,
    >>>> and no
    >>>> > dither. Why did they do it this way? Why ask why.
    >>>> >
    >>>> Thanks - that works - problem solved.
    >>>> Now perhaps someone can advise Ludicrous Landscape's editors with
    >>>> instructions on how to make a "proper" Granger chart.
    >>>
    >>> Can't reply to Russell directly for some reason.
    >>>
    >>> Doesn't work here - I turned off dither (for spectrum and gradient) and
    >>> I set the smooth to zero for both and for either one. I get the same
    >>> non-linear plot.

    >>
    >> Me too though I only had a smoothness slider (default to 100) and
    >> solid/noise option (default to solid).

    >
    >The dither is a checkbox on the main options bar (where you select
    >gradient type).
    >
    >>
    >> What *does* work though, is to do it with Multiply, then Screen, then
    >> paste those versions together & squish them back into a square. Then it
    >> looks just like the other programs' output. I've heard it advised to use
    >> those two for lightening & darkening using duplicate layers. In this
    >> case each is just showing the top or bottom half of the chart so they
    >> looked too pale or too dark. Luminosity does some kind of different math.

    >
    >Couldn't get that to work perfectly, but did resolve diagonal artifacts.
    >(Doesn't fade to white at the top).
    >
    >I'm glad I took this over to the PS group for a real PS pro like Russell
    >to reply to.
    >
    >I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.


    Do you call everyone that brings you bad news about your shit software, a
    troll?

    Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
    still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.

    Keep trying to fit that square peg into a round hole. It's fun watching you
    idiots jump all over the place, tweaking this and that to try to get a
    useful chart out of your shit software. Wasting even more hours of your
    life trying to apply math to why it fails so miserably.

    Now you're even trying to lie in the other thread about the samples I
    posted, saying they all came from the same source. Try again. The GIMP
    source was most definitely donated, did you miss that part of the
    discussion? And the others all have minor changes in the size of the font
    used. I labeled each by using the software I was creating the chart with at
    the time and didn't remember what exact Arial font point-size I had used
    the last time in the previous program. Why do you think I encouraged
    everyone to test their own programs rather than rely on what I posted. I
    already explicitly stated that idiots like you would claim I didn't use all
    those programs to create the charts. I'm always 10 steps ahead of you
    idiots. Did you miss that post? Too busy trying to figure out why PhotoSlop
    doesn't work right? Or is it that you are so amazingly ****ing stupid that
    you don't realize that the same JPG compression is applied across the whole
    montage of charts and this is why you claim they all have the same
    artifacts in them.

    Here's the one with the chart from GIMP added to it, just in case you
    missed that. You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
    charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4338229864_1f3767b261_o.jpg

    Jump some more to try to justify why you waste your time with PhotoSlop.
    This is fun! :)
     
    Too Funny, Feb 8, 2010
    #6
  7. Too Funny

    BD Guest

    Re: Problem solved:


    > Jump some more to try to justify why you waste your time with PhotoSlop.
    > This is fun! :)- Hide quoted text -


    What's fun - trolling? Trust me - you're not that good. ;)
     
    BD, Feb 8, 2010
    #7
  8. Too Funny

    TJ Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On 02/08/2010 05:45 PM, Too Funny wrote:

    > You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
    > charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
    >

    *EVEN* GIMP? *EVEN?* Your language indicates you have a problem
    considering open-source software as anything but second- or third-class.
    How pathetically wrong.

    TJ
    --
    90 per cent of everything is crud.

    - Theodore Sturgeon
     
    TJ, Feb 9, 2010
    #8
  9. Re: Problem solved:

    Alan,

    I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
    seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
    people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
    cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
    several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
    know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.

    Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.

    I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
    that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
    gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
    menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
    explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.

    His comments (paraphrased) were that:

    1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
    appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
    used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
    editing images.

    2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
    to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
    perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
    the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.

    He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
    the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
    then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
    Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
    are not equal.

    Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
    human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
    adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
    rather than to strict mathematical linearity.

    3) To quote him:

    "... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
    have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
    they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
    they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
    of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
    capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."

    As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
    here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
    explainable molehill.

    I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
    that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
    linear.


    Art

    If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
    I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

    http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 10-02-08 17:45 , Too Funny wrote:
    >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:35:40 -0500, Alan Browne

    >
    >>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.

    >>
    >> Do you call everyone that brings you bad news about your shit software, a
    >> troll?

    >
    > Why would I call anyone who taunts with camera types, name calling, ad
    > hominem attacks and frequent name changes a troll? I wonder.
    >
    > As intense as your mis-advised attack on the product was, you can't help
    > but look like a fool and a dunce. I guess you didn't think we would
    > spot that as odd behaviour indeed and go looking for the source, and of
    > course find it - with the help of PS expert on the right NG. I guess
    > that's a strength of NG's that will always overwhelm especially weak
    > trolls like you.
    >
    > That embarrasses you to no end you come out swinging like a punch drunk
    > fighter - even after everyone has left the ring.
    >
    > Does mom come down to the basement with snacks or does she make you come
    > up to the kitchen?
    >
     
    Arthur Entlich, Feb 9, 2010
    #9
  10. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:06:09 -0500, TJ <> wrote:

    >On 02/08/2010 05:45 PM, Too Funny wrote:
    >
    >> You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
    >> charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
    >>

    >*EVEN* GIMP? *EVEN?* Your language indicates you have a problem
    >considering open-source software as anything but second- or third-class.
    >How pathetically wrong.
    >
    >TJ


    You are correct. A bad choice of words on my part. My use of "even" in that
    instance was while I was thinking about their cost, not their capability. I
    use many such programs. Cartes du Ciel, the best astronomy software
    available. CHDK, the most comprehensive operating systems of any cameras on
    earth. VirtualDub, a video editor that does more things and does it faster
    than almost all others. OpenOffice. etc. etc. If I had to choose between
    GIMP and PhotoSlop, I would easily choose GIMP.
     
    Too Funny, Feb 9, 2010
    #10
  11. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:06:56 -0800, Arthur Entlich <>
    wrote:

    >Alan,
    >
    >I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
    >seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
    >people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
    >cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
    >several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
    >know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.


    It wasn't a cross-posting issue. It's that the PhotoSlop fanboys were so
    embarrassed by this that they tried to not let others know the convoluted
    solutions they were coming up with in trying to explain it all.

    >
    >Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.


    I already did. That's why I included the information they finally came up
    with in the first "Problem Solved" reply that you read. Which they
    consequently snipped again in any further replies so nobody would see the
    egg on their faces. As, I noticed, you did as well.

    >
    >I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
    >that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
    >gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
    >menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
    >explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.
    >
    >His comments (paraphrased) were that:
    >
    >1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
    >appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
    >used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
    >editing images.


    As are all the other programs. Ever hear of Canvas? It's been used to
    publish many magazines, among all the other things it is capable of doing.
    Including cartography with a geographic coordinate system to sub-millimeter
    accuracy in reference to the earth-sized GIS coordinate systems. We're not
    talking about some simple red-eye removal editor that you get bundled with
    your printer or camera.

    >
    >2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
    >to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
    >perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
    >the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.


    It's not a spline vs. linear issue. Apparently they have a checkbox to
    flatten their gradients but even that didn't help. Didn't you relay their
    solution to your "color engineer" friend? You know, the part you snipped
    out again. When doing my own testing I found that even their PhotoSlop's
    rainbow gradient was in error. Flattened or not.

    >
    >He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
    >the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
    >then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
    >Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
    >are not equal.
    >
    >Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
    >human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
    >adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
    >rather than to strict mathematical linearity.


    Yes, a wonderful justification of why all the other programs in the world
    work properly and PhotoSlop does not.

    >
    >3) To quote him:
    >
    >"... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
    >have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
    >they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
    >they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
    >of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
    >capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."


    How do you know you will never capture them if you remove them in the first
    place? How do you know your printer can't produce them if you remove them
    in the first place? It appears that none of you are very bright. But I
    guess that's why you were so easily manipulated into buying and supporting
    PhotoSlop.

    >
    >As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
    >here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
    >explainable molehill.


    Yes, they did explain it. See the first post in this thread that you
    replied to with their convoluted explanation, justification, and solution.
    You know, the part that you too snipped out.

    >
    >I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
    >that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
    >linear.
    >


    Good for them. I wonder what else they never tell anyone? Like they never
    told anyone up until 2008 that their math platform was only 16-bit and
    could have been run on Windows 3.1 all these years. It was only recently
    changed into a 32-bit math platform in CS4. Something that all the other
    programs have had at their core for the last decade or more. Hell, their
    programmers still haven't even discovered any resampling algorithms beyond
    lowly bicubic from the last century. They're precisely that archaic.

    Their emperor has absolutely no clothes whatsoever. And even when shown
    their emperor's nakedness, they then pursue the habit of poking their own
    eyes out to make sure they don't notice.

    Just clap three times with your eyes closed and keep saying to yourselves,
    "I believe, I believe, I believe..."
     
    Too Funny, Feb 9, 2010
    #11
  12. Too Funny

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    Arthur Entlich wrote:
    >
    > I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
    > seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
    > people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
    > cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
    > several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
    > know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.
    >
    > Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.


    Arthur,
    The explanation is that the programs use different math to accomplish
    the task with the same name. I was able to reproduce the matching effect
    in photoshop using Screen blend mode for the top half and Multiply for
    the bottom half:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/
    I also showed it in lab mode, which is designed to match human vision
    more closely. Notice the 5th frame in that set how they convert to
    grayscale and it's pretty obvious what the reasoning is for the odd
    shapes. This thread also exists in two threads of nearly identical
    titles but in the other thread, the math was explained. Here's a snip
    from that discussion:


    > On 2/7/2010 5:36 PM, Pete wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Now, given our horizontal colour gradient with S=100% and H going
    >> from 359º down to 0º left to right, what will happen when we attempt
    >> to change the luminance from 0 at the bottom to 100% at the top?
    >> ...
    >> Red around one third of the way up.
    >> Green around two thirds of the way up.
    >> Blue around a tenth of the way up.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 9, 2010
    #12
  13. Too Funny

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    Too Funny wrote:
    > Alan Brownewrote:
    >
    >> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.

    >
    > Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
    > still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.


    Troll,
    You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
    to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.

    The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
    errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
    desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
    chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
    That approach is certainly useful for some goals.

    Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
    programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.

    Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 9, 2010
    #13
  14. Too Funny

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    Arthur,
    The guy is a genuine troll. I don't make that accusation lightly. Don't
    bother even trying to decipher his reply, he will not give up and will
    just keep expanding the morass to generate bile with lies and deception.
    Really, I don't say that lightly, he's the real deal.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 9, 2010
    #14
  15. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:24:59 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Too Funny wrote:
    >> Alan Brownewrote:
    >>
    >>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.

    >>
    >> Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
    >> still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.

    >
    >Troll,
    >You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
    >to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.
    >
    >The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
    >errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
    >desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
    >chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
    >That approach is certainly useful for some goals.
    >
    >Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
    >programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.
    >
    >Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?


    Showing again your head-in-the-sand-or-elsewhere naivety. One of them
    allows you to work concurrently in RGB, CMYK, Lab, HSV on any layer on the
    same image as well as changing any tool's workspace to any of those, also
    working with each layer's type in any combination. Your beloved PhotoSlop
    is so backward and limited. You have no clue.

    >
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623375625518/detail/


    Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
    contact-pin on a CPU in focus. You were so proud of your lame attempts that
    took you days of disasters.That was a great laugh for the world. How much
    did you pay for clown-college?

    You're such an X-Spurt at these things.

    X: The unknown quantity. Spurt: A drip working under pressure.
     
    Too Funny, Feb 9, 2010
    #15
  16. Too Funny

    Too Funny Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:24:59 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
    >programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.


    All of them can reproduce that effect. If you are willing to take just as
    many convoluted steps as you do in trying to partially correct it in
    PhotoSlop.
     
    Too Funny, Feb 9, 2010
    #16
  17. Too Funny

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    Too Funny wrote:
    > Paul Furmanwrote:
    >> Too Funny wrote:
    >>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
    >>>
    >>> Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
    >>> still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.

    >>
    >> Troll,
    >> You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
    >> to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.
    >>
    >> The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
    >> errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
    >> desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
    >> chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
    >> That approach is certainly useful for some goals.
    >>
    >> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
    >> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.


    I'll take that as a no then.


    >> Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?

    >
    > ...One of them
    > allows you to work concurrently in RGB, CMYK, Lab, HSV on any layer on the
    > same image as well as changing any tool's workspace to any of those, also
    > working with each layer's type in any combination.


    Nice.
    What does that one cost?


    > Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
    > contact-pin on a CPU in focus.


    Sure:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r-HKzVpeg
    I was emphasizing the shallow DOF, intentionally.

    Of course I can always stop down if I want, just like a P&S:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4001765670/

    Or get the most out of a full frame shallow DOF stacked:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4146875199/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=stacked&w=21068427@N08
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 9, 2010
    #17
  18. Too Funny

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    Too Funny wrote:
    > Paul Furmanwrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
    >> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.

    >
    > All of them can reproduce that effect.


    How? What is it called? What's the purpose?


    > If you are willing to take just as
    > many convoluted steps as you do


    Get to work, boy.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 9, 2010
    #18
  19. Too Funny

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:52:22 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

    > I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
    > testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
    > people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
    > to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
    >
    >
    > "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
    >
    > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/4337905568_55c1e9cfa6_o.jpg
    >
    > Isn't this fun? :)


    I'd have thought there'd be a lot more to photo editing.
     
    ray, Feb 9, 2010
    #19
  20. Too Funny

    LOL! Guest

    Re: Problem solved:

    On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:56:06 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Too Funny wrote:
    >> Paul Furmanwrote:
    >>> Too Funny wrote:
    >>>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
    >>>>
    >>>> Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
    >>>> still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.
    >>>
    >>> Troll,
    >>> You have been shown to be mistaken in a very unambiguous way. Continuing
    >>> to pretend otherwise makes you look insane.
    >>>
    >>> The differences show different things resulting from different math, not
    >>> errors. Photoshop can do the math like the others if that's what one
    >>> desires. It seems more likely photoshop's odd looking version of the
    >>> chart is actually more useful, though I'm not at all sure about that.
    >>> That approach is certainly useful for some goals.
    >>>
    >>> Are you able to reproduce the photoshop 'mountain' effect in the other
    >>> programs? If not, they are the one's lacking.

    >
    >I'll take that as a no then.
    >
    >
    >>> Are you able to work in lab mode with the other programs?

    >>
    >> ...One of them
    >> allows you to work concurrently in RGB, CMYK, Lab, HSV on any layer on the
    >> same image as well as changing any tool's workspace to any of those, also
    >> working with each layer's type in any combination.

    >
    >Nice.
    >What does that one cost?
    >


    ~$75, depending on your country.

    >
    >> Show us your macrophotography again where you can't even get a whole
    >> contact-pin on a CPU in focus.

    >
    >Sure:
    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r-HKzVpeg
    >I was emphasizing the shallow DOF, intentionally.
    >


    LOL!!!!!!! Of course, this was "intentional". That's not what you claimed
    at the time. You were only making excuses.


    >Of course I can always stop down if I want, just like a P&S:
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4001765670/


    f/16 vs. f/90? Oh, that's just marvelous. Let's see what that converts to
    by shutter speed ....

    Well hell, that's a mere 5 EV stops difference! I'm sure that live insect
    in available-light conditions in order to capture its true colors and
    environment in natural detail will hang around that long for you to take
    that image.

    LOL!


    >
    >Or get the most out of a full frame shallow DOF stacked:
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4146875199/sizes/o/
    >http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=stacked&w=21068427@N08
    >


    I see. And NO other cameras on earth are capable of using this technique.

    LOL!

    However with the correct camera you wouldn't even need to. Or in extreme
    cases you would have to shoot and stack far less frames. The upside of
    using a CHDK capable P&S camera is that you can just hold down the shutter
    (or use a USB cable release) and have it click off sub-1mm increments for
    as many as you want. One CHDK script even lets you pick the near and far
    focus distances and then it automatically divides-up the number of
    focus-bracketed shots required so that all frames have the required amount
    of DOF for consecutive frames. Then there's not even one wasted frame for
    focus-stacking methods. It also takes into account the selected aperture at
    the time. F/3.5 and more shots are the results. F/5.6 and you get far
    fewer. What's that? You can't even take a decent macro image in available
    light with f/3.5? You're right, you can't.

    You really ARE an "X-Spurt"! Aren't you.

    LOL!

    I'd tell you of some freeware focus stacking software that beats anything
    commercially available, even better than the freeware CombineZM (excellent
    software, but limited). You're clearly just a beginner. I don't adopt
    apprentices as low on the ranks as you.

    LOL!

    That money for your clown-college money was well spent.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 9, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nuttin

    s9000 compared to i9100?

    nuttin, Sep 24, 2003, in forum: Printers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    246
    Ron Cohen
    Sep 25, 2003
  2. Pat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    197
  3. Morgan Ohlson

    Canon i560 new tank compared i850

    Morgan Ohlson, Dec 2, 2003, in forum: Printers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    313
  4. LOL!

    Re: Photoline vs. PhotoSlop

    LOL!, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Printers
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    657
  5. Too Funny
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    509
    Paul Furman
    Feb 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page