Photoshop Elements for Mac?

In article ,
John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

Personally, iPhoto would do pretty much everything you are currently doing and quite adequately. When (if) you decide to play around in greater detail, then you could get the Photoshop elements or similar program.

* John [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:33:55 -0800]:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.

A couple things to think about:

1. Photoshop Elements is not a universal binary. Meaning it doesn’t run native yet on Intel processors. For me that kills it. YMMV.

2. GraphicConverter does all you require, is universal binary, and according to what I hear the author is known for his excellent support. This is a highly-regarded product in the Mac community.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* John [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:33:55 -0800]:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.

A couple things to think about:

1. Photoshop Elements is not a universal binary. Meaning it doesn’t run native yet on Intel processors. For me that kills it. YMMV.
2. GraphicConverter does all you require, is universal binary, and according to what I hear the author is known for his excellent support. This is a highly-regarded product in the Mac community.

I’ve used PE at a pretty amateur level for several years (I’m considerably more into doing technically oriented vector graphics in Illustrator); and wouldn’t quarrel with any these "it’s OK, but you may not need it" opinions that have already been voiced.

One factor weighing in PE’s favor might be that PE + Illustrator + Acrobat do give you a pretty well-integrated all-Adobe environment for a PDF-centered work flow.

In article , John
wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

For what you say you want it to do, iPhoto will do what you want and more. iPhoto has also added a significant array of image correction capabilities in the past couple of versions (but those are also present even in Preview). iPhoto will be on the hard disk of any new Mac you purchase.

The last Mac version of Photoshop Elements was Version 4 — the Windows version is now at v6, and the Mac version is not native on Intel processors, so you’ll take a performance hit.

—
Spenser

In article ,
John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Don’t buy it until they haver an edition that can be used on your computer and operating system.

However, iPhoto which comes with your new Mac will be able to do everything you list.

If you need more, get Graphic Convertor which has just been upgraded to Mac OS 10.5.x. The virtue of GC is that the author keeps it up to date with several upgrades yearly at no cost. GC is not quite PSE, but getting close.

—
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine t

In article <151120071630050344%>,
sbt wrote:

The last Mac version of Photoshop Elements was Version 4 — the Windows version is now at v6, and the Mac version is not native on Intel processors, so you’ll take a performance hit.

The differences between PSE 6 for Wincrap and PSE 4 for Mac is covered by iPhoto. Adobe apparently felt that doing a total upgrade for Mac PSE was not necessary because the functions would be redundant.

—
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine t

In article
,
Ockham’s Razor wrote:

In article <151120071630050344%>,
sbt wrote:

The last Mac version of Photoshop Elements was Version 4 — the Windows version is now at v6, and the Mac version is not native on Intel processors, so you’ll take a performance hit.

The differences between PSE 6 for Wincrap and PSE 4 for Mac is covered by iPhoto. Adobe apparently felt that doing a total upgrade for Mac PSE was not necessary because the functions would be redundant.

Adobe has always introduced the Window’s version of Photoshop Elements first followed some 8 to 10 months latter with the Mac version, look for an Universal edition sometimes next year.

In article
, Gerry
wrote:

In article
,
Ockham’s Razor wrote:

In article <151120071630050344%>,
sbt wrote:

The last Mac version of Photoshop Elements was Version 4 — the Windows version is now at v6, and the Mac version is not native on Intel processors, so you’ll take a performance hit.

The differences between PSE 6 for Wincrap and PSE 4 for Mac is covered by iPhoto. Adobe apparently felt that doing a total upgrade for Mac PSE was not necessary because the functions would be redundant.

Adobe has always introduced the Window’s version of Photoshop Elements first followed some 8 to 10 months latter with the Mac version, look for an Universal edition sometimes next year.

PSE 3 and 4 were released for both platforms at the same time. Adobe chose not to do a Mac version of PSE 5 and, thus far, has not released or announced a Mac version of PSE 6 — the Windows version shipped in mid- to late September. Ars Technica has an article stating that a Mac version is due sometime in 2008, but I can’t find any such statement of intent at Adobe’s website (could have missed it, but I looked for quite a while).

—
Spenser

In article
, Ockham’s
Razor wrote:

In article ,
John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Don’t buy it until they haver an edition that can be used on your computer and operating system.

However, iPhoto which comes with your new Mac will be able to do everything you list.

If you need more, get Graphic Convertor which has just been upgraded to Mac OS 10.5.x. The virtue of GC is that the author keeps it up to date with several upgrades yearly at no cost. GC is not quite PSE, but getting close.

Just for full disclosure, most updates to GC are free, but the recent version 6 update was a paid update and there was one other paid update in the past (from 4.5 to 5.0, around the end of 2002). Lemke does a great job with the software and I have no regrets about any of my three payments, just wanted to make clear that, occasionally, a new version will be for $$ (not that many $, though).

—
Spenser

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* John [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:33:55 -0800]:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.

A couple things to think about:

1. Photoshop Elements is not a universal binary. Meaning it doesn’t run native yet on Intel processors. For me that kills it. YMMV.

Better tell my wife, since she’s running version 4 on her intel iMac. She was running PE 2 on it until a few weeks ago. And they’re a good deal faster on it that they were on her previous PPC Mac.

PE 4 runs nicely on my MacBook Pro, for that matter.

In , John wrote:

I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed,

If that is it, then iPhoto will be more than enough. When you buy a new Mac, you get the latest version of iLife (which includes iPhoto) for free. Otherwise, iLife (which includes iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and probably something I’ve forgotten about) is $99.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

If you are getting a new Mac with iLife already on it, I don’t see much reason to buy Elements.

-j

—
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

There are some issues with Elements for Mac: updates lag Windows versions and no version for Intel Macs. As others have suggested, Lemke Software’s GraphicConverter and iPhoto are good alternatives and better suited to Mac. If you have any ambition for a more extensive program, there is no-cost Gimp, which is an open-source project designed for Linux and ported to Mac.

—
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+= ====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+= ====+====++ NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse or protection.

In article <151120071749208865%>, sbt
wrote:

PSE 3 and 4 were released for both platforms at the same time. Adobe chose not to do a Mac version of PSE 5 and, thus far, has not released or announced a Mac version of PSE 6

they have announced it, to ship in 2008.

— the Windows version shipped in
mid- to late September. Ars Technica has an article stating that a Mac version is due sometime in 2008, but I can’t find any such statement of intent at Adobe’s website (could have missed it, but I looked for quite a while).

< http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/2007 09/092407PS E6.html>

<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0709/07092401pse6.asp>

* Steve Hix [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:02:27 -0800]:

1. Photoshop Elements is not a universal binary. Meaning it doesn’t run native yet on Intel processors. For me that kills it. YMMV.

Better tell my wife, since she’s running version 4 on her intel iMac. She was running PE 2 on it until a few weeks ago. And they’re a good deal faster on it that they were on her previous PPC Mac.

The key word here is "native". I don’t debate that Photoshop runs on Intel Macs… but it runs under Rosetta.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

Many thanks to all who responded. Here is what I learned and how I’m proceeding.

I looked at iPhoto, but it seems to be mostly about presenting photo albums, and short on single picture editing. I was shocked when I started to import a few photos from a selected directory and it sucked in a whole directory tree of them in at once! I selected and deleted all the copies.

It turns out that Mac Preview itself is quite capable, letting you rotate photos and even convert among file types.

Scaling the photo seems to be missing from both. iPhoto has a scaling, but it seems to be only for the view, no way to save the changed file. It looks like you can make a smaller file if you want to email it to yourself, but it uses Apple Mail and I don’t (Thunderbird), and the preference choices don’t seem to allow Thunderbird as a choice.

A Mac Tiger tips book I have say you can scale a picture by using Automator’s "Scale Image" Action under Preview. Now Automator looks real cool for scripting, but it would take me some time to figure it out, and all I really want to do now is edit single photos.

So… at least one person mentioned Gimp. I’m an old UNIX geek, so I’ve heard about Gimp for a long time, just never needed it because I already had packages that did what I wanted. I’ve decided to go Gimp on my mostly open source Mac OS X laptop. I’m already running it now under Mac Leopard. I got an Intel DMG from:

http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/

(already had X11 running because I use OpenOffice). So I no longer need Photoshop Elements. 🙂

But I am now heading to Borders for a book on Gimp. Hopefully my last photo editing program… 🙂

Thanks to all,
John

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

In , John wrote:

I looked at iPhoto, but it seems to be mostly about presenting photo albums,

It is.

and short on single picture editing.

It isn’t with respect to the kinds of things you were talking about. Did you actually try the editing features?

-j

—
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Steve Hix [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:02:27 -0800]:

1. Photoshop Elements is not a universal binary. Meaning it doesn’t run native yet on Intel processors. For me that kills it. YMMV.

Better tell my wife, since she’s running version 4 on her intel iMac. She was running PE 2 on it until a few weeks ago. And they’re a good deal faster on it that they were on her previous PPC Mac.

The key word here is "native". I don’t debate that Photoshop runs on Intel Macs… but it runs under Rosetta.

The problem here is your implication that running under Rosetta makes it too slow to be useful.

Which is not the case. (Well, it might be if you’re trying to use it for very large tasks that really require Photoshop CS3, but that would not be the fault of PSE.)

For PSE-scale work, running the current version on intel Macs doesn’t penalize you, compared with using the same application on a typical PPC Mac.

I did try it briefly last night. I may be wrong, but I think it wasn’t able to scale a photo down in file size for emailing other than through Apple Mail and sending it to myself. I use
Thunderbird (never configured Apple Mail) so I couldn’t try it out. I was also surprised that it had no "save as…" for other picture formats, but quickly found that Preview does, so that wasn’t a problem.

But, I’ve installed Gimp now. And I was successful today in getting a Gimp book from Borders. It is a heavy weight photo editing program, but does everything I want and much more, and is free. I can do the few things I need now, and I have a good upgrade path to learning more features because it is now all at my fingertips.

Thanks, John

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

In , John wrote:

I looked at iPhoto, but it seems to be mostly about presenting photo albums,

It is.

and short on single picture editing.

It isn’t with respect to the kinds of things you were talking about. Did you actually try the editing features?

-j

Ockham’s Razor wrote:

If you need more, get Graphic Convertor which has just been upgraded to Mac OS 10.5.x. The virtue of GC is that the author keeps it up to date with several upgrades yearly at no cost. GC is not quite PSE, but getting close.

It would be quite wrong to represent GraphicConverter as a poor man’s Photsohop. Though they share many features for manipulating images there are probably more features which GC has that phoshop hasn’t got than features that Photoshop has that GC doesn’t have. Personally I choose to use both in different circumstances.

—
Adrian

John wrote:

I did try it briefly last night. I may be wrong, but I think it wasn’t able to scale a photo down in file size for emailing other than through Apple Mail and sending it to myself.

iPhoto’s rescaling function is cunningly disguised as its Export function– you get to specify the dimensions of photos when you export them. I don’t think there’s any other way to rescale in iPhoto, in v6 at least.

Apple Mail, as I think you’ve also discovered, also offers you the option to resize any photos you attach to an email, but not with any great precision (just small, medium, large or actual size).

I’m very much a GIMP fan too, though 🙂

In article <1i7p1c5.1vf51cu1jzb4jjN%>, Adrian
wrote:

Ockham’s Razor wrote:

If you need more, get Graphic Convertor which has just been upgraded to Mac OS 10.5.x. The virtue of GC is that the author keeps it up to date with several upgrades yearly at no cost. GC is not quite PSE, but getting close.

It would be quite wrong to represent GraphicConverter as a poor man’s Photsohop. Though they share many features for manipulating images there are probably more features which GC has that phoshop hasn’t got than features that Photoshop has that GC doesn’t have. Personally I choose to use both in different circumstances.

graphic converter doesn’t even come close to what photoshop can do.

In , John wrote:

But, I’ve installed Gimp now. And I was successful today in getting a Gimp book from Borders. It is a heavy weight photo editing program, but does everything I want and much more, and is free.

The Gimp certainly will have all the power you need. Best wishes with it.

I can do the few things I need now, and I have a good upgrade path to learning more features because it is now all at my fingertips.

Yep.

Best wishes with it,

-j

—
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/

And I found this link on one of the newsgroups today:

http://meetthegimp.org/

19 video podcasts on Gimp, with more to come. I guess
I didn’t need to buy the book! 😉 Aren’t open source
software and its community just wonderful! 🙂

John

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

In , John wrote:

But, I’ve installed Gimp now. And I was successful today in getting a Gimp book from Borders. It is a heavy weight photo editing program, but does everything I want and much more, and is free.

The Gimp certainly will have all the power you need. Best wishes with it.

I can do the few things I need now, and I have a good upgrade path to learning more features because it is now all at my fingertips.

Yep.

Best wishes with it,

-j

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

In , John wrote:

I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed,

If that is it, then iPhoto will be more than enough. When you buy a new Mac, you get the latest version of iLife (which includes iPhoto) for free. Otherwise, iLife (which includes iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and probably something I’ve forgotten about) is $99.

iWeb is the component you forgot, and it is only US$79 for the whole iLife package. A family pack (for up to five computers in one household) is US$99.

—
David Empson

In <1i7qgqn.1uafx2uf9iudoN%>, David Empson wrote:

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

If that is it, then iPhoto will be more than enough. When you buy a new Mac, you get the latest version of iLife (which includes iPhoto) for free. Otherwise, iLife (which includes iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and probably something I’ve forgotten about) is $99.

iWeb is the component you forgot, and it is only US$79 for the whole iLife package. A family pack (for up to five computers in one household) is US$99.

Thank you for correcting all the misinformation I’ve been spreading.

Cheers,

-j

—
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

In <1i7qgqn.1uafx2uf9iudoN%>, David Empson wrote:

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

If that is it, then iPhoto will be more than enough. When you buy a new Mac, you get the latest version of iLife (which includes iPhoto) for free. Otherwise, iLife (which includes iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and probably something I’ve forgotten about) is $99.

iWeb is the component you forgot, and it is only US$79 for the whole iLife package. A family pack (for up to five computers in one household) is US$99.

Thank you for correcting all the misinformation I’ve been spreading.

Thanks for the good chuckle. 🙂

—
David Empson

As others have said, iPhoto does some of what you describe, and it is free with every new Mac. otoh, my wife uses PE and loves it, while I use CS3 and wouldn’t settle for anything less.

The best bet is probably to get the Mac and try the free software. If you feel you miss the interface you are familiar with, buy PE. It only costs $100, so isn’t that hard a purchase if you decide you want to have familiarity or simply miss some of the middle-advanced stuff it can do.

And ignore anyone here that says it has performance issues. If you are buying a new Mac, it will run as well or better than it did on your old PC. You will certainly not feel any penalty, unless you are working with mondo images that really require CS3 anyway (which is native).

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

nospam wrote:

In article <1i7p1c5.1vf51cu1jzb4jjN%>, Adrian
wrote:

Ockham’s Razor wrote:

If you need more, get Graphic Convertor which has just been upgraded to Mac OS 10.5.x. The virtue of GC is that the author keeps it up to date with several upgrades yearly at no cost. GC is not quite PSE, but getting close.

It would be quite wrong to represent GraphicConverter as a poor man’s Photsohop. Though they share many features for manipulating images there are probably more features which GC has that phoshop hasn’t got than features that Photoshop has that GC doesn’t have. Personally I choose to use both in different circumstances.

graphic converter doesn’t even come close to what photoshop can do.

I don’t think you understood my post. I’ll try a different way.

Photoshop and Graphicconverter are not directly comparable applications. Photoshop can indeed do lots of things that GC can’t do. However, Graphicconverter can do lots of things that Photoshop can’t do. They are both excellent pieces of software and some features happen to be common to both. What you want to achieve with the apps should determine the choice rather than some inappropriate notion of one application being better than the other.

It’s a bit like comparing 2 different vehicle types. Is a sports car better than a truck? Well, they can both transport you along the road, but you could only say which was better if you had a specific purpose in mind. If you wanted to move half a ton of cement the truck would be better, whereas if you needed speed and agility on a twisting mountain road to get to your destination in a quick time and in some style you would choose the sports car as better. (Oh, if you are still stuck in your concrete thinking mode I am not saying that GC or PS is equivalent to one or other of those particular vehicles!)

—
Adrian

John wrote:

I did try it briefly last night. I may be wrong, but I think it wasn’t able to scale a photo down in file size for emailing other than through Apple Mail and sending it to myself. I use
Thunderbird (never configured Apple Mail) so I couldn’t try it out. I was also surprised that it had no "save as…" for other picture formats, but quickly found that Preview does, so that wasn’t a problem.

You can choose the photos to scale and export them as JPEGs to a folder of your choice. You then have the opportunity to enter the scaling factor….I do this all the time with iPhoto. I think it changed in the iLife08 menu where the export is but you should be able to find it easily.

But, I’ve installed Gimp now. And I was successful today in getting a Gimp book from Borders. It is a heavy weight photo editing program, but does everything I want and much more, and is free. I can do the few things I need now, and I have a good upgrade path to learning more features because it is now all at my fingertips.

Gimp is sort of in between the lightweight apps and Photoshop. It’s good, much improved over the years and free, as you note.

Thanks, John

On 11/16/07 5:54 PM, "John" wrote:

I did try it briefly last night. I may be wrong, but I think it wasn’t able to scale a photo down in file size for emailing other than through Apple Mail and sending it to myself. I use
Thunderbird (never configured Apple Mail) so I couldn’t try it out.

Then you need to set the Preferences setting for the email client that you prefer.

I was also surprised that it had no "save as…"

Look under the File -> Export menu. If you select export to a file in JPEG format, you can then pick between several quality settings as well as custom sizes.

* Burt Johnson [Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:44:40 -0800]:

And ignore anyone here that says it has performance issues. If you are buying a new Mac, it will run as well or better than it did on your old PC. You will certainly not feel any penalty, unless you are working with mondo images that really require CS3 anyway (which is native).

I don’t think anyone here said it had performance issues. I just said that not being Universal Binary means I won’t buy it. Others may or may not have the same criteria.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

Elden Fenison wrote:

* Burt Johnson [Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:44:40 -0800]:

And ignore anyone here that says it has performance issues. If you are buying a new Mac, it will run as well or better than it did on your old PC. You will certainly not feel any penalty, unless you are working with mondo images that really require CS3 anyway (which is native).

I don’t think anyone here said it had performance issues. I just said that not being Universal Binary means I won’t buy it. Others may or may not have the same criteria.

Huh??? Other than performance issues, why in the world would you care what form the binary is???

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Robert Haar wrote:

On 11/16/07 5:54 PM, "John" wrote:

I did try it briefly last night. I may be wrong, but I think it wasn’t able to scale a photo down in file size for emailing other than through Apple Mail and sending it to myself. I use
Thunderbird (never configured Apple Mail) so I couldn’t try it out.

Then you need to set the Preferences setting for the email client that you prefer.

The iphoto preferences only let me choose Mail or Microsoft Entourage, my Thunderbird isn’t recognized. (there are Eudora and another greyed out since they aren’t installed either). Is there another place for Mail preferences? I just looked in System Preferences and saw none.

I was also surprised that it had no "save as…"

Look under the File -> Export menu. If you select export to a file in JPEG format, you can then pick between several quality settings as well as custom sizes.

Ah, yes, the Export function has been pointed out. Thanks!

John

Robert Haar wrote:

I did try it briefly last night. I may be wrong, but I think it wasn’t able to scale a photo down in file size for emailing other than through Apple Mail and sending it to myself. I use
Thunderbird (never configured Apple Mail) so I couldn’t try it out.

Then you need to set the Preferences setting for the email client that you prefer.

Well, as long as the one he prefers is Mail, AOL, Eudora or Entourage, that is.

—
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts

* Burt Johnson [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:38:57 -0800]:

Huh??? Other than performance issues, why in the world would you care what form the binary is???

I rather doubt I can answer that to your satisfaction.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

Elden Fenison wrote:

Huh??? Other than performance issues, why in the world would you care what form the binary is???

I rather doubt I can answer that to your satisfaction.

I don’t know what his satisfaction, or mine for that matter, has to do with it. Speaking only for myself, I’m just curious to know why you care one way or the other.

—
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Burt Johnson [Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:44:40 -0800]:

And ignore anyone here that says it has performance issues. If you are buying a new Mac, it will run as well or better than it did on your old PC. You will certainly not feel any penalty, unless you are working with mondo images that really require CS3 anyway (which is native).

I don’t think anyone here said it had performance issues. I just said that not being Universal Binary means I won’t buy it. Others may or may not have the same criteria.

criterion.

* Mike Rosenberg [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:46:20 -0800]:

I don’t know what his satisfaction, or mine for that matter, has to do with it. Speaking only for myself, I’m just curious to know why you care one way or the other.

I’m sorry, but I figured anyone who needed to ask that question probably doesn’t get it. This is not that hard.

Native code > non-native code.

The extent to which this is relevant to someone will generally depend on the person making the choice. I consider it to be relevant. If you don’t, then swell. Your choice. 🙂

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

* Tim Streater [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:55:59 -0800]:

criterion.

My apologies to the grammar police.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

Elden Fenison wrote:

* Mike Rosenberg [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:46:20 -0800]:

I don’t know what his satisfaction, or mine for that matter, has to do with it. Speaking only for myself, I’m just curious to know why you care one way or the other.

I’m sorry, but I figured anyone who needed to ask that question probably doesn’t get it. This is not that hard.

Native code > non-native code.

The extent to which this is relevant to someone will generally depend on the person making the choice. I consider it to be relevant. If you don’t, then swell. Your choice. 🙂

Really strange, to say the least…

Do you care if the program is written in C, C++, Pascal or Java too? Do you care if it is calling the graphics card (GPU) to render images vs the CPU?

Personally I care that the program has a good user experience — which includes both UI design and performace. If they can do that by writing assembly or Snobol, I couldn’t care less, much less what kind of system call is going on under the hood.

Oh well, your choice. As long as it is clear to anyone else making a PE decision that your recommendation is based on superstition and chicken entrails rather than anything remotely rational or useful to the OP.

—
– Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Tim Streater [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:55:59 -0800]:

criterion.

My apologies to the grammar police.

That’ll be a surprise to them – the *spelling* police are the ones expecting apologies in this case.

: D

—
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to this address so that your email doesn’t get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

* Jolly Roger [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:08:39 -0800]:

That’ll be a surprise to them – the *spelling* police are the ones expecting apologies in this case.

You know, I really did expect a reply like this. However, considering I didn’t misspell a word… I doubt the spelling police would care much. The fact that I used the wrong word would make it a grammar issue would it not?

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

* Burt Johnson [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:57:45 -0800]:

Oh well, your choice. As long as it is clear to anyone else making a PE decision that your recommendation is based on superstition and chicken entrails rather than anything remotely rational or useful to the OP.

Well, I can see you don’t care much for opinions other than your own. Must be nice being right about everything.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

* Burt Johnson [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:57:45 -0800]:

Oh well, your choice. As long as it is clear to anyone else making a PE decision that your recommendation is based on superstition and chicken entrails rather than anything remotely rational or useful to the OP.

I will also say, that at least 5 other posters mentioned the non-native aspect of PE. So apparently it does matter to some people.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Jolly Roger [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:08:39 -0800]:

That’ll be a surprise to them – the *spelling* police are the ones expecting apologies in this case.

You know, I really did expect a reply like this. However, considering I didn’t misspell a word… I doubt the spelling police would care much. The fact that I used the wrong word would make it a grammar issue would it not?

I guess that depends on your view point. Either way, it was just a joke. Lighten up. ; )

—
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to this address so that your email doesn’t get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Jolly Roger [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:08:39 -0800]:

That’ll be a surprise to them – the *spelling* police are the ones expecting apologies in this case.

You know, I really did expect a reply like this. However, considering I didn’t misspell a word… I doubt the spelling police would care much. The fact that I used the wrong word would make it a grammar issue would it not?

Not quite sure. You used the plural as a singular:

criterion – singular
criteria – plural

Usually people use "criteria" where either would fit so it doesn’t stick out. Unlike where people mean to use "e.g." but use "i.e." instead. But I’ll leave them to the Romans (cue Monty Python).

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Burt Johnson [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:57:45 -0800]:

Oh well, your choice. As long as it is clear to anyone else making a PE decision that your recommendation is based on superstition and chicken entrails rather than anything remotely rational or useful to the OP.

I will also say, that at least 5 other posters mentioned the non-native aspect of PE. So apparently it does matter to some people.

I think from my PoV, while everything seems to run OK in Rosetta, Apple will junk that too at some stage. So while I wouldn’t mind running e.g. PE under Rosetta in the short term, unfortunately V2 doesn’t run under Leopard. I shall therefore likely use Graphic Converter until v6 comes out next year and get that – unless GC can process RAW images??

* Tim Streater [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:16:54 -0800]:

I think from my PoV, while everything seems to run OK in Rosetta, Apple will junk that too at some stage. So while I wouldn’t mind running e.g. PE under Rosetta in the short term, unfortunately V2 doesn’t run under Leopard. I shall therefore likely use Graphic Converter until v6 comes out next year and get that – unless GC can process RAW images??

Yes, that’s sort of what I’m doing as well. I already owned both Graphic Converter and Photoshop Elements. Graphic Converter went universal binary within days of the introduction of the first Intel Macs. Because it meets most of my needs, it doesn’t hurt me at all to wait until there is a universal binary version of Photoshop Elements.

I do run some non-universal programs. I’m currently posting this in Hogwasher, which I believe to be non-universal. And I also use Quicken and Accordance… neither of which are universal. But these apps really have no equivalent (unless someone wants to get into a war over which usenet client I prefer).

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

* Tim Streater [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:11:10 -0800]:

Not quite sure. You used the plural as a singular:

criterion – singular
criteria – plural

Usually people use "criteria" where either would fit so it doesn’t stick out. Unlike where people mean to use "e.g." but use "i.e." instead. But I’ll leave them to the Romans (cue Monty Python).

Heh. That reminds me of a recent post I saw on Digg. It was about 10 words that don’t mean what most people think they mean. Or rather words like "ironic" that are widely misused.

I am guilty. I did not know there were different singular/plural words for criteria/criterion.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Elden Fenison wrote:

* Burt Johnson [Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:57:45 -0800]:

Oh well, your choice. As long as it is clear to anyone else making a PE decision that your recommendation is based on superstition and chicken entrails rather than anything remotely rational or useful to the OP.

I will also say, that at least 5 other posters mentioned the non-native aspect of PE. So apparently it does matter to some people.

I think from my PoV, while everything seems to run OK in Rosetta, Apple will junk that too at some stage. So while I wouldn’t mind running e.g. PE under Rosetta in the short term, unfortunately V2 doesn’t run under Leopard. I shall therefore likely use Graphic Converter until v6 comes out next year and get that – unless GC can process RAW images??

It can; from the user guide:
GraphicConverter supports a lot of raw formats of digital camers like CRW, MRW etc. You define in this dialog the correction values for the raw photo import of digital cameras. The imported images may be look a bit different than the files that are directly imported by the raw decoder of the manufacturer because we have not the exact values for the color corrections.

—
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

Hi John
If you have an eligble version of windows run bootcamp and use your existing elements
on the new mac.
Denis

Denis wrote:

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

Hi John
If you have an eligble version of windows run bootcamp and use your existing elements
on the new mac.
Denis

I went with Gimp. Free. And not a trace of Windoze.

Thanks, John

John wrote:

Denis wrote:

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

Hi John
If you have an eligble version of windows run bootcamp and use your existing elements
on the new mac.
Denis

I went with Gimp. Free. And not a trace of Windoze.

Thanks, John

Hi John
Personally I wouldnt touch Leopard with a barge pole.
"This is something I never thought I’d hear myself say – or maybe I should say, see myself type – about an Apple operating system: Mac OSX Leopard was released before it was ready. This operating system needed more testing on more systems with more hardware, and especially, more software configurations. The days of Apple computers operating with just the Mac OS and Adobe Photoshop installed, and practically nothing else to speak of, are long gone, and Apple knows this as well as anyone. This operating system was not properly beta tested, and Apple’s customers are paying for it, with lost productivity and inoperative computers."

Denis

Denis wrote:

Hi John
Personally I wouldnt touch Leopard with a barge pole.
"This is something I never thought I’d hear myself say – or maybe I should say, see myself type – about an Apple operating system: Mac OSX Leopard was released before it was ready. This operating system needed more testing on more systems with more hardware, and especially, more software configurations. The days of Apple computers operating with just the Mac OS and Adobe Photoshop installed, and practically nothing else to speak of, are long gone, and Apple knows this as well as anyone. This operating system was not properly beta tested, and Apple’s customers are paying for it, with lost productivity and inoperative computers."

Can’t say I’m really hearing any more complaints about it than there were about Tiger. It was at least six months after 10.4.0 was released before I could use it exclusively on my production machine.

In article
<474ae28e$0$19762$>,
"Denis" wrote:

Personally I wouldnt touch Leopard with a barge pole.

It is a real pity that several major application companies (including Microsoft, Adobe) did not update their codebase to take advantage of the facilities Apple have been putting into the OS X line of operating systems. While Leopard has some minor issues (all of which were able to be worked around in a short time), it seems obvious that many developers will be producing stunning versions of their programs under Leopard. These programs will probably not run on earlier versions of OS X.

I suspect some major companies will find their products irrelevant (or at least, too expensive relative to newer competitors leveraging off OS X technologies) in a very short time.

—
http://www.ericlindsay.com

* Denis [Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:13:22 -0800]:

This operating system was not properly beta tested, and Apple’s customers are paying for it, with lost productivity and inoperative computers."

I think you should go back and complain to whomever fed you this line of BS.

—
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

I really like PE. It is a good alternative for me since I do quick and dirty background erases and resolution resampling. Save for web is great. The automatic color correction for red eye and skin color helps me save lots of time. Cloneing gets wierd sometimes if you need lots, but the healing patch bandaid button works great for large spaces.
christina

"Denis" wrote in message

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

Hi John
If you have an eligble version of windows run bootcamp and use your existing elements
on the new mac.
Denis

In article <1i7qvlq.1vdbo2gwukpyeN%>,
(Burt Johnson) wrote:

Do you care if the program is written in C, C++, Pascal or Java too?

<Rolls eyes because I can’t believe I actually care about this>

In article ,
John wrote:

Many thanks to all who responded. Here is what I learned and how I’m proceeding.

I looked at iPhoto, but it seems to be mostly about presenting photo albums, and short on single picture editing. I was shocked when I started to import a few photos from a selected directory and it sucked in a whole directory tree of them in at once! I selected and deleted all the copies.

It turns out that Mac Preview itself is quite capable, letting you rotate photos and even convert among file types.

Scaling the photo seems to be missing from both. iPhoto has a scaling, but it seems to be only for the view, no way to save the changed file. It looks like you can make a smaller file if you want to email it to yourself, but it uses Apple Mail and I don’t (Thunderbird), and the preference choices don’t seem to allow Thunderbird as a choice.
A Mac Tiger tips book I have say you can scale a picture by using Automator’s "Scale Image" Action under Preview. Now Automator looks real cool for scripting, but it would take me some time to figure it out, and all I really want to do now is edit single photos.
So… at least one person mentioned Gimp. I’m an old UNIX geek, so I’ve heard about Gimp for a long time, just never needed it because I already had packages that did what I wanted. I’ve decided to go Gimp on my mostly open source Mac OS X laptop. I’m already running it now under Mac Leopard. I got an Intel DMG from:

http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/

(already had X11 running because I use OpenOffice). So I no longer need Photoshop Elements. 🙂

But I am now heading to Borders for a book on Gimp. Hopefully my last photo editing program… 🙂

Thanks to all,
John

John wrote:

I am leaving Windoze for Mac OS Leopard and need to decide whether to buy the Mac version of Photoshop Elements. I haven’t yet explored the photographic applications already in Mac OS X.
I pretty much only use PE to rotate, resize, and scale photos so they can be emailed, but always thought I’d eventually get to its more advanced features.

I’m open to opinions on whether I need (should buy) Photoshop Elements for the Mac or not?

Thanks, John

<http://www.xtralean.com/>

There you will find a tiny, quite extraordinary freeware program called "Image Well" that does just about everything you have requested (when combined with iPhoto). I keep it in my Dock for the rare times iPhoto or GraphicConverter are too cumbersome for the job.

It turns out that Mac Preview itself is quite capable, letting you rotate photos and even convert among file types.

Does it really rotate the image so that it remains rotated for web publishing? Or is it just noted to be viewed as rotated for Preview? IOW, it’s not really rotating the image for practical uses outside of Preview.

In article , <pico> wrote:

It turns out that Mac Preview itself is quite capable, letting you rotate photos and even convert among file types.

Does it really rotate the image so that it remains rotated for web publishing? Or is it just noted to be viewed as rotated for Preview? IOW, it’s not really rotating the image for practical uses outside of Preview.

Yes. When you close the file, Preview asks if you want to save your changes.