May I know where to find these programs?
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
I have 2 questions for the gurus:
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
platform.
B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.
But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
grainy.
Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
And yes, I am willing to buy it.
Thank you all for your help !!
Best regards.
  |
  |
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
eliminate or reduce them.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
snip
> Best regards.
In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
| |
|
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> found these unused words:
>aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi !
>>
>> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>>
>> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
>> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
>> bit.
>>
>> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
>> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
>If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
>a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
>eliminate or reduce them.
Halftones are best dealt with during the scanning process as IF your scanner
has such capabilities, it makes the scan at maximum optical, applies the
halftone routine [there are several, plus some allow you to specify the
screen] and then resamples [which it does anyway] to your specified ppi
setting.
>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>
>snip
>> Best regards.
>
>In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
>Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
>for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
>aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi !
>>
>> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>>
>> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
>> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
>> bit.
>>
>> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
>> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
>If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
>a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
>eliminate or reduce them.
Halftones are best dealt with during the scanning process as IF your scanner
has such capabilities, it makes the scan at maximum optical, applies the
halftone routine [there are several, plus some allow you to specify the
screen] and then resamples [which it does anyway] to your specified ppi
setting.
>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>
>snip
>> Best regards.
>
>In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
>Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
>for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
| |
|
In article
<41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
> Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
Sounds like you need a better scanner. If you scan at 1200 dpi, a 1.5
inch photo becomes 6 inches at 300 dpi. Unless of course the original is
grainy to start. If you can see more detail in the original under a
magnifying glass than with your naked eye, a better scanner would do it.
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
<41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
> Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
Sounds like you need a better scanner. If you scan at 1200 dpi, a 1.5
inch photo becomes 6 inches at 300 dpi. Unless of course the original is
grainy to start. If you can see more detail in the original under a
magnifying glass than with your naked eye, a better scanner would do it.
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
| |
|
"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
> In article
> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP
news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
> In article
> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP
| |
|
>>
>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>
>
>Correct.
>
>What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>convert all of them to tif
>
>then edit the tif
>
A JPG converted to TIFF does not contain any more color space than a
jpg. Of course it is better editing a tif than editing a jpg, but the
tif/jpg stories are exaggerated like the Mac vs PC stories.
I keep my valuable photos in tif but only the real special one's.
You editing get done in PSD (or not?) So, what is the bloody
difference when converting a jpg to psd and saving it as jpg?
Unless of course there is a possibility of re-editing.
All that can happen to a jpg on a CD is the CD to pack up.
And of course, the tiff will also be goodbye.
I am sure people are jumping on the jpg/tiff wagon
without knowing anything about the engine this
wagon is running on.
>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>
>
>Correct.
>
>What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>convert all of them to tif
>
>then edit the tif
>
A JPG converted to TIFF does not contain any more color space than a
jpg. Of course it is better editing a tif than editing a jpg, but the
tif/jpg stories are exaggerated like the Mac vs PC stories.
I keep my valuable photos in tif but only the real special one's.
You editing get done in PSD (or not?) So, what is the bloody
difference when converting a jpg to psd and saving it as jpg?
Unless of course there is a possibility of re-editing.
All that can happen to a jpg on a CD is the CD to pack up.
And of course, the tiff will also be goodbye.
I am sure people are jumping on the jpg/tiff wagon
without knowing anything about the engine this
wagon is running on.
| |
|
aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
> as I can.
>
> In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
> resizing, and whatnot.
>
> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
> platform.
I've used Paint Shop Pro for years. Today, Photoshop
Elements may be a better choice. There are more powerful
programs, but thay take longer to learn. You can find free
trial versions of both on the Web. And a free program
called Gimp is highkly recommended.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
> Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
>
> But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
> such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
> grainy.
Scanning at too high a resolution doesn't catch any more
detail, as you've found. 250 to 300 pixels per inch is
enough for normal photographic ptints.
>
> Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
> pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
"happens" in movies and TV shows. And too much
interpolation can cause artifacts in the image. I use
interpolation only to double the number of pixels 2X in the
width and height of the image.
>
> If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
>
> And yes, I am willing to buy it.
>
> Thank you all for your help !!
>
> Best regards.
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
> as I can.
>
> In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
> resizing, and whatnot.
>
> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
> platform.
I've used Paint Shop Pro for years. Today, Photoshop
Elements may be a better choice. There are more powerful
programs, but thay take longer to learn. You can find free
trial versions of both on the Web. And a free program
called Gimp is highkly recommended.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
> Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
>
> But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
> such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
> grainy.
Scanning at too high a resolution doesn't catch any more
detail, as you've found. 250 to 300 pixels per inch is
enough for normal photographic ptints.
>
> Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
> pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
"happens" in movies and TV shows. And too much
interpolation can cause artifacts in the image. I use
interpolation only to double the number of pixels 2X in the
width and height of the image.
>
> If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
>
> And yes, I am willing to buy it.
>
> Thank you all for your help !!
>
> Best regards.
| |
|
Don Stauffer wrote:
<->
> If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
> a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
> eliminate or reduce them.
Scan software usually has a "descreen" filter, if that's what you're
referring to. Results are somewhat variable. However if you have a
special screen measurement ruler you can determine the screen pitch and
enter that into the filter parameters for very good results.
<->
>
> In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
> Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
> for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
I believe you have to do "descreening" at scan time.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
<->
> If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
> a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
> eliminate or reduce them.
Scan software usually has a "descreen" filter, if that's what you're
referring to. Results are somewhat variable. However if you have a
special screen measurement ruler you can determine the screen pitch and
enter that into the filter parameters for very good results.
<->
>
> In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
> Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
> for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
I believe you have to do "descreening" at scan time.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
| |
|
philo wrote:
> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>> In article
>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>
>
> Correct.
>
> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
> convert all of them to tif
>
> then edit the tif
>
> A very good free program is GIMP
Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>> In article
>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>
>
> Correct.
>
> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
> convert all of them to tif
>
> then edit the tif
>
> A very good free program is GIMP
Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
| |
|
Marvin wrote:
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
> TV shows.
But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
the image technician:
"Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
> TV shows.
But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
the image technician:
"Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
| |
|
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> philo wrote:
>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>> In article
>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>> convert all of them to tif
>>
>> then edit the tif
>>
>> A very good free program is GIMP
>
> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
>
I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
make much difference <G>
news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> philo wrote:
>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>> In article
>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>> convert all of them to tif
>>
>> then edit the tif
>>
>> A very good free program is GIMP
>
> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
>
I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
make much difference <G>
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>philo wrote:
>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>> In article
>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>> convert all of them to tif
>>
>> then edit the tif
>>
>> A very good free program is GIMP
>
>Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
You're an idiot.
>A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>philo wrote:
>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>> In article
>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>> convert all of them to tif
>>
>> then edit the tif
>>
>> A very good free program is GIMP
>
>Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
You're an idiot.
>A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
| |
|
philo wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> philo wrote:
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>>
>>
>
> I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.
>
> GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
>
> so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
> make much difference <G>
I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> philo wrote:
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>>
>>
>
> I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.
>
> GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
>
> so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
> make much difference <G>
I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
| |
|
On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article
ufvd055e1d7n89cous84ff7abtnhfhrl51@isp5.newshosting.com, "Voivod"
<Voi@vod.con> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>
>> philo wrote:
>>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>
>>> then edit the tif
>>>
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
> A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
>
You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...
ufvd055e1d7n89cous84ff7abtnhfhrl51@isp5.newshosting.com, "Voivod"
<Voi@vod.con> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>
>> philo wrote:
>>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>
>>> then edit the tif
>>>
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
> A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
>
You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...
| |
|
George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article
> ufvd055e1d7n89cous84ff7abtnhfhrl51@isp5.newshosting.com, "Voivod"
> <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>>
>>> philo wrote:
>>>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>>
>>>> then edit the tif
>>>>
>>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>> A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
>>
> You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
> your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...
>
You could take care re cross posting, and/or set followups to one group.
>
>
> On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article
> ufvd055e1d7n89cous84ff7abtnhfhrl51@isp5.newshosting.com, "Voivod"
> <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>>
>>> philo wrote:
>>>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>>
>>>> then edit the tif
>>>>
>>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>> A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
>>
> You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
> your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...
>
You could take care re cross posting, and/or set followups to one group.
| |
|
<aicnevivnoc@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi !
>
>I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
>A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
>them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
>bit.
"digitizing"
>You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
>figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
>As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
>Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
>as I can.
Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
cheap flatbed scanners. The point being that it's silly to worry
about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.
And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect. Many
operations do not "throw away" any details. Rotation on 90 degree
increments, for example. Cleaning, by definition, throws away
information about the dirt.
>In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
>quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
>resizing, and whatnot.
>
>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
Photoshop.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
>Hi !
>
>I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
>A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
>them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
>bit.
"digitizing"
>You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
>figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
>As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
>Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
>as I can.
Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
cheap flatbed scanners. The point being that it's silly to worry
about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.
And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect. Many
operations do not "throw away" any details. Rotation on 90 degree
increments, for example. Cleaning, by definition, throws away
information about the dirt.
>In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
>quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
>resizing, and whatnot.
>
>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
Photoshop.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700, aicnevivnoc wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of them
> dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
That's true of JPEG images which feature 'lossy' compression - if you use
a 'lossless' format such as tiff, that will not happen.
>
> Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much as
> I can.
>
> In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning, resizing,
> and whatnot.
Has much more to do with image format rather than software.
>
> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix platform.
You can certainly buy if you want, but if that's what you want to do, I'd
certainly try GIMP first - it's free.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL. Like
> 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
>
> But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension, such
> as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very grainy.
>
> Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
> pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
No. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you want more
resolution, you'll need a higher resolution scanner.
>
> If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
>
> And yes, I am willing to buy it.
>
> Thank you all for your help !!
>
> Best regards.
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of them
> dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
That's true of JPEG images which feature 'lossy' compression - if you use
a 'lossless' format such as tiff, that will not happen.
>
> Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much as
> I can.
>
> In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning, resizing,
> and whatnot.
Has much more to do with image format rather than software.
>
> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix platform.
You can certainly buy if you want, but if that's what you want to do, I'd
certainly try GIMP first - it's free.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL. Like
> 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
>
> But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension, such
> as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very grainy.
>
> Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
> pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
No. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you want more
resolution, you'll need a higher resolution scanner.
>
> If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
>
> And yes, I am willing to buy it.
>
> Thank you all for your help !!
>
> Best regards.
| |
|
Alan Browne wrote:
> philo wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> philo wrote:
>
>>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
>
> So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.
>
>>
>> GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
>>
>> so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it
>> won't make much difference <G>
>
> I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
> and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
> or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
> all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
> simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
>
> If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.
>
As I mentioned I only use GIMP minimally as my needs are few.
I did a real quick look at the tutorial and see GIMP does have batch
capabilities...but the batch must be run from the command line...
so you are quite right there...a lot of GIMP's capabilites are hidden
and not easily usable.
I think that for many people though, the "easy to access" features will
fit their needs
> philo wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> philo wrote:
>
>>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
>
> So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.
>
>>
>> GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
>>
>> so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it
>> won't make much difference <G>
>
> I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
> and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
> or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
> all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
> simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
>
> If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.
>
As I mentioned I only use GIMP minimally as my needs are few.
I did a real quick look at the tutorial and see GIMP does have batch
capabilities...but the batch must be run from the command line...
so you are quite right there...a lot of GIMP's capabilites are hidden
and not easily usable.
I think that for many people though, the "easy to access" features will
fit their needs
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
Photoline
www.pl32.net
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim. It also has one
of the most efficient and exacting dust and scratch removal tools of any
50+ editors that I've ever tested over the years. When used properly it
manages to accomplish this task without muting real details. I would use no
other program for this function. You can find it under the menu Filter >
Quality > Remove Dust/Scratches. While you can use the healing-brush (in PL
its called the "repairing brush"), its clone brush is sometimes better in
experienced hands. It has a real-time preview feature. The brush area
showing what is being cloned in your chosen level of transparency. You can
see exactly what you are going to overlay in the new position before you
actually do it. This cuts down on many hours of clone/view/undo/re-clone
restoration time. It also allows you to clone image data from any color
channel or combo of color channels in any of 4 color-spaces (RGB, CMYK,
HIS, or Lab). For example: you can clone the L (luminosity) or I
(intensity) channel to repair a texture only, leaving the colors alone.
It also has 34+ different adjustment layer types. In Photoline they call
them "working layers". One of them you can program in any way you like by
designing your own filter-matrix for it, saving them as your own favorite
adjustment-layer effects. You can also do lossless adjustments of any type
on any portion of your images. After choosing and creating an adjustment
layer, flood-fill it with black to make its K (gray mask) layer
transparent. Or alternately you can use any combos of the H(ue),
I(ntensity), or S(aturation) channels of a working-layer as your brush.
Then use a white brush, graduated or with transparency, on that
adjustment-layer to use that adjustment-layer's effect like any normal
editing brush. Remember too, these can be used on any color channel in any
color-space. Save your work-in-progress in Photoline's Document PLD format
so you can go back and resume right where you left off, readjusting any of
the working-layer's types or properties whenever you want.
For resizing images in either direction Photoline is also the only
full-featured editor that includes a Lanczos-8 interpolation option for the
most exacting resizings and rotations without creating unwanted artifacts
or softening of details. Not even Photoshop CS4 is capable of using these
advanced Lanczos algorithms to preserve image details.
Download the 30-day demo. Don't be fooled by its small 17 meg size. It's a
workhorse of efficient precision programming. Sloppy overpaid-programmer's
bloatware it is not. No other program offers as much control and is as rich
in so many professional editing features. There is no other program that is
better for image restoration. I've tried, used, and rejected all others,
they don't even come close.
>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
Photoline
www.pl32.net
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim. It also has one
of the most efficient and exacting dust and scratch removal tools of any
50+ editors that I've ever tested over the years. When used properly it
manages to accomplish this task without muting real details. I would use no
other program for this function. You can find it under the menu Filter >
Quality > Remove Dust/Scratches. While you can use the healing-brush (in PL
its called the "repairing brush"), its clone brush is sometimes better in
experienced hands. It has a real-time preview feature. The brush area
showing what is being cloned in your chosen level of transparency. You can
see exactly what you are going to overlay in the new position before you
actually do it. This cuts down on many hours of clone/view/undo/re-clone
restoration time. It also allows you to clone image data from any color
channel or combo of color channels in any of 4 color-spaces (RGB, CMYK,
HIS, or Lab). For example: you can clone the L (luminosity) or I
(intensity) channel to repair a texture only, leaving the colors alone.
It also has 34+ different adjustment layer types. In Photoline they call
them "working layers". One of them you can program in any way you like by
designing your own filter-matrix for it, saving them as your own favorite
adjustment-layer effects. You can also do lossless adjustments of any type
on any portion of your images. After choosing and creating an adjustment
layer, flood-fill it with black to make its K (gray mask) layer
transparent. Or alternately you can use any combos of the H(ue),
I(ntensity), or S(aturation) channels of a working-layer as your brush.
Then use a white brush, graduated or with transparency, on that
adjustment-layer to use that adjustment-layer's effect like any normal
editing brush. Remember too, these can be used on any color channel in any
color-space. Save your work-in-progress in Photoline's Document PLD format
so you can go back and resume right where you left off, readjusting any of
the working-layer's types or properties whenever you want.
For resizing images in either direction Photoline is also the only
full-featured editor that includes a Lanczos-8 interpolation option for the
most exacting resizings and rotations without creating unwanted artifacts
or softening of details. Not even Photoshop CS4 is capable of using these
advanced Lanczos algorithms to preserve image details.
Download the 30-day demo. Don't be fooled by its small 17 meg size. It's a
workhorse of efficient precision programming. Sloppy overpaid-programmer's
bloatware it is not. No other program offers as much control and is as rich
in so many professional editing features. There is no other program that is
better for image restoration. I've tried, used, and rejected all others,
they don't even come close.
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
scribbled:
>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.
scribbled:
>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.
| |
|
Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
>Photoline
>
> www.pl32.net
>
>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
such a claim.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
>Photoline
>
> www.pl32.net
>
>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
such a claim.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
> scribbled:
>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
> water...
There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
> scribbled:
>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
> water...
There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
| |
|
John J <nohj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>
>There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
Doesn't that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that 'mode'.
Then wouldn't you have to select this 'mode' to further save when done or
pausing in your alterations?
I'd rather just save a full lossless type and not have a 'mistake' in
selecting 'quality', eh?
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>
>There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
Doesn't that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that 'mode'.
Then wouldn't you have to select this 'mode' to further save when done or
pausing in your alterations?
I'd rather just save a full lossless type and not have a 'mistake' in
selecting 'quality', eh?
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>scribbled:
>
>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>water...
>
>Tell me another lie, thanks.
You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>scribbled:
>
>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>water...
>
>Tell me another lie, thanks.
You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
| |
|
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> John J <nohj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>> water...
>> There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
>
> Doesn't that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that 'mode'.
> Then wouldn't you have to select this 'mode' to further save when done or
> pausing in your alterations?
>
> I'd rather just save a full lossless type and not have a 'mistake' in
> selecting 'quality', eh?
>
I'd rather have a loss in x-posting. fu set.
> John J <nohj@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>> water...
>> There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
>
> Doesn't that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that 'mode'.
> Then wouldn't you have to select this 'mode' to further save when done or
> pausing in your alterations?
>
> I'd rather just save a full lossless type and not have a 'mistake' in
> selecting 'quality', eh?
>
I'd rather have a loss in x-posting. fu set.
| |
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>> Photoline
>>
>> www.pl32.net
>>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
> such a claim.
>
Hah.
> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>> Photoline
>>
>> www.pl32.net
>>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
> such a claim.
>
Hah.
| |
|
Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>water...
>>
>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.
> Truly lossless jpg editing
>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
Into the realm of marketing BS.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>water...
>>
>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.
> Truly lossless jpg editing
>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
Into the realm of marketing BS.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
| |
|
On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>water...
>>>
>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>
>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>
>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>affect many nearby pixels.
So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.
>
>But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>something.
I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.
>
>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>
>Into the realm of marketing BS.
No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.
>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>water...
>>>
>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>
>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>
>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>affect many nearby pixels.
So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.
>
>But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>something.
I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.
>
>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>
>Into the realm of marketing BS.
No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
scribbled:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>water...
>>
>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
>ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
>you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
>editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
scribbled:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>water...
>>
>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
>ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
>you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
>editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
scribbled:
>On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>>
>>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>>affect many nearby pixels.
>
>So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
>know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
>
>Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
>of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
>that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
>than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
>tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
>about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
>jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
>has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
>blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
>out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
>always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
>internet troll.
>
>
>>
>>But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>>compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>>waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>>something.
>
>I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
>trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
>Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
>of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
>very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
>archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
>or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
>if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
>choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
>that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
>deal with.
>
>>
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>>
>>Into the realm of marketing BS.
>
>No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
>and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
>like you who have never had any clue.
You're funny. Come back often!
scribbled:
>On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>>
>>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>>affect many nearby pixels.
>
>So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
>know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
>
>Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
>of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
>that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
>than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
>tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
>about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
>jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
>has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
>blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
>out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
>always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
>internet troll.
>
>
>>
>>But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>>compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>>waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>>something.
>
>I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
>trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
>Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
>of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
>very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
>archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
>or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
>if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
>choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
>that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
>deal with.
>
>>
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>>
>>Into the realm of marketing BS.
>
>No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
>and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
>like you who have never had any clue.
You're funny. Come back often!
| |
|
Jase Planck wrote:
> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>> water...
>>>>
>>>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>> You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>> Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>> saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>> resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>> intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>> unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>> algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>> aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>> But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>> affect many nearby pixels.
>
> So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
> know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
>
> Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
> of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
> that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
> than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
> tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
> about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
> jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
> has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
> blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
> out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
> always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
> internet troll.
>
>
>> But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>> compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>> waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>> something.
>
> I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
> trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
> Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
> of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
> very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
> archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
> or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
> if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
> choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
> that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
> deal with.
>
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>> Into the realm of marketing BS.
>
> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
> and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
> like you who have never had any clue.
>
I've never used Photoline so I can't comment. Jpeg does a remarkably
good job of preserving detail when sensibly used and most of this
bickering is based on theory and not visually detectable deterioration.
I believe the 'voi' in Voivod is some sort of hidden code for 'void in
the nod' or something like that, but what do I know.
Dave Cohen
> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>> water...
>>>>
>>>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>> You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>> Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>> saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>> resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>> intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>> unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>> algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>> aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>> But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>> affect many nearby pixels.
>
> So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
> know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
>
> Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
> of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
> that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
> than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
> tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
> about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
> jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
> has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
> blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
> out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
> always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
> internet troll.
>
>
>> But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>> compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>> waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>> something.
>
> I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
> trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
> Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
> of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
> very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
> archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
> or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
> if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
> choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
> that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
> deal with.
>
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>> Into the realm of marketing BS.
>
> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
> and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
> like you who have never had any clue.
>
I've never used Photoline so I can't comment. Jpeg does a remarkably
good job of preserving detail when sensibly used and most of this
bickering is based on theory and not visually detectable deterioration.
I believe the 'voi' in Voivod is some sort of hidden code for 'void in
the nod' or something like that, but what do I know.
Dave Cohen
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
> <jplanck@withheld.net> scribbled:
>
> > On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
> >>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
> >>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
> > > > > > It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of
> > > > > > JPG files, the only program that actually does it and can
> > > > > > make that claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking
> > > > > on water...
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me another lie, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing
> > > > about. Photoline compares your edited data against the
> > > > original image jpg data saved in memory. The only data that is
> > > > changed from the original image when resaved in jpg format are
> > > > your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains intact in
> > > > your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
> > > > unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg
> > > > compression algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg
> > > > compression much more aggressive than the original compression
> > > > ratio.
> > >
> > > But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
> > > affect many nearby pixels.
> >
> > So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't
> > even know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get
> > attention, fool.
> >
> > Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving
> > aspect of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can
> > test it to see that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of
> > jpg compression other than the one pixel that you purposely change.
> > I too was amazed when I first tested how well it works. Photoline's
> > lossless jpg routines also don't care about original image sizes
> > and will retain the full data on partial jpg-block image boundaries
> > when doing rotations. Unlike other software that has to truncate
> > all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel blocks when
> > doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk out
> > of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
> > always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid
> > dead-wrong internet troll.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
> > > compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
> > > waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
> > > something.
> >
> > I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all
> > of your trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one
> > minor aspect of Photoline. A minor one (note all the other
> > qualities of Photoline that none of you commented on) that when
> > added up to the full package makes it the very best editor
> > available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned archival photos
> > all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals or they
> > were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
> > if you can retain that original image information in any editing
> > format you choose. Especially when the client wants them back in
> > jpg format because that's the only format that their meager skills
> > and printing software can deal with.
> >
> > >
> >>> Truly lossless jpg editing
> > > > in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
> > >
> > > Into the realm of marketing BS.
> >
> > No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
> > about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
> > brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>
> You're funny. Come back often!
Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
--
Cliff
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
> <jplanck@withheld.net> scribbled:
>
> > On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
> >>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
> >>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
> > > > > > It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of
> > > > > > JPG files, the only program that actually does it and can
> > > > > > make that claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking
> > > > > on water...
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me another lie, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing
> > > > about. Photoline compares your edited data against the
> > > > original image jpg data saved in memory. The only data that is
> > > > changed from the original image when resaved in jpg format are
> > > > your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains intact in
> > > > your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
> > > > unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg
> > > > compression algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg
> > > > compression much more aggressive than the original compression
> > > > ratio.
> > >
> > > But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
> > > affect many nearby pixels.
> >
> > So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't
> > even know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get
> > attention, fool.
> >
> > Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving
> > aspect of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can
> > test it to see that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of
> > jpg compression other than the one pixel that you purposely change.
> > I too was amazed when I first tested how well it works. Photoline's
> > lossless jpg routines also don't care about original image sizes
> > and will retain the full data on partial jpg-block image boundaries
> > when doing rotations. Unlike other software that has to truncate
> > all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel blocks when
> > doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk out
> > of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
> > always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid
> > dead-wrong internet troll.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
> > > compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
> > > waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
> > > something.
> >
> > I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all
> > of your trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one
> > minor aspect of Photoline. A minor one (note all the other
> > qualities of Photoline that none of you commented on) that when
> > added up to the full package makes it the very best editor
> > available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned archival photos
> > all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals or they
> > were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
> > if you can retain that original image information in any editing
> > format you choose. Especially when the client wants them back in
> > jpg format because that's the only format that their meager skills
> > and printing software can deal with.
> >
> > >
> >>> Truly lossless jpg editing
> > > > in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
> > >
> > > Into the realm of marketing BS.
> >
> > No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
> > about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
> > brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>
> You're funny. Come back often!
Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
--
Cliff
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:18:45 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>scribbled:
>
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>scribbled:
>>>
>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>water...
>>>
>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>
>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
>>ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
>>you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
>>editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
>
>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
it is anything but "vaporware". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors #List The
authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.
But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>scribbled:
>
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>scribbled:
>>>
>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>water...
>>>
>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>
>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
>>ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
>>you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
>>editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
>
>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
it is anything but "vaporware". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors #List The
authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.
But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.
| |
|
On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>> Photoline
>>>
>>> www.pl32.net
>>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>> such a claim.
>>
> Hah.
Ray & John,
I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
"Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
P&S TROLL.
So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
in this thread.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>> Photoline
>>>
>>> www.pl32.net
>>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>> such a claim.
>>
> Hah.
Ray & John,
I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
"Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
P&S TROLL.
So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
in this thread.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:17:27 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>> Photoline
>>>>
>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>> such a claim.
>>>
>> Hah.
>
>Ray & John,
>
>I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
>"Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
>P&S TROLL.
>
>So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
>in this thread.
And yet, even if I was, it doesn't discount one thing I said. Only a real
troll would try to use your lame tactic.
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>> Photoline
>>>>
>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>> such a claim.
>>>
>> Hah.
>
>Ray & John,
>
>I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
>"Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
>P&S TROLL.
>
>So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
>in this thread.
And yet, even if I was, it doesn't discount one thing I said. Only a real
troll would try to use your lame tactic.
| |
|
On 2009-05-10 21:23:57 -0700, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> said:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:17:27 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>>> Photoline
>>>>>
>>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>>
>>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>>> such a claim.
>>>>
>>> Hah.
>>
>> Ray & John,
>>
>> I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
>> "Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
>> P&S TROLL.
>>
>> So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
>> in this thread.
>
> And yet, even if I was, it doesn't discount one thing I said. Only a real
> troll would try to use your lame tactic.
It is time to don a fresh sock, the one you are currently wearing reeks
of TROLL.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:17:27 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>>> Photoline
>>>>>
>>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>>
>>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>>> such a claim.
>>>>
>>> Hah.
>>
>> Ray & John,
>>
>> I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
>> "Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
>> P&S TROLL.
>>
>> So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
>> in this thread.
>
> And yet, even if I was, it doesn't discount one thing I said. Only a real
> troll would try to use your lame tactic.
It is time to don a fresh sock, the one you are currently wearing reeks
of TROLL.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
| |
|
Thank you for your suggestion for Drum Scanning.
There is one thing that hinders me from using drum scanner --- the
"Wet Mounting" method.
The old pictures are very old, some dated 19th century. I just don't
know what effect the fluid might do to the already fragile paper.
On May 10, 10:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <aicneviv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi !
>
> >I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> >A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> >them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> >bit.
>
> "digitizing"
>
> >You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> >figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> >As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> >it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> >the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> >Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
> >as I can.
>
> Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
> cheap flatbed scanners. The point being that it's silly to worry
> about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
> you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.
>
> And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect. Many
> operations do not "throw away" any details. Rotation on 90 degree
> increments, for example. Cleaning, by definition, throws away
> information about the dirt.
>
> >In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> >quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
> >resizing, and whatnot.
>
> >Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> Photoshop.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
There is one thing that hinders me from using drum scanner --- the
"Wet Mounting" method.
The old pictures are very old, some dated 19th century. I just don't
know what effect the fluid might do to the already fragile paper.
On May 10, 10:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <aicneviv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi !
>
> >I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> >A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> >them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> >bit.
>
> "digitizing"
>
> >You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> >figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> >As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> >it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> >the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> >Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
> >as I can.
>
> Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
> cheap flatbed scanners. The point being that it's silly to worry
> about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
> you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.
>
> And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect. Many
> operations do not "throw away" any details. Rotation on 90 degree
> increments, for example. Cleaning, by definition, throws away
> information about the dirt.
>
> >In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> >quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
> >resizing, and whatnot.
>
> >Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> Photoshop.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
| |
|
Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>>
>>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>>affect many nearby pixels.
>
>So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
>know how it works.
Written like an idiot who doesn't even know how JPEG compression works.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>>
>>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>>affect many nearby pixels.
>
>So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
>know how it works.
Written like an idiot who doesn't even know how JPEG compression works.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
| |
|
Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
>
>Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
Which is why no major retailer sells it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
>
>Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
Which is why no major retailer sells it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:02:39 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
scribbled:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:18:45 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
>>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
>>>ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
>>>you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
>>>editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
>>
>>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
>
>Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
>it is anything but "vaporware". See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors #List The
>authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
>outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
>Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.
>
>But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
>capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
>online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
>of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
>independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
>doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
>know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
>top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
>already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
>less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
>books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
>idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
>how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
>corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.
>
>Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>ever be capable of.
Comedy gold! Let's forward this to the Photoline people, maybe they'll
include it in their sales pitch! "Photoline, not for Idiot
fool-following sheep and trolls!"
Dance for me some more!
scribbled:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:18:45 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>scribbled:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
>>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
>>>ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
>>>you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
>>>editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
>>
>>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
>
>Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
>it is anything but "vaporware". See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors #List The
>authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
>outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
>Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.
>
>But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
>capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
>online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
>of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
>independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
>doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
>know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
>top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
>already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
>less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
>books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
>idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
>how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
>corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.
>
>Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>ever be capable of.
Comedy gold! Let's forward this to the Photoline people, maybe they'll
include it in their sales pitch! "Photoline, not for Idiot
fool-following sheep and trolls!"
Dance for me some more!
| Pages (2): [1 2 › »] | |
| Next Topic: | Lightroom "not responding" with Mac 10.5.7 update? |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions