 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Trying to sharpen the image just amplifies the JPEG compression, sadly.
Just delete out-of-focus images.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/05/2010 23:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Well, there are cheap student versions
>
> Oh yeah - I hadn't thought of that...
Well, actually, AFAIK even those versions are 300 to 600 Euro, I
wouldn't call that cheap.
Although, compared to 3000Euro, yes, it is :)
cu!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:10:00 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>> How much did you think it was?
>>> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows:
>>> £1,502.62
>>
>> That's what happens if you don't shop around - you end up paying a
>> ridiculous price for a product. ;-)
>
> No, I'm pretty sure that's what it actually costs.
Arguably, that might be MSRP, but by shopping around you can get a
cheaper price on it. That's why it's always a good idea to shop around.
> OK, let's try Insight. (Sure, they're not the cheapest people around...)
>
> Adobe Photoshop CS4: £587
> Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection: £2,420 Adobe Creative Suite 4
> Production Premium: £1,815
>
> I'm not making these numbers up!
No, I believe you're finding those prices, but also have a look at the
source I quoted - you can't deny that it's available for much lower
pricing than you've found.
> (Photoshop Elements, however, is only £60 - which matches other prices
> I've seen around.)
>
>>> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what
>>> will...
>>
>> I know I'd feel kinda dumb if I paid that much for it knowing that I
>> could get it for £361.58.
>
> I cannot believe it's the same product. Not for 1/3rd of the price. It
> can't be.
Yes, it can be, most of software pricing is profit.
> Then again, you said you got the price from a US website? Last time I
> checked [back when £1 = $2], Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional was £400 in
> the UK and $400 in the US. (IOW, the UK version was 2x the price.) I
> don't know if that's still the case...
It isn't. I did the price conversions using that day's exchange rate as
provided by xe.com. Those exchange rates are supposed to be realtime
AFAIK. But if you're creative in purchasing items like this, you can
certainly get the US price if you want (I do this all the time with items
purchased in the UK; I have them shipped to a friend there if the
supplier won't send it to the US, and my friend either ships the item to
me or brings it the next time he's in the US).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:53:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Hell, *my* 3 MP camera would never, ever take a picture like that, no
>>> matter how perfect the lighting or how close up you were. The sensor
>>> just isn't of high enough quality.
>>
>> If it was bright enough and you were a metre or two away from the
>> action then even a cheap consumer digital camera should give a pretty
>> decent image:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visithra/321853035/
>>
>> That one was taken with a Canon A620.
>
> Well, try this:
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0064.html
>
> That's probably a metre or two away, it's a dazzlingly bright June
> afternoon, and the image sucks. It's flat and utterly devoid of colour.
It's not a function of the sensor, look what a couple seconds of
postprocessing in GIMP shows.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/7b757979306284
I increased the colour saturation and adjusted the brightness/contrast a
little. Took < 10 seconds to do.
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html
http://www.imagebam.com/image/24509579306856
Almost the same adjustments on this one.
> There's no way my camera would ever capture the lush colours and sharp
> edges of the images you show.
Well, I'd disagree.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 12:35:02 +0200, scott wrote:
> And typically pros will not let the camera do *any* processing, and
> import the raw sensor data to their computer for manual colour,
> sharpness and exposure control.
Exactly - the adjustments I made were pretty basic with GIMP (similar to
the ones you made), but if RAW format images were available, there'd be a
lot more room to adjust things like exposure.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> you can get the latest Paint Shop Pro
Yeah, would be great if it f'ing worked. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> From what I've seen, if you buy an expensive camera,
Depends what you mean "expensive". Before the dslr craze, this was pretty
normal on a $400 camera with a good lens.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 11:29:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Trying to sharpen the image just amplifies the JPEG compression, sadly.
Depends on the tools; I've seen a tool for GIMP called "refocus-it" that
actually does a very good job. With practice, an unsharp mask or NL
filter can do pretty good with them as well, from what I've seen (I've
not practiced that as much).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4bdf12e4@news.povray.org...
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> > Has anybody seen the previews for some of the features of this new
> > edition of Photoshop?
> >
> > Been playing with it for a while. The Content-aware fill is truly
> > amazing.
> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> jaw-droppingly expensive...
It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual work
with it, as far as tools go.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 3:02 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I suppose the path is Windows own 'editor', then Photoshop Elements,
> then Photoshop depending on how serious you are. Still when you consider
> you can get the latest Paint Shop Pro for under £80 and Elements for
> under £55 jumping up to £644 for Photoshop is a chasm.
There is an upgrade from Elements to Photoshop, which gives a small
discount ;)
It's much like jumping from an advanced point and shoot camera to a DSLR.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
