 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so yesterday I was playing with the GIMP 2.2, and last night I
played with my dad's copy of PhotoShop Elements 4.0.
The problem basically seems to boil down to the fact that it is
virtually impossible to draw with a mouse. Drawing with the GIMP, all
the lines come out horribly wobbly. PhotoShop seems to smooth the mouse
input somewhat, so lines come out less wiggly.
But even so, no matter what software I use, if you move the mouse in a
circle, it draws a square with rounded corners. It seems the mouse is
very keen to move in the horizontal and vertical directions, and resists
moving in any other directions. Very irritating...
Ebuyer have a Wacom Bamboo A5 + PhotoShop Elements 5.0 for £130. I'm
kinda tempted here... (Who knows? Maybe some kind soul will get it for
my birthday...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I didn't get very far with the GIMP. The extreme uncontrollability of
the lines made me give up rather quickly. PhotoShop seems much better in
this regard, although I still couldn't get decent curves out of the
cheap optical mouse.
I did play around with layers. Apart from PhotoShop mysteriously
changing the active layer every 3 seconds, it worked quite well. I had a
go at scanning one of my drawings, inking it up, colouring and
counter-shading it.
One thing I did have a problem with is that the brush tool draws
beautifully anti-aliased lines, but then the flood fill tool doesn't
fill right up to the edges. It leaves a useless white gap around the
edges of the lines. Presumably there's a simple way around this?
Also, I haven't yet figured out how to fill in the counter-shading
without accidentally drawing over the outlines. (But I didn't really
look into it very much, so it might be something simple.)
I also had a go at reading the paper manual - but, apart from several
*extensive* chapters on how to import, catelogue and organise your
photos (yeah, like I care), most chapters were 1 page long and said
"hey, yeah, there's this cool feature - see the online help for more
info". Very useful.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> a écrit dans le message de news:
47cd1e37@news.povray.org...
> "hey, yeah, there's this cool feature - see the online help for more
> info". Very useful.
There are lots of PS tutorials on Youtube. Most are for the full version
(not Elements) but some of the tricks probably apply too.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=photoshop
The "You suck at Photoshop" series is both useful and funny (and sad...).
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But even so, no matter what software I use, if you move the mouse in a
> circle, it draws a square with rounded corners. It seems the mouse is very
> keen to move in the horizontal and vertical directions, and resists moving
> in any other directions. Very irritating...
Try turning off mouse pointer acceleration in control panel (I think it's
called "Enhance Pointer Precision" now) - the algorithms used in Windows are
quite complex to make the mouse move around in a "natural" way, but are
useless if you're trying to draw something carefully. Turning off
acceleration makes it a linear relation between mouse movement and pointer
movement.
IIRC one of the improvements in Vista was that pointer acceleration is done
on a vector basis rather than on the x and y axis separately, which would
probably explain why drawing a circle gives a rounded square in XP or
earlier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:02:30 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> I didn't get very far with the GIMP. The extreme uncontrollability of
> the lines made me give up rather quickly. PhotoShop seems much better in
> this regard, although I still couldn't get decent curves out of the
> cheap optical mouse.
One of the reasons I prefer dealing with vectors.
> I did play around with layers. Apart from PhotoShop mysteriously
> changing the active layer every 3 seconds, it worked quite well. I had a
> go at scanning one of my drawings, inking it up, colouring and
> counter-shading it.
>
> One thing I did have a problem with is that the brush tool draws
> beautifully anti-aliased lines, but then the flood fill tool doesn't
> fill right up to the edges. It leaves a useless white gap around the
> edges of the lines. Presumably there's a simple way around this?
Yeah put your brushed lines on one layer and the flood fill on another,
not sure of the defaults in Elements, but you can set the background of
any new layer to transparent. So let's say you create your brush strokes
on one layer then add in a graduated flood fill on another, move that
layer beneath the brush stokes and the antialiasing will allow the fill to
come through. Then add another graduated flood fill in another layer, put
it between the other two and change its overall transparency. :-)
> Also, I haven't yet figured out how to fill in the counter-shading
> without accidentally drawing over the outlines. (But I didn't really
> look into it very much, so it might be something simple.)
Outlines on another layer. If in doubt layer it.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I didn't get very far with the GIMP. The extreme uncontrollability of
>> the lines made me give up rather quickly. PhotoShop seems much better
>> in this regard, although I still couldn't get decent curves out of the
>> cheap optical mouse.
>
> One of the reasons I prefer dealing with vectors.
Yeah. That and the fact that you can continually *change* the line after
you've drawn it...
>> One thing I did have a problem with is that the brush tool draws
>> beautifully anti-aliased lines, but then the flood fill tool doesn't
>> fill right up to the edges. It leaves a useless white gap around the
>> edges of the lines. Presumably there's a simple way around this?
>
> Yeah put your brushed lines on one layer and the flood fill on another,
> not sure of the defaults in Elements, but you can set the background of
> any new layer to transparent. So let's say you create your brush strokes
> on one layer then add in a graduated flood fill on another, move that
> layer beneath the brush stokes and the antialiasing will allow the fill
> to come through. Then add another graduated flood fill in another layer,
> put it between the other two and change its overall transparency. :-)
Um... how do you fill in a shape if it's in another layer?
>> Also, I haven't yet figured out how to fill in the counter-shading
>> without accidentally drawing over the outlines. (But I didn't really
>> look into it very much, so it might be something simple.)
>
> Outlines on another layer. If in doubt layer it.
Hmm, interesting...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Um... how do you fill in a shape if it's in another layer?
In PSP there's a check-box in the Fill tool that says "Use all layers".
Check this and it will do the flood fill in the current layer but using the
other layers to check for boundaries etc (or whatever settings you have).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:52:30 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Um... how do you fill in a shape if it's in another layer?
You can create a mask from the layer that you use as a reference, save it and
import it into the fill layer. Masks are good tools as well they limit the
drawing area for you.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47cd1a79$1@news.povray.org...
> The problem basically seems to boil down to the fact that it is
> virtually impossible to draw with a mouse. Drawing with the GIMP, all
> the lines come out horribly wobbly. PhotoShop seems to smooth the mouse
> input somewhat, so lines come out less wiggly.
>
> But even so, no matter what software I use, if you move the mouse in a
> circle, it draws a square with rounded corners. It seems the mouse is
> very keen to move in the horizontal and vertical directions, and resists
> moving in any other directions. Very irritating...
Get a better mouse. I can draw reasonably well with mine (Logitach laser
mouse), though I still prefer the tablet if I'm doing anything more than a
couple minutes fiddle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> But even so, no matter what software I use, if you move the mouse in a
>> circle, it draws a square with rounded corners. It seems the mouse is
>> very keen to move in the horizontal and vertical directions, and
>> resists moving in any other directions. Very irritating...
>
> Try turning off mouse pointer acceleration in control panel (I think
> it's called "Enhance Pointer Precision" now) - the algorithms used in
> Windows are quite complex to make the mouse move around in a "natural"
> way, but are useless if you're trying to draw something carefully.
> Turning off acceleration makes it a linear relation between mouse
> movement and pointer movement.
Thanks for the tip. Doing this does result in a small increase in
controllability, but not very much. It's still infuriatingly hard to
draw anything half-decent. (And it makes the mouse rather slow and
unresponsive when you're just trying to work Windoze. So I'll probably
leave it how it was.)
It seems clear to me now that I need a decent input device if I'm
remotely serious about this course of action.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> The "You suck at Photoshop" series is both useful and funny (and sad...).
Phaaahahahahahaaaaaa...! WTF?!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I didn't get very far with the GIMP. The extreme uncontrollability of
> the lines made me give up rather quickly. PhotoShop seems much better in
> this regard, although I still couldn't get decent curves out of the
> cheap optical mouse.
I know a way to smooth jagged lines in the GIMP.
1) Draw your line in black and white.
2) Apply gaussian blur with a largish radius (10-40).
3) Choose 'curves' from Layer>Colors>Curves and squeeze the black near
the white to constrain the curve (but keep each at their respective y
positions).
You should be left with much smoother lines, but intersecting areas will
appear slightly 'blobbed'.
I know a way to fill antialiased areas with perfect fills and paints.
1) Select an area to fill with the magic wand tool.
2) Go to Select>Grow and grow selection by 1 or 2 pixels.
3) If
3.1) Area is white:
Select blending mode 'multiply' for your paint tool
3.2) Area is colored:
Select blending mode (edit) 'Overlay' for your paint tool and choose
white for your color. Paint until the area is white again.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 3) If
> 3.1) Area is white:
> Select blending mode 'multiply' for your paint tool
> 3.2) Area is colored:
> Select blending mode (edit) 'Overlay' for your paint tool and choose
> white for your color. Paint until the area is white again.
Of you could simply use the selection in a lower layer and flood-fill
the selection there.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wanna hear something really random? I just checked out Adobe's online store.
PhotoShop CS3 = £569.88
PhotoShop Elements 6 = £69.32
Upgrage from Elements 6 to CS3 = £487.62
Elements 6 + upgrade to CS3 = £556.94
So... wait... it's *cheaper* to buy Elements and upgrade to CS than to
just purchase CS??
Also, it turns out there's a CS3 Extended. (Has some extra 3D stuff.
Apparently.)
[The other random thing is that if you look on Apple's online store,
everything is more expensive than from any other source. Which makes no
sense at all. On the other hand, prices on the Adobe online store seem
to be quite a bit lower than anywhere else, so...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> PhotoShop CS3 = £569.88
...
> On the other hand, prices on the Adobe online store seem to be quite a bit
> lower than anywhere else, so...]
You're just not looking in the right places...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> PhotoShop CS3 = £569.88
> ...
>> On the other hand, prices on the Adobe online store seem to be quite a
>> bit lower than anywhere else, so...]
>
> You're just not looking in the right places...
Well both eBuyer and Insight want at least £600 for that item, so direct
from Adobe appears to be quite a bit cheaper. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> >> PhotoShop CS3 = £569.88
> > ...
> >> On the other hand, prices on the Adobe online store seem to be quite a
> >> bit lower than anywhere else, so...]
> >
> > You're just not looking in the right places...
> Well both eBuyer and Insight want at least £600 for that item, so direct
> from Adobe appears to be quite a bit cheaper. ;-)
Maybe you should try cheaper software first, to get experience and to
see that you indeed are interested in that kind of hobby, before spending
such vast amounts of money on software you will not use.
It's not like CS3 will somehow magically make drawing easier. It still
requires experience and hard work.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> PhotoShop CS3 = £569.88
>> ...
>>> On the other hand, prices on the Adobe online store seem to be quite a
>>> bit lower than anywhere else, so...]
>>
>> You're just not looking in the right places...
>
> Well both eBuyer and Insight want at least £600 for that item, so direct
> from Adobe appears to be quite a bit cheaper. ;-)
Try Google shopping, plently of places have it cheaper (dabs, scan, misco,
...).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe you should try cheaper software first.
Oh yes. Hell, I have *no intension* of paying £600 for something that
might not even be any use to me...
I was merely curios about the pricing, that's all. Somebody noted that
"once you have Elements you get upgrade pricing", and I wanted to see
just how much more expensive it is this way. (And I was surprised to see
that the answer is, apparently, -£10.)
As I mentioned elsewhere, I've seen a small Wacom tablet on sale that
comes bundled with a copy of Elements. I'm rather tempted with the idea
of that... It's not even that expensive. And right now, the mouse rather
than the software seems to be the limiting factor. (But with this deal
I'd get both!)
And, let's not forget it's my birthday soon and nobody knows what the
hell to buy for me. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well both eBuyer and Insight want at least £600 for that item, so
>> direct from Adobe appears to be quite a bit cheaper. ;-)
>
> Try Google shopping, plently of places have it cheaper
I asked Froogle, and it couldn't find anything cheaper.
[rant] I did ask it to *exclude* anything containing the words "student"
or "upgrade", but the first 3 hits still contained these words. [/rant]
> (dabs, scan, misco, ...).
...who?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Try Google shopping, plently of places have it cheaper
>
> I asked Froogle, and it couldn't find anything cheaper.
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=photoshop+cs3&hl=en&price1=525&price2=569&scoring=p
>> (dabs, scan, misco, ...).
>
> ...who?
I thought I'd heard you mention dabs before here? Oh maybe not then. scan
and misco are other fairly big online computer stores (we use misco for all
our IT stuff at work, and I've used scan a few times).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=photoshop+cs3&hl=en&price1=525&price2=569&scoring=p
...WTF? That's the *exact* same search I did, but the results are
completely different... HOW is that possible??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=photoshop+cs3&hl=en&price1=525&price2=569&scoring=p
>
> ...WTF? That's the *exact* same search I did, but the results are
> completely different... HOW is that possible??
It's not :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>>
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=photoshop+cs3&hl=en&price1=525&price2=569&scoring=p
>>>
>>
>> ...WTF? That's the *exact* same search I did, but the results are
>> completely different... HOW is that possible??
>
> It's not :-)
My God, the computer hates me. Now I *really* sound paranoid! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:31:24 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>And, let's not forget it's my birthday soon and nobody knows what the
>hell to buy for me. ;-)
Mine too and no one ever knows what to buy me either :(
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:ig20t3dq0v8srb01f201i0dv3qb1hctf35@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:31:24 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>And, let's not forget it's my birthday soon and nobody knows what the
>>hell to buy for me. ;-)
>
> Mine too and no one ever knows what to buy me either :(
>
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I hate to say this but ... me too
March 22 if you're planning to be in The Jack Horner (Tottenham Court Road)
on that day :-)
John
--
No sig 'cos I'm not on my own machine
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:27:45 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>>> Try Google shopping, plently of places have it cheaper
>>
>> I asked Froogle, and it couldn't find anything cheaper.
>
>
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=photoshop+cs3&hl=en&price1=525&price2=569&scoring=p
>
>>> (dabs, scan, misco, ...).
>>
>> ...who?
>
> I thought I'd heard you mention dabs before here? Oh maybe not then.
> scan and misco are other fairly big online computer stores (we use misco
> for all our IT stuff at work, and I've used scan a few times).
Then again I note both Misco and Dabs are doing PSPX2 at ~£80 and Amazon
have it at ~£40.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:10:06 -0000, "Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
>news:ig20t3dq0v8srb01f201i0dv3qb1hctf35@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:31:24 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>>And, let's not forget it's my birthday soon and nobody knows what the
>>>hell to buy for me. ;-)
>>
>> Mine too and no one ever knows what to buy me either :(
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>I hate to say this but ... me too
>March 22 if you're planning to be in The Jack Horner (Tottenham Court Road)
>on that day :-)
>
Oh! that is a Saturday and I'll be home for the weekend. (I'm starting a new job
next week.) So you are a Modulo day older than me as mine is on the 23rd. of
March. And Tottenham Court Road is close to "Forbidden Planet" I'd love to meet
up.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47cfe41d$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>
> > Maybe you should try cheaper software first.
>
> Oh yes. Hell, I have *no intension* of paying £600 for something that
> might not even be any use to me...
If you are interested in a fairly powerful drawing package, get Paint shop
Pro. See if you can find version 9, I hear it went strange after that.
It's way cheaper than photoshop, but has a lot of good drawing and photo
manip features. Probably better for the hobbiest than Photoshop.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47cfe803$1@news.povray.org...
> [rant] I did ask it to *exclude* anything containing the words "student"
> or "upgrade", but the first 3 hits still contained these words. [/rant]
*g* Being a university student is so handy sometimes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> If you are interested in a fairly powerful drawing package, get Paint shop
> Pro. See if you can find version 9, I hear it went strange after that.
> It's way cheaper than photoshop, but has a lot of good drawing and photo
> manip features. Probably better for the hobbiest than Photoshop.
Searching at amazon, it seems that it's indeed quite cheap. amazon.co.uk
doesn't seem to have version 9, but version 8 sells at 27 pounds. At
amazon.com version 9 sells at 10 dollars.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:20:39 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> If you are interested in a fairly powerful drawing package, get Paint
>> shop
>> Pro. See if you can find version 9, I hear it went strange after that.
>> It's way cheaper than photoshop, but has a lot of good drawing and photo
>> manip features. Probably better for the hobbiest than Photoshop.
>
> Searching at amazon, it seems that it's indeed quite cheap. amazon.co.uk
> doesn't seem to have version 9, but version 8 sells at 27 pounds. At
> amazon.com version 9 sells at 10 dollars.
As I recall from when I actually used PSP, version 8 was the best in the
series. It started going downhill when Corel stepped in.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> *g* Being a university student is so handy sometimes...
Oh yeah! I miss the 100 mbit/sec Internet pipe... :-{
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> *g* Being a university student is so handy sometimes...
>
> Oh yeah! I miss the 100 mbit/sec Internet pipe... :-{
>
Heh. iPhone SDK is out today, and some bastard is bragging about his speed:
http://therepository.binarytide.com/sdk.jpg
http://www.speedtest.net/result/243051185.png
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47d05cb1$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > *g* Being a university student is so handy sometimes...
>
> Oh yeah! I miss the 100 mbit/sec Internet pipe... :-{
*blink* Never seen one of those. *envy*
I get the student discount in some places, even thought I'm a working
part-time student. All they check for is the student card.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> *g* Being a university student is so handy sometimes...
>> Oh yeah! I miss the 100 mbit/sec Internet pipe... :-{
>
> *blink* Never seen one of those. *envy*
Yeah. Back when I was at uni, "broadband" hadn't been invented yet.
Everybody accessed the Internet with 36KB modems. If they could afford
such an expensive device, and the ISP charges to go with it. (Assuming
your ISP supported 36KB yet.) And sitting at uni, I had 100 Mbit to play
with! (OK, shared between me and 80 other people in the building, but
still...)
Some of the guys in the NERV clan *still* get 100 Mbit. Oh to be young
again...
[Mind you, some of those guys get SEX too. Lucky ****s!]
> I get the student discount in some places, even thought I'm a working
> part-time student. All they check for is the student card.
My sister kept her card for years after she finished uni. Used it
everywhere. Took a while for people to start noticing... ;-)
Come to think of it, both me and my sister have the "student" version of
M$ Office. I don't know *how* it's supposed to tell whether you're a
student or not...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As I recall from when I actually used PSP, version 8 was the best in the
> series. It started going downhill when Corel stepped in.
I used V8 for a long time at work, and V9 at home. I just recently got the
latest Pro Photo X2 from Corel ... and really, I don't see any big
differences, apart from nicer eye candy. The functionality is still all
there, the menus are almost identical, a few additional tools and better
designed older tools, but essentially 95% the same program.
So I'd agree with Gail and Warp, go get a cheap copy of PSP 8 or 9 and give
that a whirl - it has most of the features that a non-Pro uses in Photoshop
anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:10:06 -0000, "Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> "Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
>> news:ig20t3dq0v8srb01f201i0dv3qb1hctf35@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:31:24 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, let's not forget it's my birthday soon and nobody knows what the
>>>> hell to buy for me. ;-)
>>> Mine too and no one ever knows what to buy me either :(
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Stephen
>> I hate to say this but ... me too
>> March 22 if you're planning to be in The Jack Horner (Tottenham Court Road)
>> on that day :-)
>>
>
> Oh! that is a Saturday and I'll be home for the weekend. (I'm starting a new job
> next week.) So you are a Modulo day older than me as mine is on the 23rd. of
> March. And Tottenham Court Road is close to "Forbidden Planet" I'd love to meet
> up.
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Ok, lets go for it. Set a time and I'll be there.
Anyone else up for a meet?
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, both me and my sister have the "student" version of
> M$ Office. I don't know *how* it's supposed to tell whether you're a
> student or not...
>
It never gets started before 2pm and definitely never on a weekend :-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Come to think of it, both me and my sister have the "student" version of
>> M$ Office. I don't know *how* it's supposed to tell whether you're a
>> student or not...
>>
> It never gets started before 2pm and definitely never on a weekend :-)
*rimshot*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:27:17 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> March 22 if you're planning to be in The Jack Horner (Tottenham Court Road)
>>> on that day :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh! that is a Saturday and I'll be home for the weekend. (I'm starting a new job
>> next week.) So you are a Modulo day older than me as mine is on the 23rd. of
>> March. And Tottenham Court Road is close to "Forbidden Planet" I'd love to meet
>> up.
>Ok, lets go for it. Set a time and I'll be there.
>Anyone else up for a meet?
I've not been for a drink there but it looks like a good location. Easy to get
to from Euston, Kings Cross or Liverpool St. (For the out of towners :) As for a
time, I'm easy and it is only about a half and hour from my home by the bendy
bus #18.
Do you want to wait to see if anyone else will join us before setting a time?
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> As I recall from when I actually used PSP, version 8 was the best in
>> the series. It started going downhill when Corel stepped in.
>
> I used V8 for a long time at work, and V9 at home. I just recently got
> the latest Pro Photo X2 from Corel ... and really, I don't see any big
> differences, apart from nicer eye candy. The functionality is still all
> there, the menus are almost identical, a few additional tools and better
> designed older tools, but essentially 95% the same program.
>
> So I'd agree with Gail and Warp, go get a cheap copy of PSP 8 or 9 and
> give that a whirl - it has most of the features that a non-Pro uses in
> Photoshop anyway.
Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook escribió:
> Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:05:08 -0500, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
I just checked and I'm using Version 6
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Tim Cook escribió:
>> Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
>
> http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
>
> I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
everything rather poorly.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
> interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
> everything rather poorly.
In a graphical user interface it's more difficult to make them
interoperate, which is probably one reason why they usually don't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
>> interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
>> everything rather poorly.
>
> In a graphical user interface it's more difficult to make them
> interoperate, which is probably one reason why they usually don't.
And also one reason why command-line tools are better for many things.
(image editing probably not one of them)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> > In a graphical user interface it's more difficult to make them
> > interoperate, which is probably one reason why they usually don't.
> And also one reason why command-line tools are better for many things.
True, although I have to admit that sometimes a graphical user interface
just makes some things easier, faster and more practical (although not so
many things as many people seem to believe.)
> (image editing probably not one of them)
Basically anything involving heavy amounts of multimedia.
(Playing video/music files may be a borderline case, though. For example
mplayer is a superb command-line media player, and mencoder is a good
command-line tool for converting videos and a good "ripping" tool.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I love the Unix philosophy of making specific, lightweight tools that
> interoperate, rather than gargantuan monolithic beasts that do
> everything rather poorly.
See, now, personally I hate that. It annoys the hell out of me that the
Unix way is to use 50,000 tiny tools with all have far too many
backwards compatibility modes, bugs and "features".
["This makes it read from a file. Unless the file is named '-', in which
case it reads from stdin." OK, so how do I make it read from a file
that's actually named '-' then? And other surprising ad-hoc behaviours...]
But then, I guess that's just my opinion.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> ["This makes it read from a file. Unless the file is named '-', in which
> case it reads from stdin." OK, so how do I make it read from a file
> that's actually named '-' then? And other surprising ad-hoc behaviours...]
./-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
