In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I think this has been talked about before. Once you
need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor
and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can
do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a
case of diminishing returns.

I find it does virtually all I need to do. I'd need a very good reason
to invest (and sorry to sound like "Arlen Holder" here, but "invest"
includes learning time) in anything else.

The learning curve is somewhat extreme with
graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to
stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a
limit.

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to

But I, for one, am glad they have (-:!

jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to

I'd certainly agree with that.

spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part,
are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so
there's a lot of software around.

George P has presented a good example of what
IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't
care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to
damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and
resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no

Not necessarily: "lossless JPEG crop" is possible. (Including in
IrfanView; I don't know if just the basic IV or with the plugins, since
I always install both anyway.) It is slightly restricted in that it
limits the crop sizes (to a multiple of 16 pixels I think).

plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He
doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly
crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV.
But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen,
crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc
then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor
rather than trying to do all that in IV.

IV has a batch processing ability, which can do some of those things
(not sure which; I think I've only ever used it to rename). Obviously if
he wanted to do _different_ things to each image it'd be no use, the
same applying to any batch processing anything else can offer too.

To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier
time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago
when the functionality it provides wasn't available
without paying a fairly high price. Windows could
display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was
about it.

Ignoring prejudices related to business models and general philosophy,
are you saying the actual software is older or newer than IrfanView? [Or
aren't you commenting on that, just having a rant (-:?]

FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit
silly.

But very common among software.

They're trying to maintain an outdated business
model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather
than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS
would be claiming I can't legally write a business
letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own
business cards with their software. FastStone is
claiming I can only use their software to look at
pictures and can't do anything that could somehow
lkead to someone making money. Which means I
couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at
work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy
licensing limitation.

Each to his own opinion! (I'm not disagreeing with any of the _facts_
you've stated: yes, in theory, those are all true.) Many years ago, I
did actually buy IrfanView because I liked it and was using it a lot,
and I also even bought it for my employer, so I could use it at work
with no worry (I never actually told them I'd done so, or claimed the
cost back). I think FastStone is significantly more expensive, though
(though I've no idea what IV costs these days so may be wrong there).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6