If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:14:58 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
Yes. That's a showstopper for me. It not only requires .Net. It was designed to be a showcase for .Net graphic functionality. Wow. I didn't know that! Thanks. It always amazed me that .NET Framework is a Microsoft Windows' abomination in that a company that makes the operating system can't come up with a function library that makes sense. I'm NOT a coder, so I only know what makes sense from the *user* standpoint. What makes no sense to me, as a basic user of Windows, is that I have to load version after version after subversion of .NET Framework, each of which must surely be huge duplication of the previous versions. Yet, load them I must. From a Windows OS standpoint, that makes no sense to me, coming from the vendor of the OS itself. Every time there's a new framework, Paint.Net requires that new one. They want it to be a demo of "the latest and greatest". Who is "they". I never wondered or asked "who" makes Paint.NET before. Googling ... http://www.getpaint.net/index.html they ask for donations. Are the developers of Paint.NET somehow in bed with Microsoft? I'm not sure of the details at this point, but I think the latest is something like v. 4.5, something like 1/2 GB of support libraries,and only runs on Win7+. It's like making Photoshop running on Java. Because of that I've never even tried Paint.Net. I'd be curious to try it if it were not .Net-crippled, but I'm not going to install such a massive pile of support slop just for that. (Just as I don't seriously consider installing anything that requires Java.) I agree with you. If there was a better (curved arrow, texting, and boxing) program out there, I'd install it (trust me I would). But it's just so good at those three things that I can't. BTW, as I said, Pinta was *supposed* to be a cross-platform replacement for Paint.NET, so, when/if Pinta is ready on those three things, I'm in. I'd never heard of that before. But it's described as a simpler, cross-platform version of Paint.Net, still requiring .Net on windows. It looks to me like one of those projects the open source nuts do to say, "See! Linux can do that too!" That's odd that the Microsoft .NET Framework abomination is still used for the Windows version of Pinta. I would have thought that, to be cross platform, they'd entirely abolish the .NET Framework abomination. Interesting that you found out that they didn't. The whole approach seems unfortunate and misguided to me. Graphics is process-intensive. It doesn't make sense to write graphics software on top of bloated wrapper libraries. I'd guess that most or all of what's in Paint.net is just .Net wrappers for functions already available in gdi.dll and gdiplus.dll, the Windows graphics libraries. There's little, if anything, unique to .Net. And since they never really made it cross-platform (It doesn't even support windows versions very well!) there's really no reason for the inefficiency and bloat of the .Net wrapper. I'm not going to disagree. What I will say is that the click-click-modify approach that Paint.NET has is the *best* GUI possible. Better than *anything* out there, free or otherwise. It's how a GUI should be. The developers were run by a manager who *knew* how graphics should work. Most people don't have a clue what efficiency is available in graphics programs; but they did. Even the select-and-stretch in Paint.NET is done the right way with the *fewest* clicks. For example, many programs allow you to select, but to stretch, you often have to add an in-place cut-and-paste (control-x control-v) and even then, some graphics programs put that pasted selection in the top-left corner (aaaauuurrrgggghhhhhh, which drives me nuts!!!!!!). But Paint.NET stretch is as simple as click-click-stretch, which is EXACTLY as it should be (i.e., the fewest strokes possible). Paint.NET was designed by a genius - at least for *those* features. (There are a few features in paint.net that I don't like though, and which Irfanview does better, e.g., the crop in Irfanview is click-click-crop whereas in Paint.NET it's more strokes). I think most full graphic editors do that pretty well. With all respect, and I *do* respect your judgement, I think you're flat out wrong. I say this so strongly because I believe it so strongly that the USABILITY is what matters in this discussion. Usability is click-click-do in my examples. That's usability. Anything else is *not* usability. So, while I agree with you that the *end result* in most graphic programs is that they do all these basic things (let's agree - we're talking super basic stuff here). Yet, they do them *wrong*. For example, if you have to define the text box before you can type text, that's ridiculous - or - if you have to change the text box because the text runs off the end of the box, that's also ridiculous. It should be click-text and that's it! I know usability extremely well. I have NEVER seen a graphics editor that comes close to the usability of Paint.NET on the three things that I mentioned, and particularly on the latter two, and specifically on the curved arrows. My old version of PSP5 does it all, except that it predates making curves easily. Exactly my point. The Gimp does it all too. But the number of clicks is horrendous to just draw an open box in The Gimp. Which is my only point. Paint.NET, for all its slow speed and ridiculous Microsoft .NET Framework flaws, is the best, bar none, for USABILITY on the three things I do most to images. 1. text (it's not that much better though than most) 2. open boxes (it's better but not much better than most) 3. curved arrows (it's far better than anything on the planet) 4. stretching selections (it's better - but not much better than most) OK. So that's 4 things. But I often use it for that kind of purpose. I make most of my income as a carpentry contractor. A typical thing for me to do is to make diagrams of steps, bookcases, cabinets, etc in PSP using shape and line tools. Then I label the details using the text tool. For you, then, usability is *not* the issue. To me, usability is the issue because I want the edits to take seconds. | Pinta, last I checked, was a huge disappointment in that arena. | Maybe they have improved it over the years? I don't know. I'm not going to download .Net to find out. But I think it makes sense to define categories. Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, GIMP.... those are in the category of graphic editor. They can accomplish most any task that can be done on a computer. I agree. There are multiple categories for editors. In my installation hierarchy, I have these folders under C:\data\software\editors\pic\{type of image editors}\ http://i.cubeupload.com/h4kmeP.gif are never going to spend the time to learn those tools. So there's a profusion of simpler programs to do things like remove red-eye and apply one-click alterations -- programs meant to provide a few simple options to people snapping photos who don't really work with computer software. If they try to add too many tools then the target audience can't use the software. I understand. I use about 3 or 4 editors, in general, each of which does a specific task extremely well. Usually only one editor at a time, but sometimes two editors, rarely three in sequence. You use a single editor, which has value to you, which is a different use model, but perfectly valid also. PS: As a favor to the "Good Guy", I crossposted to his suggested ng's. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
On 2016-07-22 00:14:43 +0000, RichA said:
picassa Picassa is now defunct. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
Gimp straightens photo easily and beautifully.
Russell --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
Russell D. wrote:
Gimp straightens photo easily and beautifully. Russell Details ? Which menu or menus ? Is this an optional plugin you download or something built-in to 2.8.16. I could find reference to an old plugin, where someone had managed to find the original source and archive it, before it was lost. That's an example of a more obscure route. I wouldn't ask this question, except in a quick scan, I don't see a menu item. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
In message , Russell D.
writes: Gimp straightens photo easily and beautifully. Russell --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- I think some would disagree with your "easily". -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." - Winston Churchill. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
On 23/07/2016 05:16, Paul wrote:
Russell D. wrote: Gimp straightens photo easily and beautifully. Russell Details ? Which menu or menus ? Is this an optional plugin you download or something built-in to 2.8.16. I could find reference to an old plugin, where someone had managed to find the original source and archive it, before it was lost. That's an example of a more obscure route. I wouldn't ask this question, except in a quick scan, I don't see a menu item. Paul Layer|Transform|Arbitrary Rotation |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Good free app for straightening scanned photos
Me wrote:
On 23/07/2016 05:16, Paul wrote: Russell D. wrote: Gimp straightens photo easily and beautifully. Russell Details ? Which menu or menus ? Is this an optional plugin you download or something built-in to 2.8.16. I could find reference to an old plugin, where someone had managed to find the original source and archive it, before it was lost. That's an example of a more obscure route. I wouldn't ask this question, except in a quick scan, I don't see a menu item. Paul Layer|Transform|Arbitrary Rotation Which is fine for *manual* correction of rotation, but is not completely automated. For example, if you're scanning a 50 sheet document, you don't have an autofeeder, you place the sheets on the platen and each time, they're off a bit, you want an automatic corrector. It's possible an older plugin does just that. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
free ecards and photos a good site to visit | pappu | Digital Photography | 0 | April 16th 07 04:17 PM |
IPTC and Mac - scanned photos | stilllearning | Digital Photography | 2 | January 11th 06 07:20 AM |
IPTC and Mac - scanned photos | stilllearning | Digital Photography | 0 | January 8th 06 09:26 PM |
IPTC and Mac - scanned photos | stilllearning | Digital Photography | 0 | January 8th 06 09:18 PM |
can a scanned 35mm from a analog camera be as good as a digital capture? | Jim Waggener | Digital Photography | 8 | April 26th 05 04:38 PM |