Is there a single photo-editing task you do often that Windows freeware just can't do?

In another thread (see snippet below), we found freeware to convert a photo
to an "oil pant on textured canvas" where I made the observation that
"freeware does everything" that I ever needed to do with an existing
picture.

There are the all-in-one packages, where the payware kills the freeware in
sheer number of options and ease of use (Photoshop vs The Gimp, for
example) but I'm not asking about a "collection" of options nor "ease of
use".

I'm just asking whether you have a specific task that you do often (like
straightening edges or removing pimples) that freeware doesn't do?
but for specific tasks

Is there a single photo-editing task you do often that Windows freeware
just can't do?

=============== here is the reference snippet ======================

I have a number
of programs with various filter plugins. Paint Shop Pro,
for instance, has a number of brush stroke filters and
things like charcoal or pencil drawing.

Freeware does everything.

I usually use the best freeware for the one thing I need to do such as
convert from format X to format Y, or to straighten edges, or to add
lighting effects, or to remove wrinkles and pimples or to draw open boxes
and add text and arrows or to batch operate on files, etc.

The work is always in *finding* the best freeware for the stated task.
Using freeware to do the stated task is the easy part of freeware.

That might be the best option for you. Though if
you haven't tried standard editors like Paint Shop Pro,
GIMP, Photoshop, or even IrfanView, you might find
those interesting.

GIMP, for me, is too complicated to do the simplest of things, but
sometimes I end up using The GIMP too.

1. When I need to just view and crop and resize and change the file format
and straighten edges, I use Irfanview freeware, often in batch mode
(sometimes ImageMagick freeware is needed, but rarely).
2. When I need to change a curve, say a frown to a smile, I use Cartoonist
freeware.
3. When I need to remove wrinkles, I use an older version 1.1 of
Photo!Editor freeware.
4. When I need to draw open boxes and curvy arrows and add text, I use
Paint.NET freeware (I wish Pinta would make it to prime time, but it fails
miserably).
5. When I need to convert from one video format to another, I use an older
version "build 38" of Super freeware (sometimes Handbrake freeware is
needed, but rarely).
6. When I need to filter audio, I use Audacity freeware.
etcetera

I'm always open to suggestions as to the best freeware for any stated task.

Blake Snyder:
Is there a single photo-editing task you do often that Windows freeware
just can't do?

People use Windows for photo editing? Who knew!? How sad.

Anyway, regardless of platform, try focus-stacking 20 exposures to
produce a macro like this one
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/34885963754 with freeware. I
doubt it can be done. I used Photoshop CC 2017.

Or try stacking 30 exposures to produce this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/36371460720. And good luck
with freeware.

Ya still gets what ya pays for.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

"Davoud" wrote

| Is there a single photo-editing task you do often that Windows freeware
| just can't do?
|
| People use Windows for photo editing? Who knew!? How sad.
|

What else is there? Are you saying that Macs have
finally gone beyond 18-bit color? Who knew!

You do realize that anyone can overpay for Photoshop
on Windows as easily as they can on Mac?

| Ya still gets what ya pays for.

Yes. But in many cases what you got wasn't worth
what you paid. That's the catch. I don't remember
what pet rocks sold for, but they sure did sell.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Is there a single photo-editing task you do often that Windows freeware
| just can't do?
|
| People use Windows for photo editing? Who knew!? How sad.
|

What else is there? Are you saying that Macs have
finally gone beyond 18-bit color? Who knew!

not you.

macs support 64 bit colour. that's 16 bits per component. 48 bit rgb+16
bit alpha.

You do realize that anyone can overpay for Photoshop
on Windows as easily as they can on Mac?

you do realize that free software is often not worth free and because
it's garbage, costs more in time and hassle than paid options?

put simply, photoshop pays for itself in increased productivity alone.

| Ya still gets what ya pays for.

Yes. But in many cases what you got wasn't worth
what you paid. That's the catch. I don't remember
what pet rocks sold for, but they sure did sell.

is that how you filled your head?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:15:14 -0400, in
news
No.

We will see over time if this is true since experts are in these three ngs.

My claim is that there is nothing that is worth doing to a photo that isn't
available in freeware.

I'm fine being wrong - so if someone provides something worth doing that
they do all the time, I will look for the freeware that does the nominal
task.

FWIW, the programs use different algorithms, so the results of some
operations (eg, automatic colour correction, sharpening) are different.
Which is A Good Thing from my POV.

Yeah. Fonts are all different too. But they all do essentially the same
thing. We have to assume that it just has to do the job in freeware.

For example someone kindly brought up focus-stacking of a score of
exposures, which seems to have at least 4 freeware options. Are they all
exactly the same result. No. But if they stack the score of exposures
reasonably well into one without a watermark or other shenanigans, then
they pass the nominal test.

When it come to graphics, you can't have too many programs.

Agree with you there but the cost of freeware is the complexity of needing
a bunch of programs, one for each "thing" you want to do.

So far nobody has come up with something worth doing to an existing photo
that doesn't have a nominal freeware equivalent, but time will tell if
there is anything worth doing to a photo that doesn't have freeware to do
it.

On 8/27/2017 1:20 PM, Davoud wrote:
Blake Snyder:
Is there a single photo-editing task you do often that Windows freeware
just can't do?

People use Windows for photo editing? Who knew!? How sad.

Anyway, regardless of platform, try focus-stacking 20 exposures to
produce a macro like this one
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/34885963754 with freeware. I
doubt it can be done. I used Photoshop CC 2017.

Or try stacking 30 exposures to produce this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/36371460720. And good luck
with freeware.

Ya still gets what ya pays for.


Perhaps one day I will learn focus stacking. I like the effects. There
are some obstacles for me.
1. I don't have the patience.
2. My BW does not want bugs brought into the house.
3. I am not certain I have the interest in super macro.

--
PeterN

In article , Blake Snyder
wrote:

I'm fine being wrong

no you're not.

you think that freeware is equivalent to professional quality tools
just because the feature checklists match and when people tell you
that's bogus, you argue.

to you, a yugo and a ferrari are the same because they're both cars.

you'd also insist on hitchhiking because it's free, thinking that it's
just as good.

In article , Blake Snyder
wrote:

try focus-stacking 20 exposures

That's a good one, focus stacking which I had to look up what it is after
looking at your pictures in order to learn more about whether freeware does
focus stacking since my premise is that freeware does everything that
anyone actually does frequently.

then you're not in a position to even start to consider what options
exist, free or otherwise.

....

I did not test any of these, but it seems that focus stacking has freeware
that does it, which fits in my claim that anything worth doing with photos
already has freeware in the wild to do it.

of course you didn't, because you don't know enough to be able to test
it.

you're assuming that if something claims it can do focus stacking, it
is automatically just as good as the best professional tools.

it's not.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 22:55:27 -0400, in
, nospam wrote:

I'm fine being wrong

no you're not.

you think that freeware is equivalent to professional quality tools
just because the feature checklists match and when people tell you
that's bogus, you argue.

to you, a yugo and a ferrari are the same because they're both cars.

you'd also insist on hitchhiking because it's free, thinking that it's
just as good.

What you're saying is akin to saying Irfanview can't view a picture as well
as payware simply because Irfanview is free.

Your thought process is that of an idiot.

Give us a fact, not your diatribe that Cartoonist can't remove pimples just
because it's free, Paint.NET can't draw curved arrows just because it's
free, Super can't convert files just because it's free, Audacity can't
change the decibel level just because it's free, ImageMagick can't convert
picture formats just because it's free, Picolay can't photo stack just
because it's free.

Your entire thought process is exactly that of an idiot.

Your argument is akin to saying Google Maps can't display maps just because
it's free. Firefox can't display web pages just because it's free.
Wireshark can't capture packets just because it's free.

Why do you waste everyone's time with a completely fact-free thought
process that is one that a child could reliably shoot down in a second?

Your entire thought process is exactly that of an idiot.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 22:55:27 -0400, in
, nospam wrote:

you're assuming that if something claims it can do focus stacking, it
is automatically just as good as the best professional tools.

Your entire thought process is exactly that of an idiot.

You provide fact-free arguments that Irfanview can't view photos as well as
payware just because it's free.

That Picolay can't photo stack just because it's free. That Google Maps
can't possible be accurate just because it's free. That Firefox can't
display web pages as well as payware just because it's free.

Fact free arguments are all you can do which just waste everyone's time.

Your entire thought process is exactly that of an idiot.