PhotoSlop Compared to 4 Different Editors

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg

I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:30:55 +0100, Robert Spanjaard
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg

Thanks.

Yes, I had to use that same "Hard Light" layer-blend option in one of the
editors, I think it was in PhotoImpact. And another even more inexpensive
and obscure editor worked the same (PhotoScape? or something like that),
but the chart looked a little too different from the others to include it,
it was using some "Legacy Hard Light" method or something that clipped all
the blacks and lights. But even then the colors in that program, like
yours, were a nice even spread without all those horrendous hills and
valleys of the PhotoSlop one.


I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.

Not sure why. It could depend on if they have their system set to create
layers with a default transparency? Perhaps an easier way to circumvent
other settings. In either case, that's not even 1/10th his problem. :-)


Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.

When I spotted the difference on that page I got curious. That's why I
created that PhotoSlop Granger Chart on the comparison list I posted using
my own copy of PhotoSlop to see if he made any errors. He did not. I even
tried changing the system color profiles in PhotoSlop. I changed the
"rainbow gradient" to the true colors that they should be (they are way off
in PhotoSlop). They should be, from left to right, in 100% saturations:

Red, Magenta, Blue, Cyan, Green, Yellow, Red

At spacing increments of

0%, 16%, 33% 50%, 66%, 83%, 100%

Or if using hue-rotation degrees, then:

0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360

PhotoSlop's default "rainbow" gradient was all over the map in colors and
spacing. Further adding to any PhotoSlop user's nightmare when using this
method without correcting the gradient first. When I corrected PhotoSlop's
gradient even that didn't help. It resulted in a similar mess as what you
see in the above chart.

On 10-02-07 11:30 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg

I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.

Agreed. Has no effect.

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.

I get the same effect as on the LL page.

I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.

What "error"? As long as the end result is correct, who cares how the G
chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or blocked areas, not to
create a linear look.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:00:23 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-02-07 11:30 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg

I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.

Agreed. Has no effect.

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.

I get the same effect as on the LL page.

I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.

What "error"? As long as the end result is correct, who cares how the G
chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or blocked areas, not to
create a linear look.

How can you find dead or blocked areas that don't exist on the PhotoSlop
Granger Chart?

[now waiting for that cartoonist's light-bulb to get drawn in above your
head]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:00:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.

I get the same effect as on the LL page.

I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.

What "error"? As long as the end result is correct,

But is it? It this chart the correct result of combining two simple
gradient layers? Does that mean that the error is in _all_ the other
editors?

who cares how the G chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or
blocked areas, not to create a linear look.

That is the purpose of the Granger chart, and ofcourse I don't care how
that chart looks at all. But if I was a PS user, I'd be very worried about
the way PS combines two simple layers. That _does_ affect the end result.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On 10-02-07 12:16 , Too Funny wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:00:23 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-02-07 11:30 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg

I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.

Agreed. Has no effect.

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.

I get the same effect as on the LL page.

I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.

What "error"? As long as the end result is correct, who cares how the G
chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or blocked areas, not to
create a linear look.

How can you find dead or blocked areas that don't exist on the PhotoSlop
Granger Chart?

Change color settings and profiles and you will definitely see blocked
up areas.

How's the balloon above your head?


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:58:09 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.

When I spotted the difference on that page I got curious. That's why I
created that PhotoSlop Granger Chart on the comparison list I posted
using my own copy of PhotoSlop to see if he made any errors. He did not.
I even tried changing the system color profiles in PhotoSlop. I changed
the "rainbow gradient" to the true colors that they should be (they are
way off in PhotoSlop). They should be, from left to right, in 100%
saturations:

[...]

Havve you tried other blending modes in PS? Perhaps this is just the way
their Luminance blend is supposed to work.
If I convert my own chart to grayscale based on luminosity, I don't get an
even black to white gradient (which I do get with a Lightness grayscale).

So apparently a luminosity blend is different from a hard light blend. But
if I convert the PS version to grayscale based on luminosity, I also don't
get a correct black to white gradient.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On 10-02-07 12:16 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:00:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say
if the error really is created by PS instead of the original author.
I've seen more stupid errors from LL before.

I get the same effect as on the LL page.

I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.

What "error"? As long as the end result is correct,

But is it? It this chart the correct result of combining two simple
gradient layers? Does that mean that the error is in _all_ the other
editors?

I've been thinking exactly the same thing. But then the simple truth
comes up: people have been printing WYSIWYG (close enough) from PS (and
the others long enough that the odd looking output of PS with those two
functions does not seem to matter very much. Or much. Or at all.

who cares how the G chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or
blocked areas, not to create a linear look.

That is the purpose of the Granger chart, and ofcourse I don't care how
that chart looks at all. But if I was a PS user, I'd be very worried about
the way PS combines two simple layers. That _does_ affect the end result.

It is strange, to be sure. But not so much as a color issue as a layer
tool issue. I don't use layers much with gradients however.

I looked at the linearity of the B/W and spectrum gradients, and they
seem to be straight. So in mixing they should band straight in the
vertical. The diagonals are puzzling.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-02-07 12:16 , Too Funny wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:00:23 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-02-07 11:30 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:09:40 -0600, Too Funny wrote:

[corrected URL]

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying
to remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

You can add this one I just created with GIMP. GIMP doesn't have
"Luminance" in its layer mixers, but applying "Hard Light" to the second
gradient seems to produce the same effect.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/GrangerChart.jpg

I also don't understand why the Luminance Landscape author says that the
background color must be white. The background will be gone after applying
the rainbow gradient anyway.

Agreed. Has no effect.

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see a response by a PS-user, who can say if
the error really is created by PS instead of the original author. I've
seen more stupid errors from LL before.

I get the same effect as on the LL page.

I tried the LL instructions in CS3 with various color settings, paper
profile settings (in simulate paper mode), etc. and I always get the
same general pattern at different tone levels.

What "error"? As long as the end result is correct, who cares how the G
chart looks? It's real purpose is to find dead or blocked areas, not to
create a linear look.

How can you find dead or blocked areas that don't exist on the PhotoSlop
Granger Chart?

I've posted a question on this in the photoshop NG's. Perhaps someone
there can explain why it occurs.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.