Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:29:22 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.05[36] 14:40 , Bruce wrote:
Corel has announced PaintShop Pro X5, the latest version of its photo

Gimp is better.

Especially when it runs on the machine, but PaintShop does not.

What machine are you referring to?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| But with "features"
| like the PS ability to "predictively fill-in" background after
| an item is removed from a photo (like filling in trees when
| a barn is removed from a landscape), while an interesting
| feature that might sometimes be useful, especially for
| commercial work in a hurry, I wouldn't count that in judging
| a program as an overall graphic editor.
|
| why not? it's part of the package and can easily make you more
| productive.

Maybe so. But I'm not likely to need such a function.
And I'm as wary of "feature creep" as I am of inadequate
software. So I'm wondering about the basic functionality
(post-raw).
What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness
was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a
formula applied to up the numeric color values of each
pixel.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:43:40 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| But with "features"
| like the PS ability to "predictively fill-in" background after
| an item is removed from a photo (like filling in trees when
| a barn is removed from a landscape), while an interesting
| feature that might sometimes be useful, especially for
| commercial work in a hurry, I wouldn't count that in judging
| a program as an overall graphic editor.
|
| why not? it's part of the package and can easily make you more
| productive.

Maybe so. But I'm not likely to need such a function.

Nikon NX2 has similar but probably not as powerful capabilities. The
other day I had to delete an unsightly blue fire hydrant from behind a
tree and in front of a trellis fence. NX2 made the removal of the pipe
and its replacement with more trellis a task of more or less 30
seconds. Doing it with masking and cloning would have been much more
laborious.

And I'm as wary of "feature creep" as I am of inadequate
software. So I'm wondering about the basic functionality
(post-raw).
What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness
was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a
formula applied to up the numeric color values of each
pixel.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| But with "features"
| like the PS ability to "predictively fill-in" background after
| an item is removed from a photo (like filling in trees when
| a barn is removed from a landscape), while an interesting
| feature that might sometimes be useful, especially for
| commercial work in a hurry, I wouldn't count that in judging
| a program as an overall graphic editor.
|
| why not? it's part of the package and can easily make you more
| productive.

Maybe so. But I'm not likely to need such a function.
And I'm as wary of "feature creep" as I am of inadequate
software. So I'm wondering about the basic functionality
(post-raw).

just because they add features you might not use does not mean the ones
you do use are neglected.

What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness
was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a
formula applied to up the numeric color values of each
pixel.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...ast-photoshop-
cs3.html
Increasing Brightness with any version of Photoshop prior to CS3
simply adds whatever you set the control at to every pixel in the
image, shifting everything towards the right in the histogram.
....
Rather than operating equally, in a linear fashion, on all pixels in
an image, the new Brightness/Contrast algorithm operates
proportionally, much as Levels and Curves do. Pixels more in need of
adjustment receive more of the effects of any change you make.

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

I typically use contrast/brightness/saturation/hue/
cutting and patching selections/ etc. To my mind something
like a higher quality contrast or brightness function would
be notable, if such a thing is even possible. (I'm not so
sure it is. Those functions are plain math.)

actually it's more than just math.

It is? What else is it --- living pixies, kept in slavery?

the point is that it changed. the math for brightness/contrast in
pre-cs3 is different than cs3 and later.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
If you wanted to respond to Alan Browne you should not have responded
to my article. You should have responded directly to Alan.

I responded to the thread, I don't respond to the authors personally.


I wasn't responding to that post, and thus included *NO* part of your
reply.
One thing I didn't decide is that the thread belonged to you alone. Not
sure
why you did.

The thread doesn't belong to me but the position in the thread to
which you were responding does belong to me. Hence the confusion.

Only for you, I'm sure others can read what is written without making
incorrect assumptions.

Trevor.

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
If you wanted to respond to Alan Browne you should not have responded
to my article. You should have responded directly to Alan.

I responded to the thread, I don't respond to the authors personally.

It's not the thread that writes articles. It's the individual authors
to whom you say you don't respond. Just who do you think wrote the
article to which you have tagged on your response?


I wasn't responding to that post, and thus included *NO* part of your
reply.
One thing I didn't decide is that the thread belonged to you alone. Not
sure
why you did.

The thread doesn't belong to me but the position in the thread to
which you were responding does belong to me. Hence the confusion.

Only for you, I'm sure others can read what is written without making
incorrect assumptions.

How easy would it be for you to follow this thread if instead of
writing this article I tagged my response to you on to an article
written by another person?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness
| was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a
| formula applied to up the numeric color values of each
| pixel.
|
| http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...ast-photoshop-
| cs3.html
| Increasing Brightness with any version of Photoshop prior to CS3
| simply adds whatever you set the control at to every pixel in the
| image, shifting everything towards the right in the histogram.
| ...
| Rather than operating equally, in a linear fashion, on all pixels in
| an image, the new Brightness/Contrast algorithm operates
| proportionally, much as Levels and Curves do. Pixels more in need of
| adjustment receive more of the effects of any change you make.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Though the sample
picture is not very impressive. The new-style brightness
sample looks more like a hue adjustment. I guess that's
partly due to the limitation of the processing. With
brightness what we want to do is to provide more light
to our vision, but that can't be done for a simple
bitmapped image. We can't "see better" into the cracks
in the badlands landscape of the sample because the
data simply isn't there. So brightness adjustment is
always partly wishful thinking.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:35:51 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| But with "features"
| like the PS ability to "predictively fill-in" background after
| an item is removed from a photo (like filling in trees when
| a barn is removed from a landscape), while an interesting
| feature that might sometimes be useful, especially for
| commercial work in a hurry, I wouldn't count that in judging
| a program as an overall graphic editor.
|
| why not? it's part of the package and can easily make you more
| productive.

Maybe so. But I'm not likely to need such a function.
And I'm as wary of "feature creep" as I am of inadequate
software. So I'm wondering about the basic functionality
(post-raw).

just because they add features you might not use does not mean the ones
you do use are neglected.

What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness
was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a
formula applied to up the numeric color values of each
pixel.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/brightness-contrast-photoshop-cs3.html
Increasing Brightness with any version of Photoshop prior to CS3
simply adds whatever you set the control at to every pixel in the
image, shifting everything towards the right in the histogram.
...
Rather than operating equally, in a linear fashion, on all pixels in
an image, the new Brightness/Contrast algorithm operates
proportionally, much as Levels and Curves do. Pixels more in need of
adjustment receive more of the effects of any change you make.

I don't know Photo Shop but Paint Shop Pro, Photo Paint and Nikon
Capture NX2 all enable the same functionality through histogram
adjustments. I would expect Photo Shop to incorporate the same
functionality.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 9/7/2012 7:30 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:35:51 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| But with "features"
| like the PS ability to "predictively fill-in" background after
| an item is removed from a photo (like filling in trees when
| a barn is removed from a landscape), while an interesting
| feature that might sometimes be useful, especially for
| commercial work in a hurry, I wouldn't count that in judging
| a program as an overall graphic editor.
|
| why not? it's part of the package and can easily make you more
| productive.

Maybe so. But I'm not likely to need such a function.
And I'm as wary of "feature creep" as I am of inadequate
software. So I'm wondering about the basic functionality
(post-raw).

just because they add features you might not use does not mean the ones
you do use are neglected.

What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness
was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a
formula applied to up the numeric color values of each
pixel.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/brightness-contrast-photoshop-cs3.html
Increasing Brightness with any version of Photoshop prior to CS3
simply adds whatever you set the control at to every pixel in the
image, shifting everything towards the right in the histogram.
...
Rather than operating equally, in a linear fashion, on all pixels in
an image, the new Brightness/Contrast algorithm operates
proportionally, much as Levels and Curves do. Pixels more in need of
adjustment receive more of the effects of any change you make.

I don't know Photo Shop but Paint Shop Pro, Photo Paint and Nikon
Capture NX2 all enable the same functionality through histogram
adjustments. I would expect Photo Shop to incorporate the same
functionality.


IIRC You can download a trial.

--
Peter