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 |
#691
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , sid
wrote: Floyd said the exposure slider changes brightness level. He was wrong. Live with it. I have no idea why you have so much pride invested in this. no pride, just right. Oh look what Adobe says about it in their lightroom_reference.pdf 147 Developing photos Last updated 6/14/2014 Exposure (All) Sets the overall image brightness. Adjust the slider until the photo looks good and the image is the desired brightness. that's a simplified explanation. Are you not even happy with Adobes explanation now then? i'm neither happy nor sad about what adobe does or doesn't do. unlike you, i have used the software and *see* the difference between what they call exposure and what they call brightness. therefore, it *must* have a different name. again, it's *more* than just brightness. it also doesn't say is that it works differently than the previous brightness slider. Why would it? because a simple brightness slider is not as good. people want results that look good with minimal hassle and the new way does that better than the old way. yet another example of someone who doesn't use an app trying to tell those who do use it how it works. I would take that up with Adobe if I were you, fancy having someone who doesn't use the app writing the manual, whatever next? there's nothing to take up and you aren't even understanding what the manual is saying. |
#692
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Sandman
wrote: Sandman: No, it uses another class for reading, I've already told you about this. it uses a whole slew of other classes for all sorts of stuff, including nsfilemanager for file management, which ultimately calls fread. the fact is that the developer calls nsimage to read a file or url and that's what happens. they do not call nsimagerep directly. They can, and sometimes have to, if the image file is in a format that there isn't a native NSImageRep for. that's not the normal situation. My point was that support for reading image file formats is not in NSImage, it is just a data container. It's a pretty important distinction in the current discussion. actually it isn't. |
#693
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The NSImage class serves many purposes, providing support for the following tasks: Loading images stored on disk or at a specified URL. ... - (id)initWithContentsOfFileNSString*) filename - (id)initWithContentsOfURLNSURL*) aURL that's reading. No, it uses another class for reading, I've already told you about this. "The NSImage class itself is capable of managing image data in a variety of formats. The specific list of formats is dependent on the version of the operating system but includes many standard formats such as TIFF, JPEG, GIF, PNG, and PDF among others. Each format is managed by a specific type of image representation object, whose job is to manage the actual image data." NSImage uses an NSImageRep object to actually read the image data. There is one for each supported image format. Does this apply to reading raw files? it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion. there's nothing like it on any other platform. |
#694
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Sandman
wrote: An UI slider send either 0-100 or the range the developer asks for. A 256 pixel wide slider can never send the value 1,024 *and* 1,023. It can only send 256 discrete values. the developer can ask for 0-1023. see how easy it is? meanwhile, the ui still says 255. You just don't get it. And I realize I can't make you get it either. other way around. you're the one who doesn't get it. So, have a nice day. thanks. |
#695
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The problem is that you are both so set in your views that you are talking past each other. I understand what Sandman is saying and I understand what nospam is saying and I don't disagree with either. But there is a point of view which has not been thoroughly explained. It's possible to have a 10 bit scale (1024) which is divided into 8 bit steps (256). If the 256 step scale is what is displayed to the user, each step on the scale causes 4 steps on the internal scale. This causes loss of granularity in the user's control over the 10 bit scale but it doesn't in anyway affect the 10 bit scale. It certainly doesn't convert it to 8 bit. The same logic applies to the use of an 8 bit slider to control a 16 bit image. all it needs is a slider that doesn't map 1 pixel per value. it's very easy to do. |
#696
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
... On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:51:24 -0400, "PAS" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message . .. In article , PAS wrote: Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response? Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies? that's how. There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's Uuencode. It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a binary to text encoding method. I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case. no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things. You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some of us. obviously you don't understand much of anything. when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for uuencode, you are confusing the two. it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has gaussian blur. outlook does not have unicode. it's broken. whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever, and uuencoding isn't even used anymore. Plonk! I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were related. I was asked about using Unicode, so I replied. I didn't bring it up, I was questioned as to whether I was using it. I responded that OE does not have a setting to use Unicode, it has a setting to use Uuencode. How is that giving the impression of comparing the two? I was stating what the option in OE is, that is all. I wasn't giving any impression, what happened is that some drew their own conclusion as to what I was saying. |
#697
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
On 8/21/2014 4:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:51:24 -0400, "PAS" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , PAS wrote: Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response? Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies? that's how. There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's Uuencode. It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a binary to text encoding method. I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case. no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things. You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some of us. obviously you don't understand much of anything. when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for uuencode, you are confusing the two. it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has gaussian blur. outlook does not have unicode. it's broken. whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever, and uuencoding isn't even used anymore. Plonk! I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were related. I did not read him to say that, at all. -- PeterN |
#698
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
On 8/21/2014 4:26 PM, PAS wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:51:24 -0400, "PAS" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , PAS wrote: Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response? Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies? that's how. There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's Uuencode. It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a binary to text encoding method. I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case. no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things. You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some of us. obviously you don't understand much of anything. when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for uuencode, you are confusing the two. it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has gaussian blur. outlook does not have unicode. it's broken. whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever, and uuencoding isn't even used anymore. Plonk! I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were related. I was asked about using Unicode, so I replied. I didn't bring it up, I was questioned as to whether I was using it. I responded that OE does not have a setting to use Unicode, it has a setting to use Uuencode. How is that giving the impression of comparing the two? I was stating what the option in OE is, that is all. I wasn't giving any impression, what happened is that some drew their own conclusion as to what I was saying. I don't see how anyone with the most basic understanding of the English language could give that interpretation, in good faith. And when you called attention to what you meant, anyone acting in good faith would have backed off. -- PeterN |
#699
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
In article , PAS
wrote: I was asked about using Unicode, so I replied. I didn't bring it up, I was questioned as to whether I was using it. I responded that OE does not have a setting to use Unicode, it has a setting to use Uuencode. How is that giving the impression of comparing the two? because you answered the unicode question by mentioning uuencode. it's like asking if a browser has a setting for disabling cookies and you say there's a setting to change the default search engine. I was stating what the option in OE is, that is all. I wasn't giving any impression, what happened is that some drew their own conclusion as to what I was saying. it's an unrelated option. why even mention it? |
#700
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
On 2014-08-21 20:05:38 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:51:24 -0400, "PAS" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , PAS wrote: Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response? Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies? that's how. There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's Uuencode. It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a binary to text encoding method. I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case. no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things. You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some of us. obviously you don't understand much of anything. when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for uuencode, you are confusing the two. it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has gaussian blur. outlook does not have unicode. it's broken. whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever, and uuencoding isn't even used anymore. Plonk! I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were related. I started this when I asked: "Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response? Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?" ....and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me: "There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's Uuencode." -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library? | Sandman | Digital Photography | 15 | May 15th 14 05:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | May 23rd 08 10:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | May 23rd 08 10:08 PM |
Aperture, Lightroom: beyond Bridge; who needs them? | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | June 4th 07 06:42 PM |
Lightzone/Lightroom/Aperture | D.M. Procida | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | April 27th 07 07:00 AM |