Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?

On 2013-04-22 22:14:48 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:24:19 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in
Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz

Exactly! Those arrows are beautiful!

I especially like the variable width of the streamlined arrows
(although I would have made the point a lot smaller!).

And the text is fine ... as is the circle and ellipse.

Those three things are the hardest to find in freeware, done well:
1. Text (just typing without having to define an area)
2. Arrows (you draw them and the arrows are automatically put in)
3. Circles, boxes, ellipses, etc. (often used to isolate something)

I presume they were all easy to add in both Photoshop & Elements?

In Photoshop they are added to a unique layer as a vector graphic
custom shape, using the tool box provided. Then each can be scaled,
rotated, perspective adjusted, warped, and more.

Each element, arrow, circle, text, etc. are added it individual layers,
and can be returned to as you proceed to tweak the effect until you are
ready to flatten those layers to produce your final product.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer
and move the arrow on that layer. You don't have to re-draw the
arrow.

That's a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows,
as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special,
is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP

--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:29 -0400



In article , Danny D.
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better,
or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a task that the
freeware just couldn't do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
they'd use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.
People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.
Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for...

The point is:
Armed with freeware knowledge, you'll make better payware decisions!

nonsense. the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done
similar tasks what the various options are.

That is already a part of a good decision tree.


--
Poutnik

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:33 -0400



The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that
you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware - hence - you'll
make a much smarter payware decision.

nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any
software.

Before that you cannot know
what freeware cannot provide you,
or just by sufficient way.

What you should know before is
what you want to do,
eventually ways how it can/usually is done.

--
Poutnik

Poutnik posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:15:43 +0200

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:33 -0400

The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that
you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware - hence - you'll
make a much smarter payware decision.

nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any
software.

Before that you cannot know
what freeware cannot provide you,
or just by sufficient way.

What you should know before is
what you want to do,
eventually ways how it can/usually is done.

P.S: You may have not noticed he said payware, not software.

You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
otherwise freeware is sufficient.


--
Poutnik

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer
and move the arrow on that layer. You don't have to re-draw the
arrow.

That's a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows,
as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special,
is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content...9990841497.jpg

(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer
and move the arrow on that layer. You don't have to re-draw the
arrow.

That's a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows,
as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special,
is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content...9990841497.jpg

(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what
probably became German mess kits in 1940.
....and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an
overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less
than adequate on the track.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I
shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

....and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ
or this 1938 GP streamliner
http://db.tt/DZTELetj

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Poutnik
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better,
or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a task that the
freeware just couldn't do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
they'd use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.

not really. there are a few exceptions, but in general, commercial
software is much better, often significantly so.

People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

bull****. nobody is tricked into buying anything.

as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.

it's also easy to not pay for it.

people are smart enough to decide if something is junk or not.

Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for...

sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
"free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
free lunch".

Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews
and testing?

the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
software.

A couple of bucks...... just how much does photoshop cost ;-0
btu there are other cheaper alternatives, but I've also seen peoloe spend too
much on cheap products.

very often, people buy something cheap (and not just software), only to
find out that it doesn't quite work and then they have to go back and
buy something better. they end up paying much more than if they bought
the better product in the first place.

how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
finding a solution?

Not sure that matters unless you practically already know of a solution and
have avoided it due to cost.

it matters if your time is worth something.

Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price,
including:

Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
Update to latest version at no extra charge.

depends on the apps.

And the OS of course, I'm running OS X so for me Apple apps are one purchase
cost and I can put them on all my other Mac computers for free if they can
handle it.

the os doesn't matter. what matters is the restrictions of a given app.

the mac app store makes it easy to buy and update apps on multiple
machines but that doesn't mean it can't be done in other ways and on
other platforms. plenty of paid apps have had free upgrades and allow
multiple installs for *years*.

some apps might restrict the number of activations because of piracy.
they know that if they don't restrict it, people will buy one copy and
use it on hundreds of machines (or just pirate it outright). they're
not really worried about one person who has a laptop and a desktop, and
in fact, that situation is usually allowed.

meanwhile, using software that does exactly what is needed is usually
well worth whatever extra expense might be incurred.

For me it would depend on that extra cost whichy for me mean photoshop isn't
worth buying niether is Word or excel.

depends on what you need to do. photoshop elements is around $50 and is
significantly more capable than anything free. if elements saves you a
couple of hours (even just one hour), you come out ahead by buying it.

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:50 -0400



In article , Poutnik
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task
better, or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a
task that the freeware just couldn't do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
they'd use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.

not really. there are a few exceptions, but in general, commercial
software is much better, often significantly so.

Many exceptions. In spite of the fact avg quality of commercial software
is higher. It is the same as with avg life of smokers and non-smokers.

Avg is higher for non-smokers, but there is huge number of smokers living
longer than most of non-smokers. And vice versa.

People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

bull****. nobody is tricked into buying anything.

You are overestimating people.

as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.

it's also easy to not pay for it.

You are overestimating people.

people are smart enough to decide if something is junk or not.

Some are, like you. Some are not. There are many not well oriented
people, easily convinced to buy crap, thinking they bough great thing.

Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for...

sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.

Sure. Both happens. There is not much to say about payware nor freeware
in general, except of one is paid and one is free.

Both manifest huge range of quality and usability, where standard
deviation is much bigger than average difference, so statistically the
difference is not significant.


--
Poutnik