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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

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?

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