A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 8th 12, 02:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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?


If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought,
downright dishonest, or both.

Trevor.



  #22  
Old September 8th 12, 04:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:48:35 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
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?


If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought,
downright dishonest, or both.

That's exactly what you did, and you should climb off your high horse
before you fall and hurt yourself.

If you go back up the thread and have a look at the headers you will
see:

Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID:


Alan Browne responded to Bruce's Message-ID:
with his Message-ID:


I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID:
and cited References:


which you will see are the message IDs of the two preceding messages
in the thread in chronological order.

You then responded with your Message-ID:
and cited References:



which, as in the preceding case are the message IDs of the (now)
three preceding messages.

It is clear from their order that no matter what your intention,
belief or understanding may be, your message ID
was in response to my Message-ID:
which was, in turn, in
response to Alan Browne.

The full sequence of the thread todate is shown in your latest
Message-ID: in which you cite the
list of prior References:








--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #23  
Old September 8th 12, 04:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:32:31 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.


There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #24  
Old September 8th 12, 01:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

| IIRC You can download a trial.
|
| There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price.
| --

How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and
PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the
only person in the world who sees something odd in a software
program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite
being sold in vast numbers.

I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing
that happens with software used commercially. They can
charge almost any price they like and most people who use
it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their
boss that they can't work without it.

I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my
power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the
basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis
of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able
to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and
go to work.




  #25  
Old September 8th 12, 02:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On 9/8/2012 8:45 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| IIRC You can download a trial.
|
| There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price.
| --

How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and
PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the
only person in the world who sees something odd in a software
program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite
being sold in vast numbers.

I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing
that happens with software used commercially. They can
charge almost any price they like and most people who use
it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their
boss that they can't work without it.

I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my
power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the
basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis
of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able
to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and
go to work.


Razor blades cost more than a razor.
A piece of copper wire is not very expensive. Neither is a glob of
silicone. Both are components of the cheap computer.

The cloth for your pants costs much less than your pants. Last time I
looked, chickens aren't paid for their eggs.


--
Peter
  #26  
Old September 9th 12, 12:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:45:42 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| IIRC You can download a trial.
|
| There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price.
| --

How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and
PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the
only person in the world who sees something odd in a software
program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite
being sold in vast numbers.

I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing
that happens with software used commercially. They can
charge almost any price they like and most people who use
it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their
boss that they can't work without it.

I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my
power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the
basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis
of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able
to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and
go to work.

I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me.
The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to
most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having
to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived
in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I
know they are ripping me off and I resent that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #27  
Old September 9th 12, 02:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

"tony cooper" wrote:
in message ...
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:31:48 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me.
The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to
most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having
to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived
in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I
know they are ripping me off and I resent that.


I'll preface this by emphasizing that I know absolutely nothing about
how prices are set for Adobe products in other countries.

I do wonder, though, if this is an Adobe policy or an Amazon policy.
Neither outfit would want to discourage sales to someone just because
the person does not live in the US. It doesn't make sense
business-wise, and both organizations are very savvy business
operations.


Adobe and Microsoft and Apple all run local operations in each country as
independent companies responsible for local sales and service. And their
head offices only service the US market. And Amazon won't ship software,
cars, or breakfast cereals to Japan (or other countries). So if you want to
by a Ford car (oops, software package) you have to buy it from a dealer in
the country you are living in. Some of that is due to the problem that
countries get to tax local corporations (and all corporations are local and
independent of the parent for tax purposes), so each local company has to
buy product from the US company (accounted as business expenses) and collect
revenue from sales (accounted as taxable income (after expense deductions,
of courses)).

It can be really irritating to live in a country that's not the head office.
Here, the generic English language versions of things (e.g. Microsoft Visual
Studio) is way more expensive than the localized (e.g. Japanese) version,
which obviously has more work in it than the generic version, which I'd love
to buy from Amazon and pay shipping therefor.


I would seem to me that this is more of a government thing than a
business thing...that there are some taxes or other fees imposed by
the government. You may be getting ripped off, but I think you might
be blaming the wrong party.


In the sense that you can't have a corporation without a government to make
that possible, I suppose that's true. But if you want separate countries and
companies, you need to put up with taxation to pay for those services.


It does not add a nickel to the cost of the product to allow it to be
downloaded in New Zealand or New Jersey. A mailed disk would add to
the cost, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Adobe's losing a sale. Amazon's losing a sale. Why would either want
to do that?


Adobe doesn't think they're losing a sale: they think that to sell in NZ
they have to not only play by NZ rules, but price things such that profit is
maximized. If two sales at a higher price make more money to the local
company than three at a lower prices, you picked the wrong country to live
in.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

  #28  
Old September 9th 12, 06:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:48:35 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
m...
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?


If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought,
downright dishonest, or both.

That's exactly what you did, and you should climb off your high horse
before you fall and hurt yourself.

If you go back up the thread and have a look at the headers you will
see:

Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID:


Alan Browne responded to Bruce's Message-ID:
with his Message-ID:


I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID:
and cited References:


which you will see are the message IDs of the two preceding messages
in the thread in chronological order.

You then responded with your Message-ID:
and cited References:



which, as in the preceding case are the message IDs of the (now)
three preceding messages.

It is clear from their order that no matter what your intention,
belief or understanding may be, your message ID
was in response to my Message-ID:
which was, in turn, in
response to Alan Browne.

The full sequence of the thread todate is shown in your latest
Message-ID: in which you cite the
list of prior References:










So you don't actually read what is written, only the headers? I guess that
explains it then. Seems like a very weird passtime though!

Trevor.


  #29  
Old September 9th 12, 09:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 15:56:04 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:48:35 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
om...
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?

If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought,
downright dishonest, or both.

That's exactly what you did, and you should climb off your high horse
before you fall and hurt yourself.

If you go back up the thread and have a look at the headers you will
see:

Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID:


Alan Browne responded to Bruce's Message-ID:
with his Message-ID:


I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID:
and cited References:


which you will see are the message IDs of the two preceding messages
in the thread in chronological order.

You then responded with your Message-ID:
and cited References:



which, as in the preceding case are the message IDs of the (now)
three preceding messages.

It is clear from their order that no matter what your intention,
belief or understanding may be, your message ID
was in response to my Message-ID:
which was, in turn, in
response to Alan Browne.

The full sequence of the thread todate is shown in your latest
Message-ID: in which you cite the
list of prior References:










So you don't actually read what is written, only the headers? I guess that
explains it then. Seems like a very weird passtime though!


You are flanneling. The evidence of the headers is that you responded
to the wrong article and now you are trying to say that the postman
should ignore the address and pay attention only to the presumed
intent of the author.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #30  
Old September 9th 12, 09:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:16:06 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:31:48 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:45:42 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| IIRC You can download a trial.
|
| There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price.
| --

How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and
PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the
only person in the world who sees something odd in a software
program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite
being sold in vast numbers.

I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing
that happens with software used commercially. They can
charge almost any price they like and most people who use
it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their
boss that they can't work without it.

I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my
power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the
basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis
of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able
to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and
go to work.

I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me.
The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to
most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having
to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived
in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I
know they are ripping me off and I resent that.


I'll preface this by emphasizing that I know absolutely nothing about
how prices are set for Adobe products in other countries.


That's a good start. :-)

I do wonder, though, if this is an Adobe policy or an Amazon policy.


It can only be Adobe. Amazon has no control over Adobe prices in the
world outside the US.

Neither outfit would want to discourage sales to someone just because
the person does not live in the US. It doesn't make sense
business-wise, and both organizations are very savvy business
operations.


I'm sure there is a reason. I don't really care what it is. I only
know how it affects me.

I would seem to me that this is more of a government thing than a
business thing...that there are some taxes or other fees imposed by
the government.


It's just like DVDs. There are different price policies in different
parts of the world and these are all under the control of the DVD
manufacturers or Adobe. Amazon sells what it does at the prices that
it does under the control of the original manufacturers (Adobe, Sony,
Microsoft, Autocad, Apple, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all ... ).

You may be getting ripped off, but I think you might
be blaming the wrong party.


True, but you could be entirely wrong. Governments don't generally
interfere with market prices.

It does not add a nickel to the cost of the product to allow it to be
downloaded in New Zealand or New Jersey. A mailed disk would add to
the cost, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Adobe's losing a sale. Amazon's losing a sale. Why would either want
to do that?


Complex marketing economics.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Corel Snapfire and PaintShop Pro, and Power Retouche competitionreminders Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 0 January 29th 07 02:46 AM
Corel PSP XI and Snapfire Competitions Wayne J. Cosshall Digital ZLR Cameras 0 January 7th 07 03:37 AM
Corel PSP XI and Snapfire Competitions Wayne J. Cosshall Digital SLR Cameras 0 January 7th 07 03:36 AM
Corel Designori. Digital Photography 0 April 9th 05 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.