I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend
words (in the graphical, not dennis sense)

spits red wine over keyboard


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

geoff wrote:

I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner

Word art in word will so that...



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

geoff coughed up some electrons that declared:


I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner



Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an arbitrary
path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).

There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill - not
sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I usually just fix up
my photos in it.

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will let you
bend text.

Both are free.

Cheers

Tim

In message , John
Rumm writes
geoff wrote:
I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend
words (in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with
e.g. one colour at the top and another at the bottom
Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner

Word art in word will so that...

I'll revisit it then,

I was too quick to dismiss Word it would seem

thanks

--
geoff

Tim S wrote:

Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an
arbitrary path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).

There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill
- not sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I usually
just fix up my photos in it.

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will let
you bend text.

Well obviously. I was going to say just that...

wtf is he talking about? :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , Tim S
writes
geoff coughed up some electrons that declared:


I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner



Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an arbitrary
path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).

Tried that - I'm obviously too thick to do it


There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill - not
sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I usually just fix up
my photos in it.

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will let you
bend text.

OK - I'll look at that, cheers

What a palarva for a 'kin T-shirt with a joke that nobody will
understand anyway


--
geoff

geoff wrote:

I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

If you want free then the OpenOffice.org application includes FontWorks
which allows you to distort and colour text as you wish. If you want
something fancier, then Google Sketchup and Inkscape both give you
options for different types of distortion, extrusion, effects, fills,
material, shaders etc.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:55:57 +0100, geoff wrote:
What a palarva for a 'kin T-shirt with a joke that nobody will
understand anyway

Buy a few white t-shirts and scrawl exactly that on them in marker pen - I
bet you could sell 'em :-)

geoff wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
geoff wrote:
I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend
words (in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with
e.g. one colour at the top and another at the bottom
Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner

Word art in word will so that...

I'll revisit it then,

I was too quick to dismiss Word it would seem

Its a bit limited - but it can do a number of present distortions and
fills.


If you want something custom, then let me know and I can knock it up in
photoshop or illustrator.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

plenty on Warez sites or piratebay

"geoff" wrote in message
...

I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner


--
geoff

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will let you
bend text.

It does - I designed a frisbee with text wrapping around it a while
ago, although ISTR I had murder getting the place producing them to
read the file... think it had to be re-loaded in Illustrator and
resaved.

On Aug 18, 12:50*am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an
arbitrary path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).

There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill
- not sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I usually
just fix up my photos in it.

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will let
you bend text.

Well obviously. *I was going to say just that...

wtf is he talking about? *:-)

Inkscape is a free software package for drawing line art (*).
A solid fill of an outline is where the outline is, um, filled with a
single solid colour.
A gradient fill is where the colour changes. For example, light blue
at the top to dark blue at the bottom.
Bending text is drawing the outline of text characters to follow a
curve.
What else didn't you understand?

*: I'm simplifying here. It does more (of course).

Martin Bonner wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:50 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an
arbitrary path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).
There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill
- not sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I usually
just fix up my photos in it.
Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will let
you bend text.
Well obviously. I was going to say just that...

wtf is he talking about? :-)

Inkscape is a free software package for drawing line art (*).
A solid fill of an outline is where the outline is, um, filled with a
single solid colour.
A gradient fill is where the colour changes. For example, light blue
at the top to dark blue at the bottom.
Bending text is drawing the outline of text characters to follow a
curve.
What else didn't you understand?

Drop shadows and transparencies, whilst you are doing so well..;-)
Oh and pattern fill..that's a nice one.

Take some letters and dint fill and remove outline, use them to make a
'stencil, in a white sheet..scan some nice woodgrain in..slip teh bitmap
behind and cut the letters out, then add a bit of drop shadow..looks
like embossed or machined wooden letters..


*: I'm simplifying here. It does more (of course).

Rick Hughes coughed up some electrons that declared:

plenty on Warez sites or piratebay

"geoff" wrote in message
...

I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend words
(in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters with e.g. one
colour at the top and another at the bottom

Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner


--
geoff

You don't really need warez as there's decent open source programs
(including Gimp and Inkscape as previously mentioned)

Martin Bonner wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:50 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an
arbitrary path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).

There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill
- not sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I
usually just fix up my photos in it.

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will
let you bend text.

Well obviously. I was going to say just that...

wtf is he talking about? :-)

Inkscape is a free software package for drawing line art (*).
A solid fill of an outline is where the outline is, um, filled with a
single solid colour.
A gradient fill is where the colour changes. For example, light blue
at the top to dark blue at the bottom.
Bending text is drawing the outline of text characters to follow a
curve.
What else didn't you understand?

It was the GIMP bit
http://www.bondara.co.uk/bondage-gea...FUQA4wodSCKKjg



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , John
Rumm writes
geoff wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
geoff wrote:
I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend
words (in the graphical, not dennis sense) and fill the letters
with e.g. one colour at the top and another at the bottom
Its part of a DIY project, 'onest, yer 'onner

Word art in word will so that...

I'll revisit it then,
I was too quick to dismiss Word it would seem

Its a bit limited - but it can do a number of present distortions and
fills.


If you want something custom, then let me know and I can knock it up in
photoshop or illustrator.


Had a play today and the job's done and dusted

just a matter of looking in the correct place

cheers

--
geoff

In message . com, Jules
writes
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:55:57 +0100, geoff wrote:
What a palarva for a 'kin T-shirt with a joke that nobody will
understand anyway

Buy a few white t-shirts and scrawl exactly that on them in marker pen - I
bet you could sell 'em :-)



Could have been better, the red / white of the Indonesian flag on the
lettering didn't work too well, but ...

The weak joke being "Saya tidak tahu" - I don't know, so

"What's it say on your T-shirt?"

"I don't know"

http://s50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...&current=monye
t.jpg


Worse jokes exist ...

--
bumsnase

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:50 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Possibly GIMP - certainly you can run text in any font round an
arbitrary path (derived from something else or drawn with beziers).

There are pattern fills which may be persuaded to do a gradient fill
- not sure, haven't gone in that direction much with GIMP - I
usually just fix up my photos in it.

Inkscape makes gradient fills easy, but I'm not sure if that will
let you bend text.

Well obviously. I was going to say just that...

wtf is he talking about? :-)

Inkscape is a free software package for drawing line art (*).
A solid fill of an outline is where the outline is, um, filled with a
single solid colour.
A gradient fill is where the colour changes. For example, light blue
at the top to dark blue at the bottom.
Bending text is drawing the outline of text characters to follow a
curve.
What else didn't you understand?

It was the GIMP bit
http://www.bondara.co.uk/bondage-gea...s/?keyword=;so
rt=;per_page=100;order=;display=list;start=0&gcli d=CK6tjIbqrZwCFUQA4wodS
CKKjg

You and your fantasies ...

--
geoff

The Medway Handyman wrote:
geoff wrote:
I'm looking for a free (if poss) drawing package where I can bend
words (in the graphical, not dennis sense)

spits red wine over keyboard


Well I suppose that's one way of getting a gradient colour fill over the
letters...

Andy

The Medway Handyman wrote:

What else didn't you understand?

It was the GIMP bit
http://www.bondara.co.uk/bondage-gea...FUQA4wodSCKKjg

Ah, not quite. Download and have a play:

http://www.gimp.org/

Windows installer available he

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gim...i686-setup.exe



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

geoff wrote:
In message . com,
Jules writes
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:55:57 +0100, geoff wrote:
What a palarva for a 'kin T-shirt with a joke that nobody will
understand anyway

Buy a few white t-shirts and scrawl exactly that on them in marker
pen - I bet you could sell 'em :-)



Could have been better, the red / white of the Indonesian flag on the
lettering didn't work too well, but ...

The weak joke being "Saya tidak tahu" - I don't know, so

"What's it say on your T-shirt?"

"I don't know"

http://s50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...&current=monye
t.jpg


Worse jokes exist ...

Its a joke Jim - but not as we know it....


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:25:05 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

What else didn't you understand?

It was the GIMP bit
http://www.bondara.co.uk/bondage-gea...FUQA4wodSCKKjg

Ah, not quite. Download and have a play:

http://www.gimp.org/

Windows installer available he

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gim...i686-setup.exe

BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multime...Gimpshop.shtml

there are instructions on that page. It is from 2007, so not the newest
version.


--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:25:05 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

What else didn't you understand?
It was the GIMP bit
http://www.bondara.co.uk/bondage-gea...FUQA4wodSCKKjg
Ah, not quite. Download and have a play:

http://www.gimp.org/

Windows installer available he

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gim...i686-setup.exe

BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multime...Gimpshop.shtml

there are instructions on that page. It is from 2007, so not the newest
version.


However the Gimp aint a vector drawing program.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful - but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...

Jules wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful - but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...

To an extent that is often the case with PS - they often skip the
obvious way of doing something in favour of a slightly less obvious but
often far more powerful alternative approach.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In uk.d-i-y, John Rumm wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:
The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful -
but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...

To an extent that is often the case with PS - they often skip the
obvious way of doing something in favour of a slightly less obvious but
often far more powerful alternative approach.

It's designed for professionals who are prepared to invest time in
learning how to use it effectively. Most Windows applications aren't
like that.

--
Mike Barnes

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:44:15 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, John Rumm wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:
The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful -
but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...

To an extent that is often the case with PS - they often skip the
obvious way of doing something in favour of a slightly less obvious but
often far more powerful alternative approach.

It's designed for professionals who are prepared to invest time in
learning how to use it effectively. Most Windows applications aren't
like that.

Adobe stuff in general is bloated and heavy. I have Flash and Shockwave,
but only out of necessity. Also have Photoshop Lite v2 that came with a
scanner, but have no use for it.

BTW, found 'Word Art' in OO - it took a bit of clicking around to get
anything useful; Word seems to be abit less difficult.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

PeterC wrote:

Adobe stuff in general is bloated and heavy. I have Flash and Shockwave,
but only out of necessity. Also have Photoshop Lite v2 that came with a
scanner, but have no use for it.

Perhaps, but you can do stuff in PS that you can't even get close to in
other apps. If you want easy, buy PS elements or paint shop pro.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mike Barnes wrote:

It's designed for professionals

True.

who are prepared to invest time in
learning how to use it effectively.

Weeellll... professionals tend to prefer tools that are both wel
designed and easy to use. Photoshop is actually fairly well designed.
Whoever said that the user interface was clunky and counter intuitive
was talking through his orpu orifice. What I think both of you are
missing is that Photoshop is designed for use by people who are used to
darkroom techniques for editing photographs hence it brings the
terminology and techniques of the darkroom to a computer near you.

Most Windows applications aren't like that.

Photoshop wasn't designed as a Windows app.

Jules wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful - but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...



Try Ulead PhotoImpact. I'm still on version 6, which cost me a fiver
with the printed manual a few years back. Haven't come across anything
it can't do yet.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:03:49 +0000, Stuart Noble wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful - but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...

Try Ulead PhotoImpact. I'm still on version 6, which cost me a fiver
with the printed manual a few years back. Haven't come across anything
it can't do yet.

I think I did have a copy of that, but don't any more - doubtless it'd
run under Linux via Wine though (or, worst-case, via VMWare).

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not. Personally PSP
v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I need to do (again
via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.

* mostly. I think it's one of those programs that's gone through way too
many evolutions, and someone coming in with a clean slate could
potentially produce something that did everything Photoshop did, but
in a better way (gimp is not it). The problem being of course that
Photoshop is such a de-facto standard now that it couldn't possibly
compete, so nobody bothers trying. :/

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not. Personally PSP
v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I need to do (again
via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.

Hmm, this sounds more like a "what have the Romans ever done for us?"
type of discussion. Granted not everyone needs photoshop's facilities,
there there are many areas in which it it difficult to find anything
better. Sure, you can crop, rotate and touch out redeye in most graphics
packages. Few however give you the delicacy of control PS gives for
colour correction. None have the quality of camera RAW support to allow
unprocessed imaged to be imported directly in native digital camera
formats etc. PS will remain ubiquitous in the print industry since it is
one of the few apps that support colour spaces other than RGB. Something
that matters little to home users, but is kind of important if all your
output is targeted on CMYK processes.

* mostly. I think it's one of those programs that's gone through way too
many evolutions, and someone coming in with a clean slate could
potentially produce something that did everything Photoshop did, but

This is an area I would disagree with. Having used it since version 4,
and upgraded to (most of) the versions along the way, its seems as if
Adobe spend a fair amount of time listening the the requirements of
their (admittedly broad) user base. Each new version has addressed
areas lacking in previous ones generally - often far exceeding
expectations with their implementation. For example there was a time
where PS had no "undo" capability, while other packages did. So it was
added in the next release. However unlike the competing packages it was
a multi level undo and redo capability that allowed you to wind back
steps sequentially, or jump to specific stages in a list. You could even
milestone versions to go back to names pre-set points etc.

Its certainly got bigger with each release - but not dramatically so
compared to many apps. The core directory of V6 was about 100Mb, version
11 (CS4) is now about 270MB.

in a better way (gimp is not it). The problem being of course that
Photoshop is such a de-facto standard now that it couldn't possibly
compete, so nobody bothers trying. :/

Probably true - however it runs deeper I would say than just displacing
the default standard - its also a very good bit of software IMHO.


cheers

Jules



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:40:39 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Jules wrote:

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not. Personally PSP
v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I need to do (again
via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.

Hmm, this sounds more like a "what have the Romans ever done for us?"
type of discussion. Granted not everyone needs photoshop's facilities,
there there are many areas in which it it difficult to find anything
better. Sure, you can crop, rotate and touch out redeye in most graphics
packages. Few however give you the delicacy of control PS gives for
colour correction. None have the quality of camera RAW support to allow
unprocessed imaged to be imported directly in native digital camera
formats etc. PS will remain ubiquitous in the print industry since it is
one of the few apps that support colour spaces other than RGB. Something
that matters little to home users, but is kind of important if all your
output is targeted on CMYK processes.

I'd agree with that, which is perhaps were there is a problem - it does
too much, at too high a cost (of the application, and of the hardware
needed to run it) for the everyday home user, yet it's become such a
"standard" that there's very little room for anything else to exist.

Its certainly got bigger with each release - but not dramatically so
compared to many apps. The core directory of V6 was about 100Mb, version
11 (CS4) is now about 270MB.

That's not as bad as I thought, admittedly....

in a better way (gimp is not it). The problem being of course that
Photoshop is such a de-facto standard now that it couldn't possibly
compete, so nobody bothers trying. :/

Probably true - however it runs deeper I would say than just displacing
the default standard - its also a very good bit of software IMHO.

Oh, I'm sure it's great for hard-core users and professionals; but Adobe
seem to have enjoyed great success in marketing it to people who simply
don't need it - to such an extent that they've rather killed off other
graphics packages and you now have to buy photoshop or not bother
(although there do exist lots of free 'basic' tools, but I don't think
there's really a mid-range product around any more)

(what I suppose would be nice is if software vendors charged by the
feature and not by the product as a whole; features with little use would
presumably command a high price tag, whereas the stuff that everybody
wanted would be cheap - but that's probably a separate discussion :-)

cheers

Jules

In uk.d-i-y, Jules wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:03:49 +0000, Stuart Noble wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:10:31 +0100, PeterC wrote:
BTW, there's a version called Gimpshop; it's been edited to behave like
Photoshop so that those who have used PS have something familiar:

The problem I have is that the gimp's normal UI is f*cking awful - but
last time I used photoshop, it was even worse. Talk about clunky and
counter-intuitive...

Try Ulead PhotoImpact. I'm still on version 6, which cost me a fiver
with the printed manual a few years back. Haven't come across anything
it can't do yet.

I think I did have a copy of that, but don't any more - doubtless it'd
run under Linux via Wine though (or, worst-case, via VMWare).

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not. Personally PSP
v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I need to do (again
via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.

I'm a big fan of Fireworks, which as well as doing photo editing with
non-destructive overlays, is brilliant for adding vector-based overlays
(something I do quite a lot of - captions, borders, highlights, etc).

--
Mike Barnes

Jules wrote:

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not.

Utter crap. If you mean "I'm incapable of understanding Photoshop" just
say so rather than coming out with cobblers.

Personally PSP v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I
need to do (again via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.

stares

No, he really did say that.

If you want "bloated and clunky" then The Gimp is a classic example. If
you want clunky and useless then PSP is a classic example. I'll use The
Gimp if there's absolutely nothing else available, PSP is such a pile of
crap it's not even worth starting up. It's Microsoft Paint with a few
bells on.

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:40:39 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Jules wrote:

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not. Personally PSP
v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I need to do (again
via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.
Hmm, this sounds more like a "what have the Romans ever done for us?"
type of discussion. Granted not everyone needs photoshop's facilities,
there there are many areas in which it it difficult to find anything
better. Sure, you can crop, rotate and touch out redeye in most graphics
packages. Few however give you the delicacy of control PS gives for
colour correction. None have the quality of camera RAW support to allow
unprocessed imaged to be imported directly in native digital camera
formats etc. PS will remain ubiquitous in the print industry since it is
one of the few apps that support colour spaces other than RGB. Something
that matters little to home users, but is kind of important if all your
output is targeted on CMYK processes.

I'd agree with that, which is perhaps were there is a problem - it does
too much, at too high a cost (of the application, and of the hardware
needed to run it) for the everyday home user, yet it's become such a
"standard" that there's very little room for anything else to exist.

For the market its aimed at[1], the price is not that important. The
users will have potentially thousands of hours invested in learning, and
huge piles of partial content and workflow that require it.

Remember for home users they punt the "Elements" version at a tenth of
the price. It omits the out and out pro stuff (CMYK pre press etc), but
includes a good deal of the useful stuff.

[1] The possible exception to that is the keen hobby photographer. The
facilities they have added for serious photography recently make it very
desirable for that. Still the cost is comparable to a reasonable DSLR.

Its certainly got bigger with each release - but not dramatically so
compared to many apps. The core directory of V6 was about 100Mb, version
11 (CS4) is now about 270MB.

That's not as bad as I thought, admittedly....

in a better way (gimp is not it). The problem being of course that
Photoshop is such a de-facto standard now that it couldn't possibly
compete, so nobody bothers trying. :/
Probably true - however it runs deeper I would say than just displacing
the default standard - its also a very good bit of software IMHO.

Oh, I'm sure it's great for hard-core users and professionals; but Adobe
seem to have enjoyed great success in marketing it to people who simply
don't need it - to such an extent that they've rather killed off other
graphics packages and you now have to buy photoshop or not bother
(although there do exist lots of free 'basic' tools, but I don't think
there's really a mid-range product around any more)

Not sure how many they have killed - perhaps fireworx when they bought
Macromedia. Paint Shop Pro is still available under the Corel brand -
and in its "photo" version is quite cheap...

(what I suppose would be nice is if software vendors charged by the
feature and not by the product as a whole; features with little use would
presumably command a high price tag, whereas the stuff that everybody
wanted would be cheap - but that's probably a separate discussion :-)

Perhaps - not sure it would be a popular model. Still Adobe do that for
their font collections now. You pay a flat rate for the DVD that
contains all of them, and the buy unlock codes for those you actually want.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

(what I suppose would be nice is if software vendors charged by the
feature and not by the product as a whole; features with little use would
presumably command a high price tag, whereas the stuff that everybody
wanted would be cheap - but that's probably a separate discussion :-)

Perhaps - not sure it would be a popular model. Still Adobe do that for
their font collections now. You pay a flat rate for the DVD that
contains all of them, and the buy unlock codes for those you actually want.

If Photoshop is too clunky for someone, then there's Aperture which has
a simple, clear interface and it does everything that even professionals
want from a photo-editing and archiving application. It's also
relatively cheap at £126 for the first purchase of £64 for an upgrade.

Of course it doesn't run on Mickey Mouse operating systems, but that's
also a bonus.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:21:27 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Jules wrote:

I can see the point* of photoshop for graphic designers - but for mere
mortals, it just seems way too bloated, clunky and feature-rich - and
hinders progress where a simpler program might not.

Utter crap. If you mean "I'm incapable of understanding Photoshop" just
say so rather than coming out with cobblers.

I've worked with professional graphic designers who use it, and even then
they never use 100% of what it offers; for Joe Public's casual use the
situation is much worse - and unnecessary functionality only pushes up
the footprint and introduces complexity in the UI. Of course I could
learn that UI if I put the time into it that the professional users do -
but to be honest I've got much better things to be doing.

Personally PSP v7's my usual tool of choice - it handles most things I
need to do (again via Wine and VMWare), and for the rest I use gimp.

stares

No, he really did say that.

If you want "bloated and clunky" then The Gimp is a classic example.

Yes it is. It's utter ****. I hate it. But I'm not aware of anything
else that'll run natively under Linux and do half of what it does (of
course I use Inkscape for any vector work, but for editing of bitmap data
it seems as though it's gimp or nothing)

If
you want clunky and useless then PSP is a classic example.

It got horrible after v7, no argument there - but I like v7 as a
reasonably clean UI and with a reasonable set of features (but without
trying to do a whole bunch of stuff for which there are better apps
around)

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

(what I suppose would be nice is if software vendors charged by the
feature and not by the product as a whole; features with little use would
presumably command a high price tag, whereas the stuff that everybody
wanted would be cheap - but that's probably a separate discussion :-)
Perhaps - not sure it would be a popular model. Still Adobe do that for
their font collections now. You pay a flat rate for the DVD that
contains all of them, and the buy unlock codes for those you actually want.

If Photoshop is too clunky for someone, then there's Aperture which has
a simple, clear interface and it does everything that even professionals
want from a photo-editing and archiving application. It's also
relatively cheap at £126 for the first purchase of £64 for an upgrade.

Of course it doesn't run on Mickey Mouse operating systems, but that's
also a bonus.

I feel a Mac attack coming on.