"ian lincoln" wrote
<SNIP>

Big misconception... "any prat" couldn't take a decent picture with film,
and "any prat" still can't take a decent picture with digital.

Believe me. I know. I'm one of those "prats".

Cheers,
ink

Sorry, but most people take bad pictures and use software like this to
make those pictures look even worse. Neither Microsoft nor any other
company's software teaches photographers the basics they need to know
about composition, exposure, texture, color, or lighting. A static shot
of the Missus and the Kid standing in front of the Grand Canyon is
awful, no matter what kind of camera it was taken with and no matter
what was done with it afterwards. A landscape taken at high noon is
awful, and no photo software will fix it. A picture of a bee on a
flower with only the bee's thorax in focus is awful, no matter what you
do with it in software. It is also probably trite.

A picture of an animal in a cage which shows mostly bars or enclosure
and hardly any animal is awful. A picture of a sunset with the horizon
running across the middle and no other point of interest is awful. A
burned out flash picture of a bride cramming cake into her hubby's face
is awful. Yet another picture looking down at a baby in a bathtub is
awful. A black dog with no detail is awful.

None of these awful things are fixed by photo editing and they are
usually made worse. People with no talent usually end up making joke
pictures with their photo editing software, if they use it at all.

I am willing to bet that the gadget guys take awful pictures.

ian> According to researchers on "the gadget show" the photomanipulation
ian> software of choice is microsofts digital image suite.  Granted he didn't
ian> do an exhaustive study of packages but the main thing that came up was
ian> ease of use.  Photoshop CS and the elements range are great but ease of
ian> use is an issue.  There was a free product by google that is supposed to
ian> be marvellous at organising your files but not so hot on more than very
ian> basic adjustments.  Other software is difficult if you are used to
ian> photoshop, being just as awkward but less familiar and already knowing
ian> photoshops way of doing things is a hindrance.  The microsoft product was
ian> not only easy to use to the point of the usual trade mark handholding and
ian> wizards but things like photostitching were superior.  Magnetic lasso etc
ian> worked better and of course things like autofix were the best.

Sounds like a mix-up between workflow products (managing images from camera
card to printer/web/archive/trash) and image editing products (like
photoshop).  Most workflow products have some simplified image editing tools
(like color correction or red-eye removal).  Most image editing tools have
some simplified workflow management (like actions in photoshop for batch
processing).  But it's best to keep the tools separate (yet linked), and
not confuse one for the other when you're talking about "best".

It's very likely that Microsoft's Digital Image Suite (which I've not seen,
nor care to) is a very good workflow product.  I would certainly not rush to
throw away Photoshop for it though, although someone might choose to use them
*together*.

Naw.  It'll take them twice the effort, and they won't produce as good
results (when post-processing is at issue).  The Photoshop interface
is immensely more powerful and productive than these extremely limited
"wizards" and things.

Step 1) Look at the features of the software you want to promote.
Step 2) Use those features to review several software packages.
Step 3) Surprise!  The software you want to promote is "best"!

I think it has more to do with what you are trying to do.  Most people
who use PS use it for everything because they are familiar with it.
The don't need anything that powerful for basic cropping and
adjustments but they use it anyway because they are familiar with it.
Because of the familiarity, it is actually easier for them to use.

The other programs might be easier to use, but because of lack of
familiarity, they aren't as easy as PS for the person seasoned in PS.

So for someone who is used to PS, the "ease of use" arguement doesn't
make sense.

However, for the person just starting out, it might make sense.

The difference is any comp of PS and the Microsoft product (at least
the last time I used an older version of it) is sort of like comparing
a rowboat to an aircraft carrier.  Yeah, the rowboat is easier to use
and is a perfectly good vessel if all you want to do is go fishing, but
if you want to go half-way around the world and launch planes, a row
boat isn't what you want.

It's not comparing apples with apples.

What's a better car - a Toyota automatic or a Ferrari Formula 1?

Answer depends on what you want to do with it. The average driver would have
trouble getting even 50% of the F1's performance out of it - wheras the
Toyota would be one hell of a lot easier to drive (although I suspect not
nearly as much fun, but I digress!)

"ian lincoln" <dragonslayer@whocares.com> wrote in message
<snip ease of use stuff>

Photoshop really isn't for the average snapshooter types.  MS Digital Image
Suite isn't for professionals.  There's not much overlap in their market
segments.

Since when did digital cameras start composing photographs by themselves?

Any prat /can't/ take a decent picture and the numerous "look at my crappy
photo web site, please" posts prove that.

It's like saying that artists who use oil paint and brushes are worried
about photographers taking their market share.  Sheesh...