 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2004Paintshop vs Photoshop
I have been nosing around my schools resources trying to figure out how I could start to integrate Digital imaging into the course. Most of the good Dig equipment is in the media department which is seperate and largely inaccessible. But what I did find is that I could get access to some very basic digital camera and a lab with Paintshop Pro v7 installed. I am okay with Photoshop but I was wondering how relevent the knowledge would be to using Paintshop. What is the program particularly useful (is it as versitile as Photoshop?) Also does anyone know of any good online basics tutorials for the program? > I have been nosing around my schools resources trying to figure out > how I could start to integrate Digital imaging into the course. Most [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What is the program particularly useful (is it as versitile as > Photoshop?) If you have access to it then you should be able to answer that question for yourself. > Also does anyone know of any good online basics tutorials for the > program? Your questions are OT for this NG. Ask your questions in: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop or comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro or even rec.photo.digital me > "Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>What is the program particularly useful (is it as versitile as >>Photoshop? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro or even rec.photo.digital > me Sorry, but why is he off-topic? I thought that this was a Photography newsgroup? If the interminable arguments about camera hardware are not off-topic then surely the use of computer software as a means of producing photographs is not off-topic? Are we also to assume that all questions regarding darkrooms, darkroom equipment and techniques are also off-topic? > > "Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > questions regarding darkrooms, darkroom equipment and techniques are > also off-topic? If you believe that Adrian's post is not off topic and or you believe that the NG's I suggested to him are not more topically specific to his questions then we may, as gentlemen, agree to disagree. I don't say that Adrian's post is the only OT post in this NG but imagine this. Suppose he had taken a few minutes to search his newsreader or Google Groups to see if there might be a NG that was more appropriate for his questions. And suppose that he then took a few minutes to see if his questions would be better posed there (or already answered). Imagine if everyone posted their questions only to the appropriate NG's. Wouldn't that be better for all of us? One last point. There is a NG specifically for the subject you mentioned. It is: rec.photo.darkroom me >>> "Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > mentioned. It is: rec.photo.darkroom > me Would his question be more on topic if he asked "As a photographer, what do you prefer? Photoshop or Paint shop?" Going to a Photoshop NG and asking what's better paint shop of Photoshop would get you an answer as non-biased as going to a Chevy NG and asking what was better Chevy or Ford. Just as some folks here use a Darkroom, and some use digital camera that don't require dark rooms, They are all tools used in the profession and hobby of photography. if I had a question as to how to use a tool in the dark room, then I would go to the dark room NG, just as I would go to a Photoshop NG if I had a question on how something is done within Photoshop. Also. the more specialized the NG for example, rec.photography.digital.canon.20D.outdoor.lighting there would be all on one other person that has ever posted in that NG in the past year, where the more general groups have more traffic and more people that have knowledge, where the super specialized groups are very low traffic and your question will quite often go unanswered. many news groups will have a regular crowd that monitor the NG and they become a group of informal friends where the alt.photography NG is their "community" and will often chat off topic for some time. This is very much the case in my dodge trucks, Chevy, cellular, motorcycle, and BMW news groups I follow, they all have a community that will post off topic all the time but still have a common bond having to do with the news group. > >>> "Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > groups I follow, they all have a community that will post off topic all the > time but still have a common bond having to do with the news group. So I suppose you're here in the alt.photography NG to ask a question about towing a BMW with a truck that has a motorcycle in the bed while you talk on the cell phone is that right (that's a rhetorical question)? We *must* agree to disagree. me > So I suppose you're here in the alt.photography NG to ask a question about > towing a BMW with a truck that has a motorcycle in the bed while you talk on > the cell phone is that right (that's a rhetorical question)? We *must* agree > to disagree. Do you even know anything about digital photography? I thought not. Never mind..... >>>> "Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > the > time but still have a common bond having to do with the news group. I have to agre with you. Since PhotoShop *is* a tool for photographers, what better place to get an unbiased opinion? > >>>> "Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > I have to agre with you. Since PhotoShop *is* a tool for photographers, Well some anyway. IMHO. > what > better place to get an unbiased opinion? Unbiased in your humble opinion. ;-) me > If you believe that Adrian's post is not off topic and or you believe that > the NG's I suggested to him are not more topically specific to his questions > then we may, as gentlemen, agree to disagree. Yup I disagree. Especially since many photographers have gone digital. Many digital photographers consider the limitations of their medium and how they can correct it digitally when actually taking the photo. So Photoshop (and similar products) are extremely relevant to this newsgroup. > I don't say that Adrian's post is the only OT post in this NG but imagine > this. Suppose he had taken a few minutes to search his newsreader or Google [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > everyone posted their questions only to the appropriate NG's. Wouldn't that > be better for all of us? Not if "appropriate" is based on your view. Many people reading these relevant threads will benefit from the insights of other photographers in this very relevant topic > One last point. There is a NG specifically for the subject you mentioned. It > is: rec.photo.darkroom Why it that? Digital photography manipulation does not necessarily equate to a darkroom. Some newsgroups, while some may think they are *titled* more appropriately, may not be visited by as many photographers or peers. Some still are pretty dead or over-run with trolls. For example, some of the MS Windows newsgroups although specificly titled hardly get visited. And another group, alt.guitar.amps, has more talk about Bush vs Kerry than guitar amplifiers, so people often don't post there, even though the name is more specific. > > If you believe that Adrian's post is not off topic and or you believe that > > the NG's I suggested to him are not more topically specific to his questions > > then we may, as gentlemen, agree to disagree. > > Yup I disagree. Especially since many photographers have gone digital. Well you have anyway. > Many > digital photographers consider the limitations of their medium Maybe it's their (your) limitations. > and how they can > correct it digitally when actually taking the photo. *After* taking the photo not when taking the photo. Unless of course you believe that PhotoShop can modify the light before it is recorded (do us both a favor and don't try to answer that). > So Photoshop (and similar > products) are extremely relevant to this newsgroup. In you humble opinion. > > I don't say that Adrian's post is the only OT post in this NG but imagine > > this. Suppose he had taken a few minutes to search his newsreader or Google [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not if "appropriate" is based on your view. IMHO. > Many people reading these relevant > threads will benefit from the insights of other photographers in this very > relevant topic In your humble opinion. > > One last point. There is a NG specifically for the subject you mentioned. It > > is: rec.photo.darkroom > > Why it that? Digital photography manipulation does not necessarily equate to a > darkroom. He didn't specify. > Some newsgroups, while some may think they are *titled* more > appropriately, Sigh. In your humble opinion. > may not be visited by as many photographers or peers. Some still > are pretty dead or over-run with trolls. Ahem. Who's calling the kettle black now? > For example, some of the MS Windows > newsgroups although specificly titled hardly get visited. And another group, > alt.guitar.amps, has more talk about Bush vs Kerry than guitar amplifiers, so > people often don't post there, even though the name is more specific. So I suppose your here in alt.photographic to ask a question about using MS Windows while playing guitar and arguing about Bush versus Kerry right (I know I *must* tell you that this is a rhetorical question)? In closing I say: You may continue to be disagreeable with my blessing! Have a Nice Day! me > > > If you believe that Adrian's post is not off topic and or you believe > that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well you have anyway. You are such a troll. I personally use a Nikon F80 35mm SLR if you know what that is. > > Many > > digital photographers consider the limitations of their medium > > Maybe it's their (your) limitations. See above. > > and how they can > > correct it digitally when actually taking the photo. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In you humble opinion. Well, you're the odd one out. Go figure. > > > I don't say that Adrian's post is the only OT post in this NG but > imagine [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > In your humble opinion. Yup. Judging by the bites to your trolling others agree. > > > One last point. There is a NG specifically for the subject you > mentioned. It [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He didn't specify. Yes he did, he specifically asked about Photoshop and Paintshop Pro, both photography tools. He did not ask about darkroom techniques. > > Some newsgroups, while some may think they are *titled* more > > appropriately, > > Sigh. In your humble opinion. Well, you're the one being pedantic. > > may not be visited by as many photographers or peers. Some still > > are pretty dead or over-run with trolls. > > Ahem. Who's calling the kettle black now? Look in the mirror buddy. You're the only one trolling here. > > For example, some of the MS Windows > > newsgroups although specificly titled hardly get visited. And another [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Windows while playing guitar and arguing about Bush versus Kerry right (I > know I *must* tell you that this is a rhetorical question)? No. Alt.photography is for things relevant to photography, including photo correction whether it be in a darkroom or in photoshop. > In closing I say: You may continue to be disagreeable with my blessing! Who cares? > Have a Nice Day! Obviously it is you who needs the nice day. >"Adrian Lucas" <adrianslucas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Ask your questions in: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop or >comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro or even rec.photo.digital I'm sure those are also good groups for this question, but he's asking a question about the digital darkroom, so the post is on-topic. Mike > I'm sure those are also good groups for this question, but he's asking > a question about the digital darkroom, so the post is on-topic. Did I just hear the sound of a scale hitting the floor? <g> Photoshop is the standard of the industry. But Paintshop Pro is a good program if you don't have access to PS.... If you want to get into the field learn PhotoShop. And you files will be accepted by many more shops and service bureaus in their native format if needed.. Most of your skillset will transfer to Paintshop, it's similar to PS in most areas but you should logically be able to track down what you want to do with Paintshop with Photoshop experience.. It's not as exasperating as us PhotoShop/CorelDraw/PageMaker users trying to edit a customers MS Publisher files... which the commands make NO sense at all.. LOLOL Just Google up PhotoShop Tutorials, there are tons.. http://www.myjanee.com/ http://www.planetphotoshop.com/peteback.html http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html http://tinyurl.com/3hak8 >I have been nosing around my schools resources trying to figure out >how I could start to integrate Digital imaging into the course. Most [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >program? >  SignatureRic Seyler > I have been nosing around my schools resources trying to figure out > how I could start to integrate Digital imaging into the course. Most [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Also does anyone know of any good online basics tutorials for the > program? I use PSP7.04 at home and Photoshop 7 at work. My personal preference is for PSP7.04, not just due to price, but I am more productive with it because I know it better. It seems to have features/filters that PS does not, but then again PS is more powerful. There are two newer versions of PSP: 8 and 9. 8 was said to be buggy, and many reverted to 7.04. I have no idea what PSP9 has. You can do most of your photoshop stuff with PSP, ie correct photos, paint pictures and create vector graphics. You can do all that layers, masks and filters stuff too. PSP does not do Lab/CMYK color though. Why not just download the demo of each and buy the one you prefer? Photoshop Elements 2 might also be work looking at. > Why not just download the demo of each and buy the one you prefer? Photoshop > Elements 2 might also be work looking at. It's Photoshop Elements 3 now. Same price but it's a significant upgrade, apparently. From a First Look (mini review) in the November Shutterbug: > It's the program it should have always been; a full-featured image editor > with a wonderfully functional browsing, sorting, and comparing front-end > that I hope is part of the next Photoshop CS. > > Why not just download the demo of each and buy the one you prefer? Photoshop > > Elements 2 might also be work looking at. > > It's Photoshop Elements 3 now. Same price but it's a significant > upgrade, apparently. From a First Look (mini review) in the > November Shutterbug: Does it have the healing brush? That might make me convert. ;-) > Does it have the healing brush? That might make me convert. ;-) I don't discuss religion or politics in this ng. :) I use Photosuite 7 and love it. I am a professional. check my website out every photograph went through Photosuite...www.johnmuuss.com ********************************************************************************************************* >I have been nosing around my schools resources trying to figure out > how I could start to integrate Digital imaging into the course. Most [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Also does anyone know of any good online basics tutorials for the > program? Not sure about paint shop pro, but for PS, check out www.nobsphotosuccess.com H. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.