Canon vs Nikon - Which One

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by measekite, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    photoshop elements most definitely supports adjustment and standard

    What version?
    measekite, Sep 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Gimp is better than Elements and not as good as PS but it does the job
    and you can buy a lens with the savings.
    measekite, Sep 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. measekite

    Guest Guest

    current version of course. and it's been in elements for a *long* time.
    Guest, Sep 3, 2008
  4. measekite

    tony cooper Guest

    I'm using Elements 5.0, and it offers adjustment and standard layers.
    I don't know when Elements first had the layers features, but it was
    prior to 5.0.
    tony cooper, Sep 3, 2008
  5. measekite

    tony cooper Guest

    I paid $50 for Elements 5.0. What lens could I buy with that?
    tony cooper, Sep 3, 2008
  6. measekite

    tony cooper Guest

    Curves is not in Elements, but there are work-arounds. Most of what
    Curves does can be done with Levels, and Levels is there. When I do
    want to work with Curves, I use PS 7.0.

    I'd never give up PS 7.0 for Elements, but 90% of the editing I do I
    can do with Elements. It's that other 10% where the full PS is
    tony cooper, Sep 3, 2008
  7. measekite

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Only to a minority.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 4, 2008
  8. measekite

    Dale Krane Guest

    Yes, that minority who have the intelligence, talent, and skill to know how to
    use better editors and make the most of them. My 32-bit editor is Photoline, I
    won't use a less capable, less accurate, and highly overpriced 16-bit editor
    like Photoshop-CS3. Photoline has 33 different adjustment layer types. It also
    includes a Custom adjustment layer where I can define my own with a
    filter-matrix, then save as many custom adjustment layer presets as I want for
    instant recall. 23 examples of customized adjustment layer presets come included
    for examples. I guess that makes 55 adjustment layer types in total when first

    When I am preparing an image for presentation it's not unusual for me to use at
    least 3 to 5 different adjustment layer types, often using them with their
    built-in masking function (paint in grays on their Alpha channels) so that I
    might brush in the effects where they will do the most good. Do you need a
    "curves brush", "contrast-brush", "channel-mixer brush", "motion-blur brush",
    "high-pass brush", "color-temperature brush", "unsharp-mask brush", or an
    "adaptive-sharpen or soften brush" that only acts on the L, G, H, or K channel?
    No problem. It quickly allows you to work in any color-space, RGB, CMYK, Lab,
    HSV and on any selected channel(s).

    If you're not serious about photography, which you are obviously not by your
    reply, then don't tell everyone else who might be serious about photography what
    we need and don't need.

    Rephrase your comments to: "If you are not serious about photography and it's
    only a casual hobby to you then you have no need for adjustment layers in your
    photo editor, in fact you may not need nor want any editor at all. If you are
    serious about photography and want complete control over your image from capture
    to presentation, like any self-respecting photographer in the past would use
    their camera and darkroom, get software that supports them well and learn how to
    use them properly."

    Then you will be believed.
    Dale Krane, Sep 4, 2008
  9. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Hi, Vern, Hank, Dale, Baumbadier, anti-dslr troll, etc, etc ad infinitum.

    I see you still have to keep changing your name so people won't realise
    it's just one dickhead. But, we mostly do.

    Shall we post your list of names again? - I note you have slipped in a
    couple more in the last few days..

    Dale Krane wrote:
    (lack of knowledge and abuse snipped)
    Mark Thomas, Sep 4, 2008
  10. measekite

    VernMichaels Guest

    Please do post that list of names. It would be fun to see how very
    wrong you are and how much of a dickhead troll that you can be. Can't
    you stay on topic for once in your life? Can't you ever discuss
    anything photography related? Is this all you can do is disrupt
    threads with your "your a troll" comments? Is that the limit of your
    intellect? Apparently so.
    Odd, I notice no lack of knowledge nor abuse. He seemed well educated
    about his chosen software. Why aren't you calling everyone trolls who
    replied about adjustment layers?

    It seems to me that you only call people trolls when they have
    disproved your ignorant beliefs, have displayed more intelligence, and
    shown more experience than you. This being your only way to react to
    that harsh reality.

    YOU are the only troll in this thread.

    Try to stay at least on the topic of photography. Is it that you have
    so little knowledge of the subject that you just can't discuss any
    related issues? That would be my guess. I would also guess that I
    would be 100% correct.
    VernMichaels, Sep 4, 2008
  11. measekite

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Another halfwitted snob who thinks that everybody should waste as much time with
    the computer as he does.
    Well it looks like the rest of the world knows a few things that you
    don't. Apparently you're one of those idiots who thinks that more bit
    is always better, even if you don't know why.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 4, 2008
  12. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    *Remarkable*, then, that *you* appeared, not him.
    Mark Thomas, Sep 4, 2008
  13. measekite

    Dale Krane Guest

    No, the rest of the world knows when to use 16bit, 32bit, or 64bit
    floating-point math. Those that only need 16bit math precision still use Windows
    3.1, or Photoshop. You seem to be the only one that doesn't know when and why it
    is to your advantage.

    More bit-depth processing _can_ be better, but it's never worse to use higher
    math precision. Lower bit-depth processing is invariably worse if it can't
    handle the data, but it is never better. If your data requires higher bit
    precision then it is needed. When I am using Lanczos-8 algorithms on 16-bit
    image files I need all the precision I can get to retain the hard-won details in
    my photos. There's a reason that Photoshop relies on two-decades-old Bicubic
    interpolations for resizings and rotations, it can't handle the newer and better
    algorithms. This is why they can't even add Lanczos-8 to their options and why
    any image resized in Photoshop comes out looking like Bicubic mush. I know when
    higher precision is and is not needed. I also sometimes work on 64-bit depth
    CMYK files. Photoline can handle that. Can your editor do that? Do you know when
    you need it? Most likely not.

    Are you one of those rare idiots that doesn't know the difference of when or
    when to not use more bit-depth in your processing power? No need to answer that,
    you already have. The reply you conveyed labels you as a dolt and a dullard.
    You're only wasting my time. What do they call people that talk out of their ass
    just to see if they can get replies? Oh yes. That "Troll" word. That be you.
    Dale Krane, Sep 4, 2008
  14. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Mark Thomas, Sep 4, 2008
  15. measekite

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Describe to us the benfits and drawbacks of 32-bit floating point math
    when processing images.
    Talk is cheap. Let's see you explain to use why 32-bits is better.
    LOL! You're not a software engineer, that's for sure.
    Yawn. Just another asshole.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 4, 2008
  16. measekite

    Chris H Guest

    The bit size is irrelevant.
    You are talking software not photography.
    Chris H, Sep 5, 2008
  17. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Curves is very good to adjust white balance in a photo. The curves in
    Gimp works very good in that regard.
    measekite, Sep 5, 2008
  18. measekite

    measekite Guest

    And that minority are the majority of serious photo enthusiasts. The
    snapshooter does not use these features.
    measekite, Sep 5, 2008
  19. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Basically I agree with you up to this point. I do think that even a
    casual hobbyist can benefit from adjustment layers. It is the
    snapshooter who would have not need for adjustment layers. And less
    than 50% of them even know how to use Picassa.

    And I am not knocking Picassa. I think it is an excellent organizer and
    snapshooter's editor providing them with the ability to improve their
    snapshots dramatically and be able to print them out easily.
    measekite, Sep 5, 2008
  20. measekite

    Chris H Guest

    No. Most of the world doesn't have a clue.
    I do know and I still use Windows (and OS-X and Solaris)

    This is wrong.
    Yes there is need for an answer. Most do not know. I suspect you don't
    know either.
    Chris H, Sep 5, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.