Freeware to merge two portraits into a realistic composite!

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Wildlife Sensitive, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. Wildlife Sensitive

    Sandman Guest

    Pretty much the same for the blocks Adobe puts in their software, to keep
    honest people only using the software for the time Adobe allows them to :)
     
    Sandman, Feb 12, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wildlife Sensitive

    Alan Browne Guest

    So name it.

    Commercial photo editing is not about batch application of settings to
    many images it's about creation around a few images with extensive,
    creative oriented editing that does not apply to many images. Thence
    such image work is part of a larger creative flow with multiple outputs
    of the image (print, web, video...).

    Fly? You cannot be serious.
    "Measure"? I suppose you could enumerate features, the depth of the
    features, the technical aspect of the feature (16 bit/colour and so on),
    the ease of use of each feature, the fit of the features into an overall
    creative workflow, integration into multi-media work flows, the
    non-destructive-editing compliance of each feature... my, my, you do
    have a lot of work on your hands.

    Actual use of applications and support tools by commercial imaging
    companies would be another nice metric.
    Any office environment. That MS cornered it (a deliberate and well
    executed business plan) early and is riding it hard is just their good
    fortune. I preferred WordPerfect, actually, but over time MS swamped
    them out. Pity.

    Some European government agencies force their workers to use LibreOffice
    (whatever it's called this week) - or so I've heard claimed. Must be a
    drag correcting formats and so on when docs are exchanged. Despite
    valiant effort, LibreOffice documents really are not compliant with the
    defacto standard used by most companies and can make exchange difficult
    and occasionally embarrassing.
    Indeed, there is no Linux choice to be made - which given your
    statements above (and refusal to name that "professional" freeware),
    perhaps you're beginning to see the light. Er, right.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 12, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wildlife Sensitive

    Jasen Betts Guest

     
    Jasen Betts, Feb 13, 2014
  4. Wildlife Sensitive

    Jasen Betts Guest

    There reall is only one that's actually on topic in all three
    newsgroups.
    I used it once, it did the job a few hundered times.
    IIRC it was doing a matte composite of 2 or 3 images and adding some
    programatically derived text, nothing real complicated.
    here's the article.

    http://issuu.com/gimpmagazine/docs/whitepaper-gimp-vs-ps
    I learned last week that you can still buy word perfect, and the old
    versions are free.
    sounds like a good move to me, I've never used Ms office for more than
    4 hours straight withour regretting it.
    It can't be too serious a problem, it hasn't come up in Risks.
    http://issuu.com/gimpmagazine/docs/whitepaper-gimp-vs-ps
    no, not convinced...
    also not interested in an OS-war thread.
     
    Jasen Betts, Feb 13, 2014
  5. Wildlife Sensitive

    Jasen Betts Guest

     
    Jasen Betts, Feb 13, 2014
  6. Wildlife Sensitive

    Whisky-dave Guest

     
    Whisky-dave, Feb 13, 2014
  7. Wildlife Sensitive

    Alan Browne Guest

    Naturally. I have an old DOS batch file that still does what it was
    intended to do 30 years ago too.
    Barf! It shows where Gimp is close to PS, not where PS does things that
    Gimp does not do AT ALL.

    Further, having used Gimp and being able to compare HOW it does things
    (*user interface*) I can assure you that most of the operations done
    smoothly in PS are done tortuously in Gimp. Sharpening is my favourite
    example as you cannot view large sections of the image while seeking
    goldilocks.

    Valiant try though, getting a Gimp community ragsheet to promote Gimp.
    No bias there!
    Useless in a business environment as everyone follows the de facto standard.
    It does suck in many ways and the Mac version is suckiest of all.

    Indeed for some recent work involving a lot of tables (from MS Excel)
    and graphs (Apple Numbers after pasting from Excel) I used Apple's pages
    as it didn't take as long to move things around and get a good look as
    it does with MS Word (which is painfully slow at such things (even on a
    i7 quad core Mac)). Then exported that to Word and tidied up one last
    time before sending it out.

    That said, I'd waste even more time using LibreOffice just in futzing
    formats back and forth.
    Yes, that biased Gimp leaning rag would have to say so, wouldn't it?
    Of course not. But then you're not in the professional / commercial
    image editing business either (neither am I but I am in marketing and
    sales management and I deal with those sorts frequently - I've never
    seen anything but the bigco. platforms and 90% of those are installed on
    OS X - the remainder on Windblows).
    Of course not. You're competitive and you know you're riding a losing
    horse. :)

    Seriously - I mean what I said earlier about Linux. It's a fine OS.
    Loaded it uses far less memory than OS X which has an appetite for RAM
    that is insanely greedy (though well managed against constraints).
    Linux is great for the items I listed. But it's crap for a desktop
    environment for ordinary users. Esp. when Mr. Everyman is faced with a
    driver issue of some sort.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 13, 2014
  8. Wildlife Sensitive

    PeterN Guest

    Not quite. In an office where I do some consulting, I use WP XIV for
    form design, internal memos and letter templates. The results are
    compatible with Word, Excel @ Acrobat.
    Though I am not so sure the "free" cooy of WP is a legal copy.
     
    PeterN, Feb 14, 2014
  9. Wildlife Sensitive

    Eric Stevens Guest

    There have been times when Word Perfect could read Word versions that
    new versions of Word could not manage.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 14, 2014
  10. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    not completely, they aren't.
    yet you continue to use it.
     
    Guest, Feb 14, 2014
  11. Wildlife Sensitive

    PeterN Guest

    My copy is completely, directly from Corel. Every piece of software I
    use is legal. If you have any FACTS to prove otherwise, present them.
    Otherwise an apology is in order.
     
    PeterN, Feb 14, 2014
  12. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    i'm going by what *you* said, still quoted above.

    how can you legitimately say 'every piece of software you use is legal'
    when a day before you said you are *not* *sure* if the "free" copy is
    legal?
     
    Guest, Feb 14, 2014
  13. Wildlife Sensitive

    PeterN Guest

    The context was clipped.
     
    PeterN, Feb 14, 2014
  14. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    nope. the post was quoted in its entirety. nothing was clipped.

    stop lying and weaseling.
     
    Guest, Feb 14, 2014
  15. Wildlife Sensitive

    Jasen Betts Guest

    He never said he was using a free version.
    that's something you made up.

    I don't think "tomsguide.com" is a warez site.
     
    Jasen Betts, Feb 14, 2014
  16. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    yes he did say free, but the freeness is not at issue.

    what's at issue is that he said he is not sure if what he's using is
    legal or not.

    those are his words, and he is now denying it.
    something need not be from a warez site to be an illicit copy, and he
    said it was directly from corel anyway, so you're wrong on that count
    too.
     
    Guest, Feb 14, 2014
  17. Wildlife Sensitive

    PeterN Guest

    If I ever find out who you really are, you are facing a lawsuit for
    slander.
     
    PeterN, Feb 15, 2014
  18. Wildlife Sensitive

    PeterN Guest

    Asshole, read the post to which I responded. You are a lying weasel, who
    had better hope I don't find out your real name, and location. Warning,
    I am not playing a game.
     
    PeterN, Feb 15, 2014
  19. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    that's funny.

    first of all, it would be libel, not slander, but ignoring that
    fundamental error right there, you, if anyone, should know that truth
    is an affirmative defense for defamation, and the truth is there for
    all to see. they are *your* words, still quoted above.

    furthermore, you would also have to prove damages, of which there are
    none.
     
    Guest, Feb 15, 2014
  20. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    that would be considered a threat, which is illegal under us law.
     
    Guest, Feb 15, 2014
    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.