Photoline vs. PhotoSlop

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by LOL!, Feb 6, 2010.

  1. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    As any discerning photographer and graphic editor knows, a Granger
    Calibration Chart is perhaps the most useful tool to find any errors in
    their color-space work-path. From camera, to editor, to print. It requires
    that you have an accurate Granger Calibration Chart at your disposal. For
    information on how to create one for your own system, refer to
    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>

    Here's a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools available in
    Photoline compared to a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools
    available in PhotoSlop.

    <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4333627495_106144740c_o.jpg>

    Any questions?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    Oh this is just getting funnier and funnier...

    Here's a Granger Calibration Chart created with the tools in Paint Shop Pro

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4334891542_3f02f3905f_o.jpg

    I even went back to see where PhotoSlop's errors were and corrected its
    "Rainbow" gradient to have the proper colors and spacings in it, changed
    the color profiles, the color-space, I tried everything, and still I
    couldn't get PhotoSlop to create a correct Granger Calibration Chart. They
    all looked nearly identical to the example previously posted with its
    hideous peaks and ravines and large missing ranges of hues.

    And then you fools wonder why you spend days and weeks of your lives trying
    to properly calibrate your color profiles and monitors, wasting hundreds of
    dollars on extra screen and printer calibration tools, reams of expensive
    paper, quarts of ink, etc. etc. All because you are depending on an
    outrageously overpriced program, Photoslop, that can't even produce the
    right colors on your systems. If this isn't a penultimate case of "Garbage
    In Garbage Out", I don't know what is!

    Too fuckin' funny!

    ROFLMAO!
     
    LOL!, Feb 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. LOL!

    Anon Guest

    Self-serving promoting his own site deleted...

    Life is linear, film was never linear, and your product isn't going to push
    the industry standard off the hill.
     
    Anon, Feb 6, 2010
    #3
  4. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    Couldn't even stand to have the 100% proof listed again, could you. Are you
    sticking your head in the sand again, or wherever it is that you keep it
    these days? Do you listen to others with your fingers in your ears while
    humming a tune? Read facts and evidence while poking your own eyes out?
    Seems to be the case. LOL!

    What "his own site"? I don't own Flickr, I don't own Photoline, I don't own
    PaintShopPro.
    "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it
    remains a foolish thing."

    LOL!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Feb 6, 2010
    #4
  5. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    Here's another Granger Chart. This time created with an even more dedicated
    and older "industry standard" than PhotoSlop, "Canvas". Used for decades by
    designers and publishers for the most exacting desk-top-publishing projects
    and technical drawings. It can even create maps down to finer than 1mm
    precision in relation to GIS world-map coordinates. I'm not overly familiar
    with its JPG compression settings so this resulting file ended up being
    compressed greatly, but it still clearly shows the original file being an
    accurate Granger Calibration Chart.

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/4335191188_7aa237fe34_o.jpg

    I'll bet you can grab any editor on the planet that allows you to use
    gradients, layers, and the proper layer blend modes and it'll still produce
    a correct Granger Chart, EXCEPT for PhotoSlop.

    I encourage all of you to use your favorite editor as well as any lesser
    known editors that you might happen to have installed and use them to
    create Granger Charts. Then compare it to the garbage that PhotoSlop spits
    out. Post your findings. It would be very interesting. I can't prove it to
    the doubters with my samples, you'll claim I didn't use the programs I
    claimed to use. You can only prove it to yourself.

    Why is it that the only "industry standard" that CANNOT create a proper
    Granger Calibration Chart is Photoslop?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 6, 2010
    #5
  6. LOL!

    tony cooper Guest

    Or even a camera, for that matter.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 6, 2010
    #6
  7. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    Awww... whatsamatter Boopy? Is the harsh truth about your favorite software
    that you've been schilling to everyone all your life got you down? Or was
    it all that money and time that you wasted on it?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 6, 2010
    #7
  8. LOL!

    Ray Fischer Guest

    That obviously excludes lying trolls.
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 6, 2010
    #8
  9. LOL!

    Robert Coe Guest

    : ...
    : I even went back to see where PhotoSlop's errors were and corrected its
    : "Rainbow" gradient to have the proper colors and spacings in it, changed
    : the color profiles, the color-space, I tried everything, and still I
    : couldn't get PhotoSlop to create a correct Granger Calibration Chart. They
    : all looked nearly identical to the example previously posted with its
    : hideous peaks and ravines and large missing ranges of hues.
    :
    : And then you fools wonder why you spend days and weeks of your lives trying
    : to properly calibrate your color profiles and monitors, wasting hundreds of
    : dollars on extra screen and printer calibration tools, reams of expensive
    : paper, quarts of ink, etc. etc. All because you are depending on an
    : outrageously overpriced program, Photoslop, that can't even produce the
    : right colors on your systems. If this isn't a penultimate case of "Garbage
    : In Garbage Out", I don't know what is!

    I can't say anything authoritative about the rest of your diatribe, but I'd
    bet money that those last five words are true.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 7, 2010
    #9
  10. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
    up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Feb 7, 2010
    #10
  11. LOL!

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You've yet to show any error, moron. All you've done is screech
    like a gibbon, insisting that your incompetance is somebody else's
    problem.
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 7, 2010
    #11
  12. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    You're as oxymoronic (and fuckin' stupid) as one can ever get in life.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Feb 7, 2010
    #12
  13. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    Yes, that's obvious. All that you are intent on doing is trying to jump
    through convoluted hoops in explaining why your blindly-worshipped
    PhotoSlop can't recreate the full range of all available hues in a Granger
    Chart. It's used to detect subtle differences in color-rendition in your
    camera to software to print path. If the Granger Chart can't reproduce all
    the colors available, as is the case when using PhotoSlop, then you can't
    find where the errors are.

    Keep trying to justify that piece of shit PhotoSlop.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Mar 7, 2010
    #13
  14. LOL!

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Push your lies somewhere else, asshole troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 7, 2010
    #14
  15. LOL!

    Chris H Guest

    Photoshop and Lightroom used the ProphotoRGB colour space. ProphotoRGB
    is somewhat larger that AdobeRGB or sRGB.

    The prophoto space is about the same as the LAB colour space.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

    However as the page says it has colours outside the scope of many
    screens, jpgs and printers.

    It also explains about the gamut changes, which explain the "missing"
    colours" in the Granger chart the OP linked to. I think the OP is using
    a lamppost for support rather than illumination and has missed the
    important points of the information on the Granger Chart. If he knew
    what he was looking at it would be clear that the problem is not
    photoshop

    In short Photoshop (as recommended by the people at http://www.luminous-
    landscape.com ) is NOT the limiting factor.

    In fact Photoshop in prophotoRGB can handle more colours than most
    output devices and humans can handle. The newer printers such as the
    epsons using the K3Ink range (with 9 or more inks) can handle most of
    it.


    BTW does Photoline handle ProPhotoRGB? If not is can not be as good as
    Photshop.

    All the reviews I can see for Photoline suggest it is on a par with
    Photoshop elements and is a similar price.


    The OP is spouting religion with no understanding.
     
    Chris H, Mar 8, 2010
    #15
  16. LOL!

    Jeff Jones Guest

    I've used ProPhotoRGB in Photoline but I prefer to use eciRGB v2 ICCv4 as
    it is more universally compliant. There are several ProPhoto colorspace
    definitions floating around out there for the last 5 years. (Did you not
    know this?) I'd never go near adobeRGBullshit.

    It's a shame that you've all been floundering in PhotoSlop all these years.
    You've no idea what you've been wallowing in. There's a reason that it was
    called PhotoLine-32 since 1998 and still uses the domain of www.pl32.net,
    it's been a 32-bit math platform all that time, now 64-bit for the last 2-3
    years. PhotoSlop only went from a 16-bit to 32-bit math platform in CS4. Do
    try to catch-up someday to what's happening in the rest of the world. The
    ignorance levels of people who only read and believe in one book is
    mind-bogglingly astounding.
     
    Jeff Jones, Mar 8, 2010
    #16
  17. LOL!

    LOL! Guest

    "2 simple steps" Okay, if that's how you see defining all your gradients
    and all the other hoops you have to jump through. I already went through
    the convoluted nonsense of trying to fix PhotoSlop's gradients when I did
    the tests the first time to see where it was making such huge errors.

    It doesn't matter if they "look" the same, your Granger Chart, a
    mathematical reproduction of every hue possible, is missing millions of
    shades and hues that will never appear on your monitor. But when altering
    white-balance and other hue adjustments and trying to recover colors from
    highlights and shadows, you'll end up with serious gaps because they are
    totally missing from your editing platform.

    No matter. You don't even comprehend why this is important. I doubt any of
    your images will suffer because nobody probably wants to see them anyway.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Mar 8, 2010
    #17
  18. LOL!

    Guest Guest

    it looks and feels a lot like the gimp.
    very true.
     
    Guest, Mar 8, 2010
    #18
  19. LOL!

    Guest Guest

    completely false, no matter how many times you say this. photoshop was
    a 32 bit app back in 1990, when it was first released.
    take your own advice.
     
    Guest, Mar 8, 2010
    #19
  20. LOL!

    Chris H Guest

    So it is not on a level with elements then. Gimp is awful
    Sadly a lot of them about.
     
    Chris H, Mar 8, 2010
    #20
    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.