Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photoshop, or Photoshop Elements / Apple or PC?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?

Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
PC?

(Not a troll btw!)

--

If you trade freedom for security, you get neither.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:11:23 +1000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John
Phillips<flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:

>By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?

I'm giving the trial a go and can't see how to do a simple crop of X by Y
pixels. The crop tool doesn't seem have anything like this as inputs.
Hopefully, someone here will show me the error of my ways.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Phillips" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:10710185423.20050724081123@deadspam.com...
> By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?
>

Not really, if Elements 3.0 didn't crash every 10 minutes on my Mac I'd
stick to using it over PS CS. Although I am starting to get into actions
which I think are only available in CS and older versions of the full
Photoshop.

> Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
> PC?
>

Whatever floats your boat. Color management is much more convenient on the
Mac, though. I use my Mac because that's the system in my home with the
best monitor attached to it.

Greg
Related resources
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Phillips <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:

> By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?

Yes. Whether you need that stuff is up to you.

> Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
> PC?
>
> (Not a troll btw!)

Har. :-)

I haven't tried the new Mac OS (Tiger), but I hear Spotlight (the search
system) can do searches based on EXIF and other forms of metadata.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10710185423.20050724081123@deadspam.com>,
John Phillips<flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:

> By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?

Not really any huge difference when it comes to photography only. But go
to the book store and check out "Photoshop CS for Digital
Photographers". Then look for an Elements book of the same ilk.

>
> Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
> PC?

Apple Macintosh hands down. It's more stable, does not get afflicted
with spyware and viruses, and it has been the artist's choice for a
decade for a reason.

>
> (Not a troll btw!)

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:03:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:11:23 +1000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John
> Phillips<flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?
>
>
> I'm giving the trial a go and can't see how to do a simple crop of X by Y
> pixels. The crop tool doesn't seem have anything like this as inputs.
> Hopefully, someone here will show me the error of my ways.


On the left side of the screen, there is a crop tool, right under the
"T" (text). Press it.

Then enter the pixel dimensions in the width and height boxes as follows:
500 px 400 px.
(you have to enter the "px" as well as the numbers in the box)

This will crop to that ratio, as well as resize the image in one go.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:04:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Phillips wrote:

> By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?

If you're just making crops, color correction, USM, and such, Elements
3.0 is fine.

If you're making major changes to the image, doing critical color work
and complex changes, then CS2.

( The adobe website details the advantages of CS2 )

>
> Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
> PC?

No difference in the end.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:03:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:03:55 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:

>> I'm giving the trial a go and can't see how to do a simple crop of X by Y
>> pixels. The crop tool doesn't seem have anything like this as inputs.
>> Hopefully, someone here will show me the error of my ways.
>
>
>On the left side of the screen, there is a crop tool, right under the
>"T" (text). Press it.
>
>Then enter the pixel dimensions in the width and height boxes as follows:
> 500 px 400 px.
> (you have to enter the "px" as well as the numbers in the box)
>
>This will crop to that ratio, as well as resize the image in one go.

Thanks, but this isn't what I'm trying to do. I have a 3000 x 2000 pixel
image. All I want to do is crop to a sub area of 1600 x 1200. I want the
crop tool area to be set to 1600 x 1200 and allow it to be moved around
with the boundaries shown so I can compose the cropped image.

Your instructions will take a manually defined crop area, using click and
drag, and resize it to 1600 x 1200. As I want a crop area of 1600 x1200
there is no need to resize anything.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:49:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:03:17 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ed Ruf
<egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:03:55 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
>Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>>On the left side of the screen, there is a crop tool, right under the
>>"T" (text). Press it.
>>
>>Then enter the pixel dimensions in the width and height boxes as follows:
>> 500 px 400 px.
>> (you have to enter the "px" as well as the numbers in the box)
>>
>>This will crop to that ratio, as well as resize the image in one go.
>
>Thanks, but this isn't what I'm trying to do. I have a 3000 x 2000 pixel
>image. All I want to do is crop to a sub area of 1600 x 1200. I want the
>crop tool area to be set to 1600 x 1200 and allow it to be moved around
>with the boundaries shown so I can compose the cropped image.
>
>Your instructions will take a manually defined crop area, using click and
>drag, and resize it to 1600 x 1200. As I want a crop area of 1600 x1200
>there is no need to resize anything.


OK figured it out myself. Still don't understand why you can't do this with
the crop tool itself though.

Select the Rectangular Marquee tool and choose Fixed Size in Mode and enter
1600 px in Width and 1200 px in Height. Move selection box around to
compose the cropped image and then choose Image => Crop from the menu bar.

In a 278MBtrial dl the included help file was absolutely no help whatsoever
in figuring this out.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:12:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
> PC?
>
> (Not a troll btw!)

I'm in the PC business and used to rent office space inside a Mac sales and
support company - it made for some fun debates!

Trying to put all bias aside, the same program (albeit Mac -v- PC code)
should function in the same way on either platform. Macs used to have a
massive stronghold in the graphics and education markets, but in the last
figures I saw (several years ago) PCs had overtaken them - proportionally
though, the Mac share was still quite remarkable - they had something like
3% of the world market, yet around 50% of the graphics market.

I'm not sure what they're up to these days - but I do know that PC hardware
has dropped in cost to a ridiculous value - to the point where just one
major app like photoshop costs me more than the basic hardware to run it :( 
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <b2BEe.2905$PL5.296424@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what they're up to these days - but I do know that PC hardware
> has dropped in cost to a ridiculous value -

You get what you pay for. ;^)

Anyway, the new Mac Mini's are coming out soon. $500. I would say it is
worth looking into.


Peace out.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:12:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

CFB wrote:
[]
> Anyway, the new Mac Mini's are coming out soon. $500. I would say it
> is worth looking into.

Isn't anyone buying a non-Intel Mac today buying into a dying product
line?

David
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> CFB wrote:
> []
>
>>Anyway, the new Mac Mini's are coming out soon. $500. I would say it
>>is worth looking into.
>
>
> Isn't anyone buying a non-Intel Mac today buying into a dying product
> line?
>
> David
>
>
I just converted back to Mac (Tiger) from XP -- it wasn't cheap, but it
was the right move for me. Photoshop operates the same on both
platforms so that's a non-issue. In terms of stability, usability, and
quality of display and color management, however, Mac wins hands down.
For me. It's not cheap, but lots of people find it a better enabler and
a better long-term value for graphics/video/audio work. I certainly do.

Re dying platform, the Mac I bought this year will last me five years
easily. By then Apple will have not only ported OS/X to the Intel
platform -- it's a UNIX core; I'm sure they've done it already -- but
*also* figured out how to run XP or Longhorn or whatever Redmond has
available natively on the Intel chip. Packaged in a box with
Apple-quality physical/system design. I think the upgrade path for
OS/X+apps is pretty exciting and the processor switch a fascinating
opportunity for Apple to get back in the game big time.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dick Muldoon wrote:

> I just converted back to Mac (Tiger) from XP -- it wasn't cheap, but
> it was the right move for me. Photoshop operates the same on both
> platforms so that's a non-issue. In terms of stability, usability,
> and quality of display and color management, however, Mac wins hands
> down. For me. It's not cheap, but lots of people find it a better
> enabler and a better long-term value for graphics/video/audio work. I
> certainly do.
> Re dying platform, the Mac I bought this year will last me five years
> easily. By then Apple will have not only ported OS/X to the Intel
> platform -- it's a UNIX core; I'm sure they've done it already -- but
> *also* figured out how to run XP or Longhorn or whatever Redmond has
> available natively on the Intel chip. Packaged in a box with
> Apple-quality physical/system design. I think the upgrade path for
> OS/X+apps is pretty exciting and the processor switch a fascinating
> opportunity for Apple to get back in the game big time.

Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.




Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <gTLEe.29011$5N3.19681@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dick Muldoon <rpmuldoon@att.net> wrote:

> I just converted back to Mac (Tiger) from XP -- it wasn't cheap, but it
> was the right move for me. Photoshop operates the same on both
> platforms so that's a non-issue. In terms of stability, usability, and
> quality of display and color management, however, Mac wins hands down.
> For me. It's not cheap, but lots of people find it a better enabler and
> a better long-term value for graphics/video/audio work. I certainly do.

Welcome back from the dark side. :-)

> Re dying platform, the Mac I bought this year will last me five years
> easily. By then Apple will have not only ported OS/X to the Intel
> platform -- it's a UNIX core; I'm sure they've done it already -- but
> *also* figured out how to run XP or Longhorn or whatever Redmond has
> available natively on the Intel chip. Packaged in a box with
> Apple-quality physical/system design. I think the upgrade path for
> OS/X+apps is pretty exciting and the processor switch a fascinating
> opportunity for Apple to get back in the game big time.

They changed the name the other day...it's not Longhorn any more - the
next version of Windows will be called Microsoft Vista.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi,

At home, I'm using a 14" Apple iBook with OS X (10.3.9) and PS CS2. I
also have PS Elements 3 on the machine. I find CS2 very nice to work
with and particularly like the Bridge program (with slide show feature
to see full screen pics easily).

I have a Gateway laptop with Win XP gathering dust in my closet. It has
PS Elements 2 on it. But I seldom (never) use it. Why?

The Mac is just so much more -elegent!-

Best,

Conrad


--
Conrad
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.

The reason Apple is switching to Intel have to do with the shortcomings
of PowerPC in power consumption for portable computers.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e73n2cpui2m09@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.

I can lock up XP on a regular basis, but haven't had OS X die on me
since the initial release back in 2001. You might want to have that
Clue Deficit Disorder looked into.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> The reason Apple is switching to Intel have to do with the
> shortcomings of PowerPC in power consumption for portable computers.

Nope, do a Google search and you'll quickly see that the primary reason is
purely motivated by economics. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against
Apple and find their products to be top notch, but I know what is best when
all the marketing hype is stripped away.



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> I can lock up XP on a regular basis, but haven't had OS X die on me
> since the initial release back in 2001. You might want to have that
> Clue Deficit Disorder looked into.

LOL! I'm sure you can "lock up XP on a regular basis" since this is a
byproduct of pilot error. I must ask, though, what imbecilic task were you
trying to accomplish that created your catastrophic event?



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 5:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7flbi1s4g069@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> LOL! I'm sure you can "lock up XP on a regular basis" since this is a
> byproduct of pilot error. I must ask, though, what imbecilic task were you
> trying to accomplish that created your catastrophic event?

Yeah, it's an imbecilic task.

Go to the list of recently opened documents (Start-Documents), delete
one, and if there are several and I delete them one-at-a-time
(right-click - delete), it will lock up. Maybe won't happen every
time...but I can usually count on one reboot per day.

OS X, on the other hand, allows the user to turn off this useless
function and doesn't lock up regardless.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e73n2cpui2m09@news.supernews.com>,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.

> Rita

You sound like a MS employee (read drone), MS sells information
suppression software to communist China and The US government
is allowing it (food for the thinking consumer). Bottom line I wouldn't
knowingly buy jack from ole "Bill". But I have nothing personal to gain
and nothing personally against MS.

I know quite a few Apple users & have yet to hear any complaints from
any Apple users, however this is not the case from PC users-that use MS
products. So that there is no confusion Apple makes computers and
software MS only makes software which is included on most PC
Computers.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

> You sound like a MS employee (read drone), MS sells information
> suppression software to communist China and The US government
> is allowing it (food for the thinking consumer). Bottom line I
> wouldn't knowingly buy jack from ole "Bill". But I have nothing
> personal to gain and nothing personally against MS.

Nope, I'm just a happy Microsoft user that doesn't have all the *perceived*
problems most of the whiners complain about.

> I know quite a few Apple users & have yet to hear any complaints from
> any Apple users, however this is not the case from PC users-that use
> MS products. So that there is no confusion Apple makes computers and
> software MS only makes software which is included on most PC
> Computers.

You just found the answer that has eluded most people for years, "MS only
makes software". Most people (clueless) find it convenient to not factor
this into the equation when they have a problem and put all the blame on the
software. The bulk of these issues are commonly traced back to poor of
improperly configured hardware.

I'm using XP Pro SP2 and Photoshop without any problems or complaints, but
then again, it's on an antiquated Supermicro dual P4 2.4 Ghz Xeon (Socket
603), SCSI RAID system. It hasn't hiccupped in years.



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:07:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7a924afeeo5c@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> You just found the answer that has eluded most people for years, "MS only
> makes software". Most people (clueless) find it convenient to not factor
> this into the equation when they have a problem and put all the blame on the
> software. The bulk of these issues are commonly traced back to poor of
> improperly configured hardware.

Is that why there are so many security problems with Windows?
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:07:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> Is that why there are so many security problems with Windows?

Yep! Here we go again! What security problems are you referring to?
Please cite some facts that aren't based on anti-MS propaganda to back this
claim up?



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:07:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7flc3o9jqp6a@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> Yep! Here we go again! What security problems are you referring to?
> Please cite some facts that aren't based on anti-MS propaganda to back this
> claim up?

Every time you turn around, M$ is wanting you do download & install
another hack to fix a security problem with Windows.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Y9HEe.76105$G8.36152@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

> CFB wrote:
> []
> > Anyway, the new Mac Mini's are coming out soon. $500. I would say it
> > is worth looking into.
>
> Isn't anyone buying a non-Intel Mac today buying into a dying product
> line?
>
> David

HE HE! They said that 13 years ago!

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:11:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:11e73n2cpui2m09@news.supernews.com...
>
> Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.
>

That must be why we're buying Macs left and right for promo editing and
publicity image management even though here at NBC we get no Mac deals
because GE/NBC/Universal is in bed with Microsoft for software, Dell for
desktops, and HP for servers.

Greg
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e73n2cpui2m09@news.supernews.com>,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Dick Muldoon wrote:
>
> > I just converted back to Mac (Tiger) from XP -- it wasn't cheap, but
> > it was the right move for me. Photoshop operates the same on both
> > platforms so that's a non-issue. In terms of stability, usability,
> > and quality of display and color management, however, Mac wins hands
> > down. For me. It's not cheap, but lots of people find it a better
> > enabler and a better long-term value for graphics/video/audio work. I
> > certainly do.
> > Re dying platform, the Mac I bought this year will last me five years
> > easily. By then Apple will have not only ported OS/X to the Intel
> > platform -- it's a UNIX core; I'm sure they've done it already -- but
> > *also* figured out how to run XP or Longhorn or whatever Redmond has
> > available natively on the Intel chip. Packaged in a box with
> > Apple-quality physical/system design. I think the upgrade path for
> > OS/X+apps is pretty exciting and the processor switch a fascinating
> > opportunity for Apple to get back in the game big time.
>
> Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.

Dear lovely Rita meter maid,

Question: How long have you used 10.3.9 and how long have you used XP?

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:20:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

CFB wrote:

> Question: How long have you used 10.3.9 and how long have you used XP?

I'm strictly a user of MS and Redhat Linux (Fedora Core). While I find
Apple products to be top-notch they have nothing to offer me beyond what MS
does.



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:20:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7a92pdjkbh60@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm strictly a user of MS and Redhat Linux (Fedora Core). While I find
> Apple products to be top-notch they have nothing to offer me beyond what MS
> does.

Ah...that explains it...a penguin.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:38:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:11e7a92pdjkbh60@news.supernews.com...
> CFB wrote:
>
> > Question: How long have you used 10.3.9 and how long have you used XP?
>
> I'm strictly a user of MS and Redhat Linux (Fedora Core). While I find
> Apple products to be top-notch they have nothing to offer me beyond what
MS
> does.
>
>

You're funny. You mentioned video and yet MS has nothing like Final Cut
Pro.

Greg
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:41:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sqd7e1tt8vmcfao4sgipmhri3a6htggjvt@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:03:17 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ed
Ruf
> <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:03:55 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
> >Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >>On the left side of the screen, there is a crop tool, right under the
> >>"T" (text). Press it.
> >>
> >>Then enter the pixel dimensions in the width and height boxes as
follows:
> >> 500 px 400 px.
> >> (you have to enter the "px" as well as the numbers in the box)
> >>
> >>This will crop to that ratio, as well as resize the image in one go.
> >
> >Thanks, but this isn't what I'm trying to do. I have a 3000 x 2000 pixel
> >image. All I want to do is crop to a sub area of 1600 x 1200. I want the
> >crop tool area to be set to 1600 x 1200 and allow it to be moved around
> >with the boundaries shown so I can compose the cropped image.
> >
> >Your instructions will take a manually defined crop area, using click and
> >drag, and resize it to 1600 x 1200. As I want a crop area of 1600 x1200
> >there is no need to resize anything.
>
>
> OK figured it out myself. Still don't understand why you can't do this
with
> the crop tool itself though.

But you can. I don't understand why you're having problems with Alan's
directions?

Greg
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:56:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7a92f213p45e@news.supernews.com>,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > The reason Apple is switching to Intel have to do with the
> > shortcomings of PowerPC in power consumption for portable computers.
>
> Nope, do a Google search and you'll quickly see that the primary reason is
> purely motivated by economics. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against
> Apple and find their products to be top notch, but I know what is best when
> all the marketing hype is stripped away.
> Rita

I read it as a short coming of Motorola versus Apple. If
Apple chooses to use a better part to make their product
so much the better....doubtful it will equate to a compromise
on Apple equipment or quality,... as some people believe.

As you have stated Apple does make top notch hardware
and software and one pays the price for it, just like buying a
Lexus (which I can't afford:)  But its the same idea, a less expensive
machine will still get you to the store :-)
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:56:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

> I read it as a short coming of Motorola versus Apple. If
> Apple chooses to use a better part to make their product
> so much the better....doubtful it will equate to a compromise
> on Apple equipment or quality,... as some people believe.

The other issue that has Apple shaking in their boots is the use of their OS
on non-Apple hardware. They are addressing this problem by locking the OS
to only work on the Intel/Apple chip. I wonder how many people would bypass
buying Apple hardware if they didn't take these steps? I can see Apple's
hardware sales taking a sharp decline.

> As you have stated Apple does make top notch hardware
> and software and one pays the price for it, just like buying a
> Lexus (which I can't afford:)  But its the same idea, a less expensive
> machine will still get you to the store :-)

Yes they do, and this was why they almost went belly up many moons ago.
People hate being locked into proprietary hardware and being forced to pay
exorbitant fees for it. This is why the PC market exploded and left Apple
in the dust. The nice thing about PC is I can select what grade of hardware
I want to use and load numerous varieties of OS on it. If I want a
top-notch system I can select the components to build one without worry of
incompatibility or proprietary restrictions. This is what soured most
people to Apple in the early days.




Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7a924afeeo5c@news.supernews.com>,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
>
> > You sound like a MS employee (read drone), MS sells information
> > suppression software to communist China and The US government
> > is allowing it (food for the thinking consumer). Bottom line I
> > wouldn't knowingly buy jack from ole "Bill". But I have nothing
> > personal to gain and nothing personally against MS.
>
> Nope, I'm just a happy Microsoft user that doesn't have all the *perceived*
> problems most of the whiners complain about.

I attribute whiners to the non manual reading users ;-)

>
> > I know quite a few Apple users & have yet to hear any complaints from
> > any Apple users, however this is not the case from PC users-that use
> > MS products. So that there is no confusion Apple makes computers and
> > software MS only makes software which is included on most PC
> > Computers.
>
> You just found the answer that has eluded most people for years, "MS only
> makes software". Most people (clueless) find it convenient to not factor
> this into the equation when they have a problem and put all the blame on the
> software. The bulk of these issues are commonly traced back to poor of
> improperly configured hardware.
>
> I'm using XP Pro SP2 and Photoshop without any problems or complaints, but
> then again, it's on an antiquated Supermicro dual P4 2.4 Ghz Xeon (Socket
> 603), SCSI RAID system. It hasn't hiccupped in years.
> Rita

I realistically believe any system can work provided the user invests
the time to understand it. Problem is our society is advanced just
enough to allow the common folk enough rope to hang ourselves
and only know the difference once the problem is very large ;-)
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:03:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:

> I attribute whiners to the non manual reading users ;-)

LOL! I can't agree with you more! I think the other issue that comes into
play is there are people that are strictly anti-MS and won't open their mind
to what it has to offer or take the time to understand how to use its
features.

This same issue seems to rear its ugly head when we have these childish
Canon vs. Nikon debates.

> I realistically believe any system can work provided the user invests
> the time to understand it. Problem is our society is advanced just
> enough to allow the common folk enough rope to hang ourselves
> and only know the difference once the problem is very large ;-)

That's a good point. I'm a young pup and I've been playing with these damn
things since the Intel 286 days and I probably still haven't learned all the
features and functions offered by any of these operating systems.

In all honesty, I would really like to see Apple port their OS to work with
any Intel based chip whether it be a 32-bit or a 64-bit chip as I would like
to test their OS on my hardware for a fair comparison. And if Apple proves
itself worthy to the consumer as being a product worth using over Windows it
will destroy MS.



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7dlsbigjlo60@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> That's a good point. I'm a young pup and I've been playing with these damn
> things since the Intel 286 days and I probably still haven't learned all the
> features and functions offered by any of these operating systems.

Child...
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:03:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> Child...

And proud of it. :^)



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:22:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10710185423.20050724081123@deadspam.com>,
John Phillips<flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:

> By just buying Elements, would I miss out on much?
>
> Second question, what is best to store and manipulate photos on - Apple or
> PC?
>
> (Not a troll btw!)

*
APPLE! First and foremost!

Re software:

Of course the top of the line would be Photoshop CS2 -- if you want to
spend about US$400.

Next comes Photoshop Elements 3, which is about US$100.

Next comes Photoshop LE (limited edition) which ships free with some
printers, scanners, etc.

And finally -- if you want to take the time and effort -- set up your
Mac to run X11, which is an open-source front-end that will allow you to
run UNIX programs directly.

It's a bit of a hassle -- depending on which OS you are using.

If you have OSX 10.4 (Tiger), you have everything you need right on the
installation disk. You will need to install X-Code, Open Source Tools
and also the X11 program.

Then, you can download GIMP, which is a very sophisticated
image-processing UNIX-based program -- best thing: All of this is free!

http://www.gimp.org/

While you're at it, you can look for OpenOffice at:

http://www.openoffice.org/

This is the Sun Microsystems open-source office collection, (similar to
Microsoft Office) including a good word processor, spreadsheet,
presentation program, etc.

There are many, many other programs in the open-source library that will
run on a Mac under X11 including Inkscape (like Adobe Illlustrator),
Cyberduck (FTP program), Scribus (like Quark Express or Adobe InDesign),
GNUcash (like Quicken), JEdit (like BBEdit), and many more.

For other open-source applications, see:

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/
http://osx.freshmeat.net/#top

and of course, the old reliable Version Tracker:

http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/

Good luck! Have fun!

earle
*
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:56:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dc07bc$e5a$3@inews.gazeta.pl>,
alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> > work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> > gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> > indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.
>
> The reason Apple is switching to Intel have to do with the shortcomings
> of PowerPC in power consumption for portable computers.

I think cost considerations also weight heavily.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <look-2D0BEF.10091124072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
look@u.com says...
> > Isn't anyone buying a non-Intel Mac today buying into a dying product
> > line?
> >
> > David
>
> HE HE! They said that 13 years ago!

And they were right.

Mac market share is getting lower and lower. Mac was able to survive
due to the rapid expansion of the market - so even while they were
losing market share/presence, their sales more or less held steady, or
in some years, grew.

I think getting Mac off of a proprietary platform will either be the
last gasp by Jobs and Co, or the revival of the brand. I mean, instead
of being hardware snobs, Mac users will fall into the ranks of Linux
heads. Whether that will mean they are more or less annoying remains to
be seen.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> I think getting Mac off of a proprietary platform will either be the
> last gasp by Jobs and Co, or the revival of the brand. I mean,
> instead of being hardware snobs, Mac users will fall into the ranks
> of Linux heads. Whether that will mean they are more or less
> annoying remains to be seen.

And the only thing that saved their asses this time around was the iPod.
The only thing that will separate the wheat from the chaff is if Apple ports
their OS to an i386 platform and let the consumers decide which is best.



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7flcp5t6l66d@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
@aol.com> wrote:

> And the only thing that saved their asses this time around was the iPod.
> The only thing that will separate the wheat from the chaff is if Apple ports
> their OS to an i386 platform and let the consumers decide which is best.

Ain't gonna happen.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7dlrsrstjf5f@news.supernews.com>, "Rita Ä Berkowitz"
<ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> says...
> The other issue that has Apple shaking in their boots is the use of their OS
> on non-Apple hardware. They are addressing this problem by locking the OS
> to only work on the Intel/Apple chip. I wonder how many people would bypass
> buying Apple hardware if they didn't take these steps? I can see Apple's
> hardware sales taking a sharp decline.

The final roll out hasn't occurred, but if Apple does this I think
they'll find themselves in the same loser spot as they did before.

If they allowed the new OS to be installed on ALL Wintel boxes you'd see
more people doing dual boot system.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:03:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> The final roll out hasn't occurred, but if Apple does this I think
> they'll find themselves in the same loser spot as they did before.

If their OS is truly better than MS this might not be the case. I really
think Apple is afraid to take the plunge and find the answer.

> If they allowed the new OS to be installed on ALL Wintel boxes you'd
> see more people doing dual boot system.

I would give them a whirl and see what they had to offer, but I'm not sure
if I would really see any real world performance increases that would make
the investment worthwhile.




Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:07:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <240720050854526179%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> In article <11e73n2cpui2m09@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz <
> @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Microsoft is so far ahead of Mac in terms of stability and graphics/video
> > work that they don't even look in the rear view mirror to see if they are
> > gaining. The simple gesture of Mac porting to an Intel chip is a clear
> > indication of them swallowing massive quantities of crow while drowning.
>
> I can lock up XP on a regular basis, but haven't had OS X die on me
> since the initial release back in 2001. You might want to have that
> Clue Deficit Disorder looked into.

I guess your problem with XP lies between the keyboard and the chair.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:07:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> I guess your problem with XP lies between the keyboard and the chair.

LOL! Well said!



Rita
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
[]
> I can lock up XP on a regular basis, but haven't had OS X die on me
> since the initial release back in 2001. You might want to have that
> Clue Deficit Disorder looked into.

Lock up the operating system or some application software?

David
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:41:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11e7fldih8ggf70@news.supernews.com>, "Rita Ä Berkowitz"
<ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> says...
> > If they allowed the new OS to be installed on ALL Wintel boxes you'd
> > see more people doing dual boot system.
>
> I would give them a whirl and see what they had to offer, but I'm not sure
> if I would really see any real world performance increases that would make
> the investment worthwhile.

Depends also how Longhorn turns out.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
!