Picture Window Pro

[Brian Walters]

I tried this Photoshop alternative years ago but found the interface too
baffling.  A lot of people love the program, though.

Anyway - the developer has decided to cease further development of the
program and has released the current version as freeware. Available in
64 & 32 bit versions, if anyone wants to try it...

http://www.dl-c.com/site/downloads/pwp-apps.php



Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/

-- 
--

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Picture Window Pro Recommendation

[Cotty]

>I too, give a hearty thumbs up to Picture Window.  As a photographer I
>have found it to suit my needs quite well - and yes, the price is much
>lower than Photoshop.

Having used Photoshop 3, 4, and 5.5 since 1998 may I throw in a couple a 
pennies?

If I knew then what I know now, I would have liked (pretending that it 
was available at the time) somebody to recommend Photoshop Elements to me.

Reasons: It is true that most photographers processing images on computer 
will never use the full Photoshop's capability. However, if you are truly 
serious about progressing through your passion, possibly towards career 
aspirations, then using the 'Adobe way' is going to make things easier, 
and keep things familiar.

It's not just about palettes and menus, it's about keyboard shortcuts. A 
professional Photoshop user has one hand on the stylus (mouse/trackpad), 
the other on the keyboard. It's about setting up macros within Photoshop 
(Photoshop Actions), and it's about compatibility with other applications 
that may need to import native PS files. It's about knowing off the top 
of your head what you are reading about when you come across a pro 
graphics forum and they are discussing something about Photoshop, 
something that may well come in handy for you. It's about all these 
things and much more.

If you have absolutely no aspirations towards one day turning your 
ambitions into a career, or if you are highly satisfied with using what 
you have, then look no further. Better to know what you are using inside 
out and be content with it than to stumble across something new and wade 
in too deep.

However, if you consider yourself in a transitional phase (possibly 
lasting years ;-) between am and pro status and would like to get to 
grips with what is used out there in the real world of professional image 
manipulation, then start out with Photoshop Elements. Stick with it. 
Learn the interface, learn the shortcuts, learn the actions until you can 
post-produce your photographs quickly and efficiently. 

If and when the day comes that you gradually or suddenly get thrown into 
the deep end and have to buckle down with the real Photoshop, you will be 
prepared and even willing to get stuck in.

If only I could have read this back in 1998, I would have replied 
straight away with lots of thank you's and kisses and hugs and would you 
like to come back to my place bouncy-bouncy's.

[ Note: This is not to say that Picture Window or indeed any other 
similar application will not do the job just as good, just my personal 
observation based on what I have seen working in professional image post 
production environments over the years.]

Kind regards,

Cotty


Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

RE: Picture Window Pro Recommendation

[Mike Johnston]

Cotty,
Everybody should read your message twice...

I was introduced to Photoshop not because I'm a photographer but because my
Graphics Department used it at the magazine. Virtually every professional
photography, publishing, graphics, and production shop uses it. (There are
Quark/Pagemaker battles at such places, but nothing similar with
Photoshop--it's Universal.) Plus, it's cross-platform, so Mac and PC users
speak the same language (and lest anyone think my Mac bigotry is knee-jerk,
I have yet to see any professional publishing house or graphics or
advertising firm that _doesn't_ use Macs).

Many of the "Help" features on Elements v.2 are new to Photoshop. So anyone
who has familiarity with any earlier version of P'shop shouldn't necessarily
assume that it's hard to learn. Adobe has made it much more
beginner-friendly.

--Mike


> Having used Photoshop 3, 4, and 5.5 since 1998 may I throw in a couple a
> pennies?
> 
> If I knew then what I know now, I would have liked (pretending that it
> was available at the time) somebody to recommend Photoshop Elements to me.
> 
> Reasons: It is true that most photographers processing images on computer
> will never use the full Photoshop's capability. However, if you are truly
> serious about progressing through your passion, possibly towards career
> aspirations, then using the 'Adobe way' is going to make things easier,
> and keep things familiar.
> 
> It's not just about palettes and menus, it's about keyboard shortcuts. A
> professional Photoshop user has one hand on the stylus (mouse/trackpad),
> the other on the keyboard. It's about setting up macros within Photoshop
> (Photoshop Actions), and it's about compatibility with other applications
> that may need to import native PS files. It's about knowing off the top
> of your head what you are reading about when you come across a pro
> graphics forum and they are discussing something about Photoshop,
> something that may well come in handy for you. It's about all these
> things and much more.
> 
> If you have absolutely no aspirations towards one day turning your
> ambitions into a career, or if you are highly satisfied with using what
> you have, then look no further. Better to know what you are using inside
> out and be content with it than to stumble across something new and wade
> in too deep.
> 
> However, if you consider yourself in a transitional phase (possibly
> lasting years ;-) between am and pro status and would like to get to
> grips with what is used out there in the real world of professional image
> manipulation, then start out with Photoshop Elements. Stick with it.
> Learn the interface, learn the shortcuts, learn the actions until you can
> post-produce your photographs quickly and efficiently.
> 
> If and when the day comes that you gradually or suddenly get thrown into
> the deep end and have to buckle down with the real Photoshop, you will be
> prepared and even willing to get stuck in.
> 
> If only I could have read this back in 1998, I would have replied
> straight away with lots of thank you's and kisses and hugs and would you
> like to come back to my place bouncy-bouncy's.
> 
> [ Note: This is not to say that Picture Window or indeed any other
> similar application will not do the job just as good, just my personal
> observation based on what I have seen working in professional image post
> production environments over the years.]

Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi gang,

It was suggested I try PW Pro.  Right now I'm using PS 7.0 and
IrfanView.  Anyone using PWPro care to comment on the capabilities of
the software, maybe how it compares to Photoshop?

I've DL'd the trial version of PWPro, yet it would be nice to get some
feedback from those who've used it.

shel

Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[John Forbes]

Thnaks, Bruce,

Since I posted my question, I have downloaded the trial and had a play.   
It's very impressive, and far easier to get into than PS.  I can see some  
modest expenditure looming.


Like you, I also use Phase One Capture One, and have been astounded at  
what it can do with pictures I thought were beyond redemption.


John

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:23 +0100, Bruce Dayton  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Hello John,

Thanks for the comments.

With full 16 bit support, full color mangement and sophisticated
masking, so far I never use Photoshop.  Not to say that PS is not a
great product, but PictureWindow Pro at about $90 is one heck of a buy
and a much better product than the other competitors of PS.  I am
overall happy with it.





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Bruce Dayton]

I've used it quite a bit.  Overall I like it.  One of the big
comparisons between it and photoshop is the price.  Remember that full
price photoshop is $600+.  Quite steep for my blood.  PW Pro is $90.
On the plus side, it is one of the few programs that fully support
color management.  It is also more geared toward a photographer rather
than a graphic artist.

If you already own Photoshop, I really doubt there is anything in PW
Pro that would make you want to switch.  If, like me, you have not
sprung for Photoshop at this point, it is worth considering.  I have
been using Photoshop Elements for quite some time, and one of the
biggest things lacking in it is "curves".  This is present in PW Pro
as are some perspective correction tools.

PW Pro creates a new window for each edit process.  About half the
time I hate it and half the time I love it.  When I want to try two or
three different edits and compare them, then the multiple separate
windows is very nice.  Just switch between them.  But when the edits
are simple and I don't want to compare, then the extra windows are
bothersome.

Overall I like it and can recommend it.  Like I said, if you have
already purchased (or are willing to) Photoshop, it is probably not
worth the bother, but if not, this is certainly one of the top
contenders.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce



Saturday, January 3, 2004, 10:47:20 AM, you wrote:

SB> Hi gang,

SB> It was suggested I try PW Pro.  Right now I'm using PS 7.0 and
SB> IrfanView.  Anyone using PWPro care to comment on the capabilities of
SB> the software, maybe how it compares to Photoshop?

SB> I've DL'd the trial version of PWPro, yet it would be nice to get some
SB> feedback from those who've used it.

SB> shel

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Herb Chong]

the lens distortion, noise, and chromatic abberation corrections in PW Pro
are much harder to achieve in Photoshop. i haven't seen any plugins for
chromatic abberation yet, although i have seen ones for noise and lens
distortion.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop


> If you already own Photoshop, I really doubt there is anything in PW
> Pro that would make you want to switch.  If, like me, you have not
> sprung for Photoshop at this point, it is worth considering.  I have
> been using Photoshop Elements for quite some time, and one of the
> biggest things lacking in it is "curves".  This is present in PW Pro
> as are some perspective correction tools.

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Bruce ...

Well, I've got PS 7.0, and really like it, but sometimes I don't want to load
"the big gun" for some little editing job, and IrfanView, while nice, lacks a
lot of features.  From what I can see having fiddled with the PWPro program
just a little, it might be a nice middle ground between IrfanView and PS.

I wasn't able to get the curves in PWPro to work like the curves in PS ...
didn't seem as full featured, but that's no problem at this point.

Couldn't find the full color management that PS has either, although I saw it
has some.  The trial version has less features, so some of what I'm seeing may
be related to the "streamlined" version available for download.

I'll say this, though, the clone tool, the patch tool, and the healing brush
in PS 7 are worth every penny of the PS price if you're doing any photo
restoration, or if you need to touch up a scratched or spotted neg or slide.
I've been slowly working through the restoration of some old family photos, a
few in very bad shape, and those tools are invaluable.

I agree that there's a lot of graphics stuff in PS that is mostly useless for
photographers, but every now and then (mostly "then" for me) one of those
tools or techniques comes in handy.

Thanks Bruce ...

Shel

Bruce Dayton wrote:

> I've used it quite a bit.  Overall I like it.  One of the big
> comparisons between it and photoshop is the price.  Remember that full
> price photoshop is $600+.  Quite steep for my blood.  PW Pro is $90.
> On the plus side, it is one of the few programs that fully support
> color management.  It is also more geared toward a photographer rather
> than a graphic artist.
>
> If you already own Photoshop, I really doubt there is anything in PW
> Pro that would make you want to switch.  If, like me, you have not
> sprung for Photoshop at this point, it is worth considering.  I have
> been using Photoshop Elements for quite some time, and one of the
> biggest things lacking in it is "curves".  This is present in PW Pro
> as are some perspective correction tools.
>
> PW Pro creates a new window for each edit process.  About half the
> time I hate it and half the time I love it.  When I want to try two or
> three different edits and compare them, then the multiple separate
> windows is very nice.  Just switch between them.  But when the edits
> are simple and I don't want to compare, then the extra windows are
> bothersome.
>
> Overall I like it and can recommend it.  Like I said, if you have
> already purchased (or are willing to) Photoshop, it is probably not
> worth the bother, but if not, this is certainly one of the top
> contenders.

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Shel Belinkoff]

Thanks for that pointer, Her,  Just quickly tried the lens distortion and CA
features, and like the way they work.  Not enough to make me give up PS,
but enough to add PWPro to the workflow when appropriate.

Herb Chong wrote:

> the lens distortion, noise, and chromatic abberation corrections in PW Pro
> are much harder to achieve in Photoshop. i haven't seen any plugins for
> chromatic abberation yet, although i have seen ones for noise and lens
> distortion.
>
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop
>
> > If you already own Photoshop, I really doubt there is anything in PW
> > Pro that would make you want to switch.  If, like me, you have not
> > sprung for Photoshop at this point, it is worth considering.  I have
> > been using Photoshop Elements for quite some time, and one of the
> > biggest things lacking in it is "curves".  This is present in PW Pro
> > as are some perspective correction tools.

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[George Sinos]

Earlier Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for comments on 
Picture Window Pro vs. Photoshop 7.0

Shel - I've been using Photoshop and Picture Window Pro for a while 
now.  Both have their pros and cons, but I'm going to make my comments from 
the viewpoint of a Photoshop user wondering about Picture Window Pro.  This 
is a little different perspective than the usual question of "I don't have 
either which should I buy."

I think the two nicely complement each other.  For the person that already 
has Photoshop, Picture Window Pro is a lot less expensive and way more 
powerful than many of the plug-ins I've seen.

First of all, I believe the evaluation version is the Standard Picture 
Window, not the pro version.   Full color management is only in the pro 
version.

The following are only in the pro version

Picture Window Pro supports 16 bit images throughout the entire 
product.  This is an area where Photoshop CS is just beginning to catch up.

Picture Window Pro has an Advanced Sharpen transformation that is unlike 
anything I've seen in other products.  Go to the the Digital Light & Color 
web site
 and check out the white paper.  I think you will find 
it very interesting.

The Color Correction transformation is different than that in Photoshop. 
Digital Light & Color sells a slightly modified version of this as the 
Color Mechanic plug-in for Photoshop. It sells for $49.  For a few bucks 
more you can get Picture Window Pro. The white paper "color balancing 
techniques" describes this and other color correction tools very well.

Chromatic Aberration and Moire reduction are only available in the pro version.

Multipoint alignment is only available in the pro version.  This is pretty 
powerful for registering multiple images. There is a similar function in 
Photoshop, but I'm more comfortable with Picture Window.

Some more general comments:

Picture Window Pro's method of transformations and image management will be 
foreign to the experienced Photoshop user.  You'll really miss layers until 
you get a feel for the model on which Picture Window Pro is built.  I think 
the trick to Picture Window Pro is understanding the masking function and 
how quickly it allows you to generate selective corrections.

There are a few places where you can get a lot of information.

The first is Digital Light and Color's own web site.  Click on the 
"articles" link.  There are many articles and white papers.  Even if you 
don't use the program you'll probably find these very informative.

Also on DL-C's website is the message board.  User's questions are quickly 
answered.  Sach's participates almost daily.  It's a small company, and you 
communicate directly with the key people.

The second web site is Norman Koren's excellent 
<http://www.normankoren.com/>  There are a number of tutorials that should 
give you a feel for Picture Window Pro.  The tutorial on Contrast Masking 
compares the same process done in Photoshop and PWpro.

I agree with your comment.  Photoshop has some great tools for 
retouching.  On the other hand, I think the curves feature in Picture 
Window Pro is better than that in Photoshop.  Take a look at the tutorials 
on Norman Koren's web site.

Just a couple of other comments:

Most people will spend more money on two or three Photoshop books than they 
will spend on the Picture Window Pro program.  There is more usable 
information on the two web sites I mentioned above, than in most of the 
Photoshop books in the stores today.  (Don't get me wrong.  There are some 
good Photoshop books.  It's just that most of them are mediocre attempts to 
cash in on the "how to use Photoshop market".)

Photoshop is a semi-trailer truck, Picture Window Pro is a sports car.  I 
ran the previous version of PWPro on a 200 MHz pc with only 128 Mbytes of 
memory and could do anything I wanted with only minimal waiting time.  I 
could barely get Photoshop Elements to work on that machine.  I didn't even 
try to load Photoshop.  For someone on a  machine with limited resources 
Picture Window Pro is the way to go.

If you're working with large numbers of files and doing things in batches, 
Photoshop wins.  There just aren't any batch features in Picture Window Pro.

Sorry about the length of this message.  Let's hope there's something you 
find useful within.

See you later, gs
www.georgesphotos.net

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi George ...

Great info ... no need to apologize about the length of the message.  I was
disappointed it ended when it did 

The downloaded file was for PWPro 3.1 ... it has the chromatic aberration feature,
which is rather nice.  Will have to try it on my editing machine with some other
photos, but it seemed to work pretty smoothly on this machine.

I'll have to look more into PWP curves ... perhaps read some documentation.  It
didn't seem to be as fully featured as the PS 7 curves.  Why do you like it better
 how do you see it as better?

>From what I could tell on a quick peek, the PWP sharpening isn't as good as that in
PS ... seems that you've got to sharpen the pic directly rather than the luminance
layer  and the lack of layers seems to be a disadvantage.  Of course, that's a
first glance ... time to RTFM 

Still, from what I can see, I agree that they are complimentary.  Looks like i may
have stumbled onto a Good Thing.  Thanks, George,

shel


George Sinos wrote:

> Earlier Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for comments on
> Picture Window Pro vs. Photoshop 7.0
>
> Shel - I've been using Photoshop and Picture Window Pro for a while
> now.  Both have their pros and cons, but I'm going to make my comments from
> the viewpoint of a Photoshop user wondering about Picture Window Pro.  This
> is a little different perspective than the usual question of "I don't have
> either which should I buy."
>
> I think the two nicely complement each other.  For the person that already
> has Photoshop, Picture Window Pro is a lot less expensive and way more
> powerful than many of the plug-ins I've seen.
>
> First of all, I believe the evaluation version is the Standard Picture
> Window, not the pro version.   Full color management is only in the pro
> version.
>
> The following are only in the pro version
>
> Picture Window Pro supports 16 bit images throughout the entire
> product.  This is an area where Photoshop CS is just beginning to catch up.
>
> Picture Window Pro has an Advanced Sharpen transformation that is unlike
> anything I've seen in other products.  Go to the the Digital Light & Color
> web site
>  and check out the white paper.  I think you will find
> it very interesting.
>
> The Color Correction transformation is different than that in Photoshop.
> Digital Light & Color sells a slightly modified version of this as the
> Color Mechanic plug-in for Photoshop. It sells for $49.  For a few bucks
> more you can get Picture Window Pro. The white paper "color balancing
> techniques" describes this and other color correction tools very well.
>
> Chromatic Aberration and Moire reduction are only available in the pro version.
>
> Multipoint alignment is only available in the pro version.  This is pretty
> powerful for registering multiple images. There is a similar function in
> Photoshop, but I'm more comfortable with Picture Window.
>
> Some more general comments:
>
> Picture Window Pro's method of transformations and image management will be
> foreign to the experienced Photoshop user.  You'll really miss layers until
> you get a feel for the model on which Picture Window Pro is built.  I think
> the trick to Picture Window Pro is understanding the masking function and
> how quickly it allows you to generate selective corrections.
>
> There are a few places where you can get a lot of information.
>
> The first is Digital Light and Color's own web site.  Click on the
> "articles" link.  There are many articles and white papers.  Even if you
> don't use the program you'll probably find these very informative.
>
> Also on DL-C's website is the message board.  User's questions are quickly
> answered.  Sach's participates almost daily.  It's a small company, and you
> communicate directly with the key people.
>
> The second web site is Norman Koren's excellent
> <http://www.normankoren.com/>  There are a number of tutorials that should
> give you a feel for Picture Window Pro.  The tutorial on Contrast Masking
> compares the same process done in Photoshop and PWpro.
>
> I agree with your comment.  Photoshop has some great tools for
> retouching.  On the other hand, I think the curves feature in Picture
> Window Pro is better than that in Photoshop.  Take a look at the tutorials
> on Norman Koren's web site.
>
> Just a couple of other comments:
>
> Most people will spend more money on two or three Photoshop books than they
> will spend on the Picture Window Pro program.  There is more usable
> information on the two web sites I mentioned above, than in most of the
> Photoshop books in the stores today.  (Don&#x

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Shel Belinkoff]

Ahh ... I see the that you're talking about PWP 3.5, and I DL'd v3.1  I'm getting 3.5
now.  That has the advanced sharpening setup  maybe a different curves adjustment 
as
well.  Thanks again!

shel

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Hi George ...
>
> Great info ... no need to apologize about the length of the message.  I was
> disappointed it ended when it did 
>
> I'll have to look more into PWP curves ... perhaps read some documentation.  It
> didn't seem to be as fully featured as the PS 7 curves.  Why do you like it better
>  how do you see it as better?
>
> >From what I could tell on a quick peek, the PWP sharpening isn't as good as that in
> PS ... seems that you've got to sharpen the pic directly rather than the luminance
> layer  and the lack of layers seems to be a disadvantage.  Of course, that's a
> first glance ... time to RTFM 

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[George Sinos]

Earlier Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote that he had 
downloaded PWPro 3.1.

Shel -

PWPro 3.5 added quite a few features.  The advanced sharpening was a big 
one.  There were also a lot of improvements to the "browser" that let you 
compose album pages.  I think the "sticky settings" option was added in 3.5 
also.  You have the options of letting tool settings reset to defaults with 
each use or remembering how you last used them.

I don't recall that Curves were different in 3.1 and 3.5.  There are a few 
things I really like about the Curves in PWPro.

One is the way the histogram is superimposed on the curve graph.  This is a 
very nice use of screen space.

The second is the options of color model available.  You can set the curves 
adjustment for RGB, HSV or HSL.  Within those you can select the curves for 
the individual components.  I know there is a way to do this with 
Photoshop, but it doesn't seem as direct or quick to me.

I don't really know how to name the third.  But it's a different view of 
the curves.  Just below the OPT (options) button, there are a several 
buttons.  The first two are "show curves" and "show histograms"  There are 
times when I switch to the "show histograms" view.  It shows the input and 
output histograms together, with the common points connected by lines.  You 
can slide the points around to adjust the histogram and watch the results 
in the preview window.  It's a mess to describe, but makes perfect sense 
when you try it out.

--

I think Photoshop's sharpening is a bit better than PWPro's regular 
sharpening, but PWPro's advanced sharpening in 3.5 is really pretty 
versatile.  That's where you'll find the luminance, noise reduction, spot 
removal and a lot of stuff combined.  You really need to read the white 
paper to quickly get a feel for it.

--

On layers, again, it's a different mental model.

When I work in Photoshop, it reminds me of the design work I did at a 
drafting board, and later on CAD systems.  All the brushes and layers and 
stacking.  I think graphic artists take to that model because those that 
are my age worked that way in the physical world.  It's a pretty easy 
mental model to learn, but I think in practice it becomes a bit 
complex.  Hence the need for actions and batch jobs.

PWPro reminds me more of the way I worked in the darkroom.  You had a 
negative, sometimes a mask and the resulting print.  PWPro has the current 
image and the transformed image that correspond to the negative and the 
print. For the mask, most of the PWPro transformations have an amount 
slider with a white box at one end.  If you haven't created a mask, the 
slider controls the amount of the effect for the entire image.

If you have created a mask, you select the mask into the white box.  This 
effectively layers the mask on top of your image, and splits the slider 
control in two.  The white slider controls the amount of the effect on the 
unmasked part of your image, the black slider controls the amount of the 
effect on the masked part of the image.

So, do you have layers and alpha channels? Not explicitly.  But you can do 
the same thing.

--

The tool for creating masks is very powerful.  Photoshop users, at first, 
miss the lasso and other selection tools.  But when you learn how to use 
the mask creation tools you find that you don't miss Photoshop's tools 
anymore.  Again, it's a different way of doing the same thing.

The composite function is also very powerful.  It's often overlooked.  But 
again, check out the info on the web site.  You'll find it helps you get 
past the need for layers.

If you're combining several images into a collage, there is a new 
transformation in 3.5 called stack images.  This let's you combine up to 5 
images, each with a regular mask and a density mask.

-

I'll just repeat these links here for convenience.  PWPro is a pretty deep 
program, and I think a lot of people give it a brief try and never realize 
what it can really do.  The stuff on Digital Light and Color's web site 
 and Norman Koren's web site 
 is valuable in learning just what you can do 
with it.

By the way, there is a lot of stuff on these two web sites is pretty 
valuable for understanding digital imaging in general.  Both Sach's and 
Koren seem to have a good handle on explaining things.  Koren can really 
delve into the math behind things, but is nice enough to tell you which 
parts you can skip if you're not interested in the numbers or theory.

--

See you later, gs
www.georgesphotos.net

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Rob Studdert]

On 3 Jan 2004 at 18:29, Herb Chong wrote:

> the lens distortion, noise, and chromatic abberation corrections in PW Pro
> are much harder to achieve in Photoshop. i haven't seen any plugins for
> chromatic abberation yet, although i have seen ones for noise and lens
> distortion.

The Panotools plug-in can be used to correct chromatic aberrations:

http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Shel Belinkoff]

Sheesh, that site is s-l-o-w ...

Rob Studdert wrote:
 
> The Panotools plug-in can be used to correct chromatic aberrations:
> 
> http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[graywolf]

Popped right up on my browser.

--

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Sheesh, that site is s-l-o-w ...

Rob Studdert wrote:
 

The Panotools plug-in can be used to correct chromatic aberrations:

http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html



--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Keith Whaley]

This is a good site, but the biggest problem was that the site assumes
everyone is working with a monitor set for 1024 x 768.
I need the larger text, so I use a setting of 832 x 624. Most sites
accommodate that. Some don't.
With this one, I have to move the screen from side to side to
accommodate how the site is constructed.
Other than that, most useful site.

keith whaley

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> Sheesh, that site is s-l-o-w ...
> 
> Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> > The Panotools plug-in can be used to correct chromatic aberrations:
> >
> > http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Herb Chong]

they can be, but i object having to calculate polynomial coefficients on my
pocket calculator to do something that the plugin should let me do
interactively. that's why i won't use Panotools even though it is the best
out there. i don't have the time to deal with that.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop


> On 3 Jan 2004 at 18:29, Herb Chong wrote:
>
> > the lens distortion, noise, and chromatic abberation corrections in PW
Pro
> > are much harder to achieve in Photoshop. i haven't seen any plugins for
> > chromatic abberation yet, although i have seen ones for noise and lens
> > distortion.
>
> The Panotools plug-in can be used to correct chromatic aberrations:
>
>
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Rob Studdert]

On 7 Jan 2004 at 19:02, Herb Chong wrote:

> they can be, but i object having to calculate polynomial coefficients on my
> pocket calculator to do something that the plugin should let me do
> interactively. that's why i won't use Panotools even though it is the best out
> there. i don't have the time to deal with that.

There are some user friendly cuddly front ends that address the raw numbers 
issues (however I've venture to say that they'd likely not be as accurate as 
the long hand method). Where this type of thing comes into it's own is for 
instance when shooting panos using the same lens as the offset factors only 
need to be calculated once.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop

[Herb Chong]

that is also true, but i decided that i didn't have time for it. i use other
software for my panoramas because it is almost as good and it is far easier
and faster to use.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Picture Window Pro v Photoshop


> There are some user friendly cuddly front ends that address the raw
numbers
> issues (however I've venture to say that they'd likely not be as accurate
as
> the long hand method). Where this type of thing comes into it's own is for
> instance when shooting panos using the same lens as the offset factors
only
> need to be calculated once.

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[Bruce Dayton]

Capture One and Picture Window Pro make for a very capable, modestly
priced pair.  Have fun with the trial.  If you have questions, drop
me a line.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 3:04:59 PM, you wrote:

JF> Thnaks, Bruce,

JF> Since I posted my question, I have downloaded the trial and had a play.
JF> It's very impressive, and far easier to get into than PS.  I can see some
JF> modest expenditure looming.

JF> Like you, I also use Phase One Capture One, and have been astounded at
JF> what it can do with pictures I thought were beyond redemption.

JF> John

JF> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:23 +0100, Bruce Dayton  
JF> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Hello John,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments.
>>
>> With full 16 bit support, full color mangement and sophisticated
>> masking, so far I never use Photoshop.  Not to say that PS is not a
>> great product, but PictureWindow Pro at about $90 is one heck of a buy
>> and a much better product than the other competitors of PS.  I am
>> overall happy with it.
>>

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[John Forbes]

Thanks, Bruce.  I do have one question.  I can't download the manual.  Do  
you have to buy the product first, or is the manual just a good idea whose  
time has not yet come?


John

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:26:43 +0100, Bruce Dayton  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Capture One and Picture Window Pro make for a very capable, modestly
priced pair.  Have fun with the trial.  If you have questions, drop
me a line.





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[Tom C]

Bruce, just curious... I've never used Picture Window Pro or Phase One 
Capture One.  Does either one stand out as being significantly easier to use 
or producing better results w/less effort than Photoshop?  I have PS CS2 at 
present.


Tom C.




From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Picture Window Pro.  Was:  PESO - Memorial
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:04:59 +0100

Thnaks, Bruce,

Since I posted my question, I have downloaded the trial and had a play.   
It's very impressive, and far easier to get into than PS.  I can see some  
modest expenditure looming.


Like you, I also use Phase One Capture One, and have been astounded at  what 
it can do with pictures I thought were beyond redemption.


John

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:23 +0100, Bruce Dayton  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



Hello John,

Thanks for the comments.

With full 16 bit support, full color mangement and sophisticated
masking, so far I never use Photoshop.  Not to say that PS is not a
great product, but PictureWindow Pro at about $90 is one heck of a buy
and a much better product than the other competitors of PS.  I am
overall happy with it.





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Tom,

For Phase One, the place it stands out is in batch/group processing.
More like an interactive batch process.  Not a blind set it up and go.
If, like me, you shoot large groupings (weddings, portrait sessions,
events) then this type of processing is fast and powerful - for me, it
is quicker than dealing with jpgs.  If you are more picking and
choosing singular images to work with, then Phase One probably holds
not particular advantages over it's competitors.

Picture Window Pro is much less expensive than PSCS, by quite a wide
margin.  Yet it supports full 16 bit for all operations, full color
management, etc.  Which helps to set it apart from Elements.  PS has a
broader design and appeal than just photographers - graphic artists
and others find it's power and capabilities to be very useful.
Picture Window Pro is really designed to just deal with photographs.  If
you are more used to film and traditional photographic processes, you
may find that it is fairly straightforward.  PS is easy for those who
have already learned the style and concept, but the fact that there
are so many classes and books on it is some indicator that it is not a
simple program to learn and master.  With the online tutorial and free
trial offer, it is certainly worth taking a shot at Picture Window
Pro.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 11:43:58 PM, you wrote:

TC> Bruce, just curious... I've never used Picture Window Pro or Phase One
TC> Capture One.  Does either one stand out as being significantly easier to use
TC> or producing better results w/less effort than Photoshop?  I have PS CS2 at
TC> present.

TC> Tom C.




TC> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TC> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
TC> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
TC> Subject: Picture Window Pro.  Was:  PESO - Memorial
TC> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:04:59 +0100

TC> Thnaks, Bruce,

TC> Since I posted my question, I have downloaded the trial and had a play.
TC> It's very impressive, and far easier to get into than PS.  I can see some
TC> modest expenditure looming.

TC> Like you, I also use Phase One Capture One, and have been astounded at  what
TC> it can do with pictures I thought were beyond redemption.

TC> John

TC> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:23 +0100, Bruce Dayton  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TC> wrote:

>>Hello John,
>>
>>Thanks for the comments.
>>
>>With full 16 bit support, full color mangement and sophisticated
>>masking, so far I never use Photoshop.  Not to say that PS is not a
>>great product, but PictureWindow Pro at about $90 is one heck of a buy
>>and a much better product than the other competitors of PS.  I am
>>overall happy with it.
>>



TC> --
TC> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[George Sinos]

John

Don't know about the manual, but had to toss my two cents into the
conversation on Picture Window Pro.

I used Picture Window Pro at home and Photoshop at work up through
Photoshop version 7 and never felt the need to spend the money on
Photoshop for my hobby photography. In fact, I felt Picture Window Pro
was clearly easier to use and understand, and at the same time every
bit as powerful as Photoshop.  Many things were easier to accomplish. 
Photoshop had the edge if you were processing big batches of stuff. 
But for the hobby guy, doing photos one at a time, Picture Window Pro
did the trick.

When Adobe released Photoshop CS, they added several features that
made life easier for the photographer.  They also added the raw
converter.  At the same time I received a significant discount offer
from Adobe.  Given the price, it was a no brainer to pick up a copy. 
The CS2 version adds additional features that help the photographer.

I continue to use both.  Photoshop is like the family station wagon. 
Picture Window Pro is like a little sports car.  It's fast and
powerful, but sometimes you need to bring 10 sheets of plywood home
from the lumberyard.  For that, you need the family station wagon.

If you want more info on Picture Window Pro, check out Norman Koren's
web site at <http://www.normankoren.com/>  It's loaded with great
info.

See you later, gs
<http://www.georgesphotos.net>

RE: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[Don Sanderson]

I had no problem DLing the Picture Window Reference Manual
from:

http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/

It's huge, 30MB or so but I have it.
I can put it up on my site if anyone wants it.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:04 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial
> 
> 
> Thanks, Bruce.  I do have one question.  I can't download the 
> manual.  Do  
> you have to buy the product first, or is the manual just a good 
> idea whose  
> time has not yet come?
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:26:43 +0100, Bruce Dayton  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Capture One and Picture Window Pro make for a very capable, modestly
> > priced pair.  Have fun with the trial.  If you have questions, drop
> > me a line.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> 

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[John Forbes]

Don,

Yes, I've now managed it.  Their site seems to get overloaded at times,  
which is why I was having problems.  NO doubt Bruce has been singing its  
praises too loundly.


Thanks for offering to put it on your site.

John

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:08:05 +0100, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



I had no problem DLing the Picture Window Reference Manual
from:

http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/

It's huge, 30MB or so but I have it.
I can put it up on my site if anyone wants it.

Don


-Original Message-
From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:04 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial


Thanks, Bruce.  I do have one question.  I can't download the
manual.  Do
you have to buy the product first, or is the manual just a good
idea whose
time has not yet come?

John

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:26:43 +0100, Bruce Dayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Capture One and Picture Window Pro make for a very capable, modestly
> priced pair.  Have fun with the trial.  If you have questions, drop
> me a line.
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/











--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[John Forbes]

George,

The more I see, the more I like it.  One of the attractions is the much  
shorter learning curve than PS requires, and added to the reasonable  
price, it's pretty much a win-win situation.


And thanks to the link to the Koren site.  Plenty there to while away the  
idle hour!


John

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:44:30 +0100, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


John

Don't know about the manual, but had to toss my two cents into the
conversation on Picture Window Pro.

I used Picture Window Pro at home and Photoshop at work up through
Photoshop version 7 and never felt the need to spend the money on
Photoshop for my hobby photography. In fact, I felt Picture Window Pro
was clearly easier to use and understand, and at the same time every
bit as powerful as Photoshop.  Many things were easier to accomplish.
Photoshop had the edge if you were processing big batches of stuff.
But for the hobby guy, doing photos one at a time, Picture Window Pro
did the trick.

When Adobe released Photoshop CS, they added several features that
made life easier for the photographer.  They also added the raw
converter.  At the same time I received a significant discount offer
from Adobe.  Given the price, it was a no brainer to pick up a copy.
The CS2 version adds additional features that help the photographer.

I continue to use both.  Photoshop is like the family station wagon.
Picture Window Pro is like a little sports car.  It's fast and
powerful, but sometimes you need to bring 10 sheets of plywood home
from the lumberyard.  For that, you need the family station wagon.

If you want more info on Picture Window Pro, check out Norman Koren's
web site at <http://www.normankoren.com/>  It's loaded with great
info.

See you later, gs
<http://www.georgesphotos.net>









--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Picture Window Pro. Was: PESO - Memorial

[George Sinos]

Don't miss the white papers.  I had been trained on Photoshop and was
using it at work.  And was getting relatively good results, but really
didn't understand a lot of the reasons why things worked.

After I worked through the material in the white papers with Picture
Window Pro, I had a much better understanding of why things worked in
both products.

See you later, gs
<http://www.georgesphotos.net>

On 10/13/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George,
>
> The more I see, the more I like it.  One of the attractions is the much
> shorter learning curve than PS requires, and added to the reasonable
> price, it's pretty much a win-win situation.
>
> And thanks to the link to the Koren site.  Plenty there to while away the
> idle hour!
>
> John
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:44:30 +0100, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John
> >
> > Don't know about the manual, but had to toss my two cents into the
> > conversation on Picture Window Pro.
> >
> > I used Picture Window Pro at home and Photoshop at work up through
> > Photoshop version 7 and never felt the need to spend the money on
> > Photoshop for my hobby photography. In fact, I felt Picture Window Pro
> > was clearly easier to use and understand, and at the same time every
> > bit as powerful as Photoshop.  Many things were easier to accomplish.
> > Photoshop had the edge if you were processing big batches of stuff.
> > But for the hobby guy, doing photos one at a time, Picture Window Pro
> > did the trick.
> >
> > When Adobe released Photoshop CS, they added several features that
> > made life easier for the photographer.  They also added the raw
> > converter.  At the same time I received a significant discount offer
> > from Adobe.  Given the price, it was a no brainer to pick up a copy.
> > The CS2 version adds additional features that help the photographer.
> >
> > I continue to use both.  Photoshop is like the family station wagon.
> > Picture Window Pro is like a little sports car.  It's fast and
> > powerful, but sometimes you need to bring 10 sheets of plywood home
> > from the lumberyard.  For that, you need the family station wagon.
> >
> > If you want more info on Picture Window Pro, check out Norman Koren's
> > web site at <http://www.normankoren.com/>  It's loaded with great
> > info.
> >
> > See you later, gs
> > <http://www.georgesphotos.net>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>

Re: Picture Window Pro Recommendation was - Re: OT: Mac Blat

[Keith Whaley]

Your point is well taken...
I'll revisit their web site, and find an address for correspondence.
Good idea,

keith

Bruce Dayton wrote:
> 
> Keith,
> 
> You should at least write to them with the request.  If they don't get
> enough requests, they won't consider it.  If it appears to be a good
> market (interest from the Mac crowd) then perhaps they would move that
> direction.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Saturday, January 11, 2003, 7:00:34 PM, you wrote:
> 
> KW> Bruce Dayton wrote:
> >>
> >> In the name of sanity I am changin the subject.
> >>
> >> I too, give a hearty thumbs up to Picture Window.  As a photographer I
> >> have found it to suit my needs quite well - and yes, the price is much
> >> lower than Photoshop.
> 
> KW> Now, if only it were made for the Mac...
> 
> KW> keith

Re: Picture Window Pro Recommendation was - Re: OT: Mac Blat

[George Sinos]

Keith Whaley said: "Now, if only it were made for the Mac..."

Now and then someone asks about Mac support on the Picture Window support 
bulletin board.  Someone from Digital Light and Color usually answers that 
it should run fine under Virtual PC, but they don't really advertise or 
support that.

See you later, gs