raw digital camera files - Hardware

This is a discussion on raw digital camera files - Hardware ; Having recently purchased a refurb kodak P850 from the kodak store, I decided to start fiddling with raw files. Had mixed success until I stumbled across LightZone. Works very effectively - highly recommended. You'll probably want to look at the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: raw digital camera files

  1. raw digital camera files

    Having recently purchased a refurb kodak P850 from the kodak store, I
    decided to start fiddling with raw files. Had mixed success until I
    stumbled across LightZone. Works very effectively - highly recommended.
    You'll probably want to look at the tutorials since it works somewhat
    differently from photoshop/gimp etc. Based on the zone concept popularized
    by Ansel Adams. BTW the MS and MAC versions are $250. The penultimate
    version is available for Linux for free.


  2. Re: raw digital camera files

    ray wrote:
    > Having recently purchased a refurb kodak P850 from the kodak store, I
    > decided to start fiddling with raw files. Had mixed success until I
    > stumbled across LightZone.


    Did you try UFRaw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/)? It can be used as a
    standalone format converter or as an import plugin for the GIMP. I have
    no idea how well it works, but I'm curious as to how well it worked...if
    it was one of the things you had "mixed success" with.

  3. Re: raw digital camera files

    On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:22:20 -0500, John-Paul Stewart wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> Having recently purchased a refurb kodak P850 from the kodak store, I
    >> decided to start fiddling with raw files. Had mixed success until I
    >> stumbled across LightZone.

    >
    > Did you try UFRaw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/)? It can be used as a
    > standalone format converter or as an import plugin for the GIMP. I have
    > no idea how well it works, but I'm curious as to how well it worked...if
    > it was one of the things you had "mixed success" with.


    As I recall, ufraw did not do a great job of importing the file. Problem
    is, that after it's read in, I could not really find the tools in gimp or
    anything else to do the simple exposure and contrast adjustments that are
    quite easy to do in LightZone. From my understanding, most tools which
    read raw files stick you with an 8 bit per color image that is really
    difficult to do much with while LZ gives you 16 - and a lot more
    flexibility.


  4. Re: raw digital camera files

    ray wrote:

    >is, that after it's read in, I could not really find the tools in gimp or
    >anything else to do the simple exposure and contrast adjustments that are
    >quite easy to do in LightZone.


    I can't believe you said that. *Ridiculous*. You have just
    lost all credibility.

    both UFRAW and GIMP have very obvious and easy to use tools for
    adjusting exposure and contrast. With UFRAW there are not only
    multiple ways but very little else, so it is hard to imagine
    that anyone could miss it. GIMP of course is a very large and
    sophisticated program, so it is perhaps possible that some might
    find the interface a steep learning curve. However, figuring
    out how to adjust brightness and contrast is so easy that
    virtually *any* 8 year old could do it.

    >From my understanding, most tools which
    >read raw files stick you with an 8 bit per color image that is really
    >difficult to do much with while LZ gives you 16 - and a lot more
    >flexibility.


    Again, it becomes obvious that you are fabricating your entire
    story. Nobody who can actually claim to even have a hint of
    knowledge about the actual differences between using 8 bit and
    16 bit editing formats can be as casually *stupid* as you are
    claiming to be.

    You are a ringer!

    It *is* a fact that the one single real problem with GIMP is
    that it uses 8 bit depth. The level of sophistication necessary
    to understand 1) why that is actually a problem but 2) why it
    isn't important enough to have yet been "corrected" is great.
    Suffice to say that casual users need not be concerned, 8 bit is
    fine if you aren't making movies for Hollywood producers.

    Suffice too, to say that your claim that 16 bits gives "a lot
    more flexibility" is marketing hype, not technical speak. And
    my guess is that you *know* that quite well.

    Mind telling us what your connection to LZ happens to be?

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

  5. Re: raw digital camera files

    On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:22 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >
    >>is, that after it's read in, I could not really find the tools in gimp or
    >>anything else to do the simple exposure and contrast adjustments that are
    >>quite easy to do in LightZone.

    >
    > I can't believe you said that. *Ridiculous*. You have just
    > lost all credibility.
    >
    > both UFRAW and GIMP have very obvious and easy to use tools for
    > adjusting exposure and contrast. With UFRAW there are not only
    > multiple ways but very little else, so it is hard to imagine
    > that anyone could miss it. GIMP of course is a very large and
    > sophisticated program, so it is perhaps possible that some might
    > find the interface a steep learning curve. However, figuring
    > out how to adjust brightness and contrast is so easy that
    > virtually *any* 8 year old could do it.


    I found, a long time ago, how to do that in gimp. Only problem was that I
    could never get any really acceptable results.

    >
    >>From my understanding, most tools which
    >>read raw files stick you with an 8 bit per color image that is really
    >>difficult to do much with while LZ gives you 16 - and a lot more
    >>flexibility.

    >
    > Again, it becomes obvious that you are fabricating your entire
    > story. Nobody who can actually claim to even have a hint of
    > knowledge about the actual differences between using 8 bit and
    > 16 bit editing formats can be as casually *stupid* as you are
    > claiming to be.


    I believe there is a difference between the 'usual' 8 bit form and the 16
    bit linear format utilized by LZ.

    >
    > You are a ringer!
    >
    > It *is* a fact that the one single real problem with GIMP is
    > that it uses 8 bit depth. The level of sophistication necessary
    > to understand 1) why that is actually a problem but 2) why it
    > isn't important enough to have yet been "corrected" is great.
    > Suffice to say that casual users need not be concerned, 8 bit is
    > fine if you aren't making movies for Hollywood producers.
    >
    > Suffice too, to say that your claim that 16 bits gives "a lot
    > more flexibility" is marketing hype, not technical speak. And
    > my guess is that you *know* that quite well.
    >
    > Mind telling us what your connection to LZ happens to be?


    My connection is that I have found it to be useful. I see that you are
    totally closed minded on the subject. It would take you less than a half
    hour to download it and try it.


  6. Re: raw digital camera files

    ray wrote:
    >On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:22 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> ray wrote:
    >>
    >>>is, that after it's read in, I could not really find the tools in gimp or
    >>>anything else to do the simple exposure and contrast adjustments that are
    >>>quite easy to do in LightZone.

    >>
    >> I can't believe you said that. *Ridiculous*. You have just
    >> lost all credibility.
    >>
    >> both UFRAW and GIMP have very obvious and easy to use tools for
    >> adjusting exposure and contrast. With UFRAW there are not only
    >> multiple ways but very little else, so it is hard to imagine
    >> that anyone could miss it. GIMP of course is a very large and
    >> sophisticated program, so it is perhaps possible that some might
    >> find the interface a steep learning curve. However, figuring
    >> out how to adjust brightness and contrast is so easy that
    >> virtually *any* 8 year old could do it.

    >
    >I found, a long time ago, how to do that in gimp. Only problem was that I
    >could never get any really acceptable results.


    Giggle snort. You can't get acceptable results for brightness
    and contrast??? Yeah, sure.

    >>>From my understanding, most tools which
    >>>read raw files stick you with an 8 bit per color image that is really
    >>>difficult to do much with while LZ gives you 16 - and a lot more
    >>>flexibility.

    >>
    >> Again, it becomes obvious that you are fabricating your entire
    >> story. Nobody who can actually claim to even have a hint of
    >> knowledge about the actual differences between using 8 bit and
    >> 16 bit editing formats can be as casually *stupid* as you are
    >> claiming to be.

    >
    >I believe there is a difference between the 'usual' 8 bit form and the 16
    >bit linear format utilized by LZ.


    Granted there is. But just as granted is that very very few people
    would be able to distinguish the difference, and *certainly* not someone
    who can't adjust brightness or contrast with GIMP.

    >> You are a ringer!


    Not too bad either! Not as smooth as some, but *lots* smoother
    than others.

    >> It *is* a fact that the one single real problem with GIMP is
    >> that it uses 8 bit depth. The level of sophistication necessary
    >> to understand 1) why that is actually a problem but 2) why it
    >> isn't important enough to have yet been "corrected" is great.
    >> Suffice to say that casual users need not be concerned, 8 bit is
    >> fine if you aren't making movies for Hollywood producers.
    >>
    >> Suffice too, to say that your claim that 16 bits gives "a lot
    >> more flexibility" is marketing hype, not technical speak. And
    >> my guess is that you *know* that quite well.
    >>
    >> Mind telling us what your connection to LZ happens to be?

    >
    >My connection is that I have found it to be useful. I see that you are
    >totally closed minded on the subject. It would take you less than a half
    >hour to download it and try it.


    Then why don't you provide a *valid* reason to try it? So far
    you are sounding more like a fairly slick marketing scheme
    presented by a relatively skilled marketeer.

    It could be that you have merely been sucked in by somebody
    else's marketing hype, but my bet is that you helped generate
    this one.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

  7. Re: raw digital camera files

    ray wrote:

    > Having recently purchased a refurb kodak P850 from the kodak store, I
    > decided to start fiddling with raw files. Had mixed success until I
    > stumbled across LightZone. Works very effectively - highly
    > recommended. You'll probably want to look at the tutorials since it
    > works somewhat differently from photoshop/gimp etc. Based on the zone
    > concept popularized by Ansel Adams. BTW the MS and MAC versions are
    > $250. The penultimate version is available for Linux for free.


    Although I've never used it, I have heard good things about bibble with
    regards to RAW support. It isn't open source, but it is cheaper than
    LightZone and offers continued support of Linux (unlike LZ )

  8. Re: raw digital camera files

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:00:33 +0000, Chris wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> Having recently purchased a refurb kodak P850 from the kodak store, I
    >> decided to start fiddling with raw files. Had mixed success until I
    >> stumbled across LightZone. Works very effectively - highly
    >> recommended. You'll probably want to look at the tutorials since it
    >> works somewhat differently from photoshop/gimp etc. Based on the zone
    >> concept popularized by Ansel Adams. BTW the MS and MAC versions are
    >> $250. The penultimate version is available for Linux for free.

    >
    > Although I've never used it, I have heard good things about bibble with
    > regards to RAW support. It isn't open source, but it is cheaper than
    > LightZone and offers continued support of Linux (unlike LZ )


    I looked at bibble. It looks like a good product - quite usable. Only
    problem for me is that is does not read Kodak P850 raw files. I inquired
    to their tech support and they replied that it's on their todo list but
    not very high priority.


  9. Re: raw digital camera files

    ray wrote:
    >On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:15:55 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> ray wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:22 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>> find the interface a steep learning curve. However, figuring
    >>>> out how to adjust brightness and contrast is so easy that
    >>>> virtually *any* 8 year old could do it.


    I should modify that statement. An 8 year old can easily learn
    to get *good* results. (I'm not guessing either, as I've seen
    an 8 year old do exactly that.)

    >>>I found, a long time ago, how to do that in gimp. Only problem was that I
    >>>could never get any really acceptable results.

    >>
    >> Giggle snort. You can't get acceptable results for brightness
    >> and contrast??? Yeah, sure.

    >
    >Correct. It seems that every time I adjust brightness and contrast in GIMP
    >there is a very limited amount of improvement before it starts getting
    >rather washed out. IMHO lightzone does a much better job. Could be the 16
    >bit as opposed to 8 bit problem.


    So tell us just how that could be? You are viewing it how? On
    a CRT or LCD that at most uses... 8 bits per color (and might
    use only 6!).

    The point is that if there is a difference, *you* *can't* *see* *it*.

    Regardless, your statement about not being able to adjust
    brightness and contrast is clearly a bogus fabrication, and pegs
    the bogosity meter. If you get "washed out" results, why not
    try *increasing* contrast?

    I would also note that your discussion of 8 bit vs. 16 bit
    formats came in response to a suggestion that UFRAW was a
    suitable raw conversion program, which you declined based on
    this 8/16 bit foolishness. In fact UFRAW is *not* an 8 bit only
    program, and can output either 8 or 16 bit files in PPM or TIFF
    formats. (The irony in this case is even greater, as I'll
    explain at the end of this article.)

    If you think that 16 bits makes a difference in your ability to
    adjust brightness or contrast, you should give UFRAW a try. It
    not only outputs in 16 bits, it offers adjustments in the form
    of either sliders (gamma and linearity calibrated) or curves,
    and with multiple variations on what type of curve.

    >>>I believe there is a difference between the 'usual' 8 bit form and the 16
    >>>bit linear format utilized by LZ.

    >>
    >> Granted there is. But just as granted is that very very few people
    >> would be able to distinguish the difference, and *certainly* not someone
    >> who can't adjust brightness or contrast with GIMP.

    >
    >Seems like I used to do better several years ago when I was using my old
    >1mp Kodak. Since I moved to a 4mp Minolta, I've not had great results.


    Interesting logic... :-) What has that got to do with GIMP or UFRAW?

    >IMHO - the tools in LightZone are easier to use to make the most common
    >adjustment to digital photos. You obviously disagree without ever having
    >tried it, so there we are.


    I've asked for *reasons* to try it, and have received nothing that
    made sense. Without trying it, the web page indicates the following.

    1) It is not provided in source code.
    2) It is programmed in Java.
    3) It is clearly filled with development bugs, according
    to the web page that was cited.
    4) It appears to be a beta release that will eventually
    become a commercial product (the Mac and Windows versions
    sell for $250)

    >> It could be that you have merely been sucked in by somebody
    >> else's marketing hype, but my bet is that you helped generate
    >> this one.

    >
    >Marketing hype for a free product - hmmmm.


    That's an interesting spin. It appears you are trying to
    attract a few free beta testers. The actual product sells for
    $250, and even *you* slipped up by describing it as the
    "penultimate" release that is free. Is there any reason I
    should contribute to something that *ultimately* will cost me
    $250 to use?

    Regardless, the program is practically useless.

    The user interface is poorly thought out. For example, on
    opening it displays a thumbnail of *every* image in the
    current directory! Heaven help you if you shoot off a couple
    hundred (never mind many hundreds, which of course *is* commonly
    done) images, download them to a directory, and then try to
    do a "quick" edit on anything! Just the start up time longer
    than it might take make such an edit with another program.

    There is no help facility worth talking about. For example, it
    has an iconified toolbar... with no way to figure out what each
    icon stands for other than just trying it to see what happens
    (no pop-up dialog boxes, for example). The ability to select
    regions is extremely limited. I didn't notice anything about
    layers.

    The one and only way to adjust contrast and brightness is indeed
    sort of interesting. It is virtually the same as provided by
    GIMP with less information provided, except it is on a vertical
    axis as opposed to horizontal, and has more "zones" (which are
    not identified in any way, so we can only guess as to what each
    band of gray is indicating).

    Two of the more hilarious aspects though, given what you've been
    claiming, are worth noting. First, it uses Dave Coffin's DCRAW
    code to convert from raw formats to an editing format; which is
    of course *exactly* the same code used by UFRAW.

    Second, it doesn't work (on my machine). For whatever reason, I
    can define regions, but none of the editing actions actually
    cause any change. Hence, I can't figure out how to adjust brightness
    or contrast... :-)

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

  10. Re: raw digital camera files

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:29:54 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:15:55 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:26:22 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>> find the interface a steep learning curve. However, figuring
    >>>>> out how to adjust brightness and contrast is so easy that
    >>>>> virtually *any* 8 year old could do it.

    >
    > I should modify that statement. An 8 year old can easily learn
    > to get *good* results. (I'm not guessing either, as I've seen
    > an 8 year old do exactly that.)
    >
    >>>>I found, a long time ago, how to do that in gimp. Only problem was that I
    >>>>could never get any really acceptable results.
    >>>
    >>> Giggle snort. You can't get acceptable results for brightness
    >>> and contrast??? Yeah, sure.

    >>
    >>Correct. It seems that every time I adjust brightness and contrast in GIMP
    >>there is a very limited amount of improvement before it starts getting
    >>rather washed out. IMHO lightzone does a much better job. Could be the 16
    >>bit as opposed to 8 bit problem.

    >
    > So tell us just how that could be? You are viewing it how? On
    > a CRT or LCD that at most uses... 8 bits per color (and might
    > use only 6!).
    >
    > The point is that if there is a difference, *you* *can't* *see* *it*.
    >
    > Regardless, your statement about not being able to adjust
    > brightness and contrast is clearly a bogus fabrication, and pegs
    > the bogosity meter. If you get "washed out" results, why not
    > try *increasing* contrast?


    Because further adjusting the contrast only makes it worse.

    >
    > I would also note that your discussion of 8 bit vs. 16 bit
    > formats came in response to a suggestion that UFRAW was a
    > suitable raw conversion program, which you declined based on
    > this 8/16 bit foolishness. In fact UFRAW is *not* an 8 bit only
    > program, and can output either 8 or 16 bit files in PPM or TIFF
    > formats. (The irony in this case is even greater, as I'll
    > explain at the end of this article.)
    >


    From my notes on ufraw - installed ubuntu ufraw package - seg faults.
    ufraw-gimp-plugin - says camera not supported.

    I did get the ufraw plugin to work on another computer, and in use, I find
    that it is not a very good solution since you can only make adjustments
    once, as I recall - not interactively - if it's not right, you throw the
    whole image out and start over again.

    > If you think that 16 bits makes a difference in your ability to
    > adjust brightness or contrast, you should give UFRAW a try. It
    > not only outputs in 16 bits, it offers adjustments in the form
    > of either sliders (gamma and linearity calibrated) or curves,
    > and with multiple variations on what type of curve.
    >
    >>>>I believe there is a difference between the 'usual' 8 bit form and the 16
    >>>>bit linear format utilized by LZ.
    >>>
    >>> Granted there is. But just as granted is that very very few people
    >>> would be able to distinguish the difference, and *certainly* not someone
    >>> who can't adjust brightness or contrast with GIMP.

    >>
    >>Seems like I used to do better several years ago when I was using my old
    >>1mp Kodak. Since I moved to a 4mp Minolta, I've not had great results.

    >
    > Interesting logic... :-) What has that got to do with GIMP or UFRAW?
    >
    >>IMHO - the tools in LightZone are easier to use to make the most common
    >>adjustment to digital photos. You obviously disagree without ever having
    >>tried it, so there we are.

    >
    > I've asked for *reasons* to try it, and have received nothing that
    > made sense. Without trying it, the web page indicates the following.
    >
    > 1) It is not provided in source code.
    > 2) It is programmed in Java.
    > 3) It is clearly filled with development bugs, according
    > to the web page that was cited.
    > 4) It appears to be a beta release that will eventually
    > become a commercial product (the Mac and Windows versions
    > sell for $250)
    >
    >>> It could be that you have merely been sucked in by somebody
    >>> else's marketing hype, but my bet is that you helped generate
    >>> this one.

    >>
    >>Marketing hype for a free product - hmmmm.

    >
    > That's an interesting spin. It appears you are trying to
    > attract a few free beta testers. The actual product sells for
    > $250, and even *you* slipped up by describing it as the
    > "penultimate" release that is free. Is there any reason I
    > should contribute to something that *ultimately* will cost me
    > $250 to use?
    >
    > Regardless, the program is practically useless.
    >
    > The user interface is poorly thought out. For example, on
    > opening it displays a thumbnail of *every* image in the
    > current directory! Heaven help you if you shoot off a couple
    > hundred (never mind many hundreds, which of course *is* commonly
    > done) images, download them to a directory, and then try to
    > do a "quick" edit on anything! Just the start up time longer
    > than it might take make such an edit with another program.
    >
    > There is no help facility worth talking about. For example, it
    > has an iconified toolbar... with no way to figure out what each
    > icon stands for other than just trying it to see what happens
    > (no pop-up dialog boxes, for example). The ability to select
    > regions is extremely limited. I didn't notice anything about
    > layers.
    >
    > The one and only way to adjust contrast and brightness is indeed
    > sort of interesting. It is virtually the same as provided by
    > GIMP with less information provided, except it is on a vertical
    > axis as opposed to horizontal, and has more "zones" (which are
    > not identified in any way, so we can only guess as to what each
    > band of gray is indicating).
    >
    > Two of the more hilarious aspects though, given what you've been
    > claiming, are worth noting. First, it uses Dave Coffin's DCRAW
    > code to convert from raw formats to an editing format; which is
    > of course *exactly* the same code used by UFRAW.
    >
    > Second, it doesn't work (on my machine). For whatever reason, I
    > can define regions, but none of the editing actions actually
    > cause any change. Hence, I can't figure out how to adjust brightness
    > or contrast... :-)



  11. Re: raw digital camera files

    ray wrote:
    >On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:29:54 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> ray wrote:
    >>>rather washed out. IMHO lightzone does a much better job. Could be the 16
    >>>bit as opposed to 8 bit problem.

    >>
    >> So tell us just how that could be? You are viewing it how? On
    >> a CRT or LCD that at most uses... 8 bits per color (and might
    >> use only 6!).
    >>
    >> The point is that if there is a difference, *you* *can't* *see* *it*.
    >>
    >> Regardless, your statement about not being able to adjust
    >> brightness and contrast is clearly a bogus fabrication, and pegs
    >> the bogosity meter. If you get "washed out" results, why not
    >> try *increasing* contrast?

    >
    >Because further adjusting the contrast only makes it worse.


    "Washed out" from increasing the contrast? That is nonsense.
    Reducing contrast is what causes a "washed out" appearance.

    >> I would also note that your discussion of 8 bit vs. 16 bit
    >> formats came in response to a suggestion that UFRAW was a
    >> suitable raw conversion program, which you declined based on
    >> this 8/16 bit foolishness. In fact UFRAW is *not* an 8 bit only
    >> program, and can output either 8 or 16 bit files in PPM or TIFF
    >> formats. (The irony in this case is even greater, as I'll
    >> explain at the end of this article.)

    >
    >From my notes on ufraw - installed ubuntu ufraw package - seg faults.


    I've been using UFRAW for some time (and watch it regularly for
    upgrades, so I've used just about every release). It has never
    seg faulted on me. GIMP, however, is a program that will test
    your ability to understand how libraries interact with programs.
    If you don't upgrade libraries correctly, you *will* end up with
    mismatches that cause seg faults. That appears to be what you
    have encountered (assuming you didn't simply make that one up).

    >ufraw-gimp-plugin - says camera not supported.


    UFRAW uses the code from DCRAW, which is identical to that used
    by LZ. If your camera is not supported by LZ, it is equally not
    supported by UFRAW! Stop making up stories that are clearly
    false.

    >I did get the ufraw plugin to work on another computer, and in use, I find
    >that it is not a very good solution since you can only make adjustments
    >once, as I recall - not interactively - if it's not right, you throw the
    >whole image out and start over again.


    Oh come on. What is the use of posting such bull****? Nothing
    stated above is correct. UFRAW is a separate program from GIMP.
    It is in fact interactive (or it can be run as a batch process,
    as you wish). The conversion is of course final once you
    terminate UFRAW and begin to use GIMP. However, if you think
    that LZ is any different... you'd be wrong again!

    Why are you trying so hard to fabricate all this trash?

    >> If you think that 16 bits makes a difference in your ability to
    >> adjust brightness or contrast, you should give UFRAW a try. It
    >> not only outputs in 16 bits, it offers adjustments in the form
    >> of either sliders (gamma and linearity calibrated) or curves,
    >> and with multiple variations on what type of curve.


    So you have now entirely moved on from your original set of
    fabrications, which you cannot defend, and instead attack it
    with an entirely new set of equally fabricated allegations.

    >> I've asked for *reasons* to try it, and have received nothing that
    >> made sense. Without trying it, the web page indicates the following.
    >>
    >> 1) It is not provided in source code.
    >> 2) It is programmed in Java.
    >> 3) It is clearly filled with development bugs, according
    >> to the web page that was cited.
    >> 4) It appears to be a beta release that will eventually
    >> become a commercial product (the Mac and Windows versions
    >> sell for $250)


    No response to that either.

    Or to any of the following:

    >> It appears you are trying to
    >> attract a few free beta testers. The actual product sells for
    >> $250,

    ....
    >> The user interface is poorly thought out.

    ....
    >> Just the start up time longer
    >> than it might take make such an edit with another program.
    >>
    >> There is no help facility worth talking about.

    ....
    >> I didn't notice anything about
    >> layers.
    >>
    >> The one and only way to adjust contrast and brightness

    ....
    >> it doesn't work




    --
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

+ Reply to Thread