The Web Design Group

... Making the Web accessible to all.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Pro image editor for free
pandy
post Oct 8 2017, 07:47 PM
Post #1


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



Picture Window Pro is a photo editor and a very capable one at that. It's not a program that also handles drawing like for instance PSP. It performs 48 bit processing and can save 48 bit image files, something that is desirable if you work with RAW and actually hard to find. It surprises me that the different camera vendors' own image editors seldom (never?) are 48 bit. What's the point of the huge RAW files if the major part of the image data is discarded as soon as you start to work with them?

The program is outdated according to the author, not that I notice that. So he is working on a total rewrite. Meanwhile the last version can be downloaded for free. The price used to be about $90, I think.

Picture Window is different. It's not a Photoshop like program. There are no layers and ready-made actions or what they are called. You need to do the steps yourself (but they can be saved as workflows if you like). In a way it is to Photoshop what a text editor is to Dreamweaver (winking at Christian here wink.gif), something I appreciate. I'm not very experienced with photo processing, but I like that I'm at least given a chance to understand what I'm doing and not just learn what buttons to click.

As I hinted, I'm no wiz at Picture Window and only use a fraction of the things it's capable of, so don't expect me to teach you the tricks. But I like it very much and have used it for around 15 years for the little photo editing I have done. Now I at long last have bought a "real" digital camera and I'll try to learn more. That's how I discoved it's given away for free. I wanted to see if there was a newer version I should upgrade too. There was, only it turned out to be much cheaper than I expected. smile.gif

Download it. If you find it too complicated at first, save it for later. I think it's the only image editor of its kind and it won't be a free download for ever. Also grab the manuals and tutoriols while they are available.

An interesting fact for older folks around here may be that the author is Jonathan Sachs, the creator of Lotus 1-2-3.

http://www.dl-c.com/
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 9 2017, 06:09 AM
Post #2


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



Thanks, will check it out. Which camera did you get?
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 9 2017, 05:16 PM
Post #3


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



Yeah, do that. It's a small download compared to the Adobe alternative, 78 MB. That's why I said you can save it for later. I actually got both the 32 and 64 bit files, just in case I make something of my old computer. biggrin.gif

The downside is that most tutorials and tips you find are totally geared towards PS. If they explained what happens when you apply the transformations and push the buttons they could maybe be useful anyway, but mostly they don't.

I got an Olympus E-M1. It was actually almost two years ago. The same week I broke my elbow and couldn't use it until about 10 months later due to complications. By then I was so dismayted I didn't want to. I didn't get around to it until late this summer so now I'm busy learning the ropes.

The reason I chose the Olympus is that I have a lot of old Canon glass I would like to use sometime, from the manual era. Those lenses can only be used with mirror-less cameras due to their construction. There were only three brands to choose from and of them only Olympus has image stabilization in the body, meaning itstill works with the old lenses. Also, I don't want to lug several kilos around anymore, so four thirds sounded attractive. I won't be printing hardly anything, so full frame would be overkill. Not to mention I couldn't afford it. That I found a new body and a leans at a very good price at a web shop also contributed. Don't remember what they called it, new stuff, full warranty, but without the boxes, still packed in sealed bags.

I used to carry two Canon F1 around my neck. I couldn't do that today. But if it was a viable option for other reasons (film, paper and so on) I would still try to. I love those cameras and I've never taken to digital. Still miss the grain and the darkroom process. wub.gif

Now I think I should maybe have chosen something even smaller. I don't think I'll use old lenses very much after all. I'm very impressed with the electronic viewfinder though. It's so much brighter and clearer than anything I've used before. It looks and feels like the real thing, no lag or anything. And I love how I can see the effect of changing exposure values directly. That alone is worth it.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 10 2017, 02:03 PM
Post #4


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



QUOTE(pandy @ Oct 10 2017, 12:16 AM) *

I got an Olympus E-M1. It was actually almost two years ago. The same week I broke my elbow and couldn't use it until about 10 months later due to complications. By then I was so dismayted I didn't want to. I didn't get around to it until late this summer so now I'm busy learning the ropes.

Typical. wacko.gif I got a bit tired of taking pictures a couple of years ago. I couldn't improve the pictures of my favorite motives, and I couldn't find anything else I wanted to take pictures of either. This summer I brought the camera with me several times without even taking it out of the bag. A couple of times I did take a few pictures, but then I just erased all of them at home. sleep.gif

QUOTE
The reason I chose the Olympus is that I have a lot of old Canon glass I would like to use sometime, from the manual era. Those lenses can only be used with mirror-less cameras due to their construction.

Did Olympus make that camera with those lenses in mind? Otherwise it seems like incredible luck. cool.gif

QUOTE
Now I think I should maybe have chosen something even smaller. I don't think I'll use old lenses very much after all.

My second DSLR was a little bigger and heavier than the first one, and that difference is very noticeable when walking around with it. Maybe it's worth getting a newer low-end model for that reason alone. It also seems newer smartphones have pretty good cameras, at least for slow moving targets.

QUOTE
I'm very impressed with the electronic viewfinder though. It's so much brighter and clearer than anything I've used before. It looks and feels like the real thing, no lag or anything. And I love how I can see the effect of changing exposure values directly. That alone is worth it.

A larger viewfinder is someting I'd want, I can hardly see to focus manually in mine. Maybe I should get a magnifier.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 11 2017, 12:31 PM
Post #5


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



QUOTE(Christian J @ Oct 10 2017, 09:03 PM) *

Typical. wacko.gif I got a bit tired of taking pictures a couple of years ago. I couldn't improve the pictures of my favorite motives, and I couldn't find anything else I wanted to take pictures of either. This summer I brought the camera with me several times without even taking it out of the bag. A couple of times I did take a few pictures, but then I just erased all of them at home. sleep.gif

I got engaged in kind of a project where the objects are given. It helps. I don't have to find the motive, I just have to photograph it, even if I think it's ugly. biggrin.gif
It serves my purpose - to learn the camera. cool.gif

QUOTE
QUOTE
The reason I chose the Olympus is that I have a lot of old Canon glass I would like to use sometime, from the manual era. Those lenses can only be used with mirror-less cameras due to their construction.

Did Olympus make that camera with those lenses in mind? Otherwise it seems like incredible luck. cool.gif


No. Those lenses are really old, from the totally manual era. I don't remember the details, but Canon lenses back then were differend than others. The lastmost lens element was much closer to the film than other brands. That means that even if you can find an adapter, and there are adapters, you won't be able to focus to infinity. In mirror-less cameras the lens sits closer to the film plane/sensor than in SLR cameras, so even the old Canon lenses work.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Now I think I should maybe have chosen something even smaller. I don't think I'll use old lenses very much after all.

My second DSLR was a little bigger and heavier than the first one, and that difference is very noticeable when walking around with it. Maybe it's worth getting a newer low-end model for that reason alone. It also seems newer smartphones have pretty good cameras, at least for slow moving targets.


I have a Samsung S3, so not very new. It still takes good pictures. Funny thing is low light ones often are really grainy and ugly, but sometimes they are just great. Can't figure how what the differnce is. But mobile cameras lenses are always exremely wide angle which gets boring pretty soon if you don't do selfies all the time...

QUOTE
QUOTE
I'm very impressed with the electronic viewfinder though. It's so much brighter and clearer than anything I've used before. It looks and feels like the real thing, no lag or anything. And I love how I can see the effect of changing exposure values directly. That alone is worth it.

A larger viewfinder is someting I'd want, I can hardly see to focus manually in mine. Maybe I should get a magnifier.


It's great. Manual focus is also good. There's a feature that makes edges sort of sparkle or glisten when they are in focus. Sounds stupid but it's easy to see. You can also get a magnification when you start to focus manually. I'll practice on manual focus. I notice I sometimes get the focus wrong when I use auto. Not because of the camera, but because of me.

You should try a camera with EV. In the shop, I mean. I can set it to behave as an ordinary view finder or Live View (I think that's what it's called). That means the picture in the view finder gets darker or lighter according to how you change the exposure. So one can see before the image is taken if, say, a picture in low light gets just bright enough.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 11 2017, 05:54 PM
Post #6


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



QUOTE(pandy @ Oct 11 2017, 07:31 PM) *

I got engaged in kind of a project where the objects are given. It helps. I don't have to find the motive, I just have to photograph it, even if I think it's ugly. biggrin.gif
It serves my purpose - to learn the camera. cool.gif

I suppose your composition skills improve as well when you shoot the same object over and over.

QUOTE
No. Those lenses are really old, from the totally manual era. I don't remember the details, but Canon lenses back then were differend than others. The lastmost lens element was much closer to the film than other brands. That means that even if you can find an adapter, and there are adapters, you won't be able to focus to infinity. In mirror-less cameras the lens sits closer to the film plane/sensor than in SLR cameras, so even the old Canon lenses work.

I was thinking more that Olympus was gracious enough to make the attachment fit the Canon lenses, or do you use an adapter on it?

QUOTE
Funny thing is low light ones often are really grainy and ugly, but sometimes they are just great. Can't figure how what the differnce is.

I've noticed the same thing on my DSLR, even though I usually set ISO manually. unsure.gif

QUOTE
You should try a camera with EV. In the shop, I mean. I can set it to behave as an ordinary view finder or Live View (I think that's what it's called). That means the picture in the view finder gets darker or lighter according to how you change the exposure. So one can see before the image is taken if, say, a picture in low light gets just bright enough.

How well does the screen work in strong sunlight? Is it bright enough?
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 11 2017, 10:15 PM
Post #7


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



QUOTE(Christian J @ Oct 12 2017, 12:54 AM) *

I suppose your composition skills improve as well when you shoot the same object over and over.


Typically I don't. There are lots to choose from. But sometimes I go back and try to take a better image, especially if the old is a poor mobile image. But I can use several images of the same object, so that's also a possibility. The same scene at day and night, sun and rain, things like that. It's all just for fun, but I find it educational. And no one critiques the photos. The objective is just to collect documentation. So no pressure. tongue.gif


QUOTE
I was thinking more that Olympus was gracious enough to make the attachment fit the Canon lenses, or do you use an adapter on it?


Yes, you need an adapter. The problem is the Canon lens needs to sit so close to the senser it isn't possible with a camera with mirror. Same with film SLRs from other brands. I only havea cheap adapter from eBay, just to be able to try. There's a little play in it, so I think I would get better results with a quality adapter. m4/3 has a crop factor of two, so my old 400 mm becomes effectivly 800 mm. It's tempting. I did try to use a 200 mm without tripod and got at least a few sharp shots, so the image stabilisation worked quite well. Back in the day I had a very steady hand. I could get sharp images at longer shutter speeds than you are supposed to and also tele and closeups. Not so much today. Don't know if it's lack of practice or that I'm weaker or more shaky. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm curious to se the results with my old 50mm/1.2, a very good lens.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Funny thing is low light ones often are really grainy and ugly, but sometimes they are just great. Can't figure how what the differnce is.

I've noticed the same thing on my DSLR, even though I usually set ISO manually. unsure.gif

Really? But maybe ISO is the answer for mobile pictures. It haven't even occured to me that the phone could change ISO, but of course it can. When I think about it, maybe it's the images with a bright light in them that turns out well, like sunsets. Maybe that tricks the camera to use a lower ISO.

QUOTE
QUOTE
You should try a camera with EV. In the shop, I mean. I can set it to behave as an ordinary view finder or Live View (I think that's what it's called). That means the picture in the view finder gets darker or lighter according to how you change the exposure. So one can see before the image is taken if, say, a picture in low light gets just bright enough.

How well does the screen work in strong sunlight? Is it bright enough?


The view finder one is. And also in low light. I've never noticed any problem with that. The LCD I don't know. I've hardly ever used it. I've only had a small electronic camera without view finder before and I hated to use the LCD. That was my main reason for getting a better camera, hoped to get back the feeling for it if I could shoot the normal way, with the eye to the camera.

Talking about that, I wonder why they haven't made the LCD so it can be turned towards the camera body. To protect it when you don't use it. Or they should have made a cap for it. It feels dangerous when the camera hangs around your neck and the LCD rubs against buttons and zippers in your clothes. I've put protective plastic on it, but it would be better with a cap.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 12 2017, 05:41 AM
Post #8


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



QUOTE(pandy @ Oct 12 2017, 05:15 AM) *

Really? But maybe ISO is the answer for mobile pictures. It haven't even occured to me that the phone could change ISO, but of course it can. When I think about it, maybe it's the images with a bright light in them that turns out well, like sunsets. Maybe that tricks the camera to use a lower ISO.

I try to use as low ISO as possible, often with underexposure to get a decent shutter time, but IIRC that didn't help in some cases. Maybe it's a software bug, or the light as you say.

QUOTE
The view finder one is. And also in low light. I've never noticed any problem with that. The LCD I don't know.

I misread, I thought it only had a large LCD screen and no viewfinder. My camera's LCD screen is a bit too dim on bright summer days, even when I try to shade it.

QUOTE
Talking about that, I wonder why they haven't made the LCD so it can be turned towards the camera body. To protect it when you don't use it.

Some cameras let you turn it, not sure how much. Might be useful if you want to hold the camera in strange angles, so you don't need to stand on chairs or crawl on the ground.

I removed my protective plastic piece, what's the point in having a flawless screen if the protection makes it look even worse? But I never hang the camera around my neck, either I carry it in my hand or keep it in the bag.

User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 12 2017, 06:23 AM
Post #9


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



QUOTE(Christian J @ Oct 12 2017, 12:41 PM) *

I misread, I thought it only had a large LCD screen and no viewfinder. My camera's LCD screen is a bit too dim on bright summer days, even when I try to shade it.


And here I've written a novel about the advantages of an electronic VIEWFINDER... rolleyes.gif
I was surprised. I hoped it would be as good as a real viewfinder, but didn't expect it to be better.


CODE
Some cameras let you turn it, not sure how much. Might be useful if you want to hold the camera in strange angles, so you don't need to stand on chairs or crawl on the ground.


I can only tilt it verically. That was better on my small camera. The LCD could be swiveled in all directions.

QUOTE
I removed my protective plastic piece, what's the point in having a flawless screen if the protection makes it look even worse? But I never hang the camera around my neck, either I carry it in my hand or keep it in the bag.

The plasic I use doesn't have that impact, not as long as you don't get air behind it. Cheep stuff. Buy it at Kjell & Co. Two big sheets you have to cut yourself, enough for a lot of things. I also use it for my bike computer that's all plastic and gets lots of scratches otherwise.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 12 2017, 10:45 AM
Post #10


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



QUOTE(pandy @ Oct 12 2017, 01:23 PM) *

And here I've written a novel about the advantages of an electronic VIEWFINDER... rolleyes.gif
I was surprised. I hoped it would be as good as a real viewfinder, but didn't expect it to be better.

My camera has an overlay with focus points. unsure.gif

The Minolta I had 35 years ago could indicate when the motive was in focus: at the center the picture was cut in two halves that slid together, and around that was a ring that looked kind of grainy when out of focus.

Are you hosting the octopus image by yourself now? cool.gif
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 12 2017, 12:29 PM
Post #11


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



QUOTE(Christian J @ Oct 12 2017, 05:45 PM) *

The Minolta I had 35 years ago could indicate when the motive was in focus: at the center the picture was cut in two halves that slid together, and around that was a ring that looked kind of grainy when out of focus.

Microprism, I think it was called. And still is, I suppose.

CODE
Are you hosting the octopus image by yourself now?  :shades:


Of course. Didn't you know I own tinypic.com? cool.gif

User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 12 2017, 12:38 PM
Post #12


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



QUOTE(pandy @ Oct 11 2017, 07:31 PM) *

Manual focus is also good. There's a feature that makes edges sort of sparkle or glisten when they are in focus. Sounds stupid but it's easy to see.


Focus peaking, it's called. Other cameras have it too. Maybe even yours. laugh.gif
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 12 2017, 01:02 PM
Post #13


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



My camera shows an icon in the bottom left corner when in focus, so you must move your gaze away from the motive. I didn't even remember that icon existed until now.

Now and then the focus point overlay is colored red. No idea why, but I don't think it's focus-related.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
Christian J
post Oct 12 2017, 01:11 PM
Post #14


.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 7,691
Joined: 10-August 06
Member No.: 7



QUOTE(pandy @ Oct 12 2017, 07:29 PM) *

Didn't you know I own tinypic.com? cool.gif

That reminds me that Photobucket removed its hosted pictures a few months ago (unless you pay $399, which nobody will). As a result over a decade's worth of forum posts have been vandalized. This loss must be as big as when Geocities and the other free web hosts closed down, but just like then nobody seemed to care much.

One day Facebook will close down...
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post
pandy
post Oct 12 2017, 01:22 PM
Post #15


Don't like donuts. Don't do MySpace.
********

Group: WDG Moderators
Posts: 17,744
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 6



I can't wait! biggrin.gif

I cared when geocities closed down. Some of my favourite sites were hosted there. Odd that some of the free hosts from back then is still around, Angelfire for instance.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
Toggle Multi-post QuotingQuote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2017 - 04:01 AM