Re: Picasa2 effects

On Ti, 2005-12-20, 08:25, Alexandre Prokoudine skrev:
> On 12/20/05, Bengt Thuree wrote:
>> True, if the easiest way to do this is to use Gimp, then we use it.
>> But can you get the same feeling as Picaso? That is you work through the
>> F-Spot interface, and modify parameters (move mouse or whatever) and see
>> the result directly? If so, no problems.
> Well, we have to remember that Picasa is a non-destructive editor, so
> I don't think that comparison between Picasa and F-Spot+GIMP is
> _fully_ applicable here.

True, but F-Spot does all its edits in a new version, and always keeps the
original. So, in a sence it is a non-destructive editor ;)
I just loved the way you modified parameters in Picaso, and saw the result
directly. Like blurring an image apart from a circle, where you could
change the radious of the circle as well as the center of it. Very easy
and simple. And seeing the result as you modify it.

> Actually, F-Spot already has features a photoeditor should have - Raw
> processing (very very basic, but tending to grow up), red-eye remover,
> cropping etc., and I'm not sure whether all of  these features are
> non-destructive (at least red-eye remover cannot be).
Yes, and I like them. Have not used them much yet though.
And the small filters I was talking about should definitely not be a high
priority, but I am convinced that many people would love them. Easy to
use, and very conveniant. Of course, has to be easy to implement,
otherwise doesn't make sence perhaps.

> I think there are several use cases for a software like F-Spot that
> could show, how many features of a photo retouching application F-Spot
> would need. Do we have such use cases already described somewhere?
See bottom

> Btw, I read an interesting review of Aperture by a professional
> photographer (the one who did photosession at recent Kennedy clan's

> Editing photos won't be done in Aperture in his case. Only Photoshop +
> Adobe Camera Raw.

This is a professional photographer though.

> Again, this is only one of use cases. Other people might be happy with
> just removing red-eye effect and maybe even crop. Many users don't
> (and won't) even shoot to Raw.

I think this is the majority, and especially my father (and myself)

> Thus, if there are no existing use cases, they should appear to help
> us/you with understand priorities.

As for use cases, please look at the below links.
They should be considered a guide line I think.


Bengt Thuree   bengt thuree com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]