May I know where to find these programs?

[a***@gmail.com]

Hi !

I have 2 questions for the gurus:

A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.

You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.

As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.

In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.

Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.

I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
platform.

B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !

Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.

But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
grainy.

Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.

If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.

And yes, I am willing to buy it.

Thank you all for your help !!

Best regards.

[Don Stauffer]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.

If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
eliminate or reduce them.

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

snip

Post by a***@gmail.com
Best regards.

In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.

[Sir F. A. Rien]

Post by Don Stauffer

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.

If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
eliminate or reduce them.

Halftones are best dealt with during the scanning process as IF your scanner
has such capabilities, it makes the scan at maximum optical, applies the
halftone routine [there are several, plus some allow you to specify the
screen] and then resamples [which it does anyway] to your specified ppi
setting.

Post by Don Stauffer

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

snip

Post by a***@gmail.com
Best regards.

In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.

[Alan Browne]

Don Stauffer wrote:
<->

Post by Don Stauffer
If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
eliminate or reduce them.

Scan software usually has a "descreen" filter, if that's what you're
referring to. Results are somewhat variable. However if you have a
special screen measurement ruler you can determine the screen pitch and
enter that into the filter parameters for very good results.

<->

Post by Don Stauffer
In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.

I believe you have to do "descreening" at scan time.

[J. Inzer]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
platform.
B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.
But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
grainy.
Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
And yes, I am willing to buy it.
Thank you all for your help !!
Best regards.

=========================================
If you save your scans in a lossless format like PNG
or TIFF you won't lose detail when editing/saving multiple
times. Personally...I think it's best if you save all your
original scans 'unedited' for archival purposes on DVDs
or an external hard drive and only do editing on copies.

Try...Adobe Photo Shop / Adobe Photo Shop Elements /
Corel Paint Shop Pro...

Find lots of good info on scanning at the following site:

A Few Scanning Tips:
http://www.scantips.com/

When scanning don't depend on the default settings
of your scanning software. If you go to the Advanced
Options you can make your own dpi adjustments
and you can adjust the size of the finished scan...
(this way...the small photos will already be enlarged
when you import them into your editing software)
--
J. Inzer MS-MVP
Digital Media Experience

Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer

Solutions that work for
me may not work for you

Proceed at your own risk

[M-M]

In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Post by a***@gmail.com
B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.

Sounds like you need a better scanner. If you scan at 1200 dpi, a 1.5
inch photo becomes 6 inches at 300 dpi. Unless of course the original is
grainy to start. If you can see more detail in the original under a
magnifying glass than with your naked eye, a better scanner would do it.

[philo]

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.

What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif

then edit the tif

A very good free program is GIMP

[Dave]

Post by philo

Post by M-M
Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif

A JPG converted to TIFF does not contain any more color space than a
jpg. Of course it is better editing a tif than editing a jpg, but the
tif/jpg stories are exaggerated like the Mac vs PC stories.

I keep my valuable photos in tif but only the real special one's.
You editing get done in PSD (or not?) So, what is the bloody
difference when converting a jpg to psd and saving it as jpg?
Unless of course there is a possibility of re-editing.

All that can happen to a jpg on a CD is the CD to pack up.
And of course, the tiff will also be goodbye.

I am sure people are jumping on the jpg/tiff wagon
without knowing anything about the engine this
wagon is running on.

[Alan Browne]

Post by philo

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.

A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

[philo]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos

GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...

so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
make much difference <G>

[Alan Browne]

Post by philo

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos

So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.

Post by philo
GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
make much difference <G>

I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)

If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.

[philo]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos

So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.

Post by philo
GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it
won't make much difference <G>

I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.

As I mentioned I only use GIMP minimally as my needs are few.

I did a real quick look at the tutorial and see GIMP does have batch
capabilities...but the batch must be run from the command line...
so you are quite right there...a lot of GIMP's capabilites are hidden
and not easily usable.

I think that for many people though, the "easy to access" features will
fit their needs

[Voivod]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.

You're an idiot.

Post by Alan Browne
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

A seriously fucking stupid idiot.

[George Kerby]

On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article

Post by Voivod
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.

You're an idiot.

Post by Alan Browne
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

A seriously fucking stupid idiot.

You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...

[John McWilliams]

Post by George Kerby
On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article

Post by Voivod
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.

You're an idiot.

Post by Alan Browne
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

A seriously fucking stupid idiot.

You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...

You could take care re cross posting, and/or set followups to one group.

[Ron Hunter]

Post by Voivod
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by philo

Post by M-M
In article

Post by a***@gmail.com
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.

Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP

Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.

You're an idiot.

Post by Alan Browne
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.

A seriously fucking stupid idiot.

For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
significant advantage.

[nospam]

Post by Ron Hunter
For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
equal capability,

not even remotely true.

Post by Ron Hunter
but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
significant advantage.

yes, gimp is free.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Ron Hunter
For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
significant advantage.

An infinite advantage, as it's free.

Other than that it's not all that useful to me. The Linux v. I have
won't open a DNG properly. The Mac version will but neither used to
batch process files from the UI - or in a useful manner from the CL.

I'll stick with CS3 - heck, I'll upgrade to CS4 for $200.

[Marvin]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
platform.

I've used Paint Shop Pro for years. Today, Photoshop
Elements may be a better choice. There are more powerful
programs, but thay take longer to learn. You can find free
trial versions of both on the Web. And a free program
called Gimp is highkly recommended.

Post by a***@gmail.com
B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.
But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
grainy.

Scanning at too high a resolution doesn't catch any more
detail, as you've found. 250 to 300 pixels per inch is
enough for normal photographic ptints.

Post by a***@gmail.com
Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.

The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
"happens" in movies and TV shows. And too much
interpolation can cause artifacts in the image. I use
interpolation only to double the number of pixels 2X in the
width and height of the image.

Post by a***@gmail.com
If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
And yes, I am willing to buy it.
Thank you all for your help !!
Best regards.

[Alan Browne]

The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
TV shows.

But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
the image technician:

"Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."

[Hachiroku]

Post by Alan Browne

The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
TV shows.

But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
"Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."

Really. Always wanted a copy of that software.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.

"digitizing"

Post by a***@gmail.com
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.

Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
cheap flatbed scanners. The point being that it's silly to worry
about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.

And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect. Many
operations do not "throw away" any details. Rotation on 90 degree
increments, for example. Cleaning, by definition, throws away
information about the dirt.

Post by a***@gmail.com
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.

Photoshop.

[a***@gmail.com]

Thank you for your suggestion for Drum Scanning.

There is one thing that hinders me from using drum scanner --- the
"Wet Mounting" method.

The old pictures are very old, some dated 19th century. I just don't
know what effect the fluid might do to the already fragile paper.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.

"digitizing"

Post by a***@gmail.com
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.

Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
cheap flatbed scanners.  The point being that it's silly to worry
about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.
And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect.  Many
operations do not "throw away" any details.  Rotation on 90 degree
increments, for example.  Cleaning, by definition, throws away
information about the dirt.

Post by a***@gmail.com
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.

Photoshop.
--
Ray Fischer        

[ray]

Hi !
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of them
dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.

That's true of JPEG images which feature 'lossy' compression - if you use
a 'lossless' format such as tiff, that will not happen.

Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much as
I can.
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning, resizing,
and whatnot.

Has much more to do with image format rather than software.

Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix platform.

You can certainly buy if you want, but if that's what you want to do, I'd
certainly try GIMP first - it's free.

B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL. Like
1 inch by 1.5 inch !
Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.
But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension, such
as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very grainy.
Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.

No. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you want more
resolution, you'll need a higher resolution scanner.

If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
And yes, I am willing to buy it.
Thank you all for your help !!
Best regards.

[Jase Planck]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.

Photoline

www.pl32.net

It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim. It also has one
of the most efficient and exacting dust and scratch removal tools of any
50+ editors that I've ever tested over the years. When used properly it
manages to accomplish this task without muting real details. I would use no
other program for this function. You can find it under the menu Filter >
Quality > Remove Dust/Scratches. While you can use the healing-brush (in PL
its called the "repairing brush"), its clone brush is sometimes better in
experienced hands. It has a real-time preview feature. The brush area
showing what is being cloned in your chosen level of transparency. You can
see exactly what you are going to overlay in the new position before you
actually do it. This cuts down on many hours of clone/view/undo/re-clone
restoration time. It also allows you to clone image data from any color
channel or combo of color channels in any of 4 color-spaces (RGB, CMYK,
HIS, or Lab). For example: you can clone the L (luminosity) or I
(intensity) channel to repair a texture only, leaving the colors alone.

It also has 34+ different adjustment layer types. In Photoline they call
them "working layers". One of them you can program in any way you like by
designing your own filter-matrix for it, saving them as your own favorite
adjustment-layer effects. You can also do lossless adjustments of any type
on any portion of your images. After choosing and creating an adjustment
layer, flood-fill it with black to make its K (gray mask) layer
transparent. Or alternately you can use any combos of the H(ue),
I(ntensity), or S(aturation) channels of a working-layer as your brush.
Then use a white brush, graduated or with transparency, on that
adjustment-layer to use that adjustment-layer's effect like any normal
editing brush. Remember too, these can be used on any color channel in any
color-space. Save your work-in-progress in Photoline's Document PLD format
so you can go back and resume right where you left off, readjusting any of
the working-layer's types or properties whenever you want.

For resizing images in either direction Photoline is also the only
full-featured editor that includes a Lanczos-8 interpolation option for the
most exacting resizings and rotations without creating unwanted artifacts
or softening of details. Not even Photoshop CS4 is capable of using these
advanced Lanczos algorithms to preserve image details.

Download the 30-day demo. Don't be fooled by its small 17 meg size. It's a
workhorse of efficient precision programming. Sloppy overpaid-programmer's
bloatware it is not. No other program offers as much control and is as rich
in so many professional editing features. There is no other program that is
better for image restoration. I've tried, used, and rejected all others,
they don't even come close.

[Voivod]

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...

Tell me another lie, thanks.

[John J]

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...

There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.

[Sir F. A. Rien]

Post by John J

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...

There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.

Doesn't that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that 'mode'.
Then wouldn't you have to select this 'mode' to further save when done or
pausing in your alterations?

I'd rather just save a full lossless type and not have a 'mistake' in
selecting 'quality', eh?

[Jase Planck]

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

[Jase Planck]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.

Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.

Post by Ray Fischer
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.

I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.

[Voivod]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.

Post by Ray Fischer
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.

I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.

You're funny. Come back often!

[CJ]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of
JPG files, the only program that actually does it and can
make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking
on water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing
about. Photoline compares your edited data against the
original image jpg data saved in memory. The only data that is
changed from the original image when resaved in jpg format are
your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains intact in
your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg
compression algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg
compression much more aggressive than the original compression
ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't
even know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get
attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving
aspect of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can
test it to see that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of
jpg compression other than the one pixel that you purposely change.
I too was amazed when I first tested how well it works. Photoline's
lossless jpg routines also don't care about original image sizes
and will retain the full data on partial jpg-block image boundaries
when doing rotations. Unlike other software that has to truncate
all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel blocks when
doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk out
of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid
dead-wrong internet troll.

Post by Ray Fischer
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.

I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all
of your trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one
minor aspect of Photoline. A minor one (note all the other
qualities of Photoline that none of you commented on) that when
added up to the full package makes it the very best editor
available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned archival photos
all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals or they
were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing
format you choose. Especially when the client wants them back in
jpg format because that's the only format that their meager skills
and printing software can deal with.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.

You're funny. Come back often!

Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".

[Dave Cohen]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.

Post by Ray Fischer
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.

I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.

I've never used Photoline so I can't comment. Jpeg does a remarkably
good job of preserving detail when sensibly used and most of this
bickering is based on theory and not visually detectable deterioration.
I believe the 'voi' in Voivod is some sort of hidden code for 'void in
the nod' or something like that, but what do I know.
Dave Cohen

[Voivod]

Post by Dave Cohen

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.

Post by Ray Fischer
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.

I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.

I've never used Photoline so I can't comment. Jpeg does a remarkably
good job of preserving detail when sensibly used and most of this
bickering is based on theory and not visually detectable deterioration.
I believe the 'voi' in Voivod is some sort of hidden code for 'void in
the nod' or something like that, but what do I know.
Dave Cohen

Nothing, and it shows.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio.

But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.

So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works.

Written like an idiot who doesn't even know how JPEG compression works.

[Bob Larter]

[...]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck
Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,

Into the realm of marketing BS.

No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.

You get this kind of reaction a lot, don't you? Have you ever considered
the possibility that it's not everyone else's problem, but yours?

[Voivod]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.

Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...

[Jase Planck]

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.

Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...

Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
it is anything but "vaporware". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors#List The
authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.

But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.

Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod
Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...

Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,

Which is why no major retailer sells it.

[Voivod]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.

Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...

Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors#List The
authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.
But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.

Comedy gold! Let's forward this to the Photoline people, maybe they'll
include it in their sales pitch! "Photoline, not for Idiot
fool-following sheep and trolls!"

Dance for me some more!

[Bob Larter]

Jase Planck wrote:
[...]

Post by Jase Planck
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.

Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?

[Paul Tallison]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:09:44 -0700, Savageduck

Post by Bob Larter
[...]

Post by Jase Planck
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.

Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?

Apparently the World is his oyster!

LOL!

And yet ... they only have to test Photoline's lossless JPG editing feature
for themselves to find out that their contradictory and outdated beliefs
are wrong. Not to mention that it proves, without a doubt, that they truly
are the foolish blind-following morons as was originally claimed. The one
they call the "troll" is the only one who has been correct all along.

You unintelligent and ignorant idiot newsgroup-living trolls are just way
too funny, and so easy to reveal for what you truly are.

[Bob Larter]

Post by Paul Tallison
On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:09:44 -0700, Savageduck

Post by Bob Larter
[...]

Post by Jase Planck
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.

Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?

Apparently the World is his oyster!

LOL!
And yet ... they only have to test Photol[SLAP!]

Fuck off, troll.

[Bob Larter]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss.

That's very impressive, but it's not "completely lossless".

Post by Jase Planck
Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.

Oh please. It's not anywhere near as special as you think. You can avoid
the whole problem in any image editor by simply using a non-lossy file
format instead of JPEG, which is what actual experts do.

[Bob Larter]

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
90 degree rotates.

[Paul Tallison]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
90 degree rotates.

That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
rotations. All other "lossless" editors throw away any pixel-border
proportions that won't fit into dimensions that aren't multiples of 8. If
you are designing toolbar-icons for software GUIs or your composition
depends on that small branch or water-highlight hanging at the edge, you're
screwed if you do any rotation in Photoshop. It just throws it away and you
remain clueless as to why.

Summation: You and all others are ignorant idiot brand-whore trolls with
little to no real-life experience.

Case closed.

[nospam]

Post by Paul Tallison
Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,

uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.

[Paul Tallison]

Post by nospam

Post by Paul Tallison
Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,

uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.

You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.

But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly. Not that I
care. I wouldn't be foolish enough to financially support such lame-assed
programming just because someone else claims to use it. They can't even
include Lanczos resampling algorithms in it. Even freeware IrfanView is
better than Photoshop on that account.

How sad they are. Just as sad as all those who blindly and foolishly
support them all these years.

[nospam]

Post by Paul Tallison

Post by nospam

Post by Paul Tallison
Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,

uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.

You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.

it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.

Post by Paul Tallison
But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.

who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
is needed.

[Bob Larter]

Post by nospam

Post by Paul Tallison

Post by nospam

Post by Paul Tallison
Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,

uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.

You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.

it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.

Post by Paul Tallison
But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.

who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
is needed.

Which is what sane people do...

[whisky-dave]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by nospam

Post by Paul Tallison

Post by nospam

Post by Paul Tallison
Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,

uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.

You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.

it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.

Post by Paul Tallison
But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.

who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
is needed.

Which is what sane people do...

You don't have to be sane do you? :-0

Now you're starting to worry me. :)

[John McWilliams]

Post by Paul Tallison
That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot.

Says the very experienced idiot.

[Bob Larter]

Post by Paul Tallison

Post by Bob Larter

Post by Voivod

Post by Jase Planck
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
water...
Tell me another lie, thanks.

The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
90 degree rotates.

That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
rotations.

You've never actually tried this in Photoshop, have you?

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Jase Planck

Post by a***@gmail.com
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.

Photoline
www.pl32.net
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
such a claim.

[John McWilliams]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Jase Planck

Post by a***@gmail.com
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.

Photoline
www.pl32.net
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim.

Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
such a claim.

Hah.