Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Software for photo editing

Subject: [OM] Re: Software for photo editing
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:25:36 -0500
Gene said:
Just curious, Chuck. What do you find better about the clone tool in
PWP? I purchased a copy of PWP a couple years back but it never
clicked with me, dunno why. I'm addicted to PS layers, the healing
brush, and the shadow/hilights tool.
-------------------------------------------------------
A also love PS layers and other PS tools and I choose to use PS if I 
have to do complex editing.  However, one can do an amazing amount of 
editing using nothing but the clone tool if the clone tool has been 
implemented as in PWP.

The major problems with the PS clone tool begin with selecting the 
source area.  In PS, only the center point of the source area is 
displayed and even then the display is muted and a bit difficult to see 
at times.  In PWP the source area is always displayed delineated by a 
bright circle the same diameter as the destination circle. There is 
never any question about what part of the image will be copied.

The next problem with PS cloning is that, after having done a source 
selection, once you move the destination pointer you can no longer be 
certain where the source pointer is.  Not only are you not shown the 
exact diameter of the source area to be copied, you're not even shown 
where the source pointer is until you actually click to make the copy. 
At that point it's too late, you've already done the copy and have to 
undo it.

Precisely displaying the source area is very important for working on 
film scans with lots of scratches and dust spots or when trying to work 
in tight spaces.  Without the ability to see the source area it's very 
common to inadvertently clone other defects or image parts onto the area 
you're trying to repair.  Another application where being able to view 
the source at all times is very important is recreating an edge by 
dragging the centerpoint of the source along an edge.

PWP also always displays a representation of the brush that shows its 
diameter, softness and transparency in a way that PS does not.  PWP also 
has cloning options that PS does not have.  One can clone from a fixed 
position where the source area does not move.  One can also easily clone 
from one image onto another.

PWP also has specific provisions for easily making composites from 
multiple exposures.

The latest version of PWP also has advanced sharpening tools which, I 
think, are better than what PS provides and at least as good as any of 
the optional sharpening plug-ins you can buy.  That said, PWP can't use 
any of the PS plug-ins that are available since it doesn't support PS 
plug-ins at all.

If PS had PWP's implementation of cloning I'd use PS 100% of the time. 
As it is I only use it about 50% of the time since, for the other 50%, 
PWP is actually the better tool.

Chuck Norcutt




==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz