PhotoLine and its competitors

[photoken]

I had the very same problems when starting to use PL. From a programmer's perspective, it makes perfect sense to distinguish between lasso, mask and selection, and converting a mask, the lasso, or the selection to a layer gives three totally different results. However, I'd prefer soemthing like "selection mask" (instead of just "mask") and "selection border" or "selection outline" instead of lasso, to make the relation clearer. In most of the cases, it's probably enough just to use "selection".

As I understand it, in PL a "selection" is viewable as two facets -- its mask and its lasso. Each "selection" can be modified appropriately by using those facets. So, finding a more precise and descriptive term for those facets would be a good idea.

For example, after a new user makes a selection with the Rectangular selection tool, he's stopped cold because there's no menu item labeled "Selection". He sees a "Mask" menu item and thinks "WTF? I didn't create a mask!", because he's used to thinking of the word "mask" as being a layer mask.

So do you think that PSP and PSE are more difficult to use because they don't have three distinct concepts instead of just "selections" (or whatever it's called in PSP and PSE)?

No, just the opposite for new users. They're easier to use because they only use one word ("Selection") to refer to the selection, and only use the word "Mask" to refer to a layer mask. I'm not saying that is a better way, just that it's so commonplace that a new user is familiar and comfortable with those terms.

[greenmorpher]

I had the very same problems when starting to use PL. From a programmer's perspective, it makes perfect sense to distinguish between lasso, mask and selection, and converting a mask, the lasso, or the selection to a layer gives three totally different results. However, I'd prefer soemthing like "selection mask" (instead of just "mask") and "selection border" or "selection outline" instead of lasso, to make the relation clearer. In most of the cases, it's probably enough just to use "selection".

As I understand it, in PL a "selection" is viewable as two facets -- its mask and its lasso. Each "selection" can be modified appropriately by using those facets. So, finding a more precise and descriptive term for those facets would be a good idea.

For example, after a new user makes a selection with the Rectangular selection tool, he's stopped cold because there's no menu item labeled "Selection". He sees a "Mask" menu item and thinks "WTF? I didn't create a mask!", because he's used to thinking of the word "mask" as being a layer mask.

So do you think that PSP and PSE are more difficult to use because they don't have three distinct concepts instead of just "selections" (or whatever it's called in PSP and PSE)?

No, just the opposite for new users. They're easier to use because they only use one word ("Selection") to refer to the selection, and only use the word "Mask" to refer to a layer mask. I'm not saying that is a better way, just that it's so commonplace that a new user is familiar and comfortable with those terms.

That's the key -- which I have argued on a number of occasions before -- using the words the new users understands. In time, with use, s/he will understand that a layer is a layer, a selection is a mask, etc., but initially, why smack them in the face with it leading to confusion and lack of acceptance of PL?

Cheers, geoff

[asharpe]

That's the key -- which I have argued on a number of occasions before -- using the words the new users understands. In time, with use, s/he will understand that a layer is a layer, a selection is a mask, etc., but initially, why smack them in the face with it leading to confusion and lack of acceptance of PL?

Well, after 35 years as a software engineer, I imagine that the code itself is full of routines and variables with these separate names, so the UI then reflects the code. It doesn't have to be that way, but if you tried to change the UI names without changing the code, you may just confuse the heck out of Martin. That's not to say that it isn't a laudable goal; acceptance of PL is certainly important, and these alternate (albeit perhaps more accurate) names are confusing. As it is, I still have pause when, after creating a curves adjustment layer, I have to go to "fill lasso" to fill the default mask with black. Indeed, even in the software itself, it is called a default mask, not default lasso. And unless I just know that, there is no way I'd ever be able to figure it out.

[greenmorpher]

Exactly. Setting things up so users have to learn new words even for familiar things or shift from term to term in mid-routine, as it were, is no way to make friends and influence people.

Cheers, geoff

[OldRadioGuy]

A few versions back the term "Working Layers" was finally replaced with "Adjustment Layers" -- at least in the English language -- to follow the common term used by the rest of the photo editing world. But hang out in the German side of these forums, and you'll still find references to "Working Layers."

It's difficult to drop old habits.

Bob

[Herbert123]

..."picture" ought to be replaced by "image" in the English version of PL. Only PL uses "picture" - no other image editor does.

Nah. It's a precise use of the words as far as I'm concerned -- a "picture" can contain raster images as well as vector objects and type. Makes sense to me. I think just a straightforward explanation of that would suffice.

picture: An individual painting, drawing, or other representation on a surface, of an object or objects; esp. such a representation as a work of art. (Now the prevailing sense.)

image: An optical appearance or counterpart of an object, such as is produced by rays of light either reflected as from a mirror, refracted as through a lens, or falling on a surface after passing through a small aperture. Such an appearance may also be a mere subjective impression on the sense of sight, as an after-image (q.v.), and the negative image or accidental image seen after looking intently at a bright-coloured object, and having a colour complementary to that of the object. An image produced by reflexion or refraction is called in Optics a real image when the rays from each point of the object actually meet at a point, a virtual image when they diverge as if from a point beyond the reflecting or refracting body.

From Wikipedia:
An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject – usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it.

I would argue that an image is a superset of pictures (which tend to be physical in nature "What a nice picture book!" versus "look at those images on the screen."). Hence, in combination with the above definitions, I am still leaning towards the term "image" instead of "picture". Picture is also ambiguous: a picture can also mean a film or movie. Image is also the standard term in image (sic!) editing. We do not say "what digital picture editor do you use?". We say "image editor". Photoline is an image editor foremost.

Aside from all this, "image" is the standard term in graphics software. "Picture" is not, and a mistranslation of the German "Bild" - which is far less confusing, btw.

As for selections: in German "Auswahl" is the defacto term used for "selection" in graphics software. "Lasso" is confusing in both languages. I create a selection, and then convert it to a (layer)mask - which is greyscale information. Although I sort-of got used to the term "Lasso" it remains an awkward term. I create a selection in an image, not "a loop of rope designed as a restraint to be thrown around a target and tightened when pulled". I am not pulling anything - I am drawing a selection. I select things in an image editor, I do not "catch" or "restrain" pixels.

Yeah, I am a bit nitpicky.when it comes down to software translations and terminology. There is no reason to confuse matters in this case - go with the standard, I say: language is confusing enough as it is.

[mwenz]

Geez, reading all of this thread is about to make my head explode

To me it simply makes sense to use what has become the nomenclature over time. It doesn't make it better, more accurate, or really any easier to learn for someone who has never used such an application before. Problem is, there is just about no one that fits that criteria. Even if there is, they are gonig to look on the web to see how things are accomplished and they will see PS tutorials till the cows come home.

Here is my burning question. How many of you have played Crossfire in PL? ...

[photoken]

...
I would argue that an image is a superset of pictures
...

I can see it as just the opposite -- an image being a subset of pictures. A "picture" can be a goofy vector shape that bears no resemblance to anything, meaning that "picture" is a more general term than "image".

In any case, it's not really important -- if someone is so confused about the use of "picture" instead of "image" that he can't use the program, he's got much more serious problems than choosing an image editor....

Like I said, a brief, simple description of the usage of the word "picture" and the word "document" at the beginning of a Getting Started tutorial will suffice to clear up any confusion.

[photoken]

...
Although I sort-of got used to the term "Lasso" it remains an awkward term.
...

I tend to agree, see my reply to bkh above. I really like the concept of "Selection" being the general descriptor and "Selection mask" and "Selection outline" being its facets. Need to find a sexier term for "Selection outline", though.

[Hoogo]

Here is my burning question. How many of you have played Crossfire in PL? ...

I did.
But I didn't like it as a kid in the 80s, and it didn't improve over time.

Need to find a sexier term for "Selection outline", though.

Professionals call it "marching ants"

[photoken]

Need to find a sexier term for "Selection outline", though.

Professionals call it "marching ants"

Yeah, that was cloying but slightly cute when it first was used about 20 years ago. It hasn't improved with time, either.

[greenmorpher]

Need to find a sexier term for "Selection outline", though.

Professionals call it "marching ants"

Yeah, that was cloying but slightly cute when it first was used about 20 years ago. It hasn't improved with time, either.

It was fun, back in the day, but professionals didn't use it, it was used to explain to newbies remotely what they would see when they used the selection/lasso tool.

If you want to argue about the use of lasso -- check your PL and see what you have in the Tools Menu. Lassos. And rightly so.

Maybe we should call it the "raster masking tool". Yeah, right.

Let's just settle for "lasso" (we've all seen cowboy movies, haven't we?) and the lassoed area as our "selection".

ONE THING THAT NEEDS CHANGING URGENTLY RIGHT UPFRONT -- the URL. "pl32" refers to the day when 32 bits was P'shop killer technology.

It needs to be renamed PL64. A new URL will cost about $20-$40 to registered for a couple of years. PL32 can be left an orphan, redirecting anyone to PL64. Of course, the problem will be when the world goes to 128…

Better would be "photoline.com" -- that is not subject to the limitation of technology ceilings -- or some variation of that, depending on what is available.

Cheers, geoff

[Paul]

Hi,

It needs to be renamed PL64. A new URL will cost about $20-$40 to registered for a couple of years. PL32 can be left an orphan, redirecting anyone to PL64. Of course, the problem will be when the world goes to 128…

Try www.pl64.com of pl64.de
It's been there for some years now...

- Paul

[bkh]

If you want to argue about the use of lasso -- check your PL and see what you have in the Tools Menu. Lassos. And rightly so.

Maybe we should call it the "raster masking tool". Yeah, right.

Of course, "Lasso" is a good name (and a good and well-established metaphor) for the selection tool. Probably also for the selection border (for want of a better term) which you get by using the lasso tool. I'm not entirely sure if it's as intuitive as a generic term for "selection border" obtained, e.g., from painting a mask. (I don't like the use of "lasso" as a synonym for "selection", but that's not what you propose.)

In any case, most of the commands in PL's "Lasso" menu use the mask (or selection area), rather than the lasso porper, anyway – I think that "Form Lasso", and "Lasso To Layer"/"Layer To Lasso" may be the only ones using the lasso proper.

ONE THING THAT NEEDS CHANGING URGENTLY RIGHT UPFRONT -- the URL. "pl32" refers to the day when 32 bits was P'shop killer technology.

Yes, indeed. As Paul pointed out, pl64.de and pl64.com already belong to PL, but they redirect you to pl32 almost immediately. The only important point is that old pl32 URLs will continue to work (and redirect to the right pl64 URLs). Seems that the domains photoline.de and photoline.com are owned by people trying to make money selling them.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[OldRadioGuy]

ONE THING THAT NEEDS CHANGING URGENTLY RIGHT UPFRONT -- the URL. "pl32" refers to the day when 32 bits was P'shop killer technology.

It needs to be renamed PL64. ...
Better would be "photoline.com" -- that is not subject to the limitation of technology ceilings -- or some variation of that, depending on what is available.

Cheers, geoff

+1

Bob