Quiet, isnt it?

[bruce1951]

Imagine PL providing Krita type features. Hmmmmmmm. Thinking thinking thinking.

Nah Krita works just fine as an External Editor. So why would you risk adding 'fluff' to PL when the external editor works as it should?

KISS!

regards

[photoken]

(...)
why would you risk adding 'fluff' to PL when the external editor works as it should?

No one's asking to simply duplicate all the features of another program in PL.

However, if a couple of selected features can be incorporated (and improved upon) in PL, then I'm all for it because that would simplify my life.

For example, if PL gained the capability of stretching a complex vector shape along a path, this would be the equivalent of the "Artistic" brushes found in Illustrator and CorelDraw. I could then remove AI and CDR from my external programs because that's the only feature of theirs that I regularly use. Having that feature in PL would also mean I would avoid dealing with CDR f*ing up the PDF transfer image, and also avoid having to deal with the multiple layers returned in the PDF by Illustrator. Like I said, it would definitely simplify my life.

[greenmorpher]

Since we're talking about focusing on strengths and doing the best with stuff, I would have to say I am in total agreement. In a number of ways, I feel PL has missed the bus.

HDR was one of them. PL had HDR before P'shop, but it was neither promoted nor developed. I have never had a good HDR out of PL. I now get superb HDRs out of Bracketeer. I also get very good HRDs straight out of the camera! (The same goes for panoramas, which PL doesn’t do, of course, but again, in-camera capability has moved quickly and remarkably.)

One other thing is getting stuff down simply. This is the advantage of P'shop Elements over P'shop -- or to be more correct, was the advantage until Adobe realized its grown up users of P'shop might never demand it, but they wouldn't mind getting their hands dirty by using a couple of quick features. We have had a number of discussions here that fall into that category. I think it is absolutely essential that some Q&D one click solutions are incorporated regardless of whether you can do the same or better by going through the steps yourself.

There is a feature in Canvas like this -- "Trim to path". You want to trim your raster image to a precise, repeatable shape, perhaps just normal or perhaps bizarre, and you simply set up a raster shape (filled with whatever) place it over or under the raster image, select both, then click on "Trim to Path". Voila, your photo is instantly trimmed to the shape of the path. Great. In fact, though, when you analyze what that command does, is that it sets in motion a script that puts together three or four (maybe more) steps. Simple but very effective.

One one-click process I find good in PL is Automatic Correction. It's not perfect -- how could it be? -- but in 90% of cases where I try that, including with some pretty tricky JPEGs, I get the result I want or very close to it. Occasionally, the output is so odd I am moved to a chuckle, but time and again, it is on the mark or close enough for me to rapidly tweak it. I count that very good performance indeed.

I am essentially a light-weight user of PL and still use Canvas for some work which I am sure I could do in PL but I don't really grok it. Just recently, I wanted to do some pictures side by side on an A4 page. I instantly went to Canvas and did them, saved off JPEGs, then opened those JPEGs in PL to print them (the one enduring problem with Canvas X -- now 10 years unsupported -- is printing; I could print from PDFs but for photographs, the routine I have just outlined is simpler).

An enduring problem is the manual. It simply does not tell me what I want to know. The sharpening tools. Two dimensions, "size" and "intensity". What the heck is "size" and what should I expect by increasing it? The light/shadow tools -- "width"/"gamma"? And so on. Theoretically, I could work out something about this with a load of experiments and a lot of use -- but I actually don't have that much use. And working it out once and for all with a bunch of experiments? I would forget the results or get them confused within 24 hours; pretty much totally forgotten in 48-72 hours. I need a manual I can access which explains stuff.

So there you go. Yes, if you are going to include something as a feature, make sure it is darned good, or forget it. And make sure the manual gives full explanations of stuff.

Cheers, Geoff

[cathodeRay]

FWIW, I've been quiet mainly because it has been (a sort of) summer, and I tend to do most of my photo stuff in the winter months.

I suspect those who post on fora are always the tip of an iceberg, only this time we don't even know the content and proportions of what's beneath the surface. There are the hurdles of 'going public' (even if anonymously), developing an online persona (however briefly), etc etc. In a way trying to glean anything is a bit like relying on a survey where the subjects get to volunteer themselves...

Those caveats aside, my experience has been that although the regular contributors are small in number, the quality and helpfulness has been excellent, couldn't be better in fact. It is possible there are many who read the forum, picking things up, though never registering and posting themselves.

On the more general question of where PL is heading, my own use is almost 100% photo-related, and I would really regret to see PL try to become a mega-master-suite that can do everything. There's usually a trade-off between breadth and depth: you can't have both, all of the time. Furthermore, my brain wouldn't be big enough to take it all in: as I 'got' one thing', another would fall off the shelf. There may also be an effect from, as others have noted, getting about as far as we are going to get with our current systems, for example layer based non-destructive editing, as we are going to get, until (and if) a radical new system is invented. Personally, I tend to be quite content with mature systems that work, and become the devils you know.

The missing, or rather too thin, manual? Well, in a way this forum is the ad hoc manual - so much so that often I will do a search here before consulting the help files. Though a long-winded way to go about it, some of the discussions here could be viewed as actual or at least said to contain the bones of a tutorial - there's often more than enough info on how to go about doing something. Bot that's for those of us who know about the forum: I suspect PL loses new potentially long-term users who give up because the the manual fails them and they for whatever reason aren't forum-minded.

The bottom line remains for me that PL is the photo editor of choice, with the very welcome addition of a friendly, usually active and helpful forum. Perhaps the recent quietness is nothing more or less than quietness between friends!

cathodeRay

[photoken]

I suspect PL loses new potentially long-term users who give up because the the manual fails them and they for whatever reason aren't forum-minded.

I tend to agree.

PL is capable of very sophisticated editing, and some of those advanced techniques can put off new users simply because the sheer number of available options can be overwhelming. (RawTherapee and Blender are prime examples of this.)

There's also the fact that although PL mostly works the same way every other image editor works, there are places where it's just slightly different enough to cause trouble. (For me, the hardest thing to get comfortable with was PL's concept of lassoes, masks, layer masks and selections; and how they differ.)

I also participate in the user forum of another image editor, and when users there have had their curiosity piqued enough by my comments to try PL, often they reply that PL is "no good" because they tried to do the exact same things they're used to, and they failed. There's really nothing to be done for that if a user is unwilling to ask questions here -- the most excruciatingly detailed help file won't really help. As a matter of fact, it's probably easier for someone who is completely unfamiliar with image editors to use PL than it is for someone who is thoroughly familiar with the working methods imposed by a different image editor.

[photoken]

(...)
I would really regret to see PL try to become a mega-master-suite that can do everything. There's usually a trade-off between breadth and depth: you can't have both, all of the time.

That's true.

But I will still request a few carefully chosen features to "round out" PL's capabilities for image creation and publishing.

That will still leave PL far from being an unwieldy "mega-master-suite", I'm thinking.

[bruce1951]

I think we all have come from 'other' editors to PL. The biggest hurdle then becomes unlearning old habits. That's not PL's fault. Just our resistance to change.

IMHO the single biggest hurdle to any editor is imagination. Have you even seen someone with a chainsaw carve a grizzly bear? Well I doubt that was in the chainsaws manual. That's not why chainsaws were invented. But someone, with imagination, decided to give it a go. Same with editors. There is always a way of doing something. I think that sometimes we give up on our imagination and hope that the developers will write something for us.

regards

[mwenz]

Some features that have been added are also have a simply arcane method to use them and/or cannot really get there easily. I am most thinking about duo-tone images (or tri-tone, etc.). I (and others) still routinely make them but need other software for the shear simplicity to so doing. Heck, I really don't know if PL can really handle spot color in an image as I simply will not take the time to do so. I have also already admitted I don't use the vector stuff but have tried to see how PL handle designated spot colors and don't really like it.

As for actual vector drawing, I also find PL arcane in this use compared to a more dedicated vector drawing software. And in that regard, I don't appreciate those vector editors' feeble attempts at image manipulation. I don't really want to jump through hoops for a living. I'm getting too old and fat for jumping...

Mike