---"Level Histogram" would be acceptable for me. I had some math, but not that much math that I would understand "histogram" as a kind of chart. My only contact to this word were the programs that used it for levels. On the other hand I don't know a photographic word for levels in german. Maybe zones, that's something similar, but different. All cameras I know (canon, pentax) offer a "histogram", no "levels". Maybe this all is an effect of the "gernglish" language (called Denglisch in German), A lot of english words are mixed into the language, but sometimes with altered meanings. For example a cellphone is called "Handy" here.
---I would agree that there is some mess within the menus tools/filters/effects. But others liked it.
---The idea that shadows should be part of a layer or expand the layer: I TOALLY disagree.
-It is not natural to grab an item by its shadow.
-Next the now shown handles correspond to the bitmap (with applied rotation, sheer and resizing, perspective...). It is not a simple bounding box!! I cannot imagine a task that would be easier if that is changed.
-A layer could have a 3D-shadow, but where to paint the handles that they keep their meaning?? The shadow can be anywhere, even outside the picture. And how to resize a layer by eyeview to half of its size when you add the casted shadow?
-If it is not only about the handles, but about the layer itself: An automatic expansion of a bitmap because of a shadow could be a mess. Transparency has to be enabled, filters may work differently, and what size should the layer get when the shadow is turned off?
So all in all it may be confusing for some effects, especially the 3D-Effects or distortions, that the painted layer is at different positions and with different shape than the painted handles, but I think its totally OK with the simpler effects, and I do not see advantages in changing this behaviour.
---Histogram-Outputslider, gammaslider...
-PS has these arrows below the curve. The midtone arrow is a nice thing, easier to imagine than the gamma-adjustment. I don't know how the output range is handled there.
-I think that PSP (at least 6.xx) had no arrows, but the bars like PL has, but it is really long ago, I'm not sure... It showed the curve and 2 additional "sliders" below to adjust input range and output range. I never really managed the meaning of the output bar, but I remember that I found it really much more easy when I switched to PL. I think it looked similar to canvas.
-DPP (Canon) shows a quadratic histogram with 2 vertical bars like PL for input and 2 horizontal bars for output. Somehow strange, but no bad idea.
All in all I'd say that there are many ways to display and use these levels, and the bars used in PL are not that uncommon.
---localization
It is surely no revenge if the english localization is not perfect. But when I find that Adobe translated something like "lens correction" into something like "Aperture improvement", or when I find some english sentences in a german Samsung-handbook, then it comes to my mind that "bit" bigger companies have their problems with localization.
---standards made by market leaders
I guess you would not ask Apple to make their OSX look more like Windows or your texteditor look more like word
Never used an Apple, but I heard that there is something really strange about the "@"-symbol. I agree that the most commonly used things should be comparable, you gave enough examples, google and so.
greenmorpher hat geschrieben:...BY THE WAY -- what the heck is the shadow? It does not show up as a separate layer, but the only way you can copy the picture with the shadow is to "Reduce to Background Layer". At that point, the shadow has a bounding box. An image with shadow shows as a group -- but the bounding box does not incorporate part of that group -- the shadow. If you "DISSOLVE GROUP"...
An image with shadow shows as a group? What do you mean?
When reducing to background layer or fixing a layer all the distortions, rotations, effects and so on are rendered into a new, simple layer with new pixels. That's why there appears a bounding box afterwards. Until then there is only the original bitmap, and all effects are applied "on the fly". That's also the reason why you can not paint on the effects or paint with high resolution on an extremly expanded layer. Something like the rendering in canvas looks clever to me, keeping the old layers, but create a new one.
greenmorpher hat geschrieben:...Why not have a neutral document view like other layout programs and let each layer retain its own resolution, which we can adjust as we like?...
I never used layout programs, so maybe I have some difficulty in understanding, or I just have a more "clean" view at something new... I do not see what use one can have in placing layers of different resolution (dpi) on the same page?
Before my innere eye is something like this: For me there is the reloution of a document, an on it you can place bitmaps without any size or reslution - because you can grab these layers at their handles and give them any size without having to care about resolution or quality. Only at the end, when reducing the whole stuff to one document, they all have to be converted to the dpi of the document, fixed to 300 in PL. (And please don't write too much if you want to answer me - I don't think I ever turn into a layouter
)
greenmorpher hat geschrieben:-- Does that definition of "mask" describe an Alpha Channel mask? I like your definition of a mask, but I am not sure it is always true. Wish it were; I might be able to understand it. "Transparency mask" for example.
That depends... I once asked in another forum if "transparency channel" and "alpha channel" were synonyms. Ond some user offered a pdf containing an article from siggraph 1984, and back then they were the same. But PS uses the word for something different - a channel with no special purpose, most commonly used as something like a clipboard, with an easy option to turn these channels into a mask (my definition.of mask). What is a transparency mask?
greenmorpher hat geschrieben:I simply do not understand what you are saying when you say the lasso "divides parts of the mask with less than 50% protection from those parts with more than 50%". Lost me, mate!
The lasso is somehow glued to the mask. You cannot alter the lasso without changing the corresponding mask and vice versa. The lasso itself is just a thin line that divides inside from outside. It cannot have something like feather, feather or any percentage of covering are stored in the corresponding bitmap called mask. When you switch to the "edit mask mode" (one of the buttons with the similng faces beneath the toolbar) and use the smudgefinger on it you can create some kind of smooth transitions. The lasso will follow these changes, it always divides between >50% and less than 50% mask.
greenmorpher hat geschrieben:The moment you move a selection, you create a new layer, but when you deselect it, it merges back into the layer from which it came. I agree, bloody confusing behaviour!
I live more or less without this kind of selection and prefer creating real layers. But for some users selections are more easy, no worries about layers and stuff like that.
greenmorpher hat geschrieben:Now try that in Document view, Hoogo. In Picture view, when you drag a selection it COPIES that part of the original and leaves the picture intact (or at least it is today), changing it with the merging back into it at thenew location. In Document view, when you drag the selection, is CUTS OUT that part of the picture..,
Maybe a bug? Don't know, there is an option what the usual behaviour should be, and sometinhg with the shift-key, too... Don't remember exactly.
---
If I sound a bit "harsh" or "short by words", it is not meant offensive. I don't write that much, words don't come easy, especially not in english - and I'm more like an engineer.
