PhotoSlop Compared to 4 Different Editors

I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).


"Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/...c1e9cfa6_o.jpg

Isn't this fun? :-)

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:07:01 -0500, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

>On 10-02-07 10:52 , Too Funny wrote:
>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
>> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>
>>
>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg
>>[URL corrected]
>>
>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>
>Pointless is more like it.
>
>IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
>nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
>on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
>mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.

Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,
all the colors compressed into nothingness in other areas. I'm sure you can
spot a difference in a location in the PhotoSlop chart where that color
doesn't even exist. You're a color-psychic, right?

You're not too adept at color-profiling a computer system, are you. Like
all trolls online who have never done any of this, you're just pretending
to know what you are talking about. Go educate yourself.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:22:07 -0700, Lon <> wrote:

>Too Funny wrote:
>> I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the
>> testing results, and then combine them all into one easy to see chart so
>> people don't have to bother clicking on 5 different links. Then trying to
>> remember what you saw at each one (I know how slow some of you are).
>>
>>
>> "Granger Calibration Chart" Editor-Test Results
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/...c1e9cfa6_o.jpg
>>
>> Isn't this fun? :-)
>
>Says unavailable. Just for grins, how does GIMP do?

Had a minor typo in the text in the original. Had to upload a corrected
version.

Here's the corrected URL

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg

Didn't try GIMP, don't have it presently installed on this machine, but
wish I had. It would been another good one to add to the chart. I have no
doubts it would match the rest of the world that all see the same blue sky.
You know, unlike PhotoSlop off on its own planet. :-)

Too Funny <> wrote:
>I thought it would be fun to add yet one more graphic editor into the

Go away, asshole troll.

--
Ray Fischer

Too Funny <> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:07:01 -0500, Alan Browne
>>IAC - wherever such charts are presented with the same overall pattern,
>>nobody else seems to object to the PS Granger at all. Indeed depending
>>on profile it seems just as useful at finding gamut/paper profile
>>mismatches as a more 'linear' looking Granger.
>
>Sure it does! With all those missing ranges of hues in the PhotoSlop chart,

And now the asshole troll resorts to lying outright.

--
Ray Fischer

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:35:40 -0500, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

>On 10-02-07 21:30 , Paul Furman wrote:
>> On 2/7/2010 6:03 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 10-02-07 20:22 , Me wrote:
>>>> Mike Russell wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:34:07 +1300, Me wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> >>> Can anyone shed light on this?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 1) In PS, follow the instructions at:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...t-charts.shtml and
>>>> generate the Granger chart as shown. Oddly, it has a strange
>>>> distribution given that the gradient layer is linear top-to-bottom. What
>>>> is creating those diagonals in the chart?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 2) For comparison, see;
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/...f5e104ff_o.jpg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Perhaps simply because the individual gradients themselves are
>>>> non-linear, compared to gradients applied by other photo-editing
>>>> programs.
>>>> >> Gimp "colorcube analysis" shows the non-linearity of the gradients
>>>> here:
>>>> >> http://i49.tinypic.com/25jxge9.png
>>>> >> Gradients produced in Gimp (the same as gradients produced in other
>>>> programs) are on the left).
>>>> >
>>>> > Photoshop can provide linear gradients, but not by default. Use
>>>> > Photoshop's gradient editor, set the smoothing parameter to zero,
>>>> and no
>>>> > dither. Why did they do it this way? Why ask why.
>>>> >
>>>> Thanks - that works - problem solved.
>>>> Now perhaps someone can advise Ludicrous Landscape's editors with
>>>> instructions on how to make a "proper" Granger chart.
>>>
>>> Can't reply to Russell directly for some reason.
>>>
>>> Doesn't work here - I turned off dither (for spectrum and gradient) and
>>> I set the smooth to zero for both and for either one. I get the same
>>> non-linear plot.
>>
>> Me too though I only had a smoothness slider (default to 100) and
>> solid/noise option (default to solid).
>
>The dither is a checkbox on the main options bar (where you select
>gradient type).
>
>>
>> What *does* work though, is to do it with Multiply, then Screen, then
>> paste those versions together & squish them back into a square. Then it
>> looks just like the other programs' output. I've heard it advised to use
>> those two for lightening & darkening using duplicate layers. In this
>> case each is just showing the top or bottom half of the chart so they
>> looked too pale or too dark. Luminosity does some kind of different math.
>
>Couldn't get that to work perfectly, but did resolve diagonal artifacts.
>(Doesn't fade to white at the top).
>
>I'm glad I took this over to the PS group for a real PS pro like Russell
>to reply to.
>
>I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.

Do you call everyone that brings you bad news about your **** software, a
troll?

Wounds? What wounds? I'm just sitting back laughing now. Your PhotoSlop is
still proved to be crap compared to the rest of the editors in the world.

Keep trying to fit that square peg into a round hole. It's fun watching you
idiots jump all over the place, tweaking this and that to try to get a
useful chart out of your **** software. Wasting even more hours of your
life trying to apply math to why it fails so miserably.

Now you're even trying to lie in the other thread about the samples I
posted, saying they all came from the same source. Try again. The GIMP
source was most definitely donated, did you miss that part of the
discussion? And the others all have minor changes in the size of the font
used. I labeled each by using the software I was creating the chart with at
the time and didn't remember what exact Arial font point-size I had used
the last time in the previous program. Why do you think I encouraged
everyone to test their own programs rather than rely on what I posted. I
already explicitly stated that idiots like you would claim I didn't use all
those programs to create the charts. I'm always 10 steps ahead of you
idiots. Did you miss that post? Too busy trying to figure out why PhotoSlop
doesn't work right? Or is it that you are so amazingly ****ing stupid that
you don't realize that the same JPG compression is applied across the whole
montage of charts and this is why you claim they all have the same
artifacts in them.

Here's the one with the chart from GIMP added to it, just in case you
missed that. You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/...3767b261_o.jpg

Jump some more to try to justify why you waste your time with PhotoSlop.
This is fun! :-)

On 02/08/2010 05:45 PM, Too Funny wrote:

> You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
> charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
>
*EVEN* GIMP? *EVEN?* Your language indicates you have a problem
considering open-source software as anything but second- or third-class.
How pathetically wrong.

TJ
--
90 per cent of everything is crud.

- Theodore Sturgeon

Alan,

I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.

Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.

I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.

His comments (paraphrased) were that:

1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
editing images.

2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.

He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
are not equal.

Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
rather than to strict mathematical linearity.

3) To quote him:

"... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."

As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
explainable molehill.

I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
linear.


Art

If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 10-02-08 17:45 , Too Funny wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:35:40 -0500, Alan Browne
>
>>> I guess the troll is off licking his wounds.
>>
>> Do you call everyone that brings you bad news about your **** software, a
>> troll?
>
> Why would I call anyone who taunts with camera types, name calling, ad
> hominem attacks and frequent name changes a troll? I wonder.
>
> As intense as your mis-advised attack on the product was, you can't help
> but look like a fool and a dunce. I guess you didn't think we would
> spot that as odd behaviour indeed and go looking for the source, and of
> course find it - with the help of PS expert on the right NG. I guess
> that's a strength of NG's that will always overwhelm especially weak
> trolls like you.
>
> That embarrasses you to no end you come out swinging like a punch drunk
> fighter - even after everyone has left the ring.
>
> Does mom come down to the basement with snacks or does she make you come
> up to the kitchen?
>

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:06:09 -0500, TJ <> wrote:

>On 02/08/2010 05:45 PM, Too Funny wrote:
>
>> You all seem to have a little problem sharing the link to the
>> charts that show even GIMP is far better than PhotoSlop.
>>
>*EVEN* GIMP? *EVEN?* Your language indicates you have a problem
>considering open-source software as anything but second- or third-class.
>How pathetically wrong.
>
>TJ

You are correct. A bad choice of words on my part. My use of "even" in that
instance was while I was thinking about their cost, not their capability. I
use many such programs. Cartes du Ciel, the best astronomy software
available. CHDK, the most comprehensive operating systems of any cameras on
earth. VirtualDub, a video editor that does more things and does it faster
than almost all others. OpenOffice. etc. etc. If I had to choose between
GIMP and PhotoSlop, I would easily choose GIMP.

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:06:56 -0800, Arthur Entlich <e->
wrote:

>Alan,
>
>I'm only reading this in the comp.periphs.printers Usenet forum, and it
>seems I missed the beginning of the "Problem Solved" thread here (some
>people apparently are not cross-posting). I know some thing
>cross-posting is a crime against nature, but in a case like this were
>several newsgroups are involved in the "discussion" it would be nice to
>know if someone has come up with a definitive response to this issue.

It wasn't a cross-posting issue. It's that the PhotoSlop fanboys were so
embarrassed by this that they tried to not let others know the convoluted
solutions they were coming up with in trying to explain it all.

>
>Is it possible for you to post the response which explains this.

I already did. That's why I included the information they finally came up
with in the first "Problem Solved" reply that you read. Which they
consequently snipped again in any further replies so nobody would see the
egg on their faces. As, I noticed, you did as well.

>
>I did correspond with a friend who is a color engineer and he explained
>that he seemed to recall that Photoshop uses a splined black and white
>gradient as the default black to white selection via the gradient toll
>menu, while it is possible other programs do not do so, and this might
>explain the Photoshop diversion from other programs.
>
>His comments (paraphrased) were that:
>
>1) Using certain features within Photoshop for "testing" might not be
>appropriate because not all features in Photoshop are designed to be
>used as a "testbed" but instead are designed for practical use for
>editing images.

As are all the other programs. Ever hear of Canvas? It's been used to
publish many magazines, among all the other things it is capable of doing.
Including cartography with a geographic coordinate system to sub-millimeter
accuracy in reference to the earth-sized GIS coordinate systems. We're not
talking about some simple red-eye removal editor that you get bundled with
your printer or camera.

>
>2) Perhaps there would be some advantage to having an optional check box
>to provide a non-splined, linear version of the black to white (and
>perhaps other) gradients for certain applications. He suspected that
>the color gradient default may also be splined in Photoshop.

It's not a spline vs. linear issue. Apparently they have a checkbox to
flatten their gradients but even that didn't help. Didn't you relay their
solution to your "color engineer" friend? You know, the part you snipped
out again. When doing my own testing I found that even their PhotoSlop's
rainbow gradient was in error. Flattened or not.

>
>He suggests as an easy (although not fully scientific) way of showing
>the splining of the black and white gradient, make the gradient, and
>then posterize the results to a certain number, such as 16 or 32 units.
>Then take note of the spacing or size of the grey bands, and note they
>are not equal.
>
>Based upon this, I do wonder if the engineers at Photoshop possibly took
>human vision, and perhaps display methodologies into account and
>adjusted these to make them respond more "linearly" to human vision,
>rather than to strict mathematical linearity.

Yes, a wonderful justification of why all the other programs in the world
work properly and PhotoSlop does not.

>
>3) To quote him:
>
>"... let me state that I am not really a fan of Granger rainbows. They
>have their place, but like the proverbial wrench being used for a hammer,
>they often are not being used for an appropriate task, so I come to wish
>they weren't being used at all. They are highly synthetic, and focus on out
>of Gamut colors, so they tend to tell you a lot about colors you'll never
>capture with a camera and little about ones that you will."

How do you know you will never capture them if you remove them in the first
place? How do you know your printer can't produce them if you remove them
in the first place? It appears that none of you are very bright. But I
guess that's why you were so easily manipulated into buying and supporting
PhotoSlop.

>
>As I somewhat suspected when this great "debate" came to the forefront
>here, it may well be someone making a mountain out of a thoroughly
>explainable molehill.

Yes, they did explain it. See the first post in this thread that you
replied to with their convoluted explanation, justification, and solution.
You know, the part that you too snipped out.

>
>I don't believe the designers of Photoshop ever intimated or suggested
>that the gradient defaults they provide in the gradient menu are exactly
>linear.
>

Good for them. I wonder what else they never tell anyone? Like they never
told anyone up until 2008 that their math platform was only 16-bit and
could have been run on Windows 3.1 all these years. It was only recently
changed into a 32-bit math platform in CS4. Something that all the other
programs have had at their core for the last decade or more. Hell, their
programmers still haven't even discovered any resampling algorithms beyond
lowly bicubic from the last century. They're precisely that archaic.

Their emperor has absolutely no clothes whatsoever. And even when shown
their emperor's nakedness, they then pursue the habit of poking their own
eyes out to make sure they don't notice.

Just clap three times with your eyes closed and keep saying to yourselves,
"I believe, I believe, I believe..."