Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview? [Archive]

Stijn De Jong

February 14th 17, 08:03 PM

On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside the
canvas.

That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
other editors make texting hard) and especially for arrowing fantastically
(again, all arrow, but there are a ton of ways to make curved arrows harder
than they need to be) and for circling (again, Paint.NET just does it
right).

The only problem with Paint.NET is that the resulting file is ALWAYS twice
the size (or so) than it needs to be. Dunno why, but I always have to run a
subsequent Irfanview batch re-run just to "convert" the JPEG to JPEG of the
same name but smaller size.

In the Irfanview freeware, of course, there is a setting for the percent
which I leave at the standard 80% and the first time you save in Paint.NET
it asks you for the percentage, which I also set at 80% (which is pretty
standard).

So why does Irfanview invariably save the JPG files smaller?

nospam

February 14th 17, 09:00 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside the
> canvas.
>
> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
> other editors make texting hard)

paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
need a dedicated text messaging app.

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 14th 17, 09:32 PM

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:00:14 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:
>
>> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
>> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside the
>> canvas.
>>
>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
>> other editors make texting hard)
>
>paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>need a dedicated text messaging app.

You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?

Even reading that he uses Paint.NET to add captions?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

nospam

February 14th 17, 09:42 PM

In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

> >
> >> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
> >> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
> >> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside the
> >> canvas.
> >>
> >> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
> >> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
> >> other editors make texting hard)
> >
> >paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
> >need a dedicated text messaging app.
>
> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?

that's called annotating, not texting.

texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 14th 17, 09:52 PM

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:42:09 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>> >> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
>> >> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside the
>> >> canvas.
>> >>
>> >> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>> >> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
>> >> other editors make texting hard)
>> >
>> >paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>> >need a dedicated text messaging app.
>>
>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
>> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>
>that's called annotating, not texting.
>
>texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.

Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

nospam

February 14th 17, 09:53 PM

In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

> >> >
> >> >> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
> >> >> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG
> >> >> files
> >> >> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
> >> >> the
> >> >> canvas.
> >> >>
> >> >> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
> >> >> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
> >> >> other editors make texting hard)
> >> >
> >> >paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
> >> >need a dedicated text messaging app.
> >>
> >> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
> >> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
> >
> >that's called annotating, not texting.
> >
> >texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
>
> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.

there was.

Mayayana

February 14th 17, 11:02 PM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| So why does Irfanview invariably save the JPG files smaller?

It's hard to know without knowing the whole
process, and I've also never used Paint.Net. (It
always requires the latest version of .Net, which
is gigantic, so I've never tried it.)

I wonder if the size difference might be happening
from degradation. When you want to work on an
image you should save it as BMP or TIF and only save
as JPG, if you must for some reason, for a final save.
The only reason I know of to use JPG is to get a small
file size for use in webpages.

The problem with JPG is that every save is "lossy".
Even when you set no compression it's still dropping
out data. So if you save in IV, then save in PN, then
save again in IV, you're saving a more damaged, more
simple image each time. And the first image, if it started
as JPG, was already damaged. The final IV save may be
smaller because the image has been degraded and
therefore compresses better.

Paul[_32_]

February 14th 17, 11:21 PM

Stijn De Jong wrote:
> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside the
> canvas.
>
> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
> other editors make texting hard) and especially for arrowing fantastically
> (again, all arrow, but there are a ton of ways to make curved arrows harder
> than they need to be) and for circling (again, Paint.NET just does it
> right).
>
> The only problem with Paint.NET is that the resulting file is ALWAYS twice
> the size (or so) than it needs to be. Dunno why, but I always have to run a
> subsequent Irfanview batch re-run just to "convert" the JPEG to JPEG of the
> same name but smaller size.
>
> In the Irfanview freeware, of course, there is a setting for the percent
> which I leave at the standard 80% and the first time you save in Paint.NET
> it asks you for the percentage, which I also set at 80% (which is pretty
> standard).
>
> So why does Irfanview invariably save the JPG files smaller?

Find a parser and compare the structure of the files ?

https://betanews.com/2016/06/27/identify-edited-jpegs-with-jpegsnoop/#comments

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/jpegsnoop.html

Paul

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 15th 17, 04:45 AM

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:53:47 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>> >> >> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG
>> >> >> files
>> >> >> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> canvas.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>> >> >> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
>> >> >> other editors make texting hard)
>> >> >
>> >> >paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>> >> >need a dedicated text messaging app.
>> >>
>> >> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
>> >> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>> >
>> >that's called annotating, not texting.
>> >
>> >texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
>>
>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
>
>there was.

Only in your little mind.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Stijn De Jong

February 15th 17, 05:19 PM

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:02:22 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> It's hard to know without knowing the whole process,

Hi Mayayana,

Good point.
Here's an easily reproduceable test I just ran for this purpose.

1. I chose an interesting photo on the web from this news article:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/08/highway-17-mudslide-were-at-a-stalemate/

2. I found various sizes for that photo, on the web:
a.jpg This photo saved to a 301 KB file that was 480x640 pixels.
http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/sjm-mudslide-0209-10.jpg

b.jpg This photo saved to a 107 KB file that was 768x1,024 pixels.
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/57/04/25/12338545/4/1024x1024.jpg

c.jpg This photo saved to a 1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels.
http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blue-van2-1486597218.jpg

Here is a screenshot of the original sizes:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2Vj9JN.jpg

Here is the original set of files:
a.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/gJZkIv.jpg
b.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/OFO2qM.jpg
c.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/p1DwzR.jpg

3. I kept the originals in a folder called (1) and copied them to folders
called (2) and (3).

4. In folder 2, I opened each file in Irfanview 4.35 on Windows XP Home,
and simply saved the files (using Control+S) to the same folder with the
settings of 80% with nothing else checked in the Irfanview save options
form.
http://i.cubeupload.com/1HpOBi.jpg

5. The result of the Irfanview "80% Quality" save was the following:
a.jpg went from 301 KB to 82 KB.
b.jpg went from 107 KB to 129 KB.
c.jpg went from 1,439 KB to 411 KB.

Screenshot:
http://i.cubeupload.com/F3rx3H.jpg

Here are the "80% Quality" saved set of files from Irfanview:
a.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/5CQvkX.jpg
b.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/mwVhkF.jpg
c.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/i4JRZB.jpg

6. In folder 3, I opened each file in Paint.NET v3.5.10 (Final Release
build 3.510.4297.28964). I saved each file using "Control+S" with the
Quality set to 80%.
http://i.cubeupload.com/0Ywebc.jpg

7. The result of the Paint.NET "80% Quality" save was the following:
a.jpg went from 301 KB to 86 KB.
b.jpg went from 107 KB to 153 KB.
c.jpg went from 1,439 KB to 417 KB.

Screenshot:
http://i.cubeupload.com/wVwxxW.jpg

Here are the "80% Quality" saved set of files from Paint.NET:
a.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/LcLpRF.jpg
b.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/Bjwneu.jpg
c.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/jBDOQl.jpg

Hmmmmmm... that's interesting. In this simplified baseline test, the file
sizes didn't double going from Irfanview to Paint.NET.

This is interesting because it's a good very simple baseline.

So my observed doubling of sizes must be due to something else other than
just "saving" the files, which happens when I "resized" in Irfanview, added
a canvas in Irfanview, and then "added captions" in Paint.NET and then
saved in Paint.NET (and then had to resize again in Irfanview).

Hmmmm... More tests needed since the baseline test shows that the sizes are
roughly equivalent. Do you concur?

Neil

February 15th 17, 07:30 PM

On 2/15/2017 12:19 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:02:22 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> It's hard to know without knowing the whole process,
>
> Hi Mayayana,
>
> Good point.
> Here's an easily reproduceable test I just ran for this purpose.
>
> 1. I chose an interesting photo on the web from this news article:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/08/highway-17-mudslide-were-at-a-stalemate/
>
>
> 2. I found various sizes for that photo, on the web:
> a.jpg This photo saved to a 301 KB file that was 480x640 pixels.
> http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/sjm-mudslide-0209-10.jpg
>
>
> b.jpg This photo saved to a 107 KB file that was 768x1,024 pixels.
> http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/57/04/25/12338545/4/1024x1024.jpg
>
> c.jpg This photo saved to a 1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels.
> http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blue-van2-1486597218.jpg
>
>
> Here is a screenshot of the original sizes:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/2Vj9JN.jpg
>
> Here is the original set of files:
> a.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/gJZkIv.jpg
> b.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/OFO2qM.jpg
> c.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/p1DwzR.jpg
>
> 3. I kept the originals in a folder called (1) and copied them to folders
> called (2) and (3).
>
> 4. In folder 2, I opened each file in Irfanview 4.35 on Windows XP Home,
> and simply saved the files (using Control+S) to the same folder with the
> settings of 80% with nothing else checked in the Irfanview save options
> form.
> http://i.cubeupload.com/1HpOBi.jpg
>
> 5. The result of the Irfanview "80% Quality" save was the following:
> a.jpg went from 301 KB to 82 KB.
> b.jpg went from 107 KB to 129 KB.
> c.jpg went from 1,439 KB to 411 KB.
>
> Screenshot:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/F3rx3H.jpg
>
> Here are the "80% Quality" saved set of files from Irfanview:
> a.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/5CQvkX.jpg b.jpg
> http://i.cubeupload.com/mwVhkF.jpg c.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/i4JRZB.jpg
> 6. In folder 3, I opened each file in Paint.NET v3.5.10 (Final Release
> build 3.510.4297.28964). I saved each file using "Control+S" with the
> Quality set to 80%.
> http://i.cubeupload.com/0Ywebc.jpg
>
> 7. The result of the Paint.NET "80% Quality" save was the following:
> a.jpg went from 301 KB to 86 KB.
> b.jpg went from 107 KB to 153 KB.
> c.jpg went from 1,439 KB to 417 KB.
>
> Screenshot:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/wVwxxW.jpg
>
> Here are the "80% Quality" saved set of files from Paint.NET:
> a.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/LcLpRF.jpg
> b.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/Bjwneu.jpg
> c.jpg http://i.cubeupload.com/jBDOQl.jpg
>
> Hmmmmmm... that's interesting. In this simplified baseline test, the file
> sizes didn't double going from Irfanview to Paint.NET.
> This is interesting because it's a good very simple baseline.
>
> So my observed doubling of sizes must be due to something else other than
> just "saving" the files, which happens when I "resized" in Irfanview, added
> a canvas in Irfanview, and then "added captions" in Paint.NET and then
> saved in Paint.NET (and then had to resize again in Irfanview).
>
> Hmmmm... More tests needed since the baseline test shows that the sizes are
> roughly equivalent. Do you concur?
>
A jpg file's size is less related to file sizeimage dimensions than to
other qualities of the image. You might save a bit of time by learning
the history of the format and some ways that the images are altered
during conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

--
best regards,

Neil

Mayayana

February 15th 17, 10:56 PM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| So my observed doubling of sizes must be due to something else other than
| just "saving" the files, which happens when I "resized" in Irfanview,

Whaddaya mean, resized? I assumed these were
all images of the same pixel dimensions, but resaved
and with added text. (I'm not sure what you mean by
adding a canvas. A monotone rectandgle for text?)

It's interesting that IV seems to have brightened
the image saved, while PN didn't.

Assuming you save a JPG, work on it as a JPG,
and don't change the pixel dimensions, I would
expect that any change on file size is resulting
from lost data and therefore a simpler image
that compresses better. Why not save as TIF or
BMP, then do your work? From there you can then
try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
the same image each time, even if you set JPG
compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
software.) JPG always loses data with each save.

PeterN[_2_]

February 15th 17, 11:03 PM

On 2/14/2017 4:53 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article >, Tony Cooper
> > wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>>>>>> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG
>>>>>> files
>>>>>> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> canvas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
>>>>>> other editors make texting hard)
>>>>>
>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>>>>> need a dedicated text messaging app.
>>>>
>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
>>>> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>>>
>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
>>>
>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
>>
>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
>
> there was.
>

I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
child like urge to comment.
As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."

--
PeterN

PeterN[_2_]

February 15th 17, 11:10 PM

On 2/15/2017 5:56 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>
> | So my observed doubling of sizes must be due to something else other than
> | just "saving" the files, which happens when I "resized" in Irfanview,
>
> Whaddaya mean, resized? I assumed these were
> all images of the same pixel dimensions, but resaved
> and with added text. (I'm not sure what you mean by
> adding a canvas. A monotone rectandgle for text?)
>
> It's interesting that IV seems to have brightened
> the image saved, while PN didn't.
>
> Assuming you save a JPG, work on it as a JPG,
> and don't change the pixel dimensions, I would
> expect that any change on file size is resulting
> from lost data and therefore a simpler image
> that compresses better. Why not save as TIF or
> BMP, then do your work? From there you can then
> try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
> your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
> the same image each time, even if you set JPG
> compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
> software.) JPG always loses data with each save.
>
>
>

Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.

<https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhrQ1EyoTY>

--
PeterN

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 15th 17, 11:39 PM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:03:21 -0500, PeterN
> wrote:

>On 2/14/2017 4:53 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article >, Tony Cooper
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>>>>>>> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG
>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> canvas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways that
>>>>>>> other editors make texting hard)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>>>>>> need a dedicated text messaging app.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
>>>>> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>>>>
>>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
>>>>
>>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
>>>
>>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
>>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
>>
>> there was.
>>
>
>I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
>child like urge to comment.
>As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."

He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

I would seriously doubt if anyone was confused by the OP's error.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

nospam

February 15th 17, 11:54 PM

In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

> >>>>>>> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
> >>>>>>> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
> >>>>>>> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
> >>>>>>> the canvas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
> >>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
> >>>>>>> that other editors make texting hard)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
> >>>>>> need a dedicated text messaging app.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
> >>>>> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
> >>>>
> >>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
> >>>>
> >>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
> >>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
> >>
> >> there was.
> >
> >I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
> >child like urge to comment.
> >As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."
>
> He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
> word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
and criticize it, just as you are doing here.

when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
criticize me for doing what you normally do.

you're a hypocrite, among other things.

J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]

February 16th 17, 12:01 AM

In message >, Tony Cooper
> writes:
[]
>He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
>word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.

WORD'S?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
>I would seriously doubt if anyone was confused by the OP's error.
>
I suspect you're right.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're playing a killer monster, be very quiet. -
Anthony Hopkins, RT 2016/10/22-28

J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]

February 16th 17, 12:03 AM

In message >, Mayayana
> writes:
[]
>try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
>your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
>the same image each time, even if you set JPG
>compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
>software.) JPG always loses data with each save.
>
I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case, what
does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're playing a killer monster, be very quiet. -
Anthony Hopkins, RT 2016/10/22-28

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 12:37 AM

On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> said:

> In message >, Mayayana
> > writes:
> []
>> try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
>> your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
>> the same image each time, even if you set JPG
>> compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
>> software.) JPG always loses data with each save.
>>
> I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
> what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?

It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.

Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
file size might have grown.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]

February 16th 17, 01:27 AM

In message <20170215163740260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> writes:
>On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> said:
>
>> In message >, Mayayana
> writes:
>> []
>>> try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
>>> your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
>>> the same image each time, even if you set JPG
>>> compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
>>> software.) JPG always loses data with each save.
>>>
>> I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
>>what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?
>
>It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
>will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
>with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
>going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
>save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
>setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
>very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.
>
>Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
>will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
>file size might have grown.

So are you saying there are two different _sorts_ of data compression
applied when you save a JPEG?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 16th 17, 01:48 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:54:40 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>> >>>>>>> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
>> >>>>>>> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
>> >>>>>>> the canvas.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>> >>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
>> >>>>>>> that other editors make texting hard)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>> >>>>>> need a dedicated text messaging app.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
>> >>>>> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
>> >>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
>> >>
>> >> there was.
>> >
>> >I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
>> >child like urge to comment.
>> >As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."
>>
>> He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
>> word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.
>
>says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
>going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
>and criticize it, just as you are doing here.
>
>when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
>criticize me for doing what you normally do.
>
Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

*Unless they brag about how good their English is.

What lie? What was twisted?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 16th 17, 01:49 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:01:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:

>In message >, Tony Cooper
> writes:
>[]
>>He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
>>word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.
>
>WORD'S?
>
>(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

It's a fair cop, Guv.

>>
>>I would seriously doubt if anyone was confused by the OP's error.
>>
>I suspect you're right.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 01:57 AM

On 2017-02-16 01:27:07 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> said:

> In message <20170215163740260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> > writes:
>> On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> > said:
>>
>>> In message >, Mayayana
>>> > writes:
>>> []
>>>> try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
>>>> your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
>>>> the same image each time, even if you set JPG
>>>> compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
>>>> software.) JPG always loses data with each save.
>>>>
>>> I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
>>> what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?
>>
>> It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
>> will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
>> with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
>> going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
>> save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
>> setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
>> very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.
>>
>> Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
>> will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
>> file size might have grown.
>
> So are you saying there are two different _sorts_ of data compression
> applied when you save a JPEG?

No.

I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
settings made in the software. One might not initially detect that
compression or image degradation, but it is always there and will be
exbacerbated with subsequent saves/resaves/saves as. JPEG files are
always lossy.

Different software might express how compression is selected
differently. Some software might adjust compression by setting alleged
quality of the saved JPEG as a percentage of quality; i.e. 100% not
meaning that there will be no compression, but just the least
compression that particular software is capable of. There will always
be compression, it is in the nature of JPEG files which are a lossy
format. That is equally true of software which expresses compression or
file save quality in other ways, as a percentage of compression, or on
a quality scale of 1-10. Compression of any image file
saved/resaved/saved as JPEG will always exist. The degree of
compression can be adjusted, but the damage and degradation is
cumulative for each subsequent JPEG save.

If you want to maintain image quality through editing or adjustment
start with RAW image files and work on lossless file types such as
TIFF, PSD, or even PNG. Only once you are done editing/adjusting a RAW
or lossless image file, should you save a JPEG for whatever purpose you
had in mind.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam

February 16th 17, 02:10 AM

In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

> >> >>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best
> >> >>>>>>> freebie
> >> >>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
> >> >>>>>>> that other editors make texting hard)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that,
> >> >>>>>> you need a dedicated text messaging app.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other
> >> >>>>> the English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as
> >> >>>> annotating.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
> >> >>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
> >> >>
> >> >> there was.
> >> >
> >> >I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
> >> >child like urge to comment.
> >> >As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."
> >>
> >> He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
> >> word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.
> >
> >says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
> >going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
> >and criticize it, just as you are doing here.
> >
> >when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
> >criticize me for doing what you normally do.
> >
> Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
> know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

and in fact, i do know better.

as usual, you are butting in just to attack.

the person in question is a well known troll who lives in the santa
cruz mountains and is a native english speaker. he regularly spoofs his
address, however, his style is unmistakable and easily outed.

both savageduck and myself know him quite well from other newsgroups.

> *Unless they brag about how good their English is.
>
> What lie? What was twisted?

everything.

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 02:13 AM

On 2017-02-16 01:48:52 +0000, Tony Cooper > said:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:54:40 -0500, nospam >
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, Tony Cooper
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Windows XP, I use Irfanview thumbnail-selected batch mode to JPG
>>>>>>>>>> lossless flip JPEG files and then Irfanview batch mode to shrink JPEG files
>>>>>>>>>> and then add a canvas and then I use Paint.NET to add captions inside
>>>>>>>>>> the canvas.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best freebie
>>>>>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
>>>>>>>>>> that other editors make texting hard)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that, you
>>>>>>>>> need a dedicated text messaging app.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other the
>>>>>>>> English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as annotating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
>>>>>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> there was.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
>>>> child like urge to comment.
>>>> As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."
>>>
>>> He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
>>> word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.
>>
>> says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
>> going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
>> and criticize it, just as you are doing here.
>>
>> when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
>> criticize me for doing what you normally do.
>>
> Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
> know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.

The OP is not Dutch. He lives in Santa Clara County, in the hills above
San Jose, and claims to have an Ivy League education.

He is a well known Nym shifter and ISP falsifier. He can be found
voicing his opinion using various nyms in misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.mobile.ipad, and comp.mobile.android.

Sometimes he is genuinely seeking advice and help, and I am prepared to
render whatever advice and assistance I can, until the thread degrades
into a troll fest.

> *Unless they brag about how good their English is.

Without claiming Dutch nationality, he has already made that boast in
other NG's, along with many other types of unsubstantiated boast.

> What lie? What was twisted?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 02:19 AM

"PeterN" > wrote

| Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.
|
|
<https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/>
|

I still don't really get it. It's the term itself.
Does it refer to the image as a 2-D space?
If I look in PSP I see resizing the canvas. It
seems to mean the same as creating a new
image and pasting the image onto that, which
is what I would do. So when Stijn refers to
"adding a canvas" does he mean that --
creating a larger background around the
original image?

nospam

February 16th 17, 02:23 AM

In article <2017021518133987929-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck > wrote:

> >>
> > Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
> > know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.
>
> The OP is not Dutch. He lives in Santa Clara County, in the hills above
> San Jose, and claims to have an Ivy League education.
>
> He is a well known Nym shifter and ISP falsifier. He can be found
> voicing his opinion using various nyms in misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
> comp.mobile.ipad, and comp.mobile.android.

and the numerous (often irrelevant) groups to which he crossposts.

> Sometimes he is genuinely seeking advice and help, and I am prepared to
> render whatever advice and assistance I can, until the thread degrades
> into a troll fest.

which is usually rather quickly because he ignores the advice and
starts ranting.

> > *Unless they brag about how good their English is.
>
> Without claiming Dutch nationality, he has already made that boast in
> other NG's, along with many other types of unsubstantiated boast.

indeed he has.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 02:43 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:10:49 -0500, PeterN wrote:

> Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.
>
> <https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhrQ1EyoTY>

Here is an example of an original file, and then the file with a canvas
batch added automatically by Irvanview, and then that file annotated in
three ways in Paint.NET (which does those three annotations better than any
other free program alive that I know of).

Please note I'm explaining below all the steps I do with batches of files
that contain hundreds upon hundreds of files - but in this particular case,
we're only working on a single file.

STARTING POINT:
1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels.
http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blue-van2-1486597218.jpg

1. This is the original 1,439KB photo that I saved from the above URL:
http://i.cubeupload.com/DAZw1N.jpg
a. Irfanview: File > Open > fname.jpg
b. Irfanview: File > Thumbnails
c. Thumbnails: Options > Select all
d. Thumbnails: File > JPG Lossless Operations > Lossless rotation with
selected files
e. Irfanview: File > Start batch dialog with selected files
f. In the batch dialog, I set the "Options" to resize to 800x600 and to
save at 80% Quality (and nothing else). I also set the "Advanced" options
to add a white canvas to the bottom. If I want, I can set a trillion other
options, but I won't bother explaining them here.

Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Options":
http://i.cubeupload.com/l6gNYt.jpg

Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Advanced" options:
http://i.cubeupload.com/sz8Zar.jpg

2. This is the photo after Irfanview 80% batch resized it to 800x600 &
Irfanview added a white canvas to the bottom:
http://i.cubeupload.com/qfcHIm.jpg
It is now 149 KB.

3. This is the photo after annotating with Paint.NET:
http://i.cubeupload.com/wpMEIS.jpg
It is now 187 KB.

4. This is the photo re-re-sized by Irfanview at 80% Quality:
http://i.cubeupload.com/tYHmt8.jpg
It is now 184 KB.

Hmmm... again, it didn't show the almost doubling of size I normally see.

I think the starting point photo is the difference, since I normally start
with my own photos from my own camera, and not with photos from the web!

I need to do the test again, but with my own photos!

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 02:43 AM

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 02:44 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:56:19 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> It's interesting that IV seems to have brightened
> the image saved, while PN didn't.

Thank you for noticing that anomaly.
I think it's because I have the "Auto adjust colors" option set in
Irfanview by default!
http://i.cubeupload.com/kB1aI5.jpg

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 02:48 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:57:17 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
> subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
> settings made in the software

I can't argue what you're saying, but I will point out that Irfanview has
what they call a JPG "lossless" crop and rotation, so they must be special
cases in some way.

http://i.cubeupload.com/OymrtK.jpg

nospam

February 16th 17, 02:50 AM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> > I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
> > subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
> > settings made in the software
>
> I can't argue what you're saying, but I will point out that Irfanview has
> what they call a JPG "lossless" crop and rotation, so they must be special
> cases in some way.

they are.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 02:59 AM

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote

| I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case, what
| does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?

As far as I know it's an arbitrary scale. It's
not percentage, although that seems like a
reasonable assumption.

I don't really understand how it all works, except
that uniqueness between pixels is dropped out in
ways that the human eye tends not to notice, in
order to require less data to store the image pixels.
Or to put it another way, the image is degraded in
a very clever way to make it look as good as possible
despite the damage.

The 0-100 Quality scale does correspond to a
degree of compression, but the 0-100 range itself
seems to be just a convenience -- a handy numeric
range to convey the realitsic range of compression.
There's a chart here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

It correlates compression ratio with Quality factor.
But even that seems to be deceptive, because it's
lossy compression. So it's not really a factor of how
much compression there is but of how much data is
dropped out. If there's also a ZIP-style compression
operation involved I don't know what it is.

The article explains that the highest quality is encoded
at 8-9 bits per pixel. An actual displayed pixel is 24-bit,
so that seems to be about 2/3 of the data dropped out,
by reducing uniqueness. The 8-9 would be an average.
That can be clearly seen in the J.P.G. "gravestone" sample
images. At lower compression levels there's extreme
dithering. At each level there's less uniqueness in any
given area.

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 03:08 AM

On 2017-02-16 02:48:51 +0000, Stijn De Jong > said:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:57:17 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
>> subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
>> settings made in the software
>
> I can't argue what you're saying, but I will point out that Irfanview has
> what they call a JPG "lossless" crop and rotation, so they must be special
> cases in some way.
>
> http://i.cubeupload.com/OymrtK.jpg

That applies only to crop and/or rotation without additional
adjustment, editing or resizing, made to a rotated or cropped image
with the "JPG lossless" function applied.
This is one of those features which can work occassionally, but is
generally subject to the same lossy characteristics of all JPEG's.
Again, one would need to make a close examination of the
uncropped/unrotated original JPG against the "JPG Lossless
crop/rotation" result to determine the degree of success of the
Irfanview "JPG Lossless crop/rotation" claim. You might get away with
using that once or twice, but the failings of JPEG compression will
catch up with you.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 03:15 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:19:14 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> I still don't really get it. It's the term itself.
> Does it refer to the image as a 2-D space?
> If I look in PSP I see resizing the canvas. It
> seems to mean the same as creating a new
> image and pasting the image onto that, which
> is what I would do. So when Stijn refers to
> "adding a canvas" does he mean that --
> creating a larger background around the
> original image?

Here is where I get the word "canvas" from.

When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of
an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create
that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas".

1. Irfanview Canvas:
Here is the Irfanview GUI to create that border white space:
http://i.cubeupload.com/CrZ318.jpg

2. Paint.NET Canvas:
Here is the Paint.NET GUI to create that border white space.
http://i.cubeupload.com/7NwPzt.jpg

Both Irfanview and Paint.NET call it the "canvas".
So I call it the canvas.

Do you call it something else?

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 03:25 AM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| 2. This is the photo after Irfanview 80% batch resized it to 800x600 &
| Irfanview added a white canvas to the bottom:
| http://i.cubeupload.com/qfcHIm.jpg
| It is now 149 KB.

I see. I think it's deceptive to think of "adding
a canvas". IV has decompressed the JPG in order
to display it and then paints that on the larger
background that you specify. At that point it's a
bitmap that's been painted to a larger background
bitmap. There's no loss of data there.

Once you resave that it's going back to JPG so
you'll lose data. You then open that in PN and add
text, then save. PN is doing the same thing. It has
to decompress and render a bitmap in order to work
on the image, but then when you resave as JPG it's
compressing that bitmap, which is already an image
of a compressed image.

It's misleading to think of it as just an image that
you're moving here and there. As a bitmap that's
true. A bitmap is just that: a map of each pixel's
color values as numbers. When that's saved to JPG
the map is simplified so that it can take up less space.
But it's lossy. So when you then open the image again
you're opening a bitmap that's had data dumped. You
can't get that detail back. That happens every time
you work on it. Save a bitmap 20 times and it's still
the same bitmap. Save a JPG 20 times and you reduce
it to sludge.

If you could do the ops all at once you'd be better
off. Do all of the operations in PN, then save as TIF,
in case you want that image for something later.
(In this case TIF should be just a bitmap with lossless
compression. You can also save it as a BMP, but a
BMP can be shrunk to about 10% original size by
just applying ZIP compression, which doesn't change
the bitmap. So TIFs are the same thing but smaller.)

Then you can also save as JPG when you're done,
if necessary. That will give you the best possible quality
and you can then play with reducing JPG quality in order
to get a smaller file. Or if the size is not critical and
you'e putting it online, you can save to PNG. That
will shrink the file size without losing data. But it
won't get as small.

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 16th 17, 03:25 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:10:47 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:
>
>> >> >>>>>>> That works fine, especially since Paint.NET is one of the best
>> >> >>>>>>> freebie
>> >> >>>>>>> editors on Windows for texting correctly (there are a zillion ways
>> >> >>>>>>> that other editors make texting hard)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> paint.net does not text, nor does any other image editor. for that,
>> >> >>>>>> you need a dedicated text messaging app.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> You could not figure out that a native speaker of a language other
>> >> >>>>> the English meant "...for adding text (to an image)"?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> that's called annotating, not texting.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> texting has a well defined meaning which is not the same as
>> >> >>>> annotating.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Yes. It's obvious he made an error in the choice of his words. What
>> >> >>> is also obvious is that there was no need to point it out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> there was.
>> >> >
>> >> >I agree, there was a need to point it out. The need was to satisfy your
>> >> >child like urge to comment.
>> >> >As you have so often said, "it was "picking on words."
>> >>
>> >> He doesn't like it when his are picked on, but jumps in to pick on the
>> >> word's of others when the wrong one is chosen.
>> >
>> >says the person who jumps on the words of others, particularly me,
>> >going so far to intentionally lie and twist what i say solely to argue
>> >and criticize it, just as you are doing here.
>> >
>> >when others make 'an obvious error', you give them a free pass and then
>> >criticize me for doing what you normally do.
>> >
>> Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
>> know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.
>
>and in fact, i do know better.
>
>as usual, you are butting in just to attack.
>
>the person in question is a well known troll who lives in the santa
>cruz mountains and is a native english speaker. he regularly spoofs his
>address, however, his style is unmistakable and easily outed.
>
>both savageduck and myself know him quite well from other newsgroups.
>
Well, then, I apologize. I wasn't aware of that.

Why, if you knew this, did you even bother to reply?

>> *Unless they brag about how good their English is.
>>
>> What lie? What was twisted?
>
>everything.

No, no lie, nothing twisted, just a lack of knowledge about the
backstory.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 03:30 AM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote
|
| > I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
| > subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
| > settings made in the software
|
| I can't argue what you're saying, but I will point out that Irfanview has
| what they call a JPG "lossless" crop and rotation, so they must be special
| cases in some way.

That's an interesting one. IV must be altering
the data storage to do something like turn the
orientation 90 degrees without changing the image
data. But that's a special case. In general, any
JPG save will lose data.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 03:32 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:56:19 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> Whaddaya mean, resized?

In the original post, I "resized" the files.
In the baseline test, I did NOT resize the files.

The reason I didn't resize the files in the baseline test is that I had
*expected* the size from Paint.NET alone to be larger in all cases (it
wasn't - but that was my test).

In the original post, I do what I do all the time:
1. I start with a set of original JPEG files from the phone.
2. In one step, I use Irfanview to batch lossless rotate & reset EXIF
orientation
3. In the second batch step, I use Irfanview to batch resize them to
800x600 pixels and to add a 50-pixel white canvas to the bottom.
4. Since all other known photo-editing programs, including Irfanview, stink
for adding text, circling areas, and for adding curved and dotted arrows, I
use Paint.NET for annotating the photographs (often they are screenshots).

I find when I am done with Step 4. the file sizes are as much as twice as
large as they were at the end of Step 3!

So I run a Step 5, which is simply to batch resize the files in Irfanview
again.

> I assumed these were
> all images of the same pixel dimensions, but resaved
> and with added text. (I'm not sure what you mean by
> adding a canvas. A monotone rectandgle for text?)

This is Usenet so it's hard for me to describe things to you that I do all
day, every day - so I'll show you what I mean by adding a canvas simply by
referrring to these screenshots which I just did for a thread in the mobile
phone group (where we are looking up how to test the signal strength of the
local cellular tower):

01 Network Cell Info Lite, version 3.30:
http://i.cubeupload.com/HoKTav.jpg
http://wilysis.com/networkcellinfo
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite

02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.android.telnet

03 GSM Signal Monitoring, version 4.02:
http://i.cubeupload.com/V9O0Gg.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.signalmonitoring.gsmsignalmonitorin g

04 Netmonitor, version 1.2.15:
http://i.cubeupload.com/TfDJaS.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor

05 CellID Info:, version 1.2.2:
http://i.cubeupload.com/X3gsfb.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.its_here.cellidinfo

06 RF Toolbox (Cell Monitor), version 2.26:
http://i.cubeupload.com/y2YfEV.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.btapps.rftoolbox

07 WiGle WiFi Wardriving (which also reports cellular towers):
http://i.cubeupload.com/ZPva3O.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wigle.wigleandroid

08. OpenSignal, version 5.10:
http://i.cubeupload.com/BwfSFa.jpg
https://opensignal.com/app/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.staircase3.opensignal
etc.

I didn't put any arrows on those pictures, but everything else I did, which
was batch resize and then batch add a canvas, and then annotate
individually using Paint.NET, and then batch resize again in Irfanview (to
get the file size back to reasonable after saving with Paint.NET).

01 Network Cell Info Lite, version 3.30:
http://i.cubeupload.com/HoKTav.jpg
http://wilysis.com/networkcellinfo
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite

02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.android.telnet

03 GSM Signal Monitoring, version 4.02:
http://i.cubeupload.com/V9O0Gg.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.signalmonitoring.gsmsignalmonitorin g

04 Netmonitor, version 1.2.15:
http://i.cubeupload.com/TfDJaS.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor

05 CellID Info:, version 1.2.2:
http://i.cubeupload.com/X3gsfb.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.its_here.cellidinfo

06 RF Toolbox (Cell Monitor), version 2.26:
http://i.cubeupload.com/y2YfEV.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.btapps.rftoolbox

07 WiGle WiFi Wardriving (which also reports cellular towers):
http://i.cubeupload.com/ZPva3O.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wigle.wigleandroid

08. OpenSignal, version 5.10:
http://i.cubeupload.com/BwfSFa.jpg
https://opensignal.com/app/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.staircase3.opensignal
etc.

nospam

February 16th 17, 03:37 AM

In article >, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

> >> >
> >> Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*, You should
> >> know better. Try responding to the OP in Dutch.
> >
> >and in fact, i do know better.
> >
> >as usual, you are butting in just to attack.
> >
> >the person in question is a well known troll who lives in the santa
> >cruz mountains and is a native english speaker. he regularly spoofs his
> >address, however, his style is unmistakable and easily outed.
> >
> >both savageduck and myself know him quite well from other newsgroups.
> >
> Well, then, I apologize. I wasn't aware of that.

ok

> Why, if you knew this, did you even bother to reply?

many reasons, one being that he used incorrect terminology.

nospam

February 16th 17, 03:37 AM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

> | > I am saying that whenever you save, resave, or save as a JPEG it is
> | > subject to degradation of image quality regardless of the compression
> | > settings made in the software
> |
> | I can't argue what you're saying, but I will point out that Irfanview has
> | what they call a JPG "lossless" crop and rotation, so they must be special
> | cases in some way.
>
> That's an interesting one. IV must be altering
> the data storage to do something like turn the
> orientation 90 degrees without changing the image
> data. But that's a special case. In general, any
> JPG save will lose data.

it's a simple transform that does not require decompressing and
recompressing, thus lossless.

Paul[_32_]

February 16th 17, 03:43 AM

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <20170215163740260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> > writes:
>> On 2017-02-16 00:03:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> > said:
>>
>>> In message >, Mayayana
>>> > writes:
>>> []
>>>> try saving to JPG and see what you get. If all of
>>>> your saves are to JPG then you're not dealing with
>>>> the same image each time, even if you set JPG
>>>> compression at "100". (Or 0, depending on the
>>>> software.) JPG always loses data with each save.
>>>>
>>> I've long suspected it to be as you say, but if that _is_ the case,
>>> what does the 100% (or 0) actually _mean_?
>>
>> It means that the compression algorithm of whatever software is in use
>> will not apply additional compression beyond the lossyness to be found
>> with each save/resave. Unfortunately, JPEG being what it is, is always
>> going to be subject to a degree of data and IQ loss on each
>> save/resave. Using a 100% or 0% (depending on software) compression
>> setting will still result in data loss, and will more than likely have
>> very visible JPEG compression artifacts present.
>>
>> Do that enough times and add in resizing, the degradation in the JPEG
>> will be unacceptable to all but the least critical eye, even if the
>> file size might have grown.
>
> So are you saying there are two different _sorts_ of data compression
> applied when you save a JPEG?

The tombstone pictures about 75% down this web page,
show the tradeoff of compression ratio to image quality.
JPEG uses DCT (discrete cosine transform), to do a
frequency domain analysis of an image. The highest
frequencies can be discarded, on "non-cartoon images",
to great effect, so you can get a decent compression
ratio, while fooling the human eye into thinking
there is little degradation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg

"More modern designs such as JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR
exhibit a more graceful degradation of quality as
the bit usage decreases – by using transforms with
a larger spatial extent for the lower frequency
coefficients and by using overlapping transform
basis functions."

One thing JPEG doesn't like, is "sharp edges".

Things similar to cartoons, work best with GIF
(which uses a lossless compressor).

Any time you have "content" in hand, you have to
select the best format for the content type. And JPEG
isn't always my favorite (ringing on sharp edges).

Paul

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 03:46 AM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| Here is where I get the word "canvas" from.
|
| When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of
| an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create
| that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas".

| Do you call it something else?

Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term
before. If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste
the image onto a larger white image and merge the
two. If I need a white stripe in the existing image
I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas
that holds the image. I'm always thinking in terms
of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it
always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by
painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
because that's how Windows graphics works.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 03:50 AM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| > Whaddaya mean, resized?
|
| In the original post, I "resized" the files.
| In the baseline test, I did NOT resize the files.
|
| The reason I didn't resize the files in the baseline test is that I had
| *expected* the size from Paint.NET alone to be larger in all cases (it
| wasn't - but that was my test).

I think we're "crossing in the mail" here. I figured
out what you were talking about. Though I don't
know why PN might be resaving significantly bigger
when all you've done was to add text.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 03:56 AM

"nospam" > wrote

| > That's an interesting one. IV must be altering
| > the data storage to do something like turn the
| > orientation 90 degrees without changing the image
| > data. But that's a special case. In general, any
| > JPG save will lose data.
|
| it's a simple transform that does not require decompressing and
| recompressing, thus lossless.

Not simple at all. To be lossless it has to
unpack and rearrange the encoded image
data without going through a step of unpacking
to bitmap and re-encoding. But if it's simple
for you I'd be very interested to see your code
to accomplish it. I'm guessing it's quite a trick.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 04:03 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:50:15 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> I think we're "crossing in the mail" here. I figured
> out what you were talking about. Though I don't
> know why PN might be resaving significantly bigger
> when all you've done was to add text.

I have to run a more complex experiment with my own pictures and not with
pictures taken off the net, because I *always* see bigger files coming out
of Paint.NET when I use my own photos from my phone.

So I have to re-run the experiment on a different set of more realistic
files than the one photo I pulled off the net as a testcase.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 04:03 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:46:47 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term
> before.

I understand. Your question is perfectly valid about the use of the word
"canvas".

I'm using nouns like adding a "canvas" and verbs such as "texting,
arrowing, circling", etc., so it's a perfectly valid question to ask what I
mean by those terms.

If there are better single words for what I've called "canvas", "texting",
"arrowing", and "circling", all someone has to do is suggest the
replacement word and I'll use it.

This thread isn't about 'words'; it's about image editing.

> If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste
> the image onto a larger white image and merge the
> two.

But how do you do that for hundreds of photos on Windows using freeware?

> If I need a white stripe in the existing image
> I'd paint it with a shapes tool.

Again, how would you do that in a batch operation for hundreds of photos on
Windows using freeware?

> I guess I've never
> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas
> that holds the image.

I love the way that Irvanview does the canvas.
The way that paint.net does the canvas is very confusing.

If you look at the two canvassing GUIs, you'll see what I mean:

1. Irfanview: The canvassing gui is simple to understand:
http://i.cubeupload.com/CrZ318.jpg
2. Paint.NET: The canvassing gui is rather confusing to me:
http://i.cubeupload.com/7NwPzt.jpg

> I'm always thinking in terms
> of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it
> always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by
> painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
> because that's how Windows graphics works.

That makes sense, but, to me, adding "canvas" simply means adding a "border
area" of a certain color and number of pixels to a specific side or set of
sides.

So, for example, I like the simplicity of the Irfanview canvassing GUI
which simply asks
a. What color? (answer = white)
b. What side(s)? (answer = bottom)
c. What size? (answer = 50 pixels)

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 04:03 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:30:46 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> That's an interesting one. IV must be altering
> the data storage to do something like turn the
> orientation 90 degrees without changing the image
> data. But that's a special case. In general, any
> JPG save will lose data.

That lossless JPEG orientation is very handy because, as you know, when you
bring over hundreds of photos from your phone, the orientation will be
every which way.

So the first thing I do is run an Irfanview thumbnail batch operation which
losslessly rotates all the hundreds of photos and re-saves the EXIF so that
the orientation tags are corrected.

After I losslessly rotate the hundreds of files, I then batch resize and
add canvas and often I batch rename the files.

Then, in Paint.NET, one by one, I caption and annotate the files.

Then, since they get bigger in that process, I go once more back to
Irfanview to batch save the files.

Then I can email them to my mailing list (which I do every day).

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 04:03 AM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:25:23 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> If you could do the ops all at once you'd be better
> off.

Lord knows that I'd *love* to do all the operations in one program, but, if
you've ever tried to do these three common things in any other free Windows
program but Paint.NET, you'll know that they all suck compared to how
Paint.NET does them.
1. Drawing curved arrows
2. Circling areas
3. Adding text

While almost all free image editors "do" those three things, and while most
can circle stuff and add text reasonably easily, absolutely none do all
three as well or as easily as does Paint.NET, and, by far, Paint.NET does
curved arrows better than any Windows freeware I have ever seen.

And I've been looking for decades!

Of course, if I love Paint.NET for those three things, why don't I just use
Paint.Net for the other things that I need, which is batch lossless EXIF
re-orientation, batch resizing, batch renaming, and batch adding a canvas?

The answer there is that Irfanview, bar none, is the best Windows freeware
for those three common tasks, especially when hundreds of files are
involved.

1. So, I use Irfanview for the batch operations.
2. And then I use Paint.NET for the annotation operations.
3. And then I re-use Irfanview to shrink back the Paint.NET results.

> Do all of the operations in PN, then save as TIF,

It's impossible, as far as I know, to do all the operations in Paint.NET.
I work on hundreds of files at a time, and I don't think Paint.NET has a
batch capability. Worse, it's downright HARD in Paint.NET to do the things
that are trivially easy to do in Irfanview.

a. So I use Irfanview for batch orientation, resize, crop, & canvas.
b. I only use Paint.NET for annotation (circles, text, & curved arrows).

I doubt there is any better software (free or otherwise) for those two sets
of operations.

> in case you want that image for something later.
> (In this case TIF should be just a bitmap with lossless
> compression. You can also save it as a BMP, but a
> BMP can be shrunk to about 10% original size by
> just applying ZIP compression, which doesn't change
> the bitmap. So TIFs are the same thing but smaller.)

I guess I could use lossless file formats, which is easily enough done in
Irfanview which can batch convert and rename the files from my phone (where
they are JPEGs) to a TIF file.

> Then you can also save as JPG when you're done,

This would make sense to do three operations:
1. Starting with the JPEG from my phone
2. The first operation is Irfanview batch orient, batch resize, batch
canvas, and batch convert to TIF.
3. Then in Paint.NET, I can annotate with circles, captions, and curved
arrows and then I'd save the TIF.
4. Then in Irfanview, I'd batch convert the hundreds of TIFs to JPEGs.

It seems like it would work (given the constraints).
Is that what you're suggesting?

> if necessary. That will give you the best possible quality
> and you can then play with reducing JPG quality in order
> to get a smaller file. Or if the size is not critical and
> you'e putting it online, you can save to PNG. That
> will shrink the file size without losing data. But it
> won't get as small.

I guess the intermediate format can be anything, so, TIF or PNG would be
fine with me.

nospam

February 16th 17, 04:36 AM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

>
> | > That's an interesting one. IV must be altering
> | > the data storage to do something like turn the
> | > orientation 90 degrees without changing the image
> | > data. But that's a special case. In general, any
> | > JPG save will lose data.
> |
> | it's a simple transform that does not require decompressing and
> | recompressing, thus lossless.
>
> Not simple at all. To be lossless it has to
> unpack and rearrange the encoded image
> data without going through a step of unpacking
> to bitmap and re-encoding. But if it's simple
> for you I'd be very interested to see your code
> to accomplish it. I'm guessing it's quite a trick.

this should clarify it:

<http://www.betterjpeg.com/lossless-rotation.htm>
JPEG images are stored as a number of relatively small independently
encoded rectangular blocks called Minimum Coded Units (MCU). Typical
dimensions of MCU blocks are 8x8, 8x16, 16x8 and 16x16 pixels. You
can often see boundaries between MCUs in low-quality JPEG images.

Fortunately enough, MCUs can be rotated in 90 degree steps or flipped
without having to be decompressed into bitmap and re-compressed back
to JPEG. This means that JPEG images can be rotated in 90 degree
steps and flipped without loss in quality.

However, there is a small catch to lossless rotation - possible
change in image dimensions.

In lossless operations an image is treated as a collection of MCU
blocks rather than individual pixels (in fact, the image is never
decoded to pixels for lossless transformations).

nospam

February 16th 17, 04:36 AM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

> That lossless JPEG orientation is very handy because, as you know, when you
> bring over hundreds of photos from your phone, the orientation will be
> every which way.

no they won't.

> So the first thing I do is run an Irfanview thumbnail batch operation which
> losslessly rotates all the hundreds of photos and re-saves the EXIF so that
> the orientation tags are corrected.

no need to do that and the tags are correct to begin with. that's the
whole point of the tag.

> After I losslessly rotate the hundreds of files, I then batch resize and
> add canvas and often I batch rename the files.
>
> Then, in Paint.NET, one by one, I caption and annotate the files.
>
> Then, since they get bigger in that process, I go once more back to
> Irfanview to batch save the files.
>
> Then I can email them to my mailing list (which I do every day).

that's a whole lot of unnecessary work.

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 04:39 AM

On 2017-02-16 03:46:47 +0000, "Mayayana" > said:

> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>
> | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from.
> |
> | When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of
> | an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create
> | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas".
>
> | Do you call it something else?
>
> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term
> before.

Even Photoshop uses the term "Canvas". Most everybody else has followed suit.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_08.jpg>

> If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste
> the image onto a larger white image and merge the
> two. If I need a white stripe in the existing image
> I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas
> that holds the image. I'm always thinking in terms
> of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it
> always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by
> painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
> because that's how Windows graphics works.

If you do it that way it is a bit of a kludge. Bitmap is a very old
Windows way of thinking. There are far simpler and efficient ways of
doing what you have described.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 04:58 AM

On 2017-02-16 04:03:32 +0000, Stijn De Jong > said:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:46:47 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term
>> before.
>
> I understand. Your question is perfectly valid about the use of the word
> "canvas".
>
> I'm using nouns like adding a "canvas" and verbs such as "texting,
> arrowing, circling", etc., so it's a perfectly valid question to ask what I
> mean by those terms.
>
> If there are better single words for what I've called "canvas", "texting",
> "arrowing", and "circling", all someone has to do is suggest the
> replacement word and I'll use it.
>
> This thread isn't about 'words'; it's about image editing.
>
>> If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste
>> the image onto a larger white image and merge the
>> two.
>
> But how do you do that for hundreds of photos on Windows using freeware?

It is your old "freeware" problem again.

Personally I would create an "Action" within Photoshop which can be
applied with a single click.
Another non-freeware solution would be to use Lightroom and a plug-in
capable of batch processing, two such examples are AlienSkin's
ExposureX2 and On1 Photo RAW.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2.jpg>

....and I know that none of those would work for you.
>
>> If I need a white stripe in the existing image
>> I'd paint it with a shapes tool.
>
> Again, how would you do that in a batch operation for hundreds of photos on
> Windows using freeware?

See above.

>> I guess I've never
>> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas
>> that holds the image.
>
> I love the way that Irvanview does the canvas. The way that paint.net
> does the canvas is very confusing.
>
> If you look at the two canvassing GUIs, you'll see what I mean:
>
> 1. Irfanview: The canvassing gui is simple to understand:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/CrZ318.jpg
> 2. Paint.NET: The canvassing gui is rather confusing to me:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/7NwPzt.jpg
>
>> I'm always thinking in terms
>> of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it
>> always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by
>> painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
>> because that's how Windows graphics works.
>
> That makes sense, but, to me, adding "canvas" simply means adding a "border
> area" of a certain color and number of pixels to a specific side or set of
> sides.

"Canvas" is the entire field containing the image.

> So, for example, I like the simplicity of the Irfanview canvassing GUI
> which simply asks a. What color? (answer = white)
> b. What side(s)? (answer = bottom)
> c. What size? (answer = 50 pixels)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 05:13 AM

On 2017-02-16 04:03:37 +0000, Stijn De Jong > said:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:25:23 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> If you could do the ops all at once you'd be better
>> off.
>
> Lord knows that I'd *love* to do all the operations in one program, but, if
> you've ever tried to do these three common things in any other free Windows
> program but Paint.NET, you'll know that they all suck compared to how
> Paint.NET does them.
> 1. Drawing curved arrows 2. Circling areas
> 3. Adding text
>
> While almost all free image editors "do" those three things, and while most
> can circle stuff and add text reasonably easily, absolutely none do all
> three as well or as easily as does Paint.NET, and, by far, Paint.NET does
> curved arrows better than any Windows freeware I have ever seen.
>
> And I've been looking for decades!

Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview":
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg>

>
> Of course, if I love Paint.NET for those three things, why don't I just use
> Paint.Net for the other things that I need, which is batch lossless EXIF
> re-orientation, batch resizing, batch renaming, and batch adding a canvas?
>
> The answer there is that Irfanview, bar none, is the best Windows freeware
> for those three common tasks, especially when hundreds of files are
> involved.

;-)

> 1. So, I use Irfanview for the batch operations.
> 2. And then I use Paint.NET for the annotation operations.
> 3. And then I re-use Irfanview to shrink back the Paint.NET results.
>
>> Do all of the operations in PN, then save as TIF,
>
> It's impossible, as far as I know, to do all the operations in Paint.NET.
> I work on hundreds of files at a time, and I don't think Paint.NET has a
> batch capability. Worse, it's downright HARD in Paint.NET to do the things
> that are trivially easy to do in Irfanview.
>
> a. So I use Irfanview for batch orientation, resize, crop, & canvas.
> b. I only use Paint.NET for annotation (circles, text, & curved arrows).
>
> I doubt there is any better software (free or otherwise) for those two sets
> of operations.

There you would be wrong.

>> in case you want that image for something later.
>> (In this case TIF should be just a bitmap with lossless
>> compression. You can also save it as a BMP, but a
>> BMP can be shrunk to about 10% original size by
>> just applying ZIP compression, which doesn't change
>> the bitmap. So TIFs are the same thing but smaller.)
>
> I guess I could use lossless file formats, which is easily enough done in
> Irfanview which can batch convert and rename the files from my phone (where
> they are JPEGs) to a TIF file.
>
>> Then you can also save as JPG when you're done,
>
> This would make sense to do three operations:
> 1. Starting with the JPEG from my phone

If you had an iPhone you could shoot RAW.

> 2. The first operation is Irfanview batch orient, batch resize, batch
> canvas, and batch convert to TIF.
> 3. Then in Paint.NET, I can annotate with circles, captions, and curved
> arrows and then I'd save the TIF.
> 4. Then in Irfanview, I'd batch convert the hundreds of TIFs to JPEGs.

Hundreds??

> It seems like it would work (given the constraints).
> Is that what you're suggesting?
>
>> if necessary. That will give you the best possible quality
>> and you can then play with reducing JPG quality in order
>> to get a smaller file. Or if the size is not critical and
>> you'e putting it online, you can save to PNG. That
>> will shrink the file size without losing data. But it
>> won't get as small.
>
> I guess the intermediate format can be anything, so, TIF or PNG would be
> fine with me.

Those would work.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 01:57 PM

"nospam" > wrote

| this should clarify it:
|
| <http://www.betterjpeg.com/lossless-rotation.htm>

Interesting. I didn't know about that. Still a complex
operation, though, with possible problems. It doesn't
seem like a rational way to deal with most images,
especially in this case, where the JPG is going to be
decompressed for further work anyway.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 02:04 PM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| That lossless JPEG orientation is very handy because, as you know, when
you
| bring over hundreds of photos from your phone, the orientation will be
| every which way.
|

I'm happy to say that I actually don't know. I
turn on my Tracphone about once every 3 weeks...
whenever I need to make a call. :)

The method sounds handy insofar as that IV can
do a batch operation, but you end up damaging the
images more than necessary. As noted earlier, if you
first resave as BMP or TIF the result will be better
and IV should be able to batch-process those. The
only reason for JPG at all is to be able to send a
small file.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 02:09 PM

"Savageduck" > wrote

| > While almost all free image editors "do" those three things, and while
most
| > can circle stuff and add text reasonably easily, absolutely none do all
| > three as well or as easily as does Paint.NET, and, by far, Paint.NET
does
| > curved arrows better than any Windows freeware I have ever seen.
| >
| > And I've been looking for decades!
|
| Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview":
|
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg>
|

According to Wikipedia that's a Mac-only program.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 02:31 PM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| > Then you can also save as JPG when you're done,
|
| This would make sense to do three operations:
| 1. Starting with the JPEG from my phone
| 2. The first operation is Irfanview batch orient, batch resize, batch
| canvas, and batch convert to TIF.
| 3. Then in Paint.NET, I can annotate with circles, captions, and curved
| arrows and then I'd save the TIF.
| 4. Then in Irfanview, I'd batch convert the hundreds of TIFs to JPEGs.
|
| It seems like it would work (given the constraints).
| Is that what you're suggesting?
|

Almost. Convert to TIF or BMP would be the
first step. You want to avoid any operations
on the JPG. Don't do *anything* with the image
until you convert it to a lossless format. You
*could* do the lossless orient, but as I understand
it that can damage the image around the edges,
and there's no need to risk that if you're converting
anyway.
I'd convert to BMP or TIF first and then do resize
next. That saves a lot of processing. There's no
sense turning and adding canvas to a 2500x2500 image
if you're just going to shrink it to 600x600 anyway.

| I guess the intermediate format can be anything, so, TIF or PNG would be
| fine with me.

Anything lossless. PNG is lossless, but it's probably
very work intensive compared to TIF. GIF is lossy
in the sense that it reduces the number of colors to
256. JPG is lossy.

All of the images are essentially bitmaps. TIF is
a bitmap with ZIP-style compression. I just tried
saving a complex, detailed 1 MB BMP to TIF and
PNG. PNG: 712 KB. TIF with LZW compression: 553 KB.
TIF with ZIP compression: 702 KB. So it looks like
TIF LZW is probably best and it may be faster than
PNG. But all of that also depends on how you feel
about your disk space. I usually just save things
as BMP for convenience, but that takes the most
space. 24-bit color means 3 bytes per pixel - one
byte (256 possible hues) for each of the R, G and B.
So a 100x100 image is 10,000 pixels, which would be
30000 bytes, which would mean there's actually about
30 MB of image data. TIF will shrink it a bit by
compressing it as data. The only advantage of PNG
I know of is that it supports transparency and it's
supported by all recent-vintage browsers.

Mayayana

February 16th 17, 02:35 PM

"Savageduck" > wrote

| > This would make sense to do three operations:
| > 1. Starting with the JPEG from my phone
|
| If you had an iPhone you could shoot RAW.
|

Then what free RAW program is he going to use to
batch-process those images? UFRaw? That's the only
one I know of and after trying it I bought Aftershot Pro.

He's just taking lots of phone shots, editing them
and sharing them as greatly reduced JPGs. It seems
to me that starting with RAW would be a bit like
starting with fresh, organic oregano and adding that
to a bottle of Ragu. It started out top quality, but
it's unlikely anyone will taste the difference. :)
Plus there's the cost of the oregano.

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 03:04 PM

On 2017-02-16 14:09:49 +0000, "Mayayana" > said:

> "Savageduck" > wrote
>
> | > While almost all free image editors "do" those three things, and while
> most
> | > can circle stuff and add text reasonably easily, absolutely none do all
> | > three as well or as easily as does Paint.NET, and, by far, Paint.NET
> does
> | > curved arrows better than any Windows freeware I have ever seen.
> | >
> | > And I've been looking for decades!
> |
> | Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview":
> |
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg>
> |
>
> According to Wikipedia that's a Mac-only program.

Correct. There are also Mac users in the room.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam

February 16th 17, 04:55 PM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

>
> | this should clarify it:
> |
> | <http://www.betterjpeg.com/lossless-rotation.htm>
>
> Interesting. I didn't know about that. Still a complex
> operation, though, with possible problems.

it's not that complex, other than dealing with partial blocks.

it's also been done by others, so there's no need to reimplement it
again. use what's built into the os and/or a jpeg library.

> It doesn't
> seem like a rational way to deal with most images,
> especially in this case, where the JPG is going to be
> decompressed for further work anyway.

his changes are localized so it's possible to leave most of the image
lossless and only recompress the changed parts. some image editors do
that.

however, it's not worth the effort since there is no visible difference
between uncompressed and high quality jpegs. do a subtraction to see
what the loss actually is.

nospam

February 16th 17, 04:55 PM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

> |
> | Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview":
> |
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg>
> |
>
> According to Wikipedia that's a Mac-only program.

note that he said 'apple's preview'.

nospam

February 16th 17, 04:55 PM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

>
> | > This would make sense to do three operations:
> | > 1. Starting with the JPEG from my phone
> |
> | If you had an iPhone you could shoot RAW.
> |
>
> Then what free RAW program is he going to use to
> batch-process those images? UFRaw? That's the only
> one I know of and after trying it I bought Aftershot Pro.

no need to restrict oneself to free, especially since the apps are
typically a couple of bucks.

> He's just taking lots of phone shots, editing them
> and sharing them as greatly reduced JPGs. It seems
> to me that starting with RAW would be a bit like
> starting with fresh, organic oregano and adding that
> to a bottle of Ragu. It started out top quality, but
> it's unlikely anyone will taste the difference. :)
> Plus there's the cost of the oregano.

raw is definitely overkill for photos posted to an email list, but the
point is that shooting raw eliminates any degradation entirely, up
until the very end.

Neil

February 16th 17, 05:38 PM

On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>
> | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a
> colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an
> image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to
> create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as
> a "canvas".
>
> | Do you call it something else?
>
> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm
> adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white
> image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing
> image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the
> image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual
> practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be
> accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
> because that's how Windows graphics works.
>
It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any
other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the
1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting
techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help
them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same
context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel
grid size while retaining the original image dimensions.

--
best regards,

Neil

Tony Cooper[_2_]

February 16th 17, 05:52 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil >
wrote:

>On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>>
>> | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a
>> colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an
>> image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to
>> create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as
>> a "canvas".
>>
>> | Do you call it something else?
>>
>> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm
>> adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white
>> image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing
>> image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
>> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the
>> image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual
>> practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be
>> accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
>> because that's how Windows graphics works.
>>
>It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any
>other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the
>1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting
>techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help
>them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same
>context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel
>grid size while retaining the original image dimensions.

Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the
"Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word
"Canvas" to describe the overall image.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

PeterN[_2_]

February 16th 17, 06:02 PM

On 2/15/2017 9:43 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:10:49 -0500, PeterN wrote:
>
>> Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop.
>>
>> <https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhrQ1EyoTY>
>
> Here is an example of an original file, and then the file with a canvas
> batch added automatically by Irvanview, and then that file annotated in
> three ways in Paint.NET (which does those three annotations better than any
> other free program alive that I know of).
>
> Please note I'm explaining below all the steps I do with batches of files
> that contain hundreds upon hundreds of files - but in this particular case,
> we're only working on a single file.
>
> STARTING POINT:
> 1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels.
> http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blue-van2-1486597218.jpg
>
>
> 1. This is the original 1,439KB photo that I saved from the above URL:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/DAZw1N.jpg
> a. Irfanview: File > Open > fname.jpg
> b. Irfanview: File > Thumbnails
> c. Thumbnails: Options > Select all
> d. Thumbnails: File > JPG Lossless Operations > Lossless rotation with
> selected files
> e. Irfanview: File > Start batch dialog with selected files
> f. In the batch dialog, I set the "Options" to resize to 800x600 and to
> save at 80% Quality (and nothing else). I also set the "Advanced" options
> to add a white canvas to the bottom. If I want, I can set a trillion other
> options, but I won't bother explaining them here.
> Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Options":
> http://i.cubeupload.com/l6gNYt.jpg
>
> Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Advanced" options:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/sz8Zar.jpg
>
> 2. This is the photo after Irfanview 80% batch resized it to 800x600 &
> Irfanview added a white canvas to the bottom:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/qfcHIm.jpg
> It is now 149 KB.
>
> 3. This is the photo after annotating with Paint.NET:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/wpMEIS.jpg
> It is now 187 KB.
>
> 4. This is the photo re-re-sized by Irfanview at 80% Quality:
> http://i.cubeupload.com/tYHmt8.jpg
> It is now 184 KB.
>
> Hmmm... again, it didn't show the almost doubling of size I normally see.
>
> I think the starting point photo is the difference, since I normally start
> with my own photos from my own camera, and not with photos from the web!
>
> I need to do the test again, but with my own photos!

I have never used the freeware programs for processing and cannot
compare them to PS. I have changed the canvas size many times in PS, and
find it trivial to extend the canvas, on any side. As in many other
objectives, there are several methods to extend the canvas. For my
purposes a simple resize works just fine.

--
PeterN

PeterN[_2_]

February 16th 17, 06:11 PM

On 2/15/2017 8:48 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

What was twisted?
>

Do you mean his twisted mind has been cured?

--
PeterN

Neil

February 16th 17, 06:49 PM

On 2/16/2017 12:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>>>
>>> | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a
>>> colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an
>>> image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to
>>> create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as
>>> a "canvas".
>>>
>>> | Do you call it something else?
>>>
>>> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm
>>> adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white
>>> image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing
>>> image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
>>> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the
>>> image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual
>>> practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be
>>> accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
>>> because that's how Windows graphics works.
>>>
>> It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any
>> other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the
>> 1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting
>> techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help
>> them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same
>> context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel
>> grid size while retaining the original image dimensions.
>
> Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the
> "Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word
> "Canvas" to describe the overall image.
>
It's no more wrong than referring to "brushes", "paint bucket", "eraser"
or any of the other tools that have no real connection to physical world
objects of the same name.

--
best regards,

Neil

android

February 16th 17, 07:02 PM

Follow-up-To: rec.photo.digital

In article >, Neil >
wrote:

> On 2/16/2017 12:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> >>> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a
> >>> colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an
> >>> image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to
> >>> create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as
> >>> a "canvas".
> >>>
> >>> | Do you call it something else?
> >>>
> >>> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm
> >>> adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white
> >>> image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing
> >>> image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
> >>> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the
> >>> image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual
> >>> practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be
> >>> accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
> >>> because that's how Windows graphics works.
> >>>
> >> It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any
> >> other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the
> >> 1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting
> >> techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help
> >> them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same
> >> context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel
> >> grid size while retaining the original image dimensions.
> >
> > Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the
> > "Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word
> > "Canvas" to describe the overall image.
> >
> It's no more wrong than referring to "brushes", "paint bucket", "eraser"
> or any of the other tools that have no real connection to physical world
> objects of the same name.

Oki... So this is a Microsoft project that wants donations...

"It started development as an undergraduate college senior design
project mentored by Microsoft, and is currently being maintained by some
of the alumni that originally worked on it. Originally intended as a
free replacement for the Microsoft Paint software that comes with
Windows..."

<http://www.getpaint.net/donate.html>
--
teleportation kills

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 07:48 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:04:21 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> The method sounds handy insofar as that IV can
> do a batch operation, but you end up damaging the
> images more than necessary. As noted earlier, if you
> first resave as BMP or TIF the result will be better
> and IV should be able to batch-process those. The
> only reason for JPG at all is to be able to send a
> small file.

On Linux I batch Imagemagick commands which do all the same things (using
Kolourpaint freeware to perform the manual task of adding text, curved
arrows, and bounding boxes).

Kolourpaint is not as good as is Paint.NET for those three basic tasks:
1. Curved arrows
2. Bounding boxes
3. Text captions

But it is the best I could find on Linux.

Luckily, on Linux, I can move the rotation commands to the top, so,
converting to TIF is something that can put in the first few lines of the
shell script; but when batching in Irfanview on Windows, I don't know what
order Irfanviews uses for a conversion process.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 07:48 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:31:31 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> Almost. Convert to TIF or BMP would be the
> first step. You want to avoid any operations
> on the JPG. Don't do *anything* with the image
> until you convert it to a lossless format.

Thanks for that clarification to *first* convert to one of the many
lossless formats. That's trivially easy to do in batch with Irfanview, so,
that's a great suggestion.

Since I email the annotated shrunken results out to a list, I eventually
must shrink them (generally to 800x600 or to 640x480 if there are more than
25 or so).

In general, I snap each day about 100 pictures (rough estimate as the
number changes depending on the topic, where sometimes it's upwards of a
few hundred pictures and other times it's as low as a few dozen).

Then I copy them over to the computer and operate on them on the computer
(either Linux or Windows).

The captioning is the time-consuming part because it can't be automated.
Each picture has unique captions, arrows, circles, etc., similar to the
examples already previously shown.

While I have scripts on Linux which use ImageMagick commands to do all the
things (and more) that Irfanview does, what I love about Irfanview is that
I can just click buttons to do all the batch commands (so Irfanview is, in
effect, easier than Imagemagick batch scripts).

The only thing I don't know about Irfanview is what *order* it batches
things, so, for example, if I click the buttons to both crop and convert
the JPG to TIF, I don't know the order that Irfanview does that set of
operations.

On Linux, I would just move the Imagemagick conversion of JPG to TIF to the
top of the batch file so I'd be sure of the order of operations.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 07:48 PM

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:13:27 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview":
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg>

Oh, I've found Apple's Preview; but it has been a long time since I last
used Preview to create arrows (where it failed miserably to do the simplest
of things).

Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.apps

Date: October 3, 2014

Subject: What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the
3 critical things well?

Link:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/KbY7X04ocbY%5B1-25%5D

Body:

What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the 3 critical
things well?

1. Crop and size the screenshot
2. Text the screenshot (with and without underlying white space)
3. Easily circle and arrow as needed to highlight sections

All I want to know is what's the most basic screenshot editor that does
those three things.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 07:48 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:09:49 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> According to Wikipedia that's a Mac-only program.

We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014
and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks.

Subject: What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the
3 critical things well? (date October 3, 2014)

The long gory detailed thread is here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/KbY7X04ocbY%5B1-25%5D

The thread simply asked for the best freebie program on the Mac that did
the basic screenshot editing tasks well, and it tenably concluded (after
almost a thousand posts) that none exist that did basic editing tasks as
well as does Paint.NET on Windows.

In that thread, the one-to-one comparison of steps and results was made,
where you'd be utterly shocked at what Mac users put up with, at least in
their freeware options for basic screenshot editing.

The mac users gave tons of excuses but the question was a fair question,
and the results were tenably definitive. No sense rehashing that out here,
unless Apple substantially (and I mean very substantially) improved the
basic editing features of Apple's Preview in the interim.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 07:48 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:02:48 -0500, PeterN wrote:

> I have never used the freeware programs for processing and cannot
> compare them to PS. I have changed the canvas size many times in PS, and
> find it trivial to extend the canvas, on any side. As in many other
> objectives, there are several methods to extend the canvas. For my
> purposes a simple resize works just fine.

I don't generally work on photographs so much as screenshots, so the basic
freeware combination of Irfanview for what it does best, and Paint.NET for
what it does best, is what I use mostly.

Since I don't use the payware stuff you use, I can't say the next sentence
with certain assurances; but having used freebie editing programs for
decades, I can say with reasonable confidence the following two sentences:

1. Nothing on Windows is faster (nor simpler) than Irfanview, for viewing
images, setting up basic batch processing of those images, and for cropping
and adding a set-sized canvas to all the photos to be batch resized,
converted and renamed.

Howeever, Irfanview positively sucks in the things that Paint.NET excels
in.

2. Nothing on Windows is both easier for a suite of basic curved arrows
than the way the arrow features of Paint.NET was designed. The feature to
add captions is pretty good, as is the feature that circles things with
boxes and elipses, but the real beauty of Paint.NET is how it does
arrowing.

The portable editor with the most promise, is Pinta:
http://pinta.en.softonic.com/mac

In my humble opinion, any engineers who are designing a new paint program,
should first try out these two sets of features for basic screenshot
editing. They use the fewest steps possible and cover a wide range of basic
options.

As an example of how to add text wrong, with Paint.NET you just click once
and start typing. If you want to change fonts or colors or position, you
can do that at any time, but it's just point and type to start. In many
other programs, you have to draw a bounding box first, which is just crazy
to add an unnecessary step that adds no initial value.

Likewise, for arrowing, in Paint.NET you just click on the start point
(which sets the direction) and then you click on the ending point. The line
you drew is "alive" in that you can change the shape, curves, width, color,
dottedness, arrows, endshapes, etc., at any time.

That's how adding text and arrowing should work, IMHO.
Any other way is too many unnecessary steps, AFAIK.

nospam

February 16th 17, 07:51 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014
> and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks.

*you* failed. the app did not fail.

preview is a very capable tool to make simple edits (and even not so
simple), the types of things you've described. it's one of the more
underrated apps on a mac.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 07:57 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:02:00 +0100, android wrote:

> Oki... So this is a Microsoft project that wants donations...
>
> "It started development as an undergraduate college senior design
> project mentored by Microsoft, and is currently being maintained by some
> of the alumni that originally worked on it. Originally intended as a
> free replacement for the Microsoft Paint software that comes with
> Windows..."
>
> <http://www.getpaint.net/donate.html>

The great thing about Paint.NET is that the designers implemented the
*simplest* and most direct way to add arrows, text, and bounding boxes (far
better than the way most programs do those three tasks).

The terrible thing about Paint.NET is the .NET Framwork requirement (which
sucks) and the lack of portability to Linux (which I use half the time).

The *closest* I can get to Paint.NET's three features of adding text,
curving arrows, and bounding boxes, is KolourPaint - but KolourPaint is a
distant second to Paint.NET (e.g., you have to deal with text boxes and the
arrows aren't nearly as extensible with respect to features).

In the not-too-distant future is supposed to be "Pinta", which I tested
years ago, and was appalled that the developers didn't even *understand*
the crown jewel of Paint.NET was its ease of doing simple operatings.

At the time I tested Pinta and gave my feedback to the developers, I was
very disappointed in their lack of understanding that eliminating just one
or two steps out of an operating is a big deal.

It was like comparing a Panasonic MP3 player to an iPod.
Night and day with respect to simplicity.

Sure, they both played MP3 songs; but Steve Jobs had it right on the
simplicity of the iPod.

These Pinta developers were like the Panasonic MP3 player developers.
It played MP3 songs, and that was all they cared about.

So I gave up on testing Pinta further.

I haven't tested Pinta since.
Have any of you tested Pinta?

Did the developers finally see the light?
Is it ready for prime time yet?

nospam

February 16th 17, 08:04 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> Oh, I've found Apple's Preview; but it has been a long time since I last
> used Preview to create arrows (where it failed miserably to do the simplest
> of things).

nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
as usual, you failed and are blaming others.

view the annotate menu:
<https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
review.jpg>

or directly from the toolbar:
<http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
<http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
<http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>

it doesn't get any easier than that.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 08:04 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:51:16 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014
>> and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks.
>
> *you* failed. the app did not fail.
>
> preview is a very capable tool to make simple edits (and even not so
> simple), the types of things you've described. it's one of the more
> underrated apps on a mac.

I'm not going to re-hash it out here since it's already well covered in
that thread which anyone can read so they can form their own conclusions
from the vividly outlined and well described results.

Unless you have *new* data, the conclusions are factually stated and well
supported with annotated screenshots and comparisons in that thread.

Here's the link again:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/KbY7X04ocbY%5B1-25%5D
Subject: What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the
3 critical things well? (date October 3, 2014)

nospam

February 16th 17, 08:07 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> >> We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014
> >> and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks.
> >
> > *you* failed. the app did not fail.
> >
> > preview is a very capable tool to make simple edits (and even not so
> > simple), the types of things you've described. it's one of the more
> > underrated apps on a mac.
>
> I'm not going to re-hash it out here since it's already well covered in
> that thread

you won't rehash it because you don't want to be raked over the coals
yet again.

> which anyone can read so they can form their own conclusions
> from the vividly outlined and well described results.

indeed they can.

it doesn't get any easier than this:

<https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
review.jpg>

<http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
<http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
<http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>

android

February 16th 17, 08:09 PM

In article >,
Stijn De Jong > wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:13:27 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
> > Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview":
> > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jp
> > g>
>
> Oh, I've found Apple's Preview; but it has been a long time since I last
> used Preview to create arrows (where it failed miserably to do the simplest
> of things).
>
---
>
> What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the 3 critical
> things well?
>
> 1. Crop and size the screenshot
> 2. Text the screenshot (with and without underlying white space)
> 3. Easily circle and arrow as needed to highlight sections
>
> All I want to know is what's the most basic screenshot editor that does
> those three things.
>

It does the above:

Shortcut for arrow: Control+Command+A
Shortcut for oval: Control+Command+O
---
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201740>
--
teleportation kills

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 08:12 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:04:31 -0500, nospam wrote:

> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>
> view the annotate menu:
> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> review.jpg>
>
> or directly from the toolbar:
> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>
> it doesn't get any easier than that.

All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
0. Cropping area
1. Adding canvas and text
2. Adding bounding boxes
3. Adding curved and straight arrows

It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
they provide for the results which matter.

The many comparison tests in that thread were one to one, outlining the
number of steps it took and evaluating the results, for a variety of
software suggestions on the Mac.

You participated in that thread, so, unless there is *new* information
since then, the well supported well documented conclusions in that thread
are still tenably valid.

Here's the thread URL.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/KbY7X04ocbY%5B1-25%5D

nospam

February 16th 17, 08:19 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> > nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
> > as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
> >
> > view the annotate menu:
> > <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> > review.jpg>
> >
> > or directly from the toolbar:
> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
> >
> > it doesn't get any easier than that.
>
> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> 0. Cropping area
> 1. Adding canvas and text
> 2. Adding bounding boxes
> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows

preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
minor issue.

> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
> they provide for the results which matter.

preview is as easy as it gets.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 08:19 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:09:33 +0100, android wrote:

> It does the above:
>
> Shortcut for arrow: Control+Command+A
> Shortcut for oval: Control+Command+O

Just having a menu doesn't mean it works the same, nor does it mean the
results are functionally as capable.

I can hand you a dozen kits, where they all supposedly do the same thing,
but some fly better than others, even though they all have the same basic
parts.

In that light, I have just one simple question specifically for you.

QUESTION FOR "android" only:

Have you ever used the arrowing commands in Paint.NET?

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 08:21 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:07:52 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you won't rehash it because you don't want to be raked over the coals
> yet again.
>
>> which anyone can read so they can form their own conclusions
>> from the vividly outlined and well described results.
>
> indeed they can.
>
> it doesn't get any easier than this:
>
> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> review.jpg>
>
> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>

Just showing a menu is like showing me a kite.
They all have the same basic parts.
But some fly differently than others.
The differences are subtle, and you'll never know them unless/until you fly
the various kites, side by side, performing the same task.

Have you, nospam, ever used the arrowing feature of Paint.NET?

nospam

February 16th 17, 08:21 PM

In article >, nospam
> wrote:

> > > nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
> > > as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
> > >
> > > view the annotate menu:
> > > <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> > > review.jpg>
> > >
> > > or directly from the toolbar:
> > > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> > > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> > > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
> > >
> > > it doesn't get any easier than that.
> >
> > All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> > 0. Cropping area
> > 1. Adding canvas and text
> > 2. Adding bounding boxes
> > 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>
> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> minor issue.

actually, it does do curved arrows.

Stijn De Jong

February 16th 17, 08:24 PM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:02 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>> 0. Cropping area
>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>
> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> minor issue.

Heh heh ... I love how you say things that are completely unsupported,
where you assume most people don't know the difference, so you get away
with it.

Then, when I show you a thread which proved otherwise, definitively, with
detailed side-by-side comparisons, then (and only then), you concede you
knew the truth all along.

I have no interest in arguing with you on this topic since it was already
hashed out in gory detail, with many side-by-side comparisons, in the
aforementioned thread, which I repeat, the URL is:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/KbY7X04ocbY%5B1-25%5D

I will not respond further to you on this sub topic.

nospam

February 16th 17, 08:36 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> > you won't rehash it because you don't want to be raked over the coals
> > yet again.
> >
> >> which anyone can read so they can form their own conclusions
> >> from the vividly outlined and well described results.
> >
> > indeed they can.
> >
> > it doesn't get any easier than this:
> >
> > <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> > review.jpg>
> >
> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>
> Just showing a menu is like showing me a kite.
> They all have the same basic parts.
> But some fly differently than others.
> The differences are subtle, and you'll never know them unless/until you fly
> the various kites, side by side, performing the same task.

what it's showing you is just how ridiculously simple how to do the
tasks you describe and that you refuse to learn from others, insisting
that your way is the only way.

it doesn't get any easier than a menu titled 'add arrow' under another
menu titled 'annotate', *and* with the relevant tools also on the
toolbar for those that prefer toolbars over menus. either way works.

nospam

February 16th 17, 08:36 PM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> >> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> >> 0. Cropping area
> >> 1. Adding canvas and text
> >> 2. Adding bounding boxes
> >> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
> >
> > preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> > minor issue.
>
> Heh heh ... I love how you say things that are completely unsupported,
> where you assume most people don't know the difference, so you get away
> with it.

everything i say is supported.

however, i did forget that preview *can* do curved arrows, which i
corrected in a subsequent post.

> Then, when I show you a thread which proved otherwise, definitively, with
> detailed side-by-side comparisons, then (and only then), you concede you
> knew the truth all along.

i do know the truth.

preview does everything you list above and that thread confirms it.

it also confirms that there are easier ways to do what you want to do,
but you refuse to learn.

> I have no interest in arguing with you on this topic since it was already
> hashed out in gory detail, with many side-by-side comparisons, in the
> aforementioned thread, which I repeat, the URL is:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/KbY7X04ocbY%5B1-25%5
> D
>
> I will not respond further to you on this sub topic.

of course not, because once again, you've been shown to be a blithering
idiot and that thread is further evidence.

android

February 16th 17, 08:41 PM

In article >,
Stijn De Jong > wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:09:33 +0100, android wrote:
>
> > It does the above:
> >
> > Shortcut for arrow: Control+Command+A
> > Shortcut for oval: Control+Command+O
>
> Just having a menu doesn't mean it works the same, nor does it mean the
> results are functionally as capable.

I just tried those mentioned above. They work dandy fine! :-/
>
> I can hand you a dozen kits, where they all supposedly do the same thing,
> but some fly better than others, even though they all have the same basic
> parts.
>
> In that light, I have just one simple question specifically for you.
>
> QUESTION FOR "android" only:
>
> Have you ever used the arrowing commands in Paint.NET?

No. Why would I?
--
teleportation kills

android

February 16th 17, 08:43 PM

In article >,
nospam > wrote:

> In article >, Stijn De Jong
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > > nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
> > > as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
> > >
> > > view the annotate menu:
> > > <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> > > review.jpg>
> > >
> > > or directly from the toolbar:
> > > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> > > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> > > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
> > >
> > > it doesn't get any easier than that.
> >
> > All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> > 0. Cropping area
> > 1. Adding canvas and text
> > 2. Adding bounding boxes
> > 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>
> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> minor issue.
>
> > It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
> > they provide for the results which matter.
>
> preview is as easy as it gets.

for web touchups? yes.
--
teleportation kills

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 09:38 PM

On 2017-02-16 20:04:55 +0000, Stijn De Jong > said:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:51:16 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014
>>> and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks.
>>
>> *you* failed. the app did not fail.
>>
>> preview is a very capable tool to make simple edits (and even not so
>> simple), the types of things you've described. it's one of the more
>> underrated apps on a mac.
>
> I'm not going to re-hash it out here since it's already well covered in
> that thread which anyone can read so they can form their own conclusions
> from the vividly outlined and well described results.

Your conclusions were your conclusions.
They were certainly not the conclusions of any OSX and Preview user.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 09:48 PM

On 2017-02-16 20:19:02 +0000, nospam > said:

> In article >, Stijn De Jong
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>>> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>>>
>>> view the annotate menu:
>>> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>>> review.jpg>
>>>
>>> or directly from the toolbar:
>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>>>
>>> it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>
>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>> 0. Cropping area
>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>
> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> minor issue.

How curved do you need the arrows?
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/IMG_1383ca.jpg>

>> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
>> they provide for the results which matter.
>
> preview is as easy as it gets.

Preview is probably one of the simokest tooks for doing any annotation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 09:53 PM

On 2017-02-16 21:48:51 +0000, Savageduck > said:

> On 2017-02-16 20:19:02 +0000, nospam > said:
>
>> In article >, Stijn De Jong
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>>>> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>>>>
>>>> view the annotate menu:
>>>> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>>>> review.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> or directly from the toolbar:
>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>>>>
>>>> it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>>
>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>>> 0. Cropping area
>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>>
>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>> minor issue.
>
> How curved do you need the arrows?
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/IMG_1383ca.jpg>
>
>>> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
>>> they provide for the results which matter.
>>
>> preview is as easy as it gets.
>
> Preview is probably one of the simokest tooks for doing any annotation.

....er, phingr phawlt:
Should read; Preview is probably one of the simplest tools for doing
any annotation.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam

February 16th 17, 10:05 PM

In article <2017021613485129064-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck > wrote:

> >
> > preview is as easy as it gets.
>
> Preview is probably one of the simokest tooks for doing any annotation.

i can safely say that i don't know of any other app that is simokest in
any way.

preview holds that title.

Savageduck

February 16th 17, 10:17 PM

On 2017-02-16 22:05:50 +0000, nospam > said:

> In article <2017021613485129064-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> preview is as easy as it gets.
>>
>> Preview is probably one of the simokest tooks for doing any annotation.
>
> i can safely say that i don't know of any other app that is simokest in
> any way.
>
> preview holds that title.

On my kiebord anyway. ;-)
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Mayayana

February 17th 17, 12:06 AM

"nospam" > wrote

| > Then what free RAW program is he going to use to
| > batch-process those images? UFRaw? That's the only
| > one I know of and after trying it I bought Aftershot Pro.
|
| no need to restrict oneself to free, especially since the apps are
| typically a couple of bucks.
|
No, but that was the question. He asked for
info about free tools on windows to do editing.
SD is ignoring that and coming up with Mac
and/or paid options, which just confuses things.

| raw is definitely overkill for photos posted to an email list,

Indeed. There was no reason to bring it up and
complicate the issue.

Mayayana

February 17th 17, 12:09 AM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| The only thing I don't know about Irfanview is what *order* it batches
| things, so, for example, if I click the buttons to both crop and convert
| the JPG to TIF, I don't know the order that Irfanview does that set of
| operations.
|

Yes. I wondered about that. To play it safe
I'd convert all first in a single operation.
Then resize.

nospam

February 17th 17, 12:37 AM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

>
> | > Then what free RAW program is he going to use to
> | > batch-process those images? UFRaw? That's the only
> | > one I know of and after trying it I bought Aftershot Pro.
> |
> | no need to restrict oneself to free, especially since the apps are
> | typically a couple of bucks.
> |
> No, but that was the question. He asked for
> info about free tools on windows to do editing.
> SD is ignoring that and coming up with Mac
> and/or paid options, which just confuses things.

there is no confusion.

this particular person refuses to even consider any paid options even
when they do *exactly* what he's asking for. he prefers to sludge along
with the most convoluted ****ed up workflows anyone could possibly
imagine (based on his comments in other threads).

> | raw is definitely overkill for photos posted to an email list,
>
> Indeed. There was no reason to bring it up and
> complicate the issue.

actually, it was relevant.

Stijn De Jong

February 17th 17, 12:58 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:51 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

>| no need to restrict oneself to free, especially since the apps are
>| typically a couple of bucks.
>|
> No, but that was the question. He asked for
> info about free tools on windows to do editing.
> SD is ignoring that and coming up with Mac
> and/or paid options, which just confuses things.
>
>| raw is definitely overkill for photos posted to an email list,
>
> Indeed. There was no reason to bring it up and
> complicate the issue.

An intelligently scientific person can easily find freeware on all the
platforms that batch converts, resizes, re-canvasses, and renames JPG
files, and then that same intelligently scientific person can find freeware
that allows him to manually annotate the JPEGs with bounding boxes, arrows,
and captions.

But it takes effort to find the best freeware to do the job.

With a lot less effort, anyone can buy payware such as Photoshop, which
would be worthless if it couldn't do the simple tasks listed above.

I happen to know the best freeware on all three platforms that does the
job; but that's only because I've been doing this for decades, and I have
an experimental mind.

Most people, like nospam, make conclusions that are based on never having
used the products he says his choice is better than. So be it. I'm not here
to quibble with him, nor with anyone else.

I won't respond further to these philosophical debates, as they are off
topic to the main concern. The main concern requires more effort on my part
to prove since I need to run the experiment on my own JPEG files, which
takes effort to line up and do correctly and document the results.

Thanks for understanding.

Stijn De Jong

February 17th 17, 12:58 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:38:32 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> Your conclusions were your conclusions.
> They were certainly not the conclusions of any OSX and Preview user.

The problem is a simple scientific issue.
On the Usenet, there are extremely few scientifically valid "studies".

Did those people you speak of try all the tools on all three platforms?
Do you know the answer to that question?

If the answer is no, then how can you say that their "guesses" are valid?

Did I try all the suggested tools on all three platforms?
Of course I did.
And I supplied plenty of screenshots to verify that.

For example, here's a similar sub-thread on the alt.os.linux newsgroup on
October 30, 2013, one year before that thread on the mac newsgroup.

Straightforward use model for drawing arrows using freeware image editors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/PSsVG2pNNsY

Here are some arrows drawn using the suggested Linux tools:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3801/10572859586_edca6d6fa5_o.png

You long know me so you know that I have Windows and Linux and you know
that at the time of testing, I had a Mac in my hands.

So, clearly, you know I have tried all the tools on all the platforms
(Windows, Linux, and Mac).

I doubt many people have tried all the suggested tools on all the suggested
platform, so, how can you trust their judgment when they haven't even
*tried* the tools that they says their method is better than?

Anyway, we don't need to rehash what Preview (or any of the suggested Mac
apps) can do, since the aforementioned thread covered that topic already in
gory detail.

nospam

February 17th 17, 01:18 AM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> An intelligently scientific person can easily find freeware on all the
> platforms that batch converts, resizes, re-canvasses, and renames JPG
> files, and then that same intelligently scientific person can find freeware
> that allows him to manually annotate the JPEGs with bounding boxes, arrows,
> and captions.
>
> But it takes effort to find the best freeware to do the job.

effort which is much better spent elsewhere, namely *doing* the job
rather than searching.

> With a lot less effort, anyone can buy payware such as Photoshop, which
> would be worthless if it couldn't do the simple tasks listed above.

that's the point.

what's your time worth?

if your time is worth nothing, then go wild looking for freeware.

meanwhile, a few bucks to get an app that does exactly what is needed
is money well spent.

while photoshop can do what you describe, it's the wrong choice for
*just* those tasks and nobody suggested it unless the person already
has it (which most people do, given that it's the most popular image
editor and most pirated app).

> I happen to know the best freeware on all three platforms that does the
> job; but that's only because I've been doing this for decades, and I have
> an experimental mind.

your mind is not even close to experimental. anytime anyone suggests
something, you reject it and go off on a rant, like you're doing now.

> Most people, like nospam, make conclusions that are based on never having
> used the products he says his choice is better than. So be it. I'm not here
> to quibble with him, nor with anyone else.

bull****.

> I won't respond further to these philosophical debates, as they are off
> topic to the main concern. The main concern requires more effort on my part
> to prove since I need to run the experiment on my own JPEG files, which
> takes effort to line up and do correctly and document the results.

the only reason you need to experiment is because you refuse to learn
from others who have already figured it out.

nospam

February 17th 17, 01:18 AM

In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:

>
> > Your conclusions were your conclusions.
> > They were certainly not the conclusions of any OSX and Preview user.
>
> The problem is a simple scientific issue.
> On the Usenet, there are extremely few scientifically valid "studies".
>
> Did those people you speak of try all the tools on all three platforms?
> Do you know the answer to that question?

it's *you* who didn't try what was suggested.

you just kept on babbling that preview can't do it despite *multiple*
people telling you that it can and do so very easily, for free, and
even showing you exactly *how*.

Stijn De Jong

February 17th 17, 01:58 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:41:20 +0100, android wrote:

> I just tried those mentioned above. They work dandy fine! :-/
>>
>> I can hand you a dozen kits, where they all supposedly do the same thing,
>> but some fly better than others, even though they all have the same basic
>> parts.
>>
>> In that light, I have just one simple question specifically for you.
>>
>> QUESTION FOR "android" only:
>>
>> Have you ever used the arrowing commands in Paint.NET?
>
> No. Why would I?

I have to smile because I just responded why to Savageduck who said that
plenty of Mac users said their tool was better, but, I responded to
Savageduck that there was zero evidence that those people made those
conclusions after testing the aforementioned Windows or Linux tools.

The evidence abounds by those who know me that I have used all the
suggested tools on all the platforms (windows, mac, and linux), so, I have
to smile whenever someone makes a pronouncement that their favorite tool is
better than some other tool that they've never once used.

It's just funny.
So many people lack scientific thought processes that it's just funny.

The guy "nospam" is classic that way.
Absolutely nothing he ever says is backed up by actual fact.

He just makes it all up.

HINT: You can't reasonably assert one tool is better than another for
simple things like arrowing unless you have actually tried each of them
(or, at the very least, researched them in detail).

Stijn De Jong

February 17th 17, 01:58 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:09:05 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> Yes. I wondered about that. To play it safe
> I'd convert all first in a single operation.
> Then resize.

I like the way you think.
You exhibit scientific thought processes.

I agree with your view that it would be "safer" on Windows to do the batch
conversion to TIF first, and not mix that conversion with other operations
which may take temporal precedence in the Irfanview algorithm.

On Linux, it's far easier to just bring the conversion step higher up in
the batch process since I use shell scripts (some of which I have posted
here many years ago).

Eric Stevens

February 17th 17, 02:44 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:52:02 -0500, Tony Cooper
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil >
>wrote:
>
>>On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>>>
>>> | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a
>>> colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an
>>> image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to
>>> create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as
>>> a "canvas".
>>>
>>> | Do you call it something else?
>>>
>>> Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm
>>> adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white
>>> image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing
>>> image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never
>>> conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the
>>> image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual
>>> practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be
>>> accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
>>> because that's how Windows graphics works.
>>>
>>It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any
>>other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the
>>1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting
>>techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help
>>them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same
>>context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel
>>grid size while retaining the original image dimensions.
>
>Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the
>"Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word
>"Canvas" to describe the overall image.

In fact it is a useful way of distinguishing the size of the image
from the larger 'canvas' upon which it is printed.

For some applications I like applying a faux penciled note on a plain
white border around the image. I do this after editing by collapsing
the image at its intended size (layers, masks and all). I then expand
the canvas size to suit that of the intended print. Only then do I
write my note on the plain white canvas which surrounds the image. At
this point the whole lot can be saved and sent to the printer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens

February 17th 17, 02:54 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:02 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Stijn De Jong
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>> > as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>> >
>> > view the annotate menu:
>> > <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>> > review.jpg>
>> >
>> > or directly from the toolbar:
>> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>> >
>> > it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>
>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>> 0. Cropping area
>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>
>preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>minor issue.

It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.

>
>> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
>> they provide for the results which matter.
>
>preview is as easy as it gets.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam

February 17th 17, 03:16 AM

In article >, Eric Stevens
> wrote:

> >> > nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
> >> > as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
> >> >
> >> > view the annotate menu:
> >> > <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
> >> > review.jpg>
> >> >
> >> > or directly from the toolbar:
> >> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
> >> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
> >> > <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
> >> >
> >> > it doesn't get any easier than that.
> >>
> >> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> >> 0. Cropping area
> >> 1. Adding canvas and text
> >> 2. Adding bounding boxes
> >> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
> >
> >preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> >minor issue.
>
> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.

which few people do, but it can do it, so it doesn't matter.

Stijn De Jong

February 17th 17, 03:38 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:18:09 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it's *you* who didn't try what was suggested.
>
> you just kept on babbling that preview can't do it despite *multiple*
> people telling you that it can and do so very easily, for free, and
> even showing you exactly *how*.

:)

Savageduck

February 17th 17, 03:38 AM

On 2017-02-17 01:58:53 +0000, Stijn De Jong > said:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:41:20 +0100, android wrote:
>
>> I just tried those mentioned above. They work dandy fine! :-/
>>>
>>> I can hand you a dozen kits, where they all supposedly do the same thing,
>>> but some fly better than others, even though they all have the same basic
>>> parts.
>>>
>>> In that light, I have just one simple question specifically for you.
>>>
>>> QUESTION FOR "android" only:
>>>
>>> Have you ever used the arrowing commands in Paint.NET?
>>
>> No. Why would I?
>
> I have to smile because I just responded why to Savageduck who said
> that plenty of Mac users said their tool was better, but, I responded
> to Savageduck that there was zero evidence that those people made those
> conclusions after testing the aforementioned Windows or Linux tools.

Sigh!...
You always do this with your editorializing, which has you decending
into the insufferable.

I have told you many times in other NG's, in other threads, and so have
other folks, don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that "our
tool was better". You did not find me using those words. I merely
presented an OSX app, Preview (free), which performs the annotation
functions you wanted simply and effectively. I also have serious doubt
that you have spent much time at all on any Mac, especially enough time
to make much more than a cursory survey of what can be done on any Mac.

You are an unashamed Linux user who occasionally delves into one or
other variety of Windows, and as a result, have little to no
understanding of OSX and what it has to offer. You go out of your way
to passive agressively insult users of OSX and iOS, even when they make
a sincere effort to answer some of your questions. So many are aware of
your M.O. they no longer give you the benefit of doubt, when you have
nym-shifted, regardles of your question as your particular agenda is
way too obvious to all.

>
> The evidence abounds by those who know me that I have used all the
> suggested tools on all the platforms (windows, mac, and linux), so, I
> have to smile whenever someone makes a pronouncement that their
> favorite tool is better than some other tool that they've never once
> used.

Actually the evidence doesn't "abound". It is just that most normal
folks don't wallow in OCD behaviour such as yours that much.

> It's just funny.
> So many people lack scientific thought processes that it's just funny.

That is presumptive opinion.

> The guy "nospam" is classic that way.
> Absolutely nothing he ever says is backed up by actual fact.
>
> He just makes it all up.

We all have our opinions with regard to nospam, and his annoying manner
of dialog. However, most of us recogize that he does have considerable
knowledge in some areas.

> HINT: You can't reasonably assert one tool is better than another for
> simple things like arrowing unless you have actually tried each of them
> (or, at the very least, researched them in detail).

As I said, nobody asserted that one tool was better than another. In my
case I just said that one particular tool meets the annotation
requirements you set out, both easily and effectively. I couldn't be
bothered to conduct a bunch of comparative test for those functions. I
have and do make comparative tests with software which has functions
which interest me, (my current interest is in researching and test
driving various photo editing software) and so do many other folks in
this and other NG's.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck

February 17th 17, 03:38 AM

On 2017-02-17 02:54:32 +0000, Eric Stevens > said:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:02 -0500, nospam >
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, Stijn De Jong
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>>>> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>>>>
>>>> view the annotate menu:
>>>> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>>>> review.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> or directly from the toolbar:
>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>>>>
>>>> it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>>
>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>>> 0. Cropping area
>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>>
>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>> minor issue.
>
> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.

It's OK. Preview will do curved arrows very nicely.

>>
>>> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
>>> they provide for the results which matter.
>>
>> preview is as easy as it gets.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Eric Stevens

February 17th 17, 04:06 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:38:55 -0800, Savageduck
> wrote:

>On 2017-02-17 02:54:32 +0000, Eric Stevens > said:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:02 -0500, nospam >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Stijn De Jong
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>>>>> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>>>>>
>>>>> view the annotate menu:
>>>>> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>>>>> review.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> or directly from the toolbar:
>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>>>
>>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>>>> 0. Cropping area
>>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>>>
>>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>>> minor issue.
>>
>> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.
>
>It's OK. Preview will do curved arrows very nicely.

I was responding after nospam said it wouldn't do it all.

In any case 'very nicely' is a matter of opinion and I'm not the one
who has to be satisfied about this.
>
>>>
>>>> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
>>>> they provide for the results which matter.
>>>
>>> preview is as easy as it gets.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam

February 17th 17, 04:08 AM

In article >, Eric Stevens
> wrote:

> >>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> >>>> 0. Cropping area
> >>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
> >>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
> >>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
> >>>
> >>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> >>> minor issue.
> >>
> >> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.
> >
> >It's OK. Preview will do curved arrows very nicely.
>
> I was responding after nospam said it wouldn't do it all.

which i corrected in a subsequent post within a few minutes.

Savageduck

February 17th 17, 04:24 AM

On 2017-02-17 04:06:49 +0000, Eric Stevens > said:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:38:55 -0800, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-02-17 02:54:32 +0000, Eric Stevens > said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:02 -0500, nospam >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >, Stijn De Jong
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>>>>>> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> view the annotate menu:
>>>>>> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>>>>>> review.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or directly from the toolbar:
>>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>>>>> 0. Cropping area
>>>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>>>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>>>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>>>>
>>>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>>>> minor issue.
>>>
>>> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.
>>
>> It's OK. Preview will do curved arrows very nicely.
>
> I was responding after nospam said it wouldn't do it all.
>
> In any case 'very nicely' is a matter of opinion and I'm not the one
> who has to be satisfied about this.

OK! Good enough for my simple, off the cuff annotation needs.

>>>>
>>>>> It's *how* they accomplish those tasks that differs, and what basic options
>>>>> they provide for the results which matter.
>>>>
>>>> preview is as easy as it gets.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Eric Stevens

February 17th 17, 08:57 AM

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:08:32 -0500, nospam >
wrote:

>In article >, Eric Stevens
> wrote:
>
>> >>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>> >>>> 0. Cropping area
>> >>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>> >>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>> >>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>> >>>
>> >>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>> >>> minor issue.
>> >>
>> >> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.
>> >
>> >It's OK. Preview will do curved arrows very nicely.
>>
>> I was responding after nospam said it wouldn't do it all.
>
>which i corrected in a subsequent post within a few minutes.

Yep.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Kerr Mudd-John

February 17th 17, 12:56 PM

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:58:53 -0000, Stijn De Jong >
wrote:

[]

> The guy "nospam" is classic that way.
> Absolutely nothing he ever says is backed up by actual fact.
>
> He just makes it all up.

He's only here for the argument; use your killfile. YKIMS.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

Mayayana

February 17th 17, 03:08 PM

"Stijn De Jong" > wrote

| > you just kept on babbling that preview can't do it despite *multiple*
| > people telling you that it can and do so very easily, for free, and
| > even showing you exactly *how*.
|
| :)

I'm curious. You wanted this for Windows. But
from what you've said it sounds like you use
Windows, Mac and Linux. Why all 3? No preference?
I would think that with your particular graphic
needs you would have ended up on just one
system long ago.

Mayayana

February 17th 17, 03:18 PM

"Savageduck" > wrote

| I have told you many times in other NG's, in other threads, and so have
| other folks, don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that "our
| tool was better". You did not find me using those words. I merely
| presented an OSX app, Preview (free), which performs the annotation
| functions you wanted simply and effectively.
| I also have serious doubt
| that you have spent much time at all on any Mac, especially enough time
| to make much more than a cursory survey of what can be done on any Mac.
|

He may be baiting. I don't know. But it was you
who insisted on arguing about Mac programs in
a discussion about Windows software.

Savageduck

February 17th 17, 03:27 PM

On 2017-02-17 15:08:00 +0000, "Mayayana" > said:

> "Stijn De Jong" > wrote
>
> | > you just kept on babbling that preview can't do it despite *multiple*
> | > people telling you that it can and do so very easily, for free, and
> | > even showing you exactly *how*.
> |
> | :)
>
> I'm curious. You wanted this for Windows. But
> from what you've said it sounds like you use
> Windows, Mac and Linux. Why all 3? No preference?
> I would think that with your particular graphic
> needs you would have ended up on just one
> system long ago.

He is a Linux/Windows user. He is not a Mac user/owner other than some
brief, questionable Mac encounter he has told us of in this thread. He
is also obsessed with freeware options.

Nospam, Alan Browne, and yours truly know him quite well from lengthy
encounters, and pointless babbling threads in other NG's where he has
used dozens of nyms, with a change coming every few weeks.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck

February 17th 17, 03:45 PM

On 2017-02-17 15:18:39 +0000, "Mayayana" > said:

> "Savageduck" > wrote
>
> | I have told you many times in other NG's, in other threads, and so have
> | other folks, don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that "our
> | tool was better". You did not find me using those words. I merely
> | presented an OSX app, Preview (free), which performs the annotation
> | functions you wanted simply and effectively.
> | I also have serious doubt
> | that you have spent much time at all on any Mac, especially enough time
> | to make much more than a cursory survey of what can be done on any Mac.
> |
>
> He may be baiting. I don't know. But it was you
> who insisted on arguing about Mac programs in
> a discussion about Windows software.

I didn't argue. He made the challenge regarding "freeware" which would
do the job, and I responded with the free application I use, which does
all that he asked of it. rec.photo.digital is where he has initiated
this thread, and to the best of my knowledge r.p.d. is not an exclusive
Windows NG.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Mayayana

February 17th 17, 03:59 PM

"Savageduck" > wrote

| > "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by
| > painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
| > because that's how Windows graphics works.
|
| If you do it that way it is a bit of a kludge. Bitmap is a very old
| Windows way of thinking. There are far simpler and efficient ways of
| doing what you have described.
|

You're doing it that way, too. You just don't
know it. :) (RAW is more complicated, in ways
I don't fully understand, but once you get into
raster graphics it's all the same.)

Now that I know what's meant by
canvas I don't see any problem with it. I'm
curious how I never noticed "canvas" before.
But it's just a GUI convention. It's not functionality.

I don't see any inconvenience with copy/paste
onto a new image. That makes it easy for me to
move around one or more images on a larger
background and operate on various layers until I'm
ready to merge them. That's a more flexible method
than canvas. If I want a text area I'll usually just
paint on a rectangle. But canvas seems fine for
adding a regular, defined border.

What you're doing with "canvas" is using a
conceptual device to imagine working on a picture
that's on a background plate. You then swap out
for a bigger background plate when desired.

That's actually an unnecessary device if you
think in terms of what the image really is and let
go of the irrelevant, concrete-world limitations
like easels and stretched canvas over a frame.

Raster graphics deals in rectangular bitmaps,
which are arrays of byte values defining pixels, with
the display of those pixels defined by width, height,
color-depth and orientation specs included with the
byte array. Thus, a 24-bit bitmap starting at upper
left with a size of 200x100 will mean that to create
the image the bytes are read in groups of 3 to
light 200 pixels across the screen. 600 bytes for
one line of pixels. Then the next line is read out.
It always gets down to simple numbers at some
point when you're using computers. (I don't know
whether Apple uses the term bitmap, but they're
doing it the same way if they're doing raster graphics.)

Before it's
painted to the screen it's just that byte array.
When you enlarge your canvas, what goes on
behind the scenes is that the system defines a
second device-independent bitmap and then paints
your existing bitmap onto it once you decide where
in the image you want your original pasted and
what color you want the background. It has
nothing to do with Windows and nothing to
do with any "old way of thinking". Look up raster
graphics. The same is true of things like brightening,
color pencil plugins, borders, etc. It's all mathematical
formulae applied to an array of byte values that
represent a pixel grid. So if you enlarge your
canvas what actually happens is that your byte
array gets enlarged and rebuilt. The software might
do that directly, or more likely it will do it by
defining a second bitmap and using system API to
paint one to the other, then retrieve the resulting
byte array. In that case the software is letting the
system do the grunt work. Either way, what goes
on underneath hasn't changed. Only the GUI changes.

That's the trouble with only using Apple tools.
You end up thinking that a microwave is the way
cooking happens and when someone talks about
making spaghetti sauce from scratch on their stove
you think they're either ignorant or lying. :)

Mayayana

February 17th 17, 04:23 PM

"Savageduck" > wrote

| > He may be baiting. I don't know. But it was you
| > who insisted on arguing about Mac programs in
| > a discussion about Windows software.
|
| I didn't argue. He made the challenge regarding "freeware" which would
| do the job, and I responded with the free application I use, which does
| all that he asked of it. rec.photo.digital is where he has initiated
| this thread, and to the best of my knowledge r.p.d. is not an exclusive
| Windows NG.

No, but the thread was about Windows freeware.
You had no reason to take part at all. But you
clearly get irritated by any Windows talk. What if
you were discussing a Mac program and someone
said, "You should buy a Windows computer. Then
you can use the program I use." I don't think you'd
regard that as helpful.

I don't know about the history here. Maybe Stijn
is the wiseguy you say he is. Nevetheless, the
discussion was potentially useful to anyone on
Windows who's interested in software options,
regardless of his motives. In particular, I think the
mistake of editing JPGs is a very common one, so
it's worthwhile getting info out there about the
problems with that.

nospam

February 17th 17, 05:00 PM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

>
> | > He may be baiting. I don't know. But it was you
> | > who insisted on arguing about Mac programs in
> | > a discussion about Windows software.
> |
> | I didn't argue. He made the challenge regarding "freeware" which would
> | do the job, and I responded with the free application I use, which does
> | all that he asked of it. rec.photo.digital is where he has initiated
> | this thread, and to the best of my knowledge r.p.d. is not an exclusive
> | Windows NG.
>
> No, but the thread was about Windows freeware.
> You had no reason to take part at all. But you
> clearly get irritated by any Windows talk. What if
> you were discussing a Mac program and someone
> said, "You should buy a Windows computer. Then
> you can use the program I use." I don't think you'd
> regard that as helpful.

nobody told anyone to buy a new computer.

and in the event someone suggested windows software to a mac owner,
they would not need to buy a new computer because a mac can run all
windows software directly.

> I don't know about the history here. Maybe Stijn
> is the wiseguy you say he is. Nevetheless, the
> discussion was potentially useful to anyone on
> Windows who's interested in software options,
> regardless of his motives. In particular, I think the
> mistake of editing JPGs is a very common one, so
> it's worthwhile getting info out there about the
> problems with that.

it's also overblown. most people won't notice a difference,
particularly for images posted to a mailing list.

nospam

February 17th 17, 05:00 PM

In article >, Mayayana
> wrote:

>
> | > "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by
> | > painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just
> | > because that's how Windows graphics works.
> |
> | If you do it that way it is a bit of a kludge. Bitmap is a very old
> | Windows way of thinking. There are far simpler and efficient ways of
> | doing what you have described.
> |
>
> You're doing it that way, too. You just don't
> know it. :) (RAW is more complicated, in ways
> I don't fully understand, but once you get into
> raster graphics it's all the same.)
>
> Now that I know what's meant by
> canvas I don't see any problem with it. I'm
> curious how I never noticed "canvas" before.
> But it's just a GUI convention. It's not functionality.
>
> I don't see any inconvenience with copy/paste
> onto a new image. That makes it easy for me to
> move around one or more images on a larger
> background and operate on various layers until I'm
> ready to merge them. That's a more flexible method
> than canvas. If I want a text area I'll usually just
> paint on a rectangle. But canvas seems fine for
> adding a regular, defined border.
>
> What you're doing with "canvas" is using a
> conceptual device to imagine working on a picture
> that's on a background plate. You then swap out
> for a bigger background plate when desired.
>
> That's actually an unnecessary device if you
> think in terms of what the image really is and let
> go of the irrelevant, concrete-world limitations
> like easels and stretched canvas over a frame.
>
> Raster graphics deals in rectangular bitmaps,
> which are arrays of byte values defining pixels, with
> the display of those pixels defined by width, height,
> color-depth and orientation specs included with the
> byte array. Thus, a 24-bit bitmap starting at upper
> left with a size of 200x100 will mean that to create
> the image the bytes are read in groups of 3 to
> light 200 pixels across the screen. 600 bytes for
> one line of pixels. Then the next line is read out.
> It always gets down to simple numbers at some
> point when you're using computers. (I don't know
> whether Apple uses the term bitmap, but they're
> doing it the same way if they're doing raster graphics.)
>
> Before it's
> painted to the screen it's just that byte array.
> When you enlarge your canvas, what goes on
> behind the scenes is that the system defines a
> second device-independent bitmap and then paints
> your existing bitmap onto it once you decide where
> in the image you want your original pasted and
> what color you want the background. It has
> nothing to do with Windows and nothing to
> do with any "old way of thinking". Look up raster
> graphics. The same is true of things like brightening,
> color pencil plugins, borders, etc. It's all mathematical
> formulae applied to an array of byte values that
> represent a pixel grid. So if you enlarge your
> canvas what actually happens is that your byte
> array gets enlarged and rebuilt. The software might
> do that directly, or more likely it will do it by
> defining a second bitmap and using system API to
> paint one to the other, then retrieve the resulting
> byte array. In that case the software is letting the
> system do the grunt work. Either way, what goes
> on underneath hasn't changed. Only the GUI changes.

mostly correct, but entirely irrelevant.

none of that helps in making better photos.

> That's the trouble with only using Apple tools.
> You end up thinking that a microwave is the way
> cooking happens and when someone talks about
> making spaghetti sauce from scratch on their stove
> you think they're either ignorant or lying. :)

you were doing reasonably well up until that.

PeterN[_2_]

February 17th 17, 06:17 PM

On 2/16/2017 10:16 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article >, Eric Stevens
> > wrote:
>
>>>>> nonsense. it's incredibly easy to create arrows and quite a bit more.
>>>>> as usual, you failed and are blaming others.
>>>>>
>>>>> view the annotate menu:
>>>>> <https://www.cisdem.com/resource/attach/file/images/annotate-a-pdf-mac-p
>>>>> review.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> or directly from the toolbar:
>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shapes-button.png>
>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Preview-wild-text.png>
>>>>> <http://tidbits.com/resources/2016-04/Shape-color.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> it doesn't get any easier than that.
>>>>
>>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
>>>> 0. Cropping area
>>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
>>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
>>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
>>>
>>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
>>> minor issue.
>>
>> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.
>
> which few people do, but it can do it, so it doesn't matter.

The above is typical nospam. "preview does all that, with the exception
of curved arrows,...."

Very next reply: " but it can do it, so it doesn't matter."

You contradict yourself, without expressly admitting that you did, or
explaining.

--
PeterN

nospam

February 17th 17, 06:35 PM

In article >, PeterN
> wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>> All decent editing apps have a GUI for each of the critical tasks:
> >>>> 0. Cropping area
> >>>> 1. Adding canvas and text
> >>>> 2. Adding bounding boxes
> >>>> 3. Adding curved and straight arrows
> >>>
> >>> preview does all that, with the exception of curved arrows, a very
> >>> minor issue.
> >>
> >> It's not a minor issue at all if you want curved arrows.
> >
> > which few people do, but it can do it, so it doesn't matter.
>
>
> The above is typical nospam. "preview does all that, with the exception
> of curved arrows,...."
>
> Very next reply: " but it can do it, so it doesn't matter."
>
> You contradict yourself, without expressly admitting that you did, or
> explaining.

what's to explain? i thought it didn't do curved arrows, then i tried
it and saw that it could, so i corrected what i wrote a few minutes
later.

curved arrows is also not a common thing to do, so it really doesn't
matter for nearly everyone. just how often do you see people annotating
documents with *curved* arrows anyway? not often, if ever.

nevertheless, it can do curved arrows it doesn't matter. there is no
issue with using it to annotate.

as usual, you're arguing just to argue, and this time when there's
absolutely nothing to argue about. that's just ****ed up.

Sandman

February 18th 17, 07:26 AM

In article >, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Sure. I give non-native speakers of English a free pass*

Hehe :)

> *Unless they brag about how good their English is.

Or, as in my case, if they point out how bad your English is :)

--
Sandman

PeterN[_3_]

February 20th 17, 01:41 AM

On 2/16/2017 2:48 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:02:48 -0500, PeterN wrote:
>
>> I have never used the freeware programs for processing and cannot
>> compare them to PS. I have changed the canvas size many times in PS,
>> and find it trivial to extend the canvas, on any side. As in many
>> other objectives, there are several methods to extend the canvas. For
>> my purposes a simple resize works just fine.
>
> I don't generally work on photographs so much as screenshots, so the basic
> freeware combination of Irfanview for what it does best, and Paint.NET for
> what it does best, is what I use mostly.
>
> Since I don't use the payware stuff you use, I can't say the next sentence
> with certain assurances; but having used freebie editing programs for
> decades, I can say with reasonable confidence the following two sentences:
>
> 1. Nothing on Windows is faster (nor simpler) than Irfanview, for viewing
> images, setting up basic batch processing of those images, and for cropping
> and adding a set-sized canvas to all the photos to be batch resized,
> converted and renamed.
>
> Howeever, Irfanview positively sucks in the things that Paint.NET excels
> in.
>
> 2. Nothing on Windows is both easier for a suite of basic curved arrows
> than the way the arrow features of Paint.NET was designed. The feature to
> add captions is pretty good, as is the feature that circles things with
> boxes and elipses, but the real beauty of Paint.NET is how it does
> arrowing.
>
> The portable editor with the most promise, is Pinta:
> http://pinta.en.softonic.com/mac
> In my humble opinion, any engineers who are designing a new paint program,
> should first try out these two sets of features for basic screenshot
> editing. They use the fewest steps possible and cover a wide range of basic
> options.
>
> As an example of how to add text wrong, with Paint.NET you just click once
> and start typing. If you want to change fonts or colors or position, you
> can do that at any time, but it's just point and type to start. In many
> other programs, you have to draw a bounding box first, which is just crazy
> to add an unnecessary step that adds no initial value.
>
> Likewise, for arrowing, in Paint.NET you just click on the start point
> (which sets the direction) and then you click on the ending point. The line
> you drew is "alive" in that you can change the shape, curves, width, color,
> dottedness, arrows, endshapes, etc., at any time.
>
> That's how adding text and arrowing should work, IMHO.
> Any other way is too many unnecessary steps, AFAIK.

Our response has nothing to do with the expression: "canvas size." My
canvas size could be 12x18," with the image size 2x3." I would simply
have a lot of blank canvas. That you use it only for screen shots, is
irrelevant to the concept.

--
PeterN