Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

PeterN wrote:
On 2/20/2018 12:17 AM, Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:27 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

Paul wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Savageduck
wrote:

In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e.
used by the graphic kernel.
Not being a Windows user, I don¹t understand this idea of holding on to the
BMP format when there are much better ways to go.
don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.


I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows user in
this NG.


So you've never run into a situation before, where a
tool doesn't support the entire spectrum of file formats ?

Fortunately for me, no.

For Mac users we have a very neat piece of software, “Graphic Converter�
which pretty much does that job. It can dig up some pretty obscure file
formats.
https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/

Otherwise Adobe CC, and some third party plug-ins cover my photo editing
needs.

I have the situation where Corel Photo Paint (CPT) images cannot be
read by Corel Paint Shop Pro (PSPImage) or by Photoshop.

I know of no software which can read them all.

I am sad to report that even Graphic Converter couldn’t be bothered with
Corel Photo Paint.
https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/key-features/import-and-export-formats/

...and if Corel couldn’t bother to have compatibility between their own
apps, it tells you all you need to know about Corel, and CPT.


LR does not read all of my PSD files. does that mean your statement
applies to Adobe?

Which of your PSD files does LR not read?

I use PSD, PSB, and TIFF, layered, and not, interchangeably between PS CC,
and LR C CC without issue. So in my case, my statement above does not apply
to Adobe.



--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:15:33 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I wonder if the CPP and PSP issue might be
due to CPP being a Corel original, while PSP
was bought from Jasc. Also, they seem to be
very different programs. I know an artist who
makes his living doing architectural renderings
while his art is typically stylized aerial photos
or "industrial illustation". He uses exclusively
Corel Draw. My impression is that it's as the
name implies -- more for drawing than for image
editing. Whereas PS and PSP are mainly for
image editing.

I use CorelDraw occasionally, but never as a drawing program. If I
want to do a composite of several .jpgs, CorelDraw is the easiest
program around to work with. The images can be moved around,
re-sized, overlapped, etc much easier than the same thing can be done
in CC 2018, but I do all of the editing of the images in CC 2018
before importing them into CorelDraw. The final composite is exported
as a .jpg.

I don't think there's anything I do in CorelDraw that can't be done in
CC 2018, but start-to-finish is quicker and easier in CorelDraw for
me. I don't do enough of that sort of thing that leads me to add
Adobe Illustrator to my subscription.

Inkscape is a free comparable program to CorelDraw, but I tried it and
did not like it.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Tony Cooper" wrote

| I use CorelDraw occasionally, but never as a drawing program. If I
| want to do a composite of several .jpgs, CorelDraw is the easiest
| program around to work with. The images can be moved around,
| re-sized, overlapped, etc much easier than the same thing can be done
| in CC 2018, but I do all of the editing of the images in CC 2018
| before importing them into CorelDraw. The final composite is exported
| as a .jpg.
|

I guess I do all of that in PSP. I've never actually
tried something like Corel Draw or Inkscape. Th artist
I mentioned often does things like drawings of
hundreds of pipes in a highrise basement. (Don't ask
me why. He likes industrial images. I get the
impression he's doing a lot of illustration + photos.

I often make diagrams in PSP, but nothing close
to illustration. But I was actually working on something
like you mentioned just now. I have a bath renovation
project coming up. The customers fell overwhelmed
by tile choices. One wants marble. The other likes
a sandstone look. So to help give them ideas I
downloaded several images with travertine marble
in them, snipped some areas, pasted them to a
background, and did a white wash over one of them.
The result is a small image showing the range of
color options they might find that will combine
the feeling of marble and sandstone.

I've never used anything but PSP to do such things. I
did try PS5, many years ago, but since it was almost
the same as PSP for 5-6 times the cost, I never paid
much attention to PS again.

I would have thought the big appeal in CC/CS/PS
would be the filters. Anything else it offers can
be done with other, much cheaper tools, no? I
haven't really used filters for many years. 3D buttons
and swirls and watercolor effects are neat, but of
limited value. Mostly I only use layers, simple drawing,
and tools to improve images, like color balance, brighten,
sharpen, etc.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I would have thought the big appeal in CC/CS/PS
would be the filters. Anything else it offers can
be done with other, much cheaper tools, no?

no. not even close to true.

I haven't really used filters for many years. 3D buttons
and swirls and watercolor effects are neat, but of
limited value. Mostly I only use layers, simple drawing,
and tools to improve images, like color balance, brighten,
sharpen, etc.

in other words, photoshop is well above what you do.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:17:51 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:27 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

Paul wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Savageduck
wrote:

In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e.
used by the graphic kernel.
Not being a Windows user, I don¹t understand this idea of holding on to the
BMP format when there are much better ways to go.
don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.


I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows user in
this NG.


So you've never run into a situation before, where a
tool doesn't support the entire spectrum of file formats ?

Fortunately for me, no.

For Mac users we have a very neat piece of software, “Graphic Converter�
which pretty much does that job. It can dig up some pretty obscure file
formats.
https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/

Otherwise Adobe CC, and some third party plug-ins cover my photo editing
needs.

I have the situation where Corel Photo Paint (CPT) images cannot be
read by Corel Paint Shop Pro (PSPImage) or by Photoshop.

I know of no software which can read them all.

I am sad to report that even Graphic Converter couldn’t be bothered with
Corel Photo Paint.
https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/key-features/import-and-export-formats/

...and if Corel couldn’t bother to have compatibility between their own
apps, it tells you all you need to know about Corel, and CPT.

Corel have a lot of convertability but this case it seems there is a
fundamental incompatility in the underlying structure of the files.
There is too much of one which has no equivalent in the other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:30:04 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS.
i.e. used by the graphic kernel.

Not being a Windows user, I don1t understand this idea of holding on to
the BMP format when there are much better ways to go.

don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.

I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows user in
this NG.

yep, and apparently not the only one.

Haw!

The only one is not the only one.

Would you like to reconsider?

reread it one more time, this time very slowly.

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"M.L." wrote:

Do you know of Windows freeware that has the option to easily lock in a 3:2
or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping?

Photoscape 3.7
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multime...otoScape.shtml

1.) select Crop (tab)
2.) assign Ratio/Size-Ratio (checkbox)
3.) enter width / height (ratio)-OK
4.) select crop area
5.) select Crop (button)
6.) Save (button)

Crop ratio will remain sticky.

Thanks for that suggestion of PhotoScape, which has a fantastically
intuitive crop locked to aspect ratio mechanism, akin to that of FastOne.

Here's my installation log, where I ran into minor bugs, one of which is
that I must have missed a stop to force the crop ratio to remain sticky
between sessions.

0.) Tried to locate the canonical installer but none seem to exist.
http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/download.php
1.) Saved to C:\software\editor\pic\photoscape\PhotoScapeSetup_ V3.7.exe
2.) Executed PhotoScapeSetup_V3.7.exe
3.) Pressed "Options" to [attempt to] change installation location from
C:\Program Files (x86)\PhotoScape\
to
C:\apps\editor\pic\photoscape\
4.) At that point, a minor bug revealed itself in that the installer
is completely incapable of creating that folder on its own.
The installer insists on C:\apps\editor\pic\PhotoScape
(yes, this is literally what the installer insists upon but I
never use case on Windows for reasons that are long standing)
5.) So I manually created the folder C:\apps\editor\pic\photoscape\
6.) When I re-ran the installer, it accepted that predefined location
7.) Pressing "I agree", I turned off the "Install Chrome" bundleware option
8.) Pressing "Next" installs PhotoScape which phones home to
http://photoscape.org/ps/main/afterinstall.php?v=3.7
using the default browser (which is set to Opera for this reason)
9.) I moved the desktop shortcut to my menus and started the tool
BELOW IS SUPPOSED TO BE A ONE-TIME SETUP FOR 4:3 CROP:
10.) I selected the top-bar "Editor" tab & opened a JPEG file
11.) I selected the bottom-bar "Crop" tab
12.) I changed the default "Crop Freely" to "Assign Ratio/Size"
13.) I changed the default "[x]Size Setting" to "[x]Ratio Setting"
14.) Oddly, even though there are many preset sizes, 4:3 isn't one of them
15.) I changed the "Width:Height" ratio from 1:1 to 4:3 & pressed OK
ABOVE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A ONE-TIME SETUP FOR 4:3 CROP:
16.) The crop is fantastically intuitive, click, click, crop!
17.) Moving the crop location is also fantastically intuitive!
18.) Adjusting the crop area is also fantastically intuitive!

What I love about the PhotoScape crop, once the setup is complete (and if
we can figure out how to make it sticky), is that the crop is as it should
be. Click, click, Crop.

Moving or adjusting the size of the crop is also as intuitive as it should
be, with just the left mouse button and drag points involved.

Overall, the main problem is that the crop ratio wasn't sticky
between sessions. I see the crop ratio is supposed to remain sticky between
sessions but it didn't remain for me.

Also, I never understand why an app such as PhotoScape doesn't show up in
the Windows "open with" menu, but I pointed it to the file location for
the exe (C:\apps\editor\pic\photoscape\PhotoScape.exe) and then it's only
a few clicks to force Microsoft Windows to notice it after Microsoft
picks apps that I never want to use first.

The installation bugs were minor.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that
OS.
i.e. used by the graphic kernel.

Not being a Windows user, I don1t understand this idea of holding on
to
the BMP format when there are much better ways to go.

don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.

I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows
user in this NG.

yep, and apparently not the only one.

Haw!

The only one is not the only one.

Would you like to reconsider?

reread it one more time, this time very slowly.

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:43:18 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that
OS.
i.e. used by the graphic kernel.

Not being a Windows user, I don1t understand this idea of holding on
to
the BMP format when there are much better ways to go.

don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.

I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows
user in this NG.

yep, and apparently not the only one.

Haw!

The only one is not the only one.

Would you like to reconsider?

reread it one more time, this time very slowly.

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Not being a Windows user, I don1t understand this idea of holding
on to the BMP format when there are much better ways to go.

don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.

I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows
user in this NG.

yep, and apparently not the only one.

Haw!

The only one is not the only one.

Would you like to reconsider?

reread it one more time, this time very slowly.

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

that explains why. english is not source code that is parsed.

you are incapable of understanding context.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:22:59 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Not being a Windows user, I don1t understand this idea of holding
on to the BMP format when there are much better ways to go.

don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few.

I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows
user in this NG.

yep, and apparently not the only one.

Haw!

The only one is not the only one.

Would you like to reconsider?

reread it one more time, this time very slowly.

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

that explains why. english is not source code that is parsed.

Hysterical laughter!

I was taught to parse sentences in English 75 years ago. I expect you
think it is a technical term applying only to computer languages.

you are incapable of understanding context.

Especially yours.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

that explains why. english is not source code that is parsed.

Hysterical laughter!

I was taught to parse sentences in English 75 years ago. I expect you
think it is a technical term applying only to computer languages.

it is in the way you're using it. context is key.

spoken language is not parsed the way source code is.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:38:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer. That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

that explains why. english is not source code that is parsed.

Hysterical laughter!

I was taught to parse sentences in English 75 years ago. I expect you
think it is a technical term applying only to computer languages.

it is in the way you're using it. context is key.

spoken language is not parsed the way source code is.

So?

Can you only parse source code?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer.
That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

that explains why. english is not source code that is parsed.

Hysterical laughter!

I was taught to parse sentences in English 75 years ago. I expect you
think it is a technical term applying only to computer languages.

it is in the way you're using it. context is key.

spoken language is not parsed the way source code is.

So?

Can you only parse source code?

whoosh.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:33:29 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You shouldn't have put the 'yep' at the beginning of your answer.
That
way you were confirming that "we only have a single BMP obsessed
Windows user in this NG."

comprehension fail.

You explain it then.

The technical term is 'parse'.

that explains why. english is not source code that is parsed.

Hysterical laughter!

I was taught to parse sentences in English 75 years ago. I expect you
think it is a technical term applying only to computer languages.

it is in the way you're using it. context is key.

spoken language is not parsed the way source code is.

So?

Can you only parse source code?

whoosh.

Evasion noted.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens