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

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

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/atta...te-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

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/atta...te-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

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 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

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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/#!to...ux/PSsVG2pNNsY

Here are some arrows drawn using the suggested Linux tools:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3801/1...ca6d6fa5_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.

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.

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*.

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).

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).

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