Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Mark 2 of the picture sports much more detail than the first. It was drawn more carefully (more emphasis on straight lines being straight) and the lines were inked with a ballpoint pen. Whatever compression Jonathan did to the pic really worked; the artifacts that were bugging me are a lot less obvious when the picture is posted here.
I hope to color this version just to compare (okay picture in black and white) with (okay picture colored).
Too bad I don't have Photoshop either for Mac or PC, but I really don't have $600 to burn, and I don't trust the e-mail offers that sell it for '$65' or so...that would be exceedingly cool, especially if I knew how to use it.
Oh, and I won't only have this picture up. I hope to draw a few varied scenes and possibly styles to try out the medium.
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/ue_rd")Fatal Alliance- an upcoming quasi-TC for EVN.(/url) Secret Project: In intermediate planning stages. (No links available)
(This message has been edited by UE_Research & Development (edited 09-18-2003).)
Quote
Originally posted by UE_Research & Development: Mark 2 of the picture sports much more detail than the first. It was drawn more carefully (more emphasis on straight lines being straight) and the lines were inked with a ballpoint pen. Whatever compression Jonathan did to the pic really worked; the artifacts that were bugging me are a lot less obvious when the picture is posted here.
It's just a 50% JPEG compression. The artifacts aren't really visible simply because the picture is smaller, I suspect.
So far, I quite like the simplicity and clarity of the B&W; one.
If you're using a Mac, get Graphic Converter. It's not as powerful (or easy to use IMHO), but it does the basic jobs okay and has a great import/export range as well as strong batch tools. Anytime I want to prep a large number of photos for the web, they go straight through its convert tool. If you're stuck with Windows, I've heard good things about Paint Shop Pro.
------------------ (url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanboyd/evn/index.html")Classic4Nova plug-in(/url)
Hell, use AppleWorks, even. It too has the basic functions, and can export in PICT format, which really is all you need to be using. It, like any program, can take a little getting used to, but I prefer it the most...even though I have GraphicConverter and Photoshop. If I need to convert to something (which I have done countless times...), I copy and paste into GC from AW. I rarely use Photoshop at all, mostly because it's so frickin' powerful and I'm scared of it (odd phobia, eh?)...just giving an even easier suggestion.
------------------ The programmer's code of etemology: "There's always another bug." (Etemology is defined as the study of insects.) (Or was it just bugs in general?)
(This message has been edited by orcaloverbri9 (edited 09-18-2003).)
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: **Hell, use AppleWorks, even. It too has the basic functions, and can export in PICT format, which really is all you need to be using. It, like any program, can take a little getting used to, but I prefer it the most...even though I have GraphicConverter and Photoshop. If I need to convert to something (which I have done countless times...), I copy and paste into GC from AW. I rarely use Photoshop at all, mostly because it's so frickin' powerful and I'm scared of it (odd phobia, eh?)...just giving an even easier suggestion.
**
Ick. AppleWorks is too basic. No layers, changing document size is irritating, no indexed colour mode, no magic wand tool, lousy selection tools in general compared to Photoshop. And quite a few other things missing that I've forgotten because it's so long since I used it. No multiple undo is a biggie.
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: **Ick. AppleWorks is too basic. No layers, changing document size is irritating, no indexed colour mode, no magic wand tool, lousy selection tools in general compared to Photoshop. And quite a few other things missing that I've forgotten because it's so long since I used it. No multiple undo is a biggie.
I REPEAT: Just giving an easier solution. Besides, since when are layers necessary? And changing document sizewhat's wrong with that? Also, there IS, in fact, a magic wand tool; the selection tools are just fine for what I use them for as well. It really depends on what level you are edititng at. Remember that while you may think of Photoshop as standard, others may think of it as advanced (like me :p). if you're going to use GraphicConverter, you might as well use AppleWorks: it has pretty much the same features, and those it lacks are pretty much irrelevant. The large range of formats hardly helps when your main focus should be PICT. Oh, and by the way, have you ever looked up at the transform bar?
In any case, Photoshop is called PHOTOshop for a reason. It is meant more for photo-quality images rather than the slightly cartoonish style used in EV. I sincerely doubt that all those countless features that you can't figure out are necessary (in this case, anyway; remember that we aren't talking a whole TC with a slew of new graphics).
Odd how this discussion ended up, eh? Well, there's a third alternative that any self-respecting Mac user should have.
It might be interesting to keep them all black and white for the time being. It would certainly be unique.
------------------ Moderator- (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=9&SUBMIT;=Go&mrxak;=cool")EV Developer's Corner(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=69SUBMIT=Go&mrxak;=cool")Uplink Web Board(/url) | (url="http://"http://forums.evula.com/viewforum.php?f=18")mrxak's Assorted Webspace Forum(/url) | (url="http://"http://forums.evula.com/viewforum.php?f=48")Starcraft Forum(/url) | | (url="http://"http://directory.perfectparadox.com/profile.php?id=00008")My Profile(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/postdisplay.cgi?forum=Forum10&topic;=007599-2&whichpost;=mrxak11-06-200203:22PM")mrxak(/url) (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/mrxak/")mrxak's Assorted Webspace(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/mrxak/Haikus/haikuarchive.html")The Haiku Archive(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/mrxak/EV/N/mbspt/mbspt.html")mrxak's Big Secret Plug-in/Tutorial(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/mrxak/EV/N/amtc/amtc.html")A mrxak TC(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/vftp/dl-redirect.pl/TheChallenge102.sea.bin?path=evn/plugins&file;=TheChallenge102.sea.bin")The Challenge v1.0.2(/url) (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/search.cgi?action=intro")Search First(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.macgamer.net/games/uplink/")Uplink Guide(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/survival_guide/")EV/O/N Guide(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=31&SUBMIT;=Go")Plug-in Guide(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003091.html")Plug-in Testers(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003196.html")Developers(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/games/evn/addons.html")Nova Addons(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.resexcellence.com/support_files/resedit.shtml")ResEdit(/url) | (url="http://"http://w00tware.ev-nova.net/")NovaTools(/url) "When you burn your bridges, just make sure they aren't in front of you." -mrxak
Originally posted by UE_Research & Development: **Too bad I don't have Photoshop either for Mac or PC, but I really don't have $600 to burn, and I don't trust the e-mail offers that sell it for '$65' or so...that would be exceedingly cool, especially if I knew how to use it.
You might want to try the (url="http://"http://www.gimp.org")GIMP(/url) if you want most of Photoshop's features in a cheap (free) package. I haven't used it myself though, so I can't tell you how well it works or how easy to use it is. I'm pretty sure it is available for windows. Don't know about Mac though.
------------------
Originally posted by mrxak: **It might be interesting to keep them all black and white for the time being. It would certainly be unique.
Yeah, and with a little more style and stuff it could turn into a really neat noir style kind of plug. Mmmm.
------------------ Fat cat, small dreams.
Originally posted by TrevorG: You might want to try the GIMP if you want most of Photoshop's features in a cheap (free) package. I haven't used it myself though, so I can't tell you how well it works or how easy to use it is. I'm pretty sure it is available for windows. Don't know about Mac though.
The GIMP is great and has a lot of functionality, but it's a bit unpolished on Windows and it's not the easiest thing to figure out in a hurry. I seem to recall that you had to know what you were doing to use the more advanced features, and I came across some scary maths-based features a few times.
Paint Shop Pro is also a super program, and is very cheap. It hasn't quite got the functionality and power of things like Photoshop and Photodraw, etc, but it's still the graphics program worth having if you can't afford (or can't be bothered figuring out) the more powerhouse aps.
$0.02
- CiM
(This message has been edited by CiM (edited 09-18-2003).)
Originally posted by LawnGnome: **Yeah, and with a little more style and stuff it could turn into a really neat noir style kind of plug. Mmmm.
drool.... Film noir-esque TC... that would rock. Too bad the only people I'd trust to do it well are already doing stuff. Ah well, so die my dreams. Moving back on topic, if conversion to .PICT codec is the only problem, pick up Graphics Converter, it's a good utility to have anyway, for the Photoshop-less. Or, get a Photoshop license off of e-bay or something for $20 or so. Shouldn't be that hard to get a hold of.
------------------ Hail to the Mage King! May the Wind of the Falcon guide you. (url="http://"http://members.tripod.com/lunarproductions/tc.html") Phoenix (/url)
(quote)Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: I REPEAT: Just giving an easier solution. (/quote)
It's not easier; in fact, it's a lot harder to work in because it lacks so many tools that you have to find workarounds.
(quote) Besides, since when are layers necessary? (/quote)
They're not necessary, but they are useful for keeping elements of a ship separated out, or working on several related basic designs.
(quote) And changing document sizewhat's wrong with that? (/quote)
There's no choice between changing the size of the image and size of the canvas - all ti gives is canvas size. You can't select where it will chose as the centre of the image and if you have an image in the clipboard, there's no option to use its dimensions when creating a new document.
(quote) Also, there IS, in fact, a magic wand tool; (/quote)
Only in the most limited sense. There's no tolerance setting, anti-aliasing, etc.
(quote) the selection tools are just fine for what I use them for as well. (/quote)
You can't make multiple selections and it's difficult to select complex multicoloured shapes.
(quote) It really depends on what level you are edititng at. Remember that while you may think of Photoshop as standard, others may think of it as advanced (like me:p ).(/quote)
I don't think of it as standard; I consider it advanced and Appleworks very, very basic. Photoshop Elements and Graphic Converter are the two standardish packages.
(quote) if you're going to use GraphicConverter, you might as well use AppleWorks: it has pretty much the same features, and those it lacks are pretty much irrelevant. (/quote)
Being able to adjust levels, replace colours and fiddle with the brightness and contrast of the red green and blue channels are all useful.
(quote) The large range of formats hardly helps when your main focus should be PICT. (/quote)
On the contrary, GraphicConverter has a large advantage working with PICTs if you don't have Photoshop, as it allows you to save them in indexed colour mode, which takes up a fair bit less space. Though I suppose that is less relevant with RLE now.
(quote) Oh, and by the way, have you ever looked up at the transform bar? (/quote)
Yes, and was thoroughly unimpressed.
(quote) In any case, Photoshop is called PHOTOshop for a reason. It is meant more for photo-quality images rather than the slightly cartoonish style used in EV. (/quote)
Just because it's great at editting photos doesn't mean it can't be great at editting other things. It is used globally for a lot more than just photos and the tool set is very impressive and immensely capable of dealing with EV graphics.
(quote) I sincerely doubt that all those countless features that you can't figure out are necessary (/quote)
I didn't say they were necessary, but they are very useful and can save a lot of time.
(quote) **(in this case, anyway; remember that we aren't talking a whole TC with a slew of new graphics).(quote)(b)
But Appleworks fares no better for edtting existing ships because of its lack of layers, inability to edit brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, levels, etc. and lack of decent selection tools. Graphic Converter falls down on a lot of these too, but it's still an improvement.
(quote)(b)Odd how this discussion ended up, eh? Well, there's a third alternative that any self-respecting Mac user should have.**(/quote)
True, and in a fix, it is adequate for editing, but that's about the most favourable word I could use.
I really should have mentioned Photoshop Elements much earlier. Does a bug chunk of what Photoshop can, including all the stuff I've mentioned, is easier to use, lower on resource demands and most importantly, considerably cheaper. Around Ł75 over here, so I imagine it would go for $99 or less. Quality piece of software.
My power was out for the majority of the day; I'll have two or three pics sent to Jonathan tomorrow for him to post and you to critique.
Heh, after reading your comments, I've decided to do a few more in black-and-white. However, before I read those comments, I did a partially colored version of the black-and-white image (the sky remained white, possibly for a future superimposition of a CG image).
This will probably be my last 'rusting cityscape' image for now, unless I really see something that can be drastically improved. I'm shifting focus to drawing a couple of black-and-white images of various scenes for you to critique :).
Latest pic:
(This message has been edited by Jonathan Boyd (edited 09-20-2003).)
That's looking great. By the way, if your considering GIMP, you might have a little trouble finding the place to download the correct version. Go to (url="http://"http://www.macgimp.org")http://www.macgimp.org(/url) for Mac GIMP and (url="http://"http://www.wingimp.org")http://www.wingimp.org(/url) for Windows GIMP.
------------------ C:dos C:dosrun rundosrun
When I said "easier solution," I meant that it was more likely someone would have it than GrapicConverter.
Question: what is the difference between "canvas" and "image"? And, if "image" is the selection, you are totally and completely wrong.
It most certainly is not difficult to select complex, multi-colored shapes.
Very, very basic compared to advanced? You have interesting opinions...
Did I not say "pretty much" and not "completely"?
Hello, I said the FORMAT RANGE, not the features when saving.
Not every program not up to Photoshop standards is very, very basic. Keep in mind that Photoshop was made entirely for graphics, while AppleWorks also does word processing, spreadsheets, slide shows, and maybe more, so of course it doesn't come up to Photoshop par. But that doesn't make it a worthless piece of junk that should never be used for graphics in all of its existence.
In any case (back on topic now, assuming Jonathan will stop exaggerating tremendously about how basic AppleWorks is), the pic looks pretty good. not very realistic, of course, but I know for a fact that realism was NOT your aim (that, and it was hand-drawn). keep up the good work
AppleWorks has fewer useful features than MacPaint, one of the tools it replaced.
Also, it's horrendously buggy. At my place of employ, The Friends' School, Hobart, we use AppleWorks exclusively because we're all Mac (and poor). I wish to high heaven we could use something else, because it's attrocious.
Our photography students and higher year computer aided design students use Photoshop. I personally tested GIMP to see if it was a usable replacement. In it's favour:
Against:
Hard for Mac users to transition to
Bad layout of tools
Slow
Buggy
Far fewer features than Photoshop
No colour management to speak of
Sorry. Photoshop every time if you're doing something serious.
all the best,
Dave @ ATMOS
(This message has been edited by pipeline (edited 09-21-2003).)
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: When I said "easier solution," I meant that it was more likely someone would have it than GrapicConverter.
That's not easier; it's more readily available. Besides, many magazine CDs carry GRaphic Converter and it's eaily downloaded.
Canvas is the entire working area. Image is the image sitting on it. If you resize the canvas, it enlarges the working area and leaves the image the same size i.e. you get more space round the edges. If you resize the image, everything gets enlarged.
Yet you don't explain how it is done... How do you select say a block of red, a block of rule and a block of green all at the same time? I can do that in 3 clicks in Photoshop.
You're not seriously suggesting that Appleworks is anything more than extremely basic are you? It's not a graphics program. It's useful for adding basic graphics to a newsletter, but little more.
I was addressing your point that those it didn't have were irrelevant. I'm saying they (i)are(i) relevant.
And I said it can't save indexed PICTS, which concerns the format range - here, Appleworks is inadequate.
Not every program not up to Photoshop standards is very, very basic.
You're beating up a strawman there; I never claimed that. In fact, I said the opposite, stating that Graphic Converter and Photoshop Elements were inbetween the two.
Keep in mind that Photoshop was made entirely for graphics, while AppleWorks also does word processing, spreadsheets, slide shows, and maybe more, so of course it doesn't come up to Photoshop par.
I'm judging them purely on the features they offer, rather than on what they are inteded for, since that is what is relevant when you are trying to determine the best tool for a job - capability rather than intention. AppleWorks doesn't get bonus point for being able to de spreadsheets. That won't help be edit graphics.
But that doesn't make it a worthless piece of junk that should never be used for graphics in all of its existence.
You're getting worked up over something I never said. Appleworks has its place, but it no way compares to Photoshop.
In any case (back on topic now, assuming Jonathan will stop exaggerating tremendously about how basic AppleWorks is
<raised eyebrows>
One last point - when you reply to someone, please quote some text, otherwise people have to go and reread several previous posts to get the context of what you're saying. Writing 'Did I not say "pretty much" and not "completely"?' without any context can be confusing at first glance.
Originally posted by pipeline: Also, it's horrendously buggy. At my place of employ, The Friends' School, Hobart, we use AppleWorks exclusively because we're all Mac (and poor). I wish to high heaven we could use something else, because it's attrocious.
Did you ever try Photoshop Elements? A lot cheaper and has most of the functionality. Can't do CMYK colour though.
For editing photos, the free PixelNhance is my first stop though. Takes care of 90%+ of my needs. Adjust:
It's free, Mac OS X native, light footprint, instant preview over image, which can be adjusted by moving or rotating a bar about. Discontinued I think, though you may still find copies floating around the web. If not, I have it if you want to fry. Under 5MB.