@amigang

For me it's really about the timing. Late 80's. When Amiag was the machine to do graphic stuff on.

I don't know if DPaint PC made it past 256 colours, not that I recall. But I didn't see it go past DOS either. And I have to ask, where was DPaint Mac? LOL.

@Hypex

Quote:

I don't have any experience with Photoshop but I agree with you when it comes to GIMP. So I wanted to take a brush and overlay it on an image. Simple DPaint stuff. I knew how it would be done. I could not figure GIMP out.

Your incompetance at learning to use software does not make a program unintuitive.

It's trivially easy.

Select an area using one of the selection tools (something DPaint PPaint et al doesn't even have, which is part of the problem, your early learning has limited your expectations, so you don't see obvious solutions) Menu->Edit->Copy (CTRL- probably works too) then use it directly from the clipboard brush (top left in the brushes section).

You could also use

Menu-Edit->Pasteas .. ->New Brush to save it with more options.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@BigD

Quote:

With Photoshop that's all I ever seem to do when trying to replicate a basic tool in Deluxe Paint!

Therin lies the problem with your approach to learning software. Rather than learn the new you try to replicate the old. The same thing did catch me out at one point, then I just got the way of switching paradigms, to learn the new approach / software and not always try to redo the old.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

gimp is simply completely unintuitive and inpractical, no matter if user is ready to learn it or comes with their own set in stone expectations. another example of such software was in the nineties corel draw. there are much better free or open source painting packages if not for krita, which also has ist flows. i have never even heard of anyone actually using gimp for anything, except maybe cropping or rotating a photo.

@wawa

I've used GIMP for poster and logo design. While GIMP certainly isn't easy to start using, it's every bit as powerful as Photoshop and in some area's, I feel it's superior.

@Hypex

Quote:

According to what I read a primitive Photoshop was wrtiten on a Mac to simply display greyscale images.

If you have some real information, please post the links. As far as I know Photoshop is called "photo shop" because it was used for photo manipulation via layers. Maybe you are talking about early versions that where never sold under the name Photoshop ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Early_history )

Image manipulation vial layers is huge difference to the pixel oriented programs on Amiga. The Mac II from 1987 supported 24Bit Color graphic ( http://apple-history.com/ii ) , Adobe Photoshop was first sold in 1988 when this computer was available.

The Amiga could not compete in color depth and most small Amigas could not handle the amount of data used for professional image processing.

The AmigaOS did not support Graphic cards and GFX systems like CGX or P96 that could display the Workbench on the GFX Card where not possible before AmigaOS3.1.

Quote:

wawa wrote: @broadblues gimp is simply completely unintuitive and inpractical, no matter if user is ready to learn it or comes with their own set in stone expectations. another example of such software was in the nineties corel draw. there are much better free or open source painting packages if not for krita, which also has ist flows. i have never even heard of anyone actually using gimp for anything, except maybe cropping or rotating a photo.

Yeah, I agree with you. But that's why Gimphoto exists: http://www.gimphoto.com/

Unluckily, it's very seldom updated and it's never at same level of original GIMP, so using it you may miss many newer GIMP features. But it's a good starting point if you can't afford Photoshop but you miss Photoshop's GUI.

@broadblues

Quote:

Your incompetance at learning to use software does not make a program unintuitive.

Well that's a rather narrow minded view. I only cited one program I had trouble with here.

Quote:

Select an area using one of the selection tools (something DPaint PPaint et al doesn't even have, which is part of the problem, your early learning has limited your expectations, so you don't see obvious solutions) Menu->Edit->Copy (CTRL- probably works too) then use it directly from the clipboard brush (top left in the brushes section).

That's pretty much the process I went through. But I needed to work more efficiently. I was almost stabbing in the dark with my editing. I need to cut out a brush which I did. But then I needed to resize it to fit the area I was pasting into. However I only found a resize window but I needed to drag points to resize. Then I needed to see the brush move around over the layer so I could see where to stamp it.

It's only when I started the operation that I knew what I needed for good work flow. Now even with the editing I did was a bit more than DPaint could do. Though apparently it had a scissor tool. And in DPaint brushes can act as sprites (or BOBs) so you can see where you're stamping it.

To get this far with GIMP would need more learning. And maybe changing some prefs. Since I only had a dotted outline and no sprite. But that was my cut off point as I did what I set out to do. Learning how to work with the layer system in the process.

@OneTimer1

Quote:

Maybe you are talking about early versions that where never sold under the name Photoshop

I am. Using the exact link you provided. That's why I called it primitive. And also before said it eventually would become Photoshop.

Quote:

Image manipulation vial layers is huge difference to the pixel oriented programs on Amiga

And yet layers should have been perfect for the Amiga. The OS internals have a specific API for handling layers that is used below the GUI level to display windows. And the hardware being planar actually has the bitmap in actual layers.

Quote:

The Mac II from 1987 supported 24Bit Color graphic

That's pretty shocking. That's when the Amiga was getting fairly popular. But what it doesn't say is how much a 24-bit video card cost. It says that Mac had 640x480 in 256 colours; VGA standard it sounds.

Quote:

The Amiga could not compete in color depth and most small Amigas could not handle the amount of data used for professional image processing.

Given the Amiga was considered the superior machine and the "quirks" in the MacOS would soon cause problems with full 32-bits it also comes as another shock.

Quote:

The AmigaOS did not support Graphic cards and GFX systems like CGX or P96 that could display the Workbench on the GFX Card where not possible before AmigaOS3.1.

Not so fast. I recall reading about video cards like the EGS when OS1.3 was popular. Now 3.0 is said to be in 1992 and 3.1 in 1994. And the EGS Spectrum listed as 1993. What I haven't seen is OS version it needed. And most A2000's would have have had OS1.3 unless upgraded.

According to this site the first Amiga video card was released in 1990. The X-Pert Visiona . So at the WB2.0 level. I don't know if that was the minimum OS needed.

http://distrita.com/amiga-graphic-card-guide/

@Hypex VGA came in 1987 and could only do 320x200 in 256c with a 18bit palette.

The Mac II could do 640x480 in 256 colors and had a 24bit palette. Of course it also supported graphic cards.

For the comparison AGA only came in 1992: that's 5 years later.

No wonder Photoshop wasn't released for the Amiga.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Hypex

Quote:

And yet layers should have been perfect for the Amiga. The OS internals have a specific API for handling layers that is used below the GUI level to display windows. And the hardware being planar actually has the bitmap in actual layers.

No developer in his right mind would even consider useing layers.library to implement layers in a GFX program. They may sound the same, but layers and layers are pretty different in those 2.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Hypex

Quote:

Quote: @broadblues Quote: Your incompetance at learning to use software does not make a program unintuitive. Well that's a rather narrow minded view. I only cited one program I had trouble with here.

It's challenghing statement for sure, but the mind that confuses "not what I'm used yo " with 'unintuitive' is the one thats closed...
Quote:

Quote: Quote: Select an area using one of the selection tools (something DPaint PPaint et al doesn't even have, which is part of the problem, your early learning has limited your expectations, so you don't see obvious solutions) Menu->Edit->Copy (CTRL- probably works too) then use it directly from the clipboard brush (top left in the brushes section). That's pretty much the process I went through. But I needed to work more efficiently. I was almost stabbing in the dark with my editing. I need to cut out a brush which I did. But then I needed to resize it to fit the area I was pasting into. However I only found a resize window but I needed to drag points to resize. Then I needed to see the brush move around over the layer so I could see where to stamp it.

I think you really needed a layer here. So you could resize the layer over the other image you wanted scale (or transform it in other ways like rotate, perspective adjust etc) and merge it with the main image.

The point here is not to be mean to you about how you used the software but to emphasize that teqniques develope, DPaint style software is antiquated and poorly design for modern image manipulation tasks. You can still do alot with it, but it more out of a sense of nostalgia and challenge, you need to leave that behnd when approaching new software.

Last edited by broadblues on 08-Jan-2017 at 06:09 PM.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@Hypex

Quote:

Quote: Quote: Image manipulation vial layers is huge difference to the pixel oriented programs on Amiga And yet layers should have been perfect for the Amiga. The OS internals have a specific API for handling layers that is used below the GUI level to display windows. And the hardware being planar actually has the bitmap in actual layers.

Seriously? The similarity in name is about where it ends, you might as well say that an A500 is suitable for using to saw wood as it has a workbench!

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: ... Seriously? The similarity in name is about where it ends, you might as well say that an A500 is suitable for using to saw wood as it has a workbench!

tsk, tsk that's not a dull statement, of course it is suitable, as long as it is sharp enough it cuts trough wood. you just have to use your mind.. Amiga is the computer for the sharp mind!

oh, no! it was the creative mind! darn!

@broadblues & TRIPOS
Maybe I should have said "is doing" instead of "can do". ImageFX serves my photo editing needs. What I really want (need) is an OS4 native developer program like an updated UFRaw.

_________________
X1000 with 2GB memory & OS4.1FE

@Hypex


in 1995/1996 we was using amiga 1200/030 with shapeshifter for photoshop and pagemaker, freeand etc etc... in later 1999 fusion on amiga 4000T with 060

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@Leo

Quote:

VGA came in 1987 and could only do 320x200 in 256c with a 18bit palette.

I thought it could do 640x480 as well? In 16 colours or similar for high res.

Quote:

The Mac II could do 640x480 in 256 colors and had a 24bit palette.

Not exactly PAL but that was superior. Who designed the hardware?

Quote:

For the comparison AGA only came in 1992: that's 5 years later.

Yeah Commodore decided not to develop the hardware any futher it looks. The thing is all AGA could offer is poor mans virtual true colour modes with 18-bit palette resolution.

Given HAM was in place for realistic pictures when the hardware wasn't up to full on frame buffer yet. And only needed the memory of a palette mode.

If not for the copper the Amiga hardware would have really sucked by comparison.

Quote:

No wonder Photoshop wasn't released for the Amiga

I'm almost laughing.

They could have ported Display and that's it.

@broadblues

Quote:

I think you really needed a layer here. So you could resize the layer over the other image you wanted scale (or transform it in other ways like rotate, perspective adjust etc) and merge it with the main image.

I actually did end up with my brush in a layer. But I didn't want it trapped to a layer, I wanted it to be free. If the layers could be easily merged in realtime and resized with a WYSIWYG style I could work better.

Quote:

The point here is not to be mean to you about how you used the software but to emphasize that teqniques develope, DPaint style software is antiquated and poorly design for modern image manipulation tasks.

DPaint may not be the best example. I've also used PPaint, ImageFX, AdPro Photogenics, ImageStudio and possibly others I have forgotten. In reality I did it on the Mac because I thought it would be easier than using old quirky Amiga programs and since the Mac was meant to be good for that. So I end up using GIMP which wasn't exactly a native OSX app, it was an X11 app so similar to using AmiCygnix. Works but the interface looks fake and doesn't match the native OS.

I knew in my mind how I would expect advanced software to be, or how things would be if I could do it on paper. Or a touch screen even. It's just a case of finding out how to work with it.

Someone used to a VHS recorder could be easily lost with a DVD recorder. It comes down to what you are used too. When my mum was buying a DVD recorder I asked if it had G-Code to enter TV programs easily. I think it did but once I learned how it worked with digital TV and guides I don't think I ever used it.

Quote:

Seriously? The similarity in name is about where it ends, you might as well say that an A500 is suitable for using to saw wood as it has a workbench!

Yes seriously. The layers of windows are stacked. Just like the layers in graphic programs. Another comparison is play fields.

But what about the A500 being suitable as door wedge because it looks like a giant wedge?

Last edited by Hypex on 09-Jan-2017 at 02:06 PM.

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: @BigD Quote: With Photoshop that's all I ever seem to do when trying to replicate a basic tool in Deluxe Paint! Therin lies the problem with your approach to learning software. Rather than learn the new you try to replicate the old. The same thing did catch me out at one point, then I just got the way of switching paradigms, to learn the new approach / software and not always try to redo the old.

I appreciate your opinion but I really think that the way Deluxe Paint does things is enjoyable and makes both simple and complex features easily accessible. There is a lot we can still learn from these old programs in terms of UI and ease of use.

I think where we are clashing is the idea of workflow and in industry that is the main concern. People are now so used to Adobe Photoshop's 'way' of doing things that the quirks have become 'normal' to millions of design professionals! I think the rejection of Apple's Final Cut X in the professional community and the mass switch to Adobe Premiere demonstrates this well;

Apple was attempting to simplify Final Cut Pro and took an opportunity for a complete redesign when a 64-bit rewrite was required. Rather than simply adapting and tweaking Final Cut 7 to preserve the work flows as to keep the video production industry happy, they decided to attempt to revolutionise the workflows! This annoyed nearly everyone and lost massive market share in this niche! They have made the MacPro an unnecessary expense and failed to keep their killer app relevant when it could have sold this expensive hardware.

I know that Photoshop is too big a product for Adobe to change the workflow significantly in the near future but I still think bottom line is that the Deluxe Paint way of doing things (despite its difference emphasis) was FAR more intuitive and an amazing case study in perfecting the human/machine interface (as is the Amiga in general). This is my opinion but I used graphics programs prior to Deluxe Paint and I don't think it's JUST because I'm used to doing things in a certain way using a certain paradigm.

I have used Photoshop for the first part of my latest Deluxe Paint animation and I have achieved my goals and learned a bit more about how Photoshop works. It is a powerful tool and I'm getting to point of being proficient with what I require of it. However, I will never find it half as enjoyable as using Deluxe Paint on a graphics tablet using the animation tools or using simple bitmap retouching tools.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Thread

Further reading on Apple's redesign culture and the workflow risks inherent;

Videograph: Should I learn Final Cut Pro X or Adobe Premiere Pro?

Reddit: Even Apple doesn't want to use Final Cut Pro X

The second link includes this spot on exchange in the comments;
Quote:

swingerofbirch: Probably doesn't help that the CEO is a bean counter. ClockworkAeroplane: Yup. Apple has their Ballmer now.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios