Graphic Converter fans

[rcdickins65]

David Pogue, columnist for the New York Times on technology, has just written twice about Adobe's rental program for Photoshop software at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/techn ... 30705&_r=0 and http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/ ... t_20130705). He suggests GIMP as a substitute. My comment (see below) suggests Graphic Converter. If you are a fan, you may wish to respond in favor of GC, too, before the comments close. Ruth Dickinson (Arcedes) _________________ Arcedes Topeka, KS If you are a Mac user, forget about Photoshop and download Lemke Software's "Graphic Converter." It is classified as shareware and is free to users until they decide whether or not to purchase it, and Lemke is not pushy about purchase. A super feature of Graphic
Converter is the ongoing User Forum where daily discussions take place with the active participation of Thorsten Lemke. They deliver true customer support for a very useful photo editing program. July 5, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.

[bfranklinrules]

Personally, the reason I originally bought GC was this it did a few simple things very well - and some which Photoshop didn't do at all. Now we're talking about making GC an imitation of Photoshop? Naw, for that we have GIMP. Photoshop is a great image editor /modifier - for those serious about investing the time, intelligence and money to do that kind of thing. Wanna make grandma look like she's nineteen again? You can do that with Photoshop. Wanna make G.W. Bush or O.H. Obama look like tinfoil hat crazies? You can do that with Photoshop (or by writing a real expose of either of them). Seriously - consider this an official request: stop complicating GraphicConverter. It's become overloaded with "features requested by users." The breakthrough feature for GC was its ability to convert many kinds of image files into other kinds of image files. Guess what, one of those conversions was (or is) converting jpegs to PSD files - so you can use layers WITH Photoshop. Somewhere around version 3.8, GC maxed out on practical modifications (aka, "features"). Since then, it's been all about catering to hobbyists who happen to have a Mac and a bedroom, basement or attic to tinker around in. Enough already. --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, "rcdickins65" <rcdickins@...> wrote: > > David Pogue, columnist for the New York Times on technology, has just written twice about Adobe's rental program for Photoshop software at: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/techn ... 30705&_r=0 > > and > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/ ... t_20130705). > > He suggests GIMP as a substitute. My comment (see below) suggests Graphic Converter. If you are a fan, you may wish to respond in favor of GC, too, before the comments close. > > Ruth Dickinson (Arcedes) > _________________ > > Arcedes > Topeka, KS > > If you are a Mac user, forget about Photoshop and download Lemke Software's "Graphic Converter." It is classified as shareware and is free to users until they decide whether or not to purchase it, and Lemke is not pushy about purchase. A super feature of Graphic
Converter is the ongoing User Forum where daily discussions take place with the active participation of Thorsten Lemke. They deliver true customer support for a very useful photo editing program. > July 5, 2013 at 10:05 p.m. >

[Aaron Eton]

I have used GC for decades. I am not a power user, just use it for amateur pictures I download that are horribly un-croppped or badly exposed. I don't mind the extra features as the are added, they don't get in the way of what i want to do. And sometimes when i figure them out, they are useful. Hagen's manual is useful but not always up-to-date. I bought Photoshop after using GC for quite a time, and gave up trying to learn it's complicated, arcane user interface. What a waste of time and money. GC generally seems logical to me.

[Robert Poland]

On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Aaron Eton <davidknodel@yahoo.com> wrote: > I have used GC for decades. I am not a power user, just use it for amateur pictures I download that are horribly un-croppped or badly exposed. I don't mind the extra features as the are added, they don't get in the way of what i want to do. And sometimes when i figure them out, they are useful. Hagen's manual is useful but not always up-to-date. > I bought Photoshop after using GC for quite a time, and gave up trying to learn it's complicated, arcane user interface. What a waste of time and money. > GC generally seems logical to me. I to have used GC for decades. I still need and use Photoshop, mainly, to edit text in PSD layers. Robert Poland - Fort Collins, CO