tutorialblog.org— This is a nice easy method to create the illusion of a magnifying glass which you can lay over any background you like.
Mar 3, 2006View in Crawl 4
That's a great tutorial. What it really demonstrates is how much better you could be doing with something more powerful, though. I could beat the tar out of that result with WinImages.
@dalecom: "haha are you really suggesting that winamages is a better package than photoshop ?"Yes. Even without considering that it's only 50 bucks. WinImages is amazing. Having said that:Photoshop and WinImages are not the same; WinImages does about 90% of what Photoshop does, and a huge number of things Photoshop does not. Photoshop does about half of what WinImages does, and covers just a couple of areas WinImages doesn't, most notably 16-bit channels for a few operations and canned layer effects. Because the programs don't 100% overlap, there will always be reasons to reach for one or the other. In terms of power available per dollar spent, WinImages is the better choice by far.If you think Winimages is NOT as described, please feel free to explain your position. Going "haha" and referring to "software chosen by professionals" (which translates directly to "software with hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing behind it") won't cut it. Bring facts and figures about the software. I'll be happy to respond.With specific reference to the tutorial, I'm saying you can't even DO that in Photoshop. Not that my tutorial is better, but that Photoshop is INCAPABLE of doing what is done there. Disagree? Fine. Show me.My tutorial presents a LIVE magnifying glass. It works. It's pretty much optically correct. You can save it, then plug it on top any image and pan it around and it'll still act just like a real magnifying glass. You can enlarge it, shrink it, it'll still work. You can rotate it, skew it, you name it, and it'll STILL work. You can even create an animation from it.I was able to put it together in about five minutes. Writing it up took much longer.Now, in the simplest possible terms, I am saying you can do this in WinImages, and you can't in Photoshop. Therefore this is a demonstration of an area where I say that WinImages outperforms Photoshop.OK so far? From there, having demonstrated a capability Photoshop doesn't have, and having indicated that WinImages does, in fact, cover most areas that Photoshop does and that WinImages is a very low cost package, it is up to you to figure out the next logical step in the reasoning and either argue against it (with facts and figures, not "haha") or stand down and admit you don't know what you're talking about. My cards are on the table. Time for you to draw, or fold. :)
uh ya, your a moron. Photoshop is really limitless, whereas no serious design profesional would even under the presure of being castrated with a rusty tail pipe, choose to install that program... is that proof enough?Hope you know win 98 is no longer supported by microsft... sorry to have to be the one to break that to you. :-(
fyngyrzMar 3, 2006
That's a great tutorial. What it really demonstrates is how much better you could be doing with something more powerful, though. I could beat the tar out of that result with WinImages.
fyngyrzMar 4, 2006
@dalecom: "haha are you really suggesting that winamages is a better package than photoshop ?"Yes. Even without considering that it's only 50 bucks. WinImages is amazing. Having said that:Photoshop and WinImages are not the same; WinImages does about 90% of what Photoshop does, and a huge number of things Photoshop does not. Photoshop does about half of what WinImages does, and covers just a couple of areas WinImages doesn't, most notably 16-bit channels for a few operations and canned layer effects. Because the programs don't 100% overlap, there will always be reasons to reach for one or the other. In terms of power available per dollar spent, WinImages is the better choice by far.If you think Winimages is NOT as described, please feel free to explain your position. Going "haha" and referring to "software chosen by professionals" (which translates directly to "software with hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing behind it") won't cut it. Bring facts and figures about the software. I'll be happy to respond.With specific reference to the tutorial, I'm saying you can't even DO that in Photoshop. Not that my tutorial is better, but that Photoshop is INCAPABLE of doing what is done there. Disagree? Fine. Show me.My tutorial presents a LIVE magnifying glass. It works. It's pretty much optically correct. You can save it, then plug it on top any image and pan it around and it'll still act just like a real magnifying glass. You can enlarge it, shrink it, it'll still work. You can rotate it, skew it, you name it, and it'll STILL work. You can even create an animation from it.I was able to put it together in about five minutes. Writing it up took much longer.Now, in the simplest possible terms, I am saying you can do this in WinImages, and you can't in Photoshop. Therefore this is a demonstration of an area where I say that WinImages outperforms Photoshop.OK so far? From there, having demonstrated a capability Photoshop doesn't have, and having indicated that WinImages does, in fact, cover most areas that Photoshop does and that WinImages is a very low cost package, it is up to you to figure out the next logical step in the reasoning and either argue against it (with facts and figures, not "haha") or stand down and admit you don't know what you're talking about. My cards are on the table. Time for you to draw, or fold. :)
j3oneJul 11, 2006
uh ya, your a moron. Photoshop is really limitless, whereas no serious design profesional would even under the presure of being castrated with a rusty tail pipe, choose to install that program... is that proof enough?Hope you know win 98 is no longer supported by microsft... sorry to have to be the one to break that to you. :-(