State of the Amiga, 2007

[adz]

deBrun wrote:

Its hard and it takes people that believe to make a difference.  And you know what?  DPaint ROCKS!

Why?  Because its simple, fast and effective.
THAT'S an Amiga advantage right there.

Sure it was, in its day, DPaint was heads and shoulders above all else, however, these days there are far better alternatives. It may be simple and fast, but it only becomes and advantage when it can offer the same functionality and flexibility as current apps.

[adz]

stopthegop wrote:

I've heard a chorus of people say Dpaint was the best, etc...  So there seems to be somewhat of a consensus in that regard.  What I haven't heard is similarly unanimous praise of any single "current" alternative product.  I think the odds are better of being struck by lightning than seeing two people in the same room declaring "Illustrator rocks!"  I suspect this is because Illustrator is massive, filled to the gills with clever but useless functions, and requires a user manual the size of 'Ana Karenina' and 'War and Peace' put together (only with more complexity).  Gee, that sounds like "fun"...  No thanks, I'll stick with Dpaint.      

Visit any photography or digital art forum and you will hear plenty of praise for Photoshop or The Gimp. Sure they are bigger, but they are also worlds apart in terms of what you can do. Try running a digital dark room with DPaint, it just can't be done.

however, these days there are far better alternatives

Photoshop and The Gimp, as already mentioned.

Dpaint is simple, fast. And fun -- fun because it is simple and fast.  Its also "functional" in that it works exactly as advertised.  It is also extremely flexible, thanks largely to Arexx and the modular design of the Amiga operating system.  It is as functional and flexible as one's imagination.  I think juxtaposing "current" apps with increased flexibility is a common mistake.

Photoshop and The Gimp are fun, fast and work as advertised on all my machines and across multiple platforms, even my PPC version of CS2 runs great on my Intel Macbook, who'd of though ey?

Honestly, I don't know why I keep falling for your blatent trolling. What is it about you that makes you rear up every time someone points out that there are better modern alternatives?

[adz]

stopthegop wrote:

Everyone who posts here is stating an opinion, but my opinion -- simply because it differs from yours -- is trolling?  Thats fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  Or was that trolling?  Hard to say since we all have opinions.  I guess trolling is done by those whose opinions you don't like?  

Granted we all have different opinions, perhaps it has something to with the way I interpret your style of posting.

To answer your question:  It bugs me when I see computers (or technology in general) described in subjective terms   as unassailable truth, especially when the subjective term(s) is juxtaposed with an actual fact so it appears the entire statement is also a fact, when it is actually nothing more than an opinion.  For example:

"There are better and modern alternatives".  
-True Part = "Modern"
-Subjective Part = "Better"
-Objective Intent:  Modern = Better.  

"There are...better alternatives...with...current apps."
-True Part: "Current"
-Subjective Part: "Better Alternatives"
-Objective Intent: Current = Better Alternative.

Well from my point of view all the extra functionality makes for a better product, I don't just assume that modern = better.

I'm well aware what Photoshop and The Gimp can do.  My point is that 95% of what it can do, most people don't do.  All that extra functionality just gets in the way and actually slows down the 5% of functions that most people do use.  The same is true for most if not all "current" commercial apps.

Well, in my case it is the other way round, although I'm sure at some stage I'll find a use for the 5% that I currently have no use for.

MS Office is the ultimate showcase of useless functionality.

Oh my god, we actually agree on something :-o :lol:


@pVC

From what I've seen, anything you can do with DPaint, can be done with Photoshop, The Gimp, PaintShop etc. etc.

[adz]

stopthegop wrote:

How would you edit the 8 to 12 MP raw image that most serious photographers use today?

Good photographers don't "edit" their pictures.  Its cheating.  Besides, really serious photograhers use both analog as well as digital cameras.  For expediency, digital rules.  For artistic perfection, nothing beats a great analog camera.  Or hybrid in this case.

I still use a combination of film and digital, however, with regards to 35mm, it won't be long now before it is completely defunct. I'm not saying that is a good thing, but thats what's happening. I only know a few photogs that still use film, but they are using medium and large formats, something that will thankfully be around for a very long time. On that note, in a digital darkroom (ie. ) what you are doing is no different from what medium and large format photographers do in their darkrooms, difference is you're dealing with a negative thats made up of 1's and 0's.

[adz]

@stopthegop

Don't get me wrong, I love to see the creations of an old school darkroom worker, but at the same time, I think it's fair to say that being as proficient in software manipulation can be just as difficult.