Get Rid of That Ugly Date Stamp
Posted 15 November 2007 - 11:28 PM
Only well into Mr. Johnson's article does a reader realize that they need a particular retail-product feature (or time to find a substitute) to use Mr. Johnson's best suggestion.
He writes, "... you could use YOUR photo editor's Clone tool to wipe it out" (emphasis mine). Wrong -- I possess no "clone" tool.
Since Mr. Johnson did not reveal if he used a $30 version of Photoshop Elements or a $130 version, I cannot even research what he did.
I claim that less than 12% of photo-editing software for home users contains a clone tool or similar feature, so Mr. Johnson's promise to enhance my expertise may be as empty as this article.
The subtitle would be better as, "Here's how to use a clone tool, contained in some photo-editing programs, to remove a date from the corner of a photo."
Since Mr. Johnson reduced his before-and-after representations to postage-stamp size, it is not possible to judge the results of his work.
I want to evaluate the timestamp's appearance and what the area looks like after its removal. I'm not interested in the subject matter (a hot-air balloon).
I use MS Paint to alter digital images. I've removed timestamps very nicely using basic features. It probably takes me much more time than it takes Mr. Johnson using Photoshop Elements, but I suspect that my results look better.
On the basis of this article alone, I will never know.
MS Paint does not have a clone tool. Naturally, I'm curious to judge the results of Mr. Johnson's method, but his failure to focus the before-and-after examples on the photo's corner leaves me in the dark. These images show nothing useful.
And getting rid of timestamps by cropping them away? That goes without saying; scissors suffice.
Posted 18 November 2007 - 06:50 AM
Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:33 AM
My intent for that post is for it to be more than just a bit harsh, but thanks for the validation, anyways!
Thank you much more for letting me know that there's a link for enlarging an image (i.e., the image itself). The enlarged versions are clearly big enough for me to see the details about which I was curious. I quickly realized that my prediction of MS Paint doing a better job came true.
When I remove a timestamp, I want the result to look at first glance as if the camera had never added the timestamp to begin with. (Barely-noticeable differences do not bother me.)
Perhaps if somebody other than Mr. Johnson had used the Photo Elements' Clone tool, my prediction might not have come true. In other words, the added reflection from the balloon on the surface of the lake (it appears almost to be a false-color reflection of the boaters' torsos) may be a function of Mr. Johnson, as opposed to a flaw in the software, instead.
Posted 23 November 2007 - 06:44 PM
Removed by Moderator Constructive criticism is to be delivered in a teaching or instructive manner rather than such a critical manner. I know this is not directed as constructive, it is not intended to be constructive as you have shown your true colors and are not deserving of anything less than critical - consider yourself effectively reprimanded. Good day.
Edited by MPHEnterprises - No Personal Attacks
Posted 23 November 2007 - 08:59 PM
Constructive criticism in this forum is to be delivered in compliance with PC World's Community Standards.
This particular thread is to discuss Mr. Johnson's article. Rather than trying to moderate the forum when you disagree with someone's comments, you have better choices.
You could post something to support your argument that this article is truly wonderful. What do you find of substance?
I view PC World as a high-class publication with knowledgeable contributors. I did not research Mr. Johnson's other work, nor do I need to in order to post my comments about this particular article.
I think this article is below PC World's standards, and I suspect that it's not Mr. Johnson's best work. (I note that nearly 33% who voted gave this article a thumbs down.)
I acknowledge your unsolicited opinions about me; I lack social graces. In the future, please vent to email@example.com, and leave this space for its intended purpose.
Posted 13 May 2008 - 04:09 AM
Harking years back, flaming is an ancient net custom. Even in the days of Usenet the flamers hyperbolized and the more sensible (my definition thereof) tried to abate it. Seems nothing has changed.
Posted 10 November 2008 - 02:38 AM