>From: Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net>
>Joel wrote:
>
>> Many thanks, I didn't know about this app [paint.net], I have installed it, and
>> will give it a try next time I need an image editor.
>
>Please do let the rest of us know how it goes for you, whether good or bad,
>because what I care about it to learn from others, and to help others, and,
>when an Apple newsgroup is involved, to show the iKooks for what they are.

So, my friend and I finally got around to playing with my scanner,
today, and while there wasn't any hardcore editing needed, using
paint.net to directly access the scanner was a thing, and then working
with the images was far more straightforward than with Microsoft's
apps and GIMP. Clearly, paint.net is the best non-Photoshop app, for
the Windows platform.

I have removed the filter on your posts, BTW, Andy.

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

>>Please do let the rest of us know how it goes for you, whether good or bad,
>>because what I care about it to learn from others, and to help others, and,
>>when an Apple newsgroup is involved, to show the iKooks for what they are.
>
> So, my friend and I finally got around to playing with my scanner,
> today, and while there wasn't any hardcore editing needed, using
> paint.net to directly access the scanner was a thing, and then working
> with the images was far more straightforward than with Microsoft's
> apps and GIMP. Clearly, paint.net is the best non-Photoshop app, for
> the Windows platform.

Wow. I'm impressed. Very few people would do what you did.

a. You complained (aptly so) about the usability of, e.g., The GIMP;
b. I proposed a solution (rightly so) which I've personally tested;
c. I tested that solution against _every_ program (including PhotoShop);
d. You noted you couldn't use the PhotoShop I used (understandably so);
e. I noted where to find the _free_ Paint.Net & that it used NET.Framework;
f. I asked you to test it out and publicly review the given suggestion;
g. Since, as an adult I don't fear facts - I never have - & I never will;
h. You _installed_ that program and then you tested it against your needs;
i. And, for the benefit of all, you publicly reported on your findings!

Kudos to you for being a purposefully helpful adult adding on-topic value.

> I have removed the filter on your posts, BTW, Andy.

I've been on Usenet for decades and have only been forced to filter people
like Snit and Alan Baker who cannot possibly add even an iota of value.

Those who filter me, e.g., Steve & Alan Browne, do so in order to avoid
seeing facts, and that doesn't bother me as it's proof they wish to be
ignorant of facts which they, themselves, don't wish to be confronted with.

What I do with people who are in the gray area is assign a value to each
poster, from one to a thousand, where that value shows up alongside their
posts. That way I can remember you from your posts of even a decade prior.

Having written more tutorials than I can count, on most newsgroups I have a
singular purpose, which is to learn from others and to help others.

If my free PhotoShop alternative program suggestion worked for you, then I
have achieved my goal of striving to help others do what I can easily do.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully suggest a free PhotoShop alternative.

Am 06.04.23 um 02:34 schrieb Joel:
> So, my friend and I finally got around to playing with my scanner,
> today, and while there wasn't any hardcore editing needed, using
> paint.net to directly access the scanner was a thing, and then working
> with the images was far more straightforward than with Microsoft's
> apps and GIMP. Clearly, paint.net is the best non-Photoshop app, for
> the Windows platform.
>
> I have removed the filter on your posts, BTW, Andy.

What a lethal mistake ... *SCNR*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>> So, my friend and I finally got around to playing with my scanner,
>> today, and while there wasn't any hardcore editing needed, using
>> paint.net to directly access the scanner was a thing, and then working
>> with the images was far more straightforward than with Microsoft's
>> apps and GIMP. Clearly, paint.net is the best non-Photoshop app, for
>> the Windows platform.
>
>Wow. I'm impressed. Very few people would do what you did.
>
>a. You complained (aptly so) about the usability of, e.g., The GIMP;
>b. I proposed a solution (rightly so) which I've personally tested;
>c. I tested that solution against _every_ program (including PhotoShop);
>d. You noted you couldn't use the PhotoShop I used (understandably so);
>e. I noted where to find the _free_ Paint.Net & that it used NET.Framework;
>f. I asked you to test it out and publicly review the given suggestion;
>g. Since, as an adult I don't fear facts - I never have - & I never will;
>h. You _installed_ that program and then you tested it against your needs;
>i. And, for the benefit of all, you publicly reported on your findings!
>
>Kudos to you for being a purposefully helpful adult adding on-topic value.

Hey, I really do appreciate your reference to the app, it's a fabulous
piece of code, available to try for free. Can't beat that!

However, I just noticed on their main Web site that they recommend
purchasing the Microsoft Store version, as a way to support them
financially and to obtain the best version of the app, but one can
alternatively donate directly. Going to the MS Store, I see they have
it on sale for $7.49 (vs. $9.99 regular price), I think I will do it
that way.

>> I have removed the filter on your posts, BTW, Andy.
>
>I've been on Usenet for decades and have only been forced to filter people
>like Snit and Alan Baker who cannot possibly add even an iota of value.

I just wanted to move past the previous thread, and see your potential
reply in this one. I honestly really have been pretty thrilled with
your suggestion of paint.net, as you can see since I am going to
monetarily support it.

>Those who filter me, e.g., Steve & Alan Browne, do so in order to avoid
>seeing facts, and that doesn't bother me as it's proof they wish to be
>ignorant of facts which they, themselves, don't wish to be confronted with.
>
>What I do with people who are in the gray area is assign a value to each
>poster, from one to a thousand, where that value shows up alongside their
>posts. That way I can remember you from your posts of even a decade prior.
>
>Having written more tutorials than I can count, on most newsgroups I have a
>singular purpose, which is to learn from others and to help others.
>
>If my free PhotoShop alternative program suggestion worked for you, then I
>have achieved my goal of striving to help others do what I can easily do.

Cool.

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> Hey, I really do appreciate your reference to the app, it's a fabulous
> piece of code, available to try for free. Can't beat that!

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the update on Paint.NET because sometimes I feel I am preaching
to the winds when I assess that it's better than PhotoShop for what I do.

I'm all about facts and being purposefully helpful, where you'll only see
me get cross with people who dispute facts - which means they are fools.

Adults never dispute facts (as facts are funny that way).
Adults very often dispute assessments of facts (adults are funny that way).

AN example of a fact is that Paint.NET is free.
Some people might say it's not free because it's also sold by Microsoft.
That doesn't mean it's not free.
That just means you can buy it or you can get it for free.

It's your choice what you do as long as you know about both choices; I have
no beef with anyone who decides to pay for what they can get for free.

An example of an assessment of fact is that Paint.NET is "as good" for the
things I need to do (and perhaps "much easier") than is PhotoShop.

That's an _assessment_ of a fact, which is something that adults can
logically disagree on because it depends on their assessment of those
facts.

You'll often see the iKooks moron ask you to _prove_ that Paint.NET is
"better" than PhotoShop, which just proves how stupid iKooks are.

It's impossible to prove something which is an _assessment_, but the iKooks
can never figure out the difference between a fact & an assessment.

A fact, for example, is that PhotoShop and Paint.NET draw curved arrows.
An assessment of that fact could be that Paint.NET does it easier.

Anyway, I'm glad you found that Paint.NET has met your immediate need.
All I care about is to be helpful to others and to learn from them.

In trying to be purposefully helpful for you and for the lurkers, I noticed
some things that you may not be aware of that can further help you and
which almost every regular on r.p.d is certainly well aware of, which is.

1. Paint.NET has a shit ton of plugins ... if you need them.
(They end up doing everything that the program doesn't yet do.)
<https://forums.getpaint.net/forum/7-plugins-publishing-only/>

Personally, I don't think I'm using any Paint.NET plugins at
the moment, but you might need them for doing non-standard stuff.

2. I noticed you are using Paint.NET for the TWAIN scanner.
And that's fine. I've never used it for the TWAIN connection.

My TWAIN software of choice has been Irfanview freeware for years.
The beauty of Irfanview is its speed.

Check it out and you can let us know if it's not a faster TWAIN
solution than that of Paint.NET to interface with your scanner.
<https://www.irfanview.com/64bit.htm>

> However, I just noticed on their main Web site that they recommend
> purchasing the Microsoft Store version, as a way to support them
> financially and to obtain the best version of the app, but one can
> alternatively donate directly. Going to the MS Store, I see they have
> it on sale for $7.49 (vs. $9.99 regular price), I think I will do it
> that way.

Here's an example of FACT versus ASSESSMENT of that fact, where you may
recall that in decades on Usenet nobodgy (but idiot iKooks) ever disagreed
with teh facts (iKooks are funny that way); but plenty of people rightfully
could disagree on my ASSESSMENT of the facts.

I'll take it, a priori, that they would prefer you to pay Microsoft the $10
for the Paint.NET PhotoShip replacement app, and that would be a fact.

I could also take it, again, a priori, that they want you to do that so
that they can further their development - and that's just a fine fact.

However....

My _assessment_ of those facts, is that if you pay the $10 to Microsoft,
and if Microsoft gets 30% of the take (I'm just guessing at that amount),
then the developers only received $7 of your $10, right?

My _assessment_ of that fact, is that if I truly wanted to help the
developers, maybe I would want to _donate_ $10 to the developers directly,
for example, and keep Microsoft's grubby paws out of their passed hat.

See what I mean?

Adults never disagree on facts (only fools, like iKooks do that).
But adults can perfectly logically disagree on assessments of those facts.

My advice to you, since you seem to want to help the developers?
a. Maybe test the program for a while, and...
b. If you don't like it, ditch it, but...
c. If you like it & if you want to help the developers, donate to them.

BTW, "supposedly" Pinta is the non-net-framework replacement for Paint.NET.
I haven't looked at Pinta in years...

Maybe people on this newsgroup have used Pinta recently?
Last I checked the curved arrows were as bad as PhotoShop curved arrows.
Which sucked.

The advantage of Pinta though, is it works on macOS & Linux along
with Windows and BSD (so it's a cross platform Photoshop replacement).

NOTE: It's a fact that it's a cross platform app; it's an assessment
that it's a Photoshop replacement. The iKooks can't figure that out.

Has anyone on r.p.d looked at Pinta recently, perhaps???
<https://snapcraft.io/pinta>
<https://www.pinta-project.com/releases/>
<https://www.techspot.com/downloads/5501-pinta.html>
<https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/pinta.html>

Let me ask that question separately on the r.p.d newsgroup.
*Has anyone tested cross platform Pinta against PhotoShop lately*
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.photo.digital/c/4kzLC4SmY9M>
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to flesh out advantages to Paint.NET & Pinta.

Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>> Hey, I really do appreciate your reference to the app, it's a fabulous
>> piece of code, available to try for free. Can't beat that!
>
>Hi Joel,
>
>Thanks for the update on Paint.NET because sometimes I feel I am preaching
>to the winds when I assess that it's better than PhotoShop for what I do.
>
>I'm all about facts and being purposefully helpful, where you'll only see
>me get cross with people who dispute facts - which means they are fools.
>
>Adults never dispute facts (as facts are funny that way).
>Adults very often dispute assessments of facts (adults are funny that way).
>
>AN example of a fact is that Paint.NET is free.
>Some people might say it's not free because it's also sold by Microsoft.
>That doesn't mean it's not free.
>That just means you can buy it or you can get it for free.
>
>It's your choice what you do as long as you know about both choices; I have
>no beef with anyone who decides to pay for what they can get for free.

I didn't need to buy it, I wanted to show support for the project, as
I had when I voluntarily donated to GIMP. Nothing to lose, really,
because the more people who buy it, the better it will continue to be.
It'll reward me, with future updates to the app.

--
Joel Crump

Hi Joel, (and anyone who cares to help out on the team)

Please see this recent thread:
*Has anyone tested cross platform Pinta against PhotoShop lately*
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.photo.digital/c/4kzLC4SmY9M>

Let's just move forward, where in another thread, we're comparing
1. PhotoShop (a super expensive - compared to free - complicated mess)
2. Paint.NET (a free Windows-only PhotoShop replacement with ease of use)
3. Pinta (a free cross platform Paint.NET replacement with ease of use)

I can't be the only person on the digital photo newsgroups who has
tested all three of these (albeit only the last two today as geoff
kindly noted) - so - let's hope someone else can test all three.

The three things I care about most (because I use them most) are:
a. Texting
b. Curved arrows
c. Drawing boxes

Specifically being able to infinitely modify any of them mid command.
That's important.

An example is you start texting, you shouldn't have to define a box.
You should be able to change the text and font and size & color.
All mid command without breaking a stride.

Same with curved arrows.
Mid command you should be able to change the thickness, shape,
arrow points, colors, outline, dashes, etc., all mid command.

Likewise with boxes.
You should be able to draw a box, change the shape, maybe make
it opaque, maybe not, change the box to an ellipse, whatever,
all mid command without breaking a stride.

Critical is MOVING the text, arrow and box mid command WITHOUT
needing a separate step of _selecting_ it (which is just stupid).
<https://i.postimg.cc/bJVmhkRM/paintnet-vs-pinta01.jpg> Missing drag box?

In summary, I can't be the only one on these newsgroups to have
tested all three programs, where the last time I tested Pinta
was a year ago and it's a _lot_ better today than it was then.

If others have all three programs, please test them out and
let the rest of us know as facts are one thing, opinions another.

1. PhotoShop (a super expensive - compared to free - complicated mess)
2. Paint.NET (a free Windows-only PhotoShop replacement with ease of use)
3. Pinta (a free cross platform Paint.NET replacement with ease of use)
--
The iKooks can never distinguish between a simple fact & a simple opinion.
They're always demanding you prove your opinion (which is a fool's errand).

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 03:36:35 +0100, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> 3. Pinta (a free cross platform Paint.NET replacement with ease of use)

Pinta was an easy install on Ubuntu and seems to work. One of the few
things I've done with gimp is editing pngs for icons and it's awkward.
I'll have to try it with pinta. I never liked the number of children gimp
spawns and so far pinta keeps to itself.

rbowman wrote:

>> 3. Pinta (a free cross platform Paint.NET replacement with ease of use)
>
> Pinta was an easy install on Ubuntu and seems to work. One of the few
> things I've done with gimp is editing pngs for icons and it's awkward.
> I'll have to try it with pinta. I never liked the number of children gimp
> spawns and so far pinta keeps to itself.

Hi rbowman,
You've helped me a lot over on a.h.r so I respect your acumen on Pinta.
<https://www.pinta-project.com/releases/>

All of us know of The GIMP, which, essentially, can do anything.
However, I personally find The GIMP atrocious in usability for the three
things I do most with my thousands of screenshots posted to forums yearly.
1. Texting
2. Curved arrowing
3. Circling

Here are examples of texting, curved arrowing, and circling that I do.
<https://i.postimg.cc/q7VC5YXV/microsoft-browsers01.jpg> 3 M$ browsers
<https://i.postimg.cc/26F7CZ7V/microsoft-browsers02.jpg> Shortcuts gotcha!
<https://i.postimg.cc/PrcV1pXF/browser06.jpg> 3 M$ browsers at once
<https://i.postimg.cc/Mpwvz1pF/browser09.jpg> Browser:task 1:1 philosophy
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0J1tgDZ/windows-tweak.jpg> Browser 101 philosophy

Thanks for letting us know Pinta installed easily on Ubuntu as it's "main"
claim to fame is that it is _intended_ to be a FOSS cross platform
Paint.NET replacement, which itself was intended to be a Windows-only free
PhotoShop replacement.
<https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/121643-paintnet-50-is-now-available/>

For my purposes, Paint.NET overwhelmingly outclasses PhotoShop in ease of
use, at least when I compared an old PhotoShop version to a just as old
Paint.NET years ago (where I assume PhotoShop didn't get easier to use).
<https://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689-adobe-photoshop-cs2.html>

There's no doubt PhotoShop has some better functionality over Paint.NET so,
as per geoff, I don't want to intimate there is 100% superiority, as, for
example, I found the PhotoShop magic wand to be more accurate than the
Paint.NET magic wand - and yet - the Paint.NET magic wand is good enough
for my needs.

Most people who use PhotoShop likely work on photographs, where I almost
exclusively use Paint.NET for editing screenshots, so the use model matters
greatly - but still - the cost advantage of Paint.NET & Pinta is clear. :)

Please do let us know how Pinta fares for you. For me, I found it a bit
less functional for the three things I care about and a bit more functional
too - which isn't necessarily a wash since the main thing I found
advantageous (the ability to add infinite inflection points) doesn't
outweigh the main thing I found to be detrimental (I haven't found out an
easy way to move objects mid stride - while being edited, in Pinta yet).

Given it's so trivial to move text, circles & arrows midstream in
Paint.NET, if anyone can figure out how to do the same with Pinta, then it
would begin to be a contender to replace Paint.NET, mainly because Lord
knows, I _hate_ NET.Framework (which is a necessary evil for Paint.NET).

We may be the only people to have tested all three tolls, strangely enough.
1. PhotoShop (powerful, expensive, hard to use)
2. Paint.NET (powerful, free, easy-to-use Windows PhotoShop replacement)
3. Pinta (aimed to be a cross-platform FOSS Paint.NET replacement tool)
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to try to get information on Pinta testing results.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

>Thanks for the update on Paint.NET because sometimes I feel I am preaching
>to the winds when I assess that it's better than PhotoShop for what I do.

There are quit a few assholes who pretend to not understand that the
"high end" product is not for everyone. Indeed it's generally not for
most people. Most people are better off with something that's "good
enough" and costs less.

--
"Welcome to the Linux community. Choice is only approved when you
choose what these Linux vermin want you to choose." - "flatfish",
lying shamelessly

On 11/04/2023 7:26 am, chrisv wrote:
> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the update on Paint.NET because sometimes I feel I am preaching
>> to the winds when I assess that it's better than PhotoShop for what I do.
>
> There are quit a few assholes who pretend to not understand that the
> "high end" product is not for everyone. Indeed it's generally not for
> most people. Most people are better off with something that's "good
> enough" and costs less.
>

I have used Paint.net on and off for years. Coming and going with varios
other apps.

Just had another go at doing something incredibly straightforward (ha
ha) in Paint.net, and couldn't simply go ahead and do it. Something that
is easily and intuitively do-able in Windows native Paint app, Windows
Photo app, Paint3D, ACDSee, etc, etc, etc.

That was to simply click a button and drag selection-margins to crop an
image.

If that functionality is there (instead of selection a region with one
tool, then cropping from the the Image menu 'Crop To Selection') , it
isn't obvious.

Also not intuitive (or possible) how to add/remove tools from the
'Tools' floating bar. Not to mention getting its header to read anything
more than 'To...'

geoff

Those wanting low-cost but high quality and capability might look at the Serif
Affinity tools:

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 22:59:31 UTC+1, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>
> > Hey, I really do appreciate your reference to the app, it's a fabulous
> > piece of code, available to try for free. Can't beat that!
> Hi Joel,
>
> Thanks for the update on Paint.NET because sometimes I feel I am preaching
> to the winds when I assess that it's better than PhotoShop for what I do.

which is irrelevant to most .

> I'm all about facts and being purposefully helpful, where you'll only see
> me get cross with people who dispute facts - which means they are fools.

Well facts can be checked and cross referenced.

>
> Adults never dispute facts (as facts are funny that way).

Yes they do.

> Adults very often dispute assessments of facts (adults are funny that way).

Nothing wrong with that but children rarely assess facts.

>
> AN example of a fact is that Paint.NET is free.

Yep so.

> Some people might say it's not free because it's also sold by Microsoft.
> That doesn't mean it's not free.
> That just means you can buy it or you can get it for free.

Yep.

>
> It's your choice what you do as long as you know about both choices; I have
> no beef with anyone who decides to pay for what they can get for free.

Yep a bit like sex really.
Some people pay for it, some people pay people to keep quiet about it, others get it for free.

>
> An example of an assessment of fact is that Paint.NET is "as good" for the
> things I need to do (and perhaps "much easier") than is PhotoShop.

for you that is the case but it';s not true for everyone.

> That's an _assessment_ of a fact, which is something that adults can
> logically disagree on because it depends on their assessment of those
> facts.

But only if they feel the same way as you.
does paint.net give you cloud storage space for keeping your photos in ?
Is paint.net cross platform ?
Does it include cataloging software ?

>
> You'll often see the iKooks moron ask you to _prove_ that Paint.NET is
> "better" than PhotoShop, which just proves how stupid iKooks are.

I doubt that most apple users have little interest in what's avaible for a windows platform/

>
> It's impossible to prove something which is an _assessment_, but the iKooks
> can never figure out the difference between a fact & an assessment.

Pretty easy for most people irrespective of platform used.

>
> In trying to be purposefully helpful for you and for the lurkers, I noticed
> some things that you may not be aware of that can further help you and
> which almost every regular on r.p.d is certainly well aware of, which is.

You do know that Paint.NET doesn't work on Mac OS.
So it's of little interest to mac users.
That is a FACT.
Doesn;t work on the iDevices FACT.

So not having windows FACT, it is of littel interest to me unless a windows users asks me about such things
which is unlikely FACT.

Most of the things I need to do I do for free too, it's even more free'er than Paint.NET
because it comes as part of the Apple OS called preview so I don't even have to go search for it.
FACT.
it's not as good as photoshop FACT.

If I want to do anything other than annotations, cropping or basic editing I use Photos
it comes as part of the Apple OS called. So I don't even have to go search for it.
FACT.
It does most of the things I want most of the time, but doesn't do layers or channel mixing
and quite a few others things I do from time to time for those things I use Affinity photo,
which costs about £50 which I find good value.
whether or not it's as good as photoshop I don't know.
So far it's done everything I want of it.
And not just on a computer.
The last time I found I had to use photoshop was when I wanted to convert an image from RGB to CYMK
which was about 15 years ago.

If I worked in the image processing business I think photoshop would be my best bet for collabrative work
and to be cross platform compatable.
Which neither PAINT.net or preview or photos or Affinity photo is.

>
> 1. Paint.NET has a shit ton of plugins ... if you need them.

Can you use it on a phone or tablet ?

> (They end up doing everything that the program doesn't yet do.)
> <https://forums.getpaint.net/forum/7-plugins-publishing-only/>
>
> Personally, I don't think I'm using any Paint.NET plugins at
> the moment, but you might need them for doing non-standard stuff.

Same with most software.

> Here's an example of FACT versus ASSESSMENT of that fact, where you may
> recall that in decades on Usenet nobodgy (but idiot iKooks) ever disagreed
> with teh facts (iKooks are funny that way); but plenty of people rightfully
> could disagree on my ASSESSMENT of the facts.

if your ASSESSMENT of the facts are flawed which they are,
which is where the more intelligent will debate your so called FACTS.

>
> I'll take it, a priori, that they would prefer you to pay Microsoft the $10
> for the Paint.NET PhotoShip replacement app, and that would be a fact.
>
> I could also take it, again, a priori, that they want you to do that so
> that they can further their development - and that's just a fine fact.
>
> However....
>
> My _assessment_ of those facts, is that if you pay the $10 to Microsoft,
> and if Microsoft gets 30% of the take (I'm just guessing at that amount),
> then the developers only received $7 of your $10, right?

Sounds reasonable.

>
> My _assessment_ of that fact, is that if I truly wanted to help the
> developers, maybe I would want to _donate_ $10 to the developers directly,
> for example, and keep Microsoft's grubby paws out of their passed hat.
>
> See what I mean?

At least that makes sense.

> Adults never disagree on facts (only fools, like iKooks do that).

Depends on the FACTS.

> But adults can perfectly logically disagree on assessments of those facts..

So can anyone.

>
> My advice to you, since you seem to want to help the developers?
> a. Maybe test the program for a while, and...
> b. If you don't like it, ditch it, but...
> c. If you like it & if you want to help the developers, donate to them.

Yep.

> BTW, "supposedly" Pinta is the non-net-framework replacement for Paint.NET.
> I haven't looked at Pinta in years...
>
> Maybe people on this newsgroup have used Pinta recently?

Not me.

> Last I checked the curved arrows were as bad as PhotoShop curved arrows.
> Which sucked.

Not sure I need curved arrows in my photos , I can't think of any time in my life I've needed a curved arrow.

>
> The advantage of Pinta though, is it works on macOS & Linux along
> with Windows and BSD (so it's a cross platform Photoshop replacement).
>
> NOTE: It's a fact that it's a cross platform app; it's an assessment
> that it's a Photoshop replacement. The iKooks can't figure that out.

It's an alternative NOT a replacement.
You can't tell the diffeernce that is a FACT.

>
> Has anyone on r.p.d looked at Pinta recently, perhaps???
> <https://snapcraft.io/pinta>
> <https://www.pinta-project.com/releases/>
> <https://www.techspot.com/downloads/5501-pinta.html>
> <https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/pinta.html>
>
> Let me ask that question separately on the r.p.d newsgroup.
> *Has anyone tested cross platform Pinta against PhotoShop lately*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.photo.digital/c/4kzLC4SmY9M>

Doubt it they are quite diffent packages for differnt types of people.

Most intelligent people know what they are looking for and know what's best for them
and can advise others provided they themselves don;t have such a narrow minded view.

> --
> Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
> which, in this case, is to flesh out advantages to Paint.NET & Pinta.

On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 09:53:58 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> Those wanting low-cost but high quality and capability might look at the Serif
> Affinity tools:
>
> https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

Yes that's my prefered option for photos.

>
> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web: https://www.satsignal.eu