Image Composer - How come the sudden signs of life in the IC newsgroup?

Author

How come the sudden signs of life in the IC newsgroup?

Walterius

2006-08-27, 10:19 pm

And while we are at it, how come an older less capable program gets more
press than PhotoDraw?

Sign me:
Whining Walterius

Jan Kucera

2006-08-28, 6:19 am

I don't know Walterius, I was also quite surprised when I opened the news
group and there where whole nine new messages! And no spam... ;-)
But it warms me too. Actually I've never switched to PhotoDraw from Image
Composer, so... I don't know.... (A) ... ;-)
Jan

"Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message
news:OHE$CtjyGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> And while we are at it, how come an older less capable program gets more
> press than PhotoDraw?
>
> Sign me:
> Whining Walterius
>
>

mamselle

2006-08-28, 10:19 pm

i had always hoped there'd be a renewed interest since i found the newsgroup not too long ago
i wish i had know about this place in 1998, lol
i would have learned little tricks & image manipulation techniques so much faster!!

i don't know where to even get photo draw ;)
i have stuck with mic for a very long time now
do i need to change?!

i even wish there was more interaction here
i used to like looking at the pictures people came up with for the themes

:)
m

"Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message news:OHE$CtjyGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
And while we are at it, how come an older less capable program gets more
press than PhotoDraw?

Sign me:
Whining Walterius

Rich Osborne

2006-08-28, 10:19 pm

Walter -

Have you dared to raise the gauntlet?

Rich

--
http://www.imagedraw.com/
"Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message
news:OHE$CtjyGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> And while we are at it, how come an older less capable program gets more
> press than PhotoDraw?
>
> Sign me:
> Whining Walterius
>
>

Walterius

2006-08-29, 3:19 am

no need to convert to photodraw imo, but i do use pd much more than mic
because of my style of gfx.
"mamselle" <mamselle_nospam@mamselle.ca> wrote in message
news:OpryfywyGHA.1256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> i had always hoped there'd be a renewed interest since i found the
newsgroup not too long ago
> i wish i had know about this place in 1998, lol
> i would have learned little tricks & image manipulation techniques so much
faster!!
>
> i don't know where to even get photo draw ;)
> i have stuck with mic for a very long time now
> do i need to change?!
>
> i even wish there was more interaction here
> i used to like looking at the pictures people came up with for the themes
>
> :)
> m
>
>
> "Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message
news:OHE$CtjyGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> And while we are at it, how come an older less capable program gets more
> press than PhotoDraw?
>
> Sign me:
> Whining Walterius
>
>

Walterius

2006-08-29, 3:19 am

nope. just whining. :) my main thrust is photoshop these days anyway.
"Rich Osborne" <osborne@HOLDITcharter.net> wrote in message
news:eRu#C5wyGHA.240@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Walter -
>
> Have you dared to raise the gauntlet?
>
> Rich
>
> --
> http://www.imagedraw.com/
> "Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message
> news:OHE$CtjyGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>

mamselle

2006-08-29, 3:19 am

what style is that?
how is it better than mic?

i hope you really don't mind this sudden sign of life -
do you?
:D
m

"Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message news:uDWs8UxyGHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
no need to convert to photodraw imo, but i do use pd much more than mic
because of my style of gfx.
"mamselle" <mamselle_nospam@mamselle.ca> wrote in message
news:OpryfywyGHA.1256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> i had always hoped there'd be a renewed interest since i found the
newsgroup not too long ago
> i wish i had know about this place in 1998, lol
> i would have learned little tricks & image manipulation techniques so much
faster!!
>
> i don't know where to even get photo draw ;)
> i have stuck with mic for a very long time now
> do i need to change?!
>
> i even wish there was more interaction here
> i used to like looking at the pictures people came up with for the themes
>
> :)
> m
>
>
> "Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message
news:OHE$CtjyGHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> And while we are at it, how come an older less capable program gets more
> press than PhotoDraw?
>
> Sign me:
> Whining Walterius
>
>

Walterius

2006-08-29, 6:22 pm

Well, I like pd for quick, flashy gfx based on M$ clipart. While mic has
clipart, it's all photos, not .WMF like pd. .WMF clips are easy to doctor
and look quite nice when spiffed up. (The elements of the clips can be
broken apart and edited individually.)

mic was designed for web gfx only and cannot produce large or high
resolution images. However, I do use its impressionist plugin.

mic's gif animator is a mickey-mouse animation pgm that works ok, but there
are much better animation pgms, such as adobe imageready, jasc animation
shop, and many more. pd also has a rudimentary animation capability.

photoshop is best for editing photos, and that's what I use it for. mic and
pd are not good at that. I have two other pgms that are good at editing
photos, broderbund photopro 2.0 and corel photo-paint 10, but i don't use
them much because ps is so versatile and i know it so well.

When I illustrated the cover for my book on the book of Revelation, I used
pd to create the cover and ps to prepress it. mic played no part in that.

When I had a Revelation website, formerly www.7stages.com, about half the
gfx were done in pd and about half in real-draw pro (www.mediachance.com).
The two pgms are very similar (although also quite different); and rd-p
makes a good replacement for pd.

hth. i'm retired and don't mind pontificating about gfx pgms. no, i don't
mind this "sudden sign of life." not at all.

as for getting pd, it is severely out of print. ebay is the only place i
know of, and people want more for it than it cost originally.

"mamselle" <mamselle_nospam@mamselle.ca> wrote in message
news:uQqGnAyyGHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> what style is that?
> how is it better than mic?
>
> i hope you really don't mind this sudden sign of life -
> do you?
> :D
> m

mamselle

2006-08-31, 3:20 am

thanks for the write-up, walter!
i guess i just have fun with MIC...and i try to make it do whatever i need doing ;)
it's been good to me so far :)
m

"Walterius" <invalid@nowhere.not> wrote in message news:uZQII$4yGHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Well, I like pd for quick, flashy gfx based on M$ clipart. While mic has
clipart, it's all photos, not .WMF like pd. .WMF clips are easy to doctor
and look quite nice when spiffed up. (The elements of the clips can be
broken apart and edited individually.)

mic was designed for web gfx only and cannot produce large or high
resolution images. However, I do use its impressionist plugin.

mic's gif animator is a mickey-mouse animation pgm that works ok, but there
are much better animation pgms, such as adobe imageready, jasc animation
shop, and many more. pd also has a rudimentary animation capability.

photoshop is best for editing photos, and that's what I use it for. mic and
pd are not good at that. I have two other pgms that are good at editing
photos, broderbund photopro 2.0 and corel photo-paint 10, but i don't use
them much because ps is so versatile and i know it so well.

When I illustrated the cover for my book on the book of Revelation, I used
pd to create the cover and ps to prepress it. mic played no part in that.

When I had a Revelation website, formerly www.7stages.com, about half the
gfx were done in pd and about half in real-draw pro (www.mediachance.com).
The two pgms are very similar (although also quite different); and rd-p
makes a good replacement for pd.

hth. i'm retired and don't mind pontificating about gfx pgms. no, i don't
mind this "sudden sign of life." not at all.

as for getting pd, it is severely out of print. ebay is the only place i
know of, and people want more for it than it cost originally.

"mamselle" <mamselle_nospam@mamselle.ca> wrote in message
news:uQqGnAyyGHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> what style is that?
> how is it better than mic?
>
> i hope you really don't mind this sudden sign of life -
> do you?
> :D
> m

Walterius

2006-08-31, 6:25 pm

It is a wonderful old program with a unique cachet. Enjoy it.

> thanks for the write-up, walter!
> i guess i just have fun with MIC...and i try to make it do whatever i need
doing ;)
> it's been good to me so far :)
> m

2006-09-04, 6:19 pm

Well, I guess I'm one of those "signs of life." I've been living
without internet access at home pretty much for the last three years.
Believe me, this has been tough for an admitted newsgroup addict. I was
an active regular in this group and the FrontPage group (along with
some other non-graphics related groups) for a long time. My community
recently put in WiFi, so I'm BACK!

In addition to no newsgroups, no internet also meant it was difficult
to keep up any freelance graphics work (I used to work in graphics full
time, both as an employee and a freelancer, but now I have a less
creative full-time job in the finance industry.)

So, now I've registered a few domains and I'm working on a few web
sites. Wow, I've found that my technical skills are pretty rusty. I
made a new logo for myself (that's why I needed that text effect
technique) and I've been integrating it into a portfolio site that I
did before and then found that I needed to revamp the color scheme...
oy vey, I used to have all these codes in my head.

Anyway... I was so comfortable with MIC back in the old days. I always
go back to it for everything image-y, even though I have other
programs. Funny, you mentioned Corel... I am an avid CorelDRAW user
(been using it since version 2.0 in 1989) and have CorelPHOTO-PAINT
version 9 installed, but never think to use it. I've also got Adobe
PhotoDeluxe Home Edition, which I rarely use . I can't justify the cost
of PhotoShop for what I'm doing at this point, although with all the
scrapbooking that I also do, I'm sure I would enjoy it for manipulating
photos; maybe I'll try Corel instead of MIC for that sort of work.

Well, through all the times my husband and I have moved in the last 10
years or so, and through even losing 99% of our belongings in a
self-storage theft, I managed to hang on to my FrontPage 98 CD and so
will always have MIC!

~~~ Victoria

Walterius wrote:[color=darkred]
> Well, I like pd for quick, flashy gfx based on M$ clipart. While mic has
> clipart, it's all photos, not .WMF like pd. .WMF clips are easy to doctor
> and look quite nice when spiffed up. (The elements of the clips can be
> broken apart and edited individually.)
>
> mic was designed for web gfx only and cannot produce large or high
> resolution images. However, I do use its impressionist plugin.
>
> mic's gif animator is a mickey-mouse animation pgm that works ok, but there
> are much better animation pgms, such as adobe imageready, jasc animation
> shop, and many more. pd also has a rudimentary animation capability.
>
> photoshop is best for editing photos, and that's what I use it for. mic and
> pd are not good at that. I have two other pgms that are good at editing
> photos, broderbund photopro 2.0 and corel photo-paint 10, but i don't use
> them much because ps is so versatile and i know it so well.
>
> When I illustrated the cover for my book on the book of Revelation, I used
> pd to create the cover and ps to prepress it. mic played no part in that.
>
> When I had a Revelation website, formerly www.7stages.com, about half the
> gfx were done in pd and about half in real-draw pro (www.mediachance.com).
> The two pgms are very similar (although also quite different); and rd-p
> makes a good replacement for pd.
>
> hth. i'm retired and don't mind pontificating about gfx pgms. no, i don't
> mind this "sudden sign of life." not at all.
>
> as for getting pd, it is severely out of print. ebay is the only place i
> know of, and people want more for it than it cost originally.
>
> "mamselle" <mamselle_nospam@mamselle.ca> wrote in message
> news:uQqGnAyyGHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

2006-09-04, 6:19 pm

Oh, and while I'm walking down memory lane...

Does anyone remember Microsoft Liquid Motion? I monitored that
newsgroup for like two years after the program was discontinued. There
was rarely a valid post about the program (mostly spam and questions
about other things not related), but I felt a certain loyalty to the
program. (Go figure.)

VJ wrote:[color=darkred]
> Well, I guess I'm one of those "signs of life." I've been living
> without internet access at home pretty much for the last three years.
> Believe me, this has been tough for an admitted newsgroup addict. I was
> an active regular in this group and the FrontPage group (along with
> some other non-graphics related groups) for a long time. My community
> recently put in WiFi, so I'm BACK!
>
> In addition to no newsgroups, no internet also meant it was difficult
> to keep up any freelance graphics work (I used to work in graphics full
> time, both as an employee and a freelancer, but now I have a less
> creative full-time job in the finance industry.)
>
> So, now I've registered a few domains and I'm working on a few web
> sites. Wow, I've found that my technical skills are pretty rusty. I
> made a new logo for myself (that's why I needed that text effect
> technique) and I've been integrating it into a portfolio site that I
> did before and then found that I needed to revamp the color scheme...
> oy vey, I used to have all these codes in my head.
>
> Anyway... I was so comfortable with MIC back in the old days. I always
> go back to it for everything image-y, even though I have other
> programs. Funny, you mentioned Corel... I am an avid CorelDRAW user
> (been using it since version 2.0 in 1989) and have CorelPHOTO-PAINT
> version 9 installed, but never think to use it. I've also got Adobe
> PhotoDeluxe Home Edition, which I rarely use . I can't justify the cost
> of PhotoShop for what I'm doing at this point, although with all the
> scrapbooking that I also do, I'm sure I would enjoy it for manipulating
> photos; maybe I'll try Corel instead of MIC for that sort of work.
>
> Well, through all the times my husband and I have moved in the last 10
> years or so, and through even losing 99% of our belongings in a
> self-storage theft, I managed to hang on to my FrontPage 98 CD and so
> will always have MIC!
>
> ~~~ Victoria
>
>
> Walterius wrote:

mamselle

2006-09-04, 10:25 pm

wow...3 years without internet...i'd be half dead by now ;)
i'm glad you found your way back
and i'd love to see the porfolio of stuff you've made with mic - if you're in a sharing mood
my email is mamselle @ mamselle.ca
:)

m

"VJ" <veryjoyful@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message news:1157398665.762483.30740@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well, I guess I'm one of those "signs of life." I've been living
without internet access at home pretty much for the last three years.
Believe me, this has been tough for an admitted newsgroup addict. I was
an active regular in this group and the FrontPage group (along with
some other non-graphics related groups) for a long time. My community
recently put in WiFi, so I'm BACK!

In addition to no newsgroups, no internet also meant it was difficult
to keep up any freelance graphics work (I used to work in graphics full
time, both as an employee and a freelancer, but now I have a less
creative full-time job in the finance industry.)

So, now I've registered a few domains and I'm working on a few web
sites. Wow, I've found that my technical skills are pretty rusty. I
made a new logo for myself (that's why I needed that text effect
technique) and I've been integrating it into a portfolio site that I
did before and then found that I needed to revamp the color scheme...
oy vey, I used to have all these codes in my head.

Anyway... I was so comfortable with MIC back in the old days. I always
go back to it for everything image-y, even though I have other
programs. Funny, you mentioned Corel... I am an avid CorelDRAW user
(been using it since version 2.0 in 1989) and have CorelPHOTO-PAINT
version 9 installed, but never think to use it. I've also got Adobe
PhotoDeluxe Home Edition, which I rarely use . I can't justify the cost
of PhotoShop for what I'm doing at this point, although with all the
scrapbooking that I also do, I'm sure I would enjoy it for manipulating
photos; maybe I'll try Corel instead of MIC for that sort of work.

Well, through all the times my husband and I have moved in the last 10
years or so, and through even losing 99% of our belongings in a
self-storage theft, I managed to hang on to my FrontPage 98 CD and so
will always have MIC!

~~~ Victoria

Walterius wrote:[color=darkred]
> Well, I like pd for quick, flashy gfx based on M$ clipart. While mic has
> clipart, it's all photos, not .WMF like pd. .WMF clips are easy to doctor
> and look quite nice when spiffed up. (The elements of the clips can be
> broken apart and edited individually.)
>
> mic was designed for web gfx only and cannot produce large or high
> resolution images. However, I do use its impressionist plugin.
>
> mic's gif animator is a mickey-mouse animation pgm that works ok, but there
> are much better animation pgms, such as adobe imageready, jasc animation
> shop, and many more. pd also has a rudimentary animation capability.
>
> photoshop is best for editing photos, and that's what I use it for. mic and
> pd are not good at that. I have two other pgms that are good at editing
> photos, broderbund photopro 2.0 and corel photo-paint 10, but i don't use
> them much because ps is so versatile and i know it so well.
>
> When I illustrated the cover for my book on the book of Revelation, I used
> pd to create the cover and ps to prepress it. mic played no part in that.
>
> When I had a Revelation website, formerly www.7stages.com, about half the
> gfx were done in pd and about half in real-draw pro (www.mediachance.com).
> The two pgms are very similar (although also quite different); and rd-p
> makes a good replacement for pd.
>
> hth. i'm retired and don't mind pontificating about gfx pgms. no, i don't
> mind this "sudden sign of life." not at all.
>
> as for getting pd, it is severely out of print. ebay is the only place i
> know of, and people want more for it than it cost originally.
>
> "mamselle" <mamselle_nospam@mamselle.ca> wrote in message
> news:uQqGnAyyGHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...