<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Choosing and Learning a Photo Editing Application</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rluxemburg.com/2006/08/06/choosing-and-learning-a-photo-editing-application/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rluxemburg.com/2006/08/06/choosing-and-learning-a-photo-editing-application/</link>
	<description>It's Latin for "Let there be light"</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.rluxemburg.com/2006/08/06/choosing-and-learning-a-photo-editing-application/comment-page-1/#comment-652</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www25.a2hosting.com/~rslux1/2006/08/06/choosing-and-learning-a-photo-editing-application/#comment-652</guid>
		<description>I used to use Draw (or Paint, or whatever it was) on my PC all the time to make little signs, stick figure drawings and maps, etc.  Since switching to the Mac, there's nothing that seems to fill that gap.  You know, drag in a picture, scribble on it a little, pop it back out as a jpg or gif file.

If I haave to bite the bullet and get photoshop, I guess I will, but isn't there something less bells-and-whistles (and either cheap or free???) that us low-tech slobs can use?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to use Draw (or Paint, or whatever it was) on my PC all the time to make little signs, stick figure drawings and maps, etc.  Since switching to the Mac, there&#8217;s nothing that seems to fill that gap.  You know, drag in a picture, scribble on it a little, pop it back out as a jpg or gif file.</p>
<p>If I haave to bite the bullet and get photoshop, I guess I will, but isn&#8217;t there something less bells-and-whistles (and either cheap or free???) that us low-tech slobs can use?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: artistry</title>
		<link>http://www.rluxemburg.com/2006/08/06/choosing-and-learning-a-photo-editing-application/comment-page-1/#comment-651</link>
		<dc:creator>artistry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www25.a2hosting.com/~rslux1/2006/08/06/choosing-and-learning-a-photo-editing-application/#comment-651</guid>
		<description>It is PhotoShop. After trying a bunch of them, many of which I don't even know the names of anymore, I decided PS meets my needs best. Yes, it is a pig to load. There are lite versions, but my complaint was the same as yours. I had one version that came with my scanner and another which came with my digital camera. They were too limited even though I am not using PS to any where near its abilities.

All I can suggest is that you stick with it. David has a MAC and uses the iPhoto, which is part of the iLife software that came with his machine. He loves the red eye removal feature and says it is far superior to PS for most photo edits. (But he still uses PS for anything beyond the most basic edits. )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is PhotoShop. After trying a bunch of them, many of which I don&#8217;t even know the names of anymore, I decided PS meets my needs best. Yes, it is a pig to load. There are lite versions, but my complaint was the same as yours. I had one version that came with my scanner and another which came with my digital camera. They were too limited even though I am not using PS to any where near its abilities.</p>
<p>All I can suggest is that you stick with it. David has a MAC and uses the iPhoto, which is part of the iLife software that came with his machine. He loves the red eye removal feature and says it is far superior to PS for most photo edits. (But he still uses PS for anything beyond the most basic edits. )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
