Subject: Re: Do you see any advantage of Pinta freeware over Paint.NET screenshot-editing?
> It might be partly due to the same reason that
> you can get free samples of cheese and crackers
> at the supermarket, but you rarely see free lobster
> roll samples.... You're only willing to look at free so
> you're reducing your options.
I don't think that statement is even close to true simply because of
obvious factors such as the mere fact that most payware editors won't be
"screenshot" editors - so they won't have optimized the screenshoting needs
of (a) texting (b) arrowing (c) bounding boxes, and (d) pasted selection
stretching as well as has Paint.NET.
Remember, a "photo" editor will have completely different basic needs than
a "screenshot" editor, where there are fewer payware screenshot editors, so
your statement likely doesn't hold water, unless you can find a screenshot
editor payware that does those four things as well as does Paint.NET.
> Any decent graphic editor gives you floating text.
You need all four things, where "floating text" is the easiest and many
programs have it (and many don't), but if you pick just one thing it's like
you telling me that a one-legged race horse can win the race.
> I don't know about arrows, as I've never needed them.
> You're looking for a very specific tool but what you're
> looking at is graphic editors.
They're all graphic editors but when you edit screenshots off a computer
screen, you need a different set of features than you need when you edit
photos taken from a camera.
Four features you need which are badly done with most graphic editors are
a. texting where you just type it, modify it, and move it.
b. bounding boxes where you just draw it, modify it, and move it.
c. arrowing where you just draw it, modify it, and move it.
d. pasted selections which go back EXACTLY where they came from (which is
critical), and which can be stretched and moved as needed.
It's amazing how few graphic editors make those tasks as simple as
Paint.NET does, where I posit that ZERO graphic editors do all four as
easily and intuitively as does Paint.NET.
Mind you, I would LOVE to replace paint.net (which is why I tried Pinta
again); but those four features are critical, where no other known graphic
editor does all four as well.
> As far as .Net goes: My understanding is that
> Paint.Net was originally designed by a student as a
> demo of what .Net can do in terms of graphics.
I think Microsoft funded the project, and I think it was at MIT.
> The same things require more work when written
> as native software. .Net is a wrapper around the
> more abstruse Windows API.
> Processed food is a pretty good analogy. The
> other day I got some shrimp on sale and looked
> online for a new shrimp recipe idea. Shrimp
> alfredo... That looked interesting. What's the
> recipe?..... 1 lb. shrimp, a bottle alfredo sauce....
> That story is true. That was the recipe!
> I'm not answering only for you.
Good! I answer for everyone also, which is why you'll see me provide
details that most people would skip.
I also try to include a ng that is archived by Google so that the tribal
knowledge can be accessed in the future.
(unfortunately the Win10 ng is not archived)
> There are options
> for graphic editors that are cheap or free.
Not one free or payware graphics editor that I know of does the four basics
for screenshot editors as well as Paint.NET (and Lord knows, I hate
Paint.NET but I'm only looking at the functionality).
If there was an editor that did those four things as well as does
Paint.NET, I'd have known about it by now I would think since I've asked
the same question for decades (it seems).
> Not everyone wants to draw arrows. Since this is a
> public discussion it's a good chance to let people
> know about options. At the same time, since PSP5
> is free, even you might find it worth exploring....
> even if not for arrow drawing.
I have installed scores of graphics editors over the years, including PSP
when it was freely available. I didn't find it any better for screenshot
editing than Paint.NET was, where I was hoping Pinta would have gotten
things right by now.
>| I use those words specifically because I'm an old hand at this type of
>| editing where you don't usually need to draw bounding boxes, add text,
>| connect them with arrows, and cover selection areas with "photo editors".
> I've seen people talk about drawing arrows in the photo
I've asked in the past, probably once a year over the past fifteen years,
and nothing ever suggested works. On the Mac they are even less
knowledgeable than on Windows because all they seem to know on the Mac is
Adobe payware stuff.
You 'can' draw curved arrows, for example, on the mac, using the default
free editors - but they suck like you can't believe. (Try it.)
> Maybe the best approach, since you have very
> specific needs, would be to ask in the photo and graphics
> groups for exactly the 4 things you want.
Um, this is a photo and graphics ng.
And besides, stop saying it's a 'very specific' need to text, bound,
select, and arrow. They are very /basic/ needs. Very common. Very basic.
If you think those four tasks are complex needs, then you have completely
missed the point because they're as basic a need as it gets for a graphics
Bear in mind things like "cropping" and "resizing" and "canvas additions"
and "layer imports" and "color changes" are also basic needs, but almost
all graphics editors get those basic needs right.
I'm only bringing up the four basic things that most (if not almost all)
graphics editors get wrong. If you've never used Paint.NET, then you will
have utterly no comprehension of what I'm talking about.
It's like the difference between driving a Yugo and driving a Corvette.
> But it sounds
> to me like an odd question. In effect you're saying that
> Paint.Net is exactly what you want, and you want to
> replace it. Not only that, but the replacement must be
> free. Something about gift horses comes to mind.
No no no no.
I'm simply asking if anyone else has had the same observation that Pinta
isn't ready for prime time because it doesn't even do the basics well.
I'm also saying that I hate that Paint.NET uses Net Framework, but it's a
necessary evil because nothing out there does screenshot editing well, and
particularly I point out 4 very specific things that are done weell on
Your statement is wrong because you think I'm enamored only by HOW they're
done, where I agree, texting in, say Irfanview is an abomination compared
to Paint.NET and drawing open bounding boxes in The GIMP is an abomination
compared to how Paint.NET does it.
So those examples show that the HOW is important, since the HOW must be
simple, quick, and intuitive.
But it's also the CAN that I'm looking at, in that a program that can't
paste a selection EXACTLY on top of where it came from, simply introduces
error and extra steps for no advantage whatsoever.
Just try this in any grapics editor and then try it in Paint.NET.
1. Select an area of any desired shape and size
2. Control + c to copy it and control + v to paste it
3. If the resulting copy isn't EXACTLY on top of the original, it's
That's a simple test of efficient functionality.
Another simple test of efficient functionality is:
1. Start texting an area (just start typing)
2. Then modify that text (e.g., add line indents, change words, fonts).
3. Then move the text to a desired location and edit it some more
If the graphics editor can't do something as simple as that, it's useless.
Again, remember I hate Paint.NET's need for .NET Framework, but I have
looked for decades (it seems) for a better more functionally intuitive
graphics editor for the dozen or so basic steps, where those 4 steps, in
particular, are done better on Paint.NET than any other graphics editor
If you don't understand that statement, you have to try those four things.