Talk:Comparison of raster graphics editors

message: Why aren't image editing programs such as the public domain ImageJ included?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ImageJ

message: Because nobody has taken the time to enter it into the table.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason

message: Why the heck isn't the gimp included in the list?
: Well spotted.  It looks like someone has removed all the closing comment tags within the table, so large sections of the table were being blanked out by invalid comments. Ojw 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I oppose.  GIMPshop is essentially a fork of GIMP and there is a version lag, --Karnesky 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That's a good point, but I just thought that since all the rows were the same, why not merge. On a side note, how come Photoshop CS2 is on the list, but Elements, Album Starter 3.0, etc. are not on the list? Althepal 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GIMP

message: This is a list with the features of GIMP and GIMPShop.
*Retouching: yes
*Resizing: yes. resize and scale
*Noise removal: There is some plugins and filters. 
*Lens correction: Not, but there is a external plugin.
*Printing: Yes
*Sharpening: yes  and .
*Image Library: not
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.172.13.154 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Features of GIMP

message: I propose merging all the GIPM and GIMPShop rows. Support or reason not to? Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose.  GIMPshop is essentially a fork of GIMP and there is a version lag, --Karnesky 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That's a good point, but I just thought that since all the rows were the same, why not merge. On a side note, how come Photoshop CS2 is on the list, but Elements, Album Starter 3.0, etc. are not on the list? Althepal 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GIMP <i>and</i> GIMPShop?

message: I think, this comparison-page should be converted to look like most of the other "Comparison of ..."-type pages. For example the Icon-column has almost nothing to do with comparing the editors. At the same time, the use of icons to describe licenses is fuzzy - using abbreviations like GPL would be more precise. And of course the features should be listed in a separate table, so that a comparison of those could be possible.
I have started this conversion with adding a "Operating system support" table. 212.27.234.164 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Converting to higher standards

message: Good start, in major need of development. I think I'll nominate it at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement 

message: Eh, shouldn't iPhoto be on this list? It's rather more current than its equivalent Microsoft Photo Editor seems to be. ...dave souza, talk 23:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.--Karnesky 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <Sigh> Diverts self from fixing Falkland Islands edit war. Me no like editing tables. ..dave souza, talk 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iPhoto

message: In other articles topics they have separate list and comparison articles. Since no one has been talking about the merge issue - with the list of bitmap graphics being up since February i suggest it be removed. --ShaunMacPherson 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And other software lists have also been merged into their comparison articles.  At one time, I merged all but the historical section of the list to the comparison page.  Instead of just removing the tags, we should decide whether or not the historical programs belong in the comparison or not.  I don' think they do.  Renka does.  Either finish the merge or move the list, but don't just ignore the tags.--Karnesky 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Microsoft Digital Image and Quantel Paintbox should be merged either way. --Karnesky 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge notice 

message: I think the import/export format tables should be merged; in most cases programs will do both for a given format, the cell contents could be I/E/B.
:Not all the time. Many programs can open certain files, but can only save in restricted formats. RAW format is one obvious example.Althepal 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm thinking you're right. I might just merge them, and if there is a difference, I can just say (import) or something.Althepal 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!Althepal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions 

message: Does Apple's Aperture program belong here, or is it in a different category?   64.90.198.6 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect that Aperture would fit in. Althepal 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do too, especially since version 2 has the plug-ins architecture. Candelabre (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aperture 

message: Why is the column for Windows in platform support larger than any of the other columns? Theshibboleth 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because of the longer entries.  "Yes (for PocketPC also)" for Photogenics is quite long.  --Karnesky 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows bias 

message: The table says that Painter supports CMYK. It does support loading and saving CMYK TIFFs, but only by converting to and from RGB. I certainly would not call this "supporting CMYK". The same state of affairs applies to indexed color: Painter can import and export indexed color, but you can only edit in RGB. Yet, the table says "no"! So here we have two color spaces, indexed and CMYK, with the same behavior, but one is marked "yes" and the other "no". I think perhaps they should both say "partial". What do you guys think? - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painter / CMYK and indexed 

message: Raster was the term used 10 years before bitmap came into use.
Bitmap redirects to Raster graphics.
Raster is used more often than bitmap on Wikipedia.
Bitmap could be confused with the Windows bitmap file format.
[Raster and vector] go together better than [Bitmap and vector] and the two prior Google searches support that statement. If my reasoning for moving this page is incorrect I'm sorry to cause you so much trouble and please leave me a message on my talk page telling me why I was wrong so that I won't mess up again in the future. Jecowa 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for move/rename

message: --Timeshifter 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IrfanView is a highly-rated, popular, freeware image editor

message: I don't think that Paint.NET has PSD support. That extension does not appear in the drop-down list in the program.--69.221.247.78 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paint.NET? 

message: I am adding a short description column to the comparison so people can get a basic idea of the programs at a glance (instead of having to check out each article for the program's basic uses). Althepal 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description column

message: Instead of the notice at the beginning of the article informing about obsolete graphics editors, since that doesn't really say which ones are obsolete, why not just say "Obsolete" next to the version number (or price?) of those editors and remove the note? (Otherwise, I would suggest splitting the comparison into groups: Proprietary editors, free editors, and obsolete editors. And if we merge the list of editors with this article, I might actually suggest removing those obsolete editors from the comaprison.) Althepal 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete or obsolescent entries note?

message: The two sections for file type import and export seems quiet redundant and makes the article longer. It also makes it more difficult to compare the imports and exports for a single editor. I suggest merging the two sections. So the section would read "File types" any rare time there is a difference between if a program can open but not save a file, it can be mentioned right there in the box. Althepal 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: File type Import <i>and</i> Export?

message: I intend to merge the pages (this with List of raster graphics editors. But first, I would like your opinions. Should this page to be the main page? Should the list to come first or should the article be separated between free and commercial editors with appropriate list coming before each comparison group? --Althepal 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison should be the main article & the list should just redirect here.  There is no need to sort it by license--that information is reflected in the tables. --Karnesky 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that the merger did not take place, though List of raster graphics editors does now redirect to Comparison of raster graphics editors. If it is so, then the merger banner should be removed. (A merger does not seem necessary to me - this small comparison seems to fit well here).GeiwTeol 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list and the comparison WERE merged into the comparison article.  I don't see any merge banners on the article page (though perhaps some of the discussions about merging can be archived). --Karnesky (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: There seems to be no real information anywhere in WP about combining two images overlaid into one.  The somewhat pitiful Layers article is about it.  The Alpha compositing article focuses on video.  And this comparison article just uses the word "layer" with no explanation.  If one wants to combine two images, add them, subtract them, multiply them, logical AND OR XOR etc, do any of these tools do that?  What are the proper names for such operations, and what programs are best?  What programs let the user easily create new pixel transformation filters/effects?--69.87.200.66 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote most of the Layer article, and I have a draft of an article about overlaying/blending layers as well on my harddisk. However, I was not too happy myself with the Layers article and there has so far been very little feedback on it. Reluctant to make the same mistakes once more, I have still not created any Blending article. If you come with hints what could be improved with Layers, I have quite a lot of text and examples for blends as well. Mlewan 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: I will now unwatch this page. If anyone has comments, please, put them on my talk page or the discussion page for Layers (digital image editing). Mlewan 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layers

message: Aren't there any web-based services to at least convert file formats we could mention?--69.87.204.97 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web-based?

message: "Image Analyzer is really a minor program" ???
Far from being minor, IA seems to be the only small free tool available offering user-defined effects filters and the ability to combine (composite) mutiple images, overlaid as logical AND OR, multiplied, add/subtract, etc.  (And the article says so little about layers that we have no idea which if any of the other programs can do these things.)  If there are any other sleek little efficient free tools with these features, please tell us all about them!  The article tables should add a column for download size, so we can get an idea of the footprint.  Many of the programs listed are rather bloated, 10-20MB; IA is only 1MB.  Irfanview is also only about 1MB, but the plugins add another 5MB.--69.87.199.81 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen. I'm on your side, and I tried to improve its information in this article and its own, but it is not really an "advanced" program capable of running all common image types and performing all advanced edits on them. Sure, it has a few very nice features, but so does Picasa. This is also very good, but advanced doesn't really fit into its description. Advanced edits are complex and require larger programs, and a program full of advanced edits will be at least 20MB; while a 1MB program may be very good in one or two areas while having a small footprint, it will not be a thoroughly advanced program. Althepal 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Analyzer

message: Is there any reason why Paint Shop Pro is only called advanced while Photoshop is called professional other than how many people are using it? After all, the entry for Corel Paint Shop Pro says the only difference is that Photoshop is also available for Mac, while PSP costs $99 AND gives you both raster and vector graphics which is not available in Photoshop. Furthermore, PSP can both read and write the photoshop file format, while Photoshop can't even read PSP's own format. --Tlatosmd 20:48, 29 March 2007 (CEST)
:CS3 has a couple professional tools not found in PSP. Also note how it is the photoshop article which says it is the industry standard. Althepal 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest adding an additional column in the Features table titled "vector graphics support" Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paint Shop Pro 

message: I noticed while looking through the comparison list of supported operating systems that more than one of the programs (including one named "MacPaint", which I would assume could run on Mac) had no "Yes" entries. Are these simply outdated, or has something else taken place? Zorgon X 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programs Without Supported Operating Systems 

message: There is no point in merging with LIST. Thus, I reverted the merge. Sorry! I WILL REVERT. See my user page for details. - PGSONIC 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me??? Did you even think to bring it up before making this huge edit? All (or at least most) lists and comparisons I've seen here were one article. Please undo what you did until there is a consensus in one direction. And just so you should know, I didn't merge the two pages without asking. I saw someone requested the merge, no one said otherwise, the request was up for a long time, and then I asked, then I merged. How about you do the same on such an edit? Althepal 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree this should have made use of the splitsection template & should have had discussion (just as the merge did).  -Karnesky 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted and tagged for discussion. --Karnesky 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MERGE REVERTED 

message: *Oppose - There's no reason for the list, as the comparison accomplishes much more & has attracted less spam & been better maintained than the list page was.  Most of the products from the list are in the comparison tables.  I propose cleaning up the merge--removing the entries from the list that are already in the tables, placing notable entries from the last that are absent from the tables into the tables, and deleting the non-notable entries.  The only question is over the historical tools.  We can either:
**Add these to the comparison
**Move the list to the bottom
**Split off a smaller list of historical tools
:I have a slight preference for the first of these three choices. --Karnesky 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm sorry for shouting before. I just thought: a) that this wasn't standard (you can see most, if not all, of the other list articles have separate comparison articles) and that b) what does a list have to do with a comparison if the comparison doesn't contain everything from the list? However, this is the majority, and I'll still accept the merge. But we really need to make the comparison more complete. This way, that very first table in the comparison would act as the list, if needed! I think that the historical should be moved to the end if we do this. - PGSONIC 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is only as diverse as the Wikipedians who use the different programs. That being said, with almost 50 different programs in the comparison, and with only like 10 non-historical editors listed not in the table compared, this is the most complete comparison article I've seen. Althepal 05:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that looks great. I don't really see much value in any information on historical or obsolete editors, but whatever... Might as well be bold and make your tables a reality here. Althepal 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split to [[List of raster graphics editors]] 

message: A few notes... this is a list of "raster graphics editors", but at least one of the programs listed here, ArtRage, is meant to be a painting program rather than an "editing" program. Anyway, I know that it's just the general term that's being used; I'm not arguing against that here. But it seems that the list of "features" takes the definition of "graphics editing" literally.  If someone were looking for the best painting program rather than the best graphics editing program, it would certainly be useful to compare the features which are used in creating images rather than those used in editing. I'm talking about things like different paintbrushes (or pencils, pens, markers, rollers, airbrushes, palette knives, crayons...), canvas textures, pressure/tilt sensitivity (for tablets) and so on. Esn 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was looking for when I first found this page. The only problem with it is its sheer scope: the "features" table is already too wide, without mentioning brushes etc. I guess you could set up a "tools" table underneath, but it would have to be reasonably brief, ie not a lot bigger than the list you made here. --mikaultalk 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that there should be a seperate comparison table for painting and editing software (or is there one somewhere hidden already?), since the current list really focuses towards photo editing. Tools which score good for the current list (such as photoshop etc), are certainly not the best software to use for painting (although some people insist they are), while software that is built from the ground up by artists for creating new works of art may score extremely bad in this table because it doesn't have all those omg omg shiny random effects. --Kaetemi 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Features" not mentioned

message: I don't understand why there is some picture viewers included in those lists. Because it can rotate a JPEG? Xnview and IrfanView are ones of those viewers which have nothing to do here.
Lacrymocéphale  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.154.218.123 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editors versus viewers 

message: There's a merge notice at GIMP#Comparison and compatibility with Adobe Photoshop. There was once also a merge notice at Adobe Photoshop#Comparison and compatibility with GIMP, a section which has been deleted. Please note that the section deleted from the Photoshop page is nearly identical too (and where it varies, worse than) the section at the GIMP page; see this comparison (search for the string "mergeto"). —Toby Bartels (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[GIMP#Comparison and compatibility with Adobe Photoshop]] 

message: I find it very difficult to read the tables when the column headers have scrolled out of view, so I placed them also at the bottom.  But then I discovered that those bottom headers (footers?) would move to strange places after a resorting.  Does anybody know a method for fixing those footers at the bottom?  It could be done - assuming ascending sort - by preceding each footer with a character which sorts after the others (like \ or |).  Not elegant, but readability is still improved. OlavN (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column headers also below? 

message: IMO bits per channel information should be incorporated into this page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bits per channel 

message: There are two different versions of Artrage; one is fully freeware (no time limits or anything) and can be downloaded on the official website.  It has a limited selection of tools and only one layer, but it is fully usable. The other version is commercial and costs currently $25. So I think that Artrage should be in both the commercial and freeware columns. Esn (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Commercial software with a free but limited version is still commercial software, see demoware, shareware and freeware. However other software comparison pages such as comparison of e-mail clients and comparison of media players distinguish between commercial software without free versions and commercial software with free versions, and I feel that it would be appropriate to make that distinction here. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Artrage, though, the "free, limited" version is the one that existed originally, and eventually they added more features and released a commercial one. Does not the line between freeware and shareware become rather blurred at that point? If we were talking about a "free software" that is only free for 30 days, for example, I would agree. But in this case, it seems to me that functionally there is no difference. The freeware version existed for a long time before the commercial one did. All they did to it is keep the same functions, but allow the user to see what other functions were now present in the commercial version. Esn (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could include separate entries for ArtRage Starter Edition and ArtRage Full Edition. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Artrage is both commercial and freeware

message: Text now says Adobe Fireworks, but is sorted as if it were Macromedia Fireworks. Maybe the applications should be sorted by their name (PhotoShop, PhotoPaint, Fireworks) instead of the company which makes them (Adobe PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint, Adobe Fireworks).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fireworks sorted as Macromedia Fireworks 

message: Since version 4.10 IV features the Paint plugin, so IrfanView now has basic retouching capabilities.
BTW, it doesn't need plugins to support indexed images.
MItaly (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IrfanView has basic retouching capabilities 

message: Blender has also an options for raster graphics manipulations. It should be included in this list.--Popski (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blender 

message: was on geocities.
"Graphic Editor Cross-Reference List"
archive.org has no copies of the page.
I tried various googles, hoping to find a current url.2z2z (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  link gone. delete? 

message: I've started adding Pixen to the comparison. Got the first two tables done so far (it was already in the list at the top). The rest will be a bit more work, as wikitables are unfriendly to me. :) -- Lewellyn talk 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixen 

message: I noted that Cinepaint has been recently updated to version 1.0, and work on version 1.1 is going on. I downloaded the program, it was a broken compressed archive but I could read in a readme file this: "CinePaint runs on Linux and other UNIX-compatible operating systems. The versions for Mac OS X and Windows are currently broken." So it seems to be working for Linux and UNIX now, according to the developer, and it is intended to work also on Mac OS X and Windows but the developer has some bugs to sort out. I don't know exactly how to update information about Cinepaint, especially considering that the download I got was a broken archive, and I can not test the Linux and UNIX versions.Roger491127 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinepaint

message: Unless it is buried under another name, you are missing PhotoFiltre.
It can be downloaded at http://photofiltre.free.fr/
I do not have the time to do it myself.
In addition, when I used it before, I did not use more than a few special features.
You really need to have it entered by someone who is more familiar with all of the features.
It has 40 or so plug-ins and add-ons, which are downloaded and installed if and as needed.
It has been several years, but as near as I can remember, it had some features that my other graphics programs were missing.
agb  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.142 (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add the info you know and leave unknown blank. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  PhotoFiltre missing 

message: Unless it is buried under another name, you are missing mtpaint.
It can be downloaded at http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/ Jonpatterns (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: mtPaint

message: Ryanodforce doubled the content 1-3 is 4-6 and 8-12 = 13-17 with marginal new text.
Galantea0 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all the duplicated content introduced by Ryanodforce. 86.87.68.167 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  please fix page 

message: Would be great if this table would only include actively developed (non-beta) software. Otherwise, it's a bit confusing. SelfishSeahorse (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: The Adobe RGB column confuses me, should that be ARGB as in Alpha+RGB? –Be..anyone (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Adobe RGB

message: I just updated the "last stable version" for Irfanview and Paint Shop Pro. There are possibly a number of other places where such information is provided, and it is obviously tedious to maintain this information everywhere. There should be as few as possible places where such information needs to be kept up to date. What about a central depository of such information in, say, Wiki data? --L.Willms (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance of "last stable version" in this and many other articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of raster graphics editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214122321/http://nifelheim.dyndns.org/~cocidius/hdrtools/ to http://nifelheim.dyndns.org/~cocidius/hdrtools
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429003037/http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewforum.php?f=16 to http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewforum.php?f=16
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120032358/http://bibblelabs.com/ to http://bibblelabs.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of raster graphics editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413031703/http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/JP2Index.php to http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/JP2index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After deep digging en.wikipedia comparison I've just found ImBatch — powerful batch graphics editor (free for personal usage):
http://www.highmotionsoftware.com/products/imbatch
87.205.132.13 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of ImBatch 

message: What do the asterisks after names in most tables indicate? ◄ Sebastian 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are for discontinued products  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.130.230 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisks 

message: Under the List section, numerous commercial software, such as Photoshop, are put under the Freeware column. Either the software list should be properly divided by freeware/commercial or the subheading should be eliminated to put it all just under Proprietary. I'm sorry my editing skills are not up to par to revamp the table.98.110.130.230 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I Moved photoshop to "Commercial", as there are no freeware versions available. "Freeware" as defined in wikipedia is "no cost to the user", and none of the Trialware commercial software should qualify. The page on Photoshop and Adobe's own site both claim it is proprietary commercial software 2600:1700:4270:A1F0:980A:A702:AA3D:6024 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List section is miscategorized