Subject: Re: Photogenics
From: Gwynne Reddick <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 12:00:14 GMT

Hi, Gary, Your last message said:

> Strange. Photogenics is generally fast. If you are using an 030 or 040 then
> I'm surprised. I've never seen artifacts on the air brush before in the 5
> months I've been using it. Are they still there when you "save" the image
> as "ShowHAM8"?

I don't think it's that fast either. I bought a copy at the WOC after
seeing the great demo there, but after a couple of days playing with it, it
got relegated to just sitting on my HD. It's just too slow and clunky
compared to some of the paint packages people on this mailing list are
using. Yes it's very cheap, but it's got an awfull long way to go before
it achieves the functionality and speed of something like Opalpaint or
ImageFX. It's biggest failing IMO is no Arexx, which makes it next to
useless for me.

In the past I've learned quite a lot from your articles in the British
mags, and thought you were generally quite fair and objective with your
reviews, but some of your posts about Photogenics sound almost messianic
in nature and could do your reputation a great deal of harm.

please do not take this as a flame - it's not intended as such, just a
plea for a little more objectivity.

--

-
*                                                                          *
* Gwynne Reddick                             Submission is a crime         *
* London, England                                                          *
* Email [email-masked]                you have a duty to resist.    *
*                                                                          *