Paint Shop Pro vs Photoshop

G
Posted By
Grant
Feb 21, 2004
Views
1529
Replies
48
Status
Closed
Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

grant
R
Ron
Feb 21, 2004
I have been using PSP 5-8 for several years and was very happy with it. I could do a lot of things to my photos. I was very pleased with the results.

I want to learn more about using this type of program and did not find any local classes on PSP, so I bought PS CS. I’m just learning what it can do, but there are some similarities. The biggest thing that I have seen is that PS is much faster doing the same type of operation. In addition, it has more powerful tools.

Unless you need PS and plan to spend time learning it, you might not get value for your money. However, if you do want to invest the time, it will be worthwhile. It is definitively a better program, but I’m not sure if it is 7 times better. PSP $100 vs. PS $700.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:35:59 GMT, "Grant" wrote:

Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

grant
J
Jim
Feb 21, 2004
Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them. I’m sure someone will come in pretty quick to a website that will show just how bad it is! I was shocked when I found out, and have stopped using paintshoppro because of it. Wish I hadn’t wasted my money on it now. I will stick with PhotoShop because it *IS* a much better program, with all it’s flaws and all.

Jim

"Grant" wrote in news:juzZb.563988$:

Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

grant

H
Hecate
Feb 21, 2004
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:35:59 GMT, "Grant" wrote:

Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?
PSP is complex and cheap. PS is complex and expensive. PS is far better at colour handling and prepress. But, if you want a cheap program, and are interested in Photoshop, try looking at Elements. It has a lot of the power of Photoshop (indeed, it’s has about 80% of the full Photoshop’s abilities).

If all you want to do is manipulate and print fro friends and family, and web work, Elements is all you need and is much easier to use than PSP. And despite the snobbery surrounding other image manipulation programs, so is Ulead’s PhotoImpact (Which has one or two filters that, if they were to appear in Photoshop, would have everyone saying how brilliant Adobe programmers were.).

So look around πŸ™‚



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
C
Colyn
Feb 21, 2004
Jim wrote:

Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them. I’m sure someone will come in pretty quick to a website that will show just how bad it is! I was shocked when I found out, and have stopped using paintshoppro because of it. Wish I hadn’t wasted my money on it now. I will stick with PhotoShop because it *IS* a much better program, with all it’s flaws and all.
I have several PSP images which I have had for several years with no degrading of the quality.

So how does PSP degrade images??

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html
N
newsgroup
Feb 21, 2004
"Jim" wrote in message
Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them. I’m sure someone will come in pretty quick to a website that will show just
how
bad it is! I was shocked when I found out, and have stopped using paintshoppro because of it. Wish I hadn’t wasted my money on it now. I will stick with PhotoShop because it *IS* a much better program, with all it’s flaws and all.

Jim

In what way does PSP degrade the images?

~Doc
DL
David L
Feb 21, 2004
(puzzled) how do you degrade an image?

"Jim" wrote in message
Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them. I’m sure someone will come in pretty quick to a website that will show just
how
bad it is! I was shocked when I found out, and have stopped using paintshoppro because of it. Wish I hadn’t wasted my money on it now. I will stick with PhotoShop because it *IS* a much better program, with all it’s flaws and all.

Jim

"Grant" wrote in news:juzZb.563988$:

Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

grant
NS
n8 skow
Feb 21, 2004
I believe you are confusing PSP with the degradation of jpeg images after constant editing/saving – which is not PSP’s fault…

n8

Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them. I’m sure someone will come in pretty quick to a website that will show just
how
bad it is! I was shocked when I found out, and have stopped using paintshoppro because of it. Wish I hadn’t wasted my money on it now. I will stick with PhotoShop because it *IS* a much better program, with all it’s flaws and all.

Jim

"Grant" wrote in news:juzZb.563988$:

Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

grant
EG
Eric Gill
Feb 21, 2004
Hecate wrote in
news::

so is Ulead’s PhotoImpact (Which has one or two filters
that, if they were to appear in Photoshop, would have everyone saying how brilliant Adobe programmers were.).

Yeah? Which ones?
N
newsgroup
Feb 21, 2004
"n8 skow" wrote in message
I believe you are confusing PSP with the degradation of jpeg images after constant editing/saving – which is not PSP’s fault…

n8

That was my first thought as well, but then he said he’d now stick with Photoshop.
So Jim, did you change file formats too?

~Dr. J.
JK
JP Kabala
Feb 21, 2004
PSP is complex and cheap. PS is complex and expensive. PS is far better at colour handling and prepress. But, if you want a cheap program, and are interested in Photoshop, try looking at Elements. It has a lot of the power of Photoshop (indeed, it’s has about 80% of the full Photoshop’s abilities).

If all you want to do is manipulate and print fro friends and family, and web work, Elements is all you need and is much easier to use than PSP. And despite the snobbery surrounding other image manipulation programs, so is Ulead’s PhotoImpact (Which has one or two filters that, if they were to appear in Photoshop, would have everyone saying how brilliant Adobe programmers were.).

So look around πŸ™‚

I’ll agree with 75% of what you say…

PSP does not have PS’s prepress or color management chops, but is a killer little powerhouse for $100– and there are a few things it does rather better than PS– for 1/6th the price. The current version is a smart app that does more than enough for a whole lot of people.

Photoshop is a superior piece of software, but it is not six times better ***unless*** you need the upper end of the feature set. If it is the only thing
that does what you need– as has been the case for a very long time– you can get away with charging whatever you like for it. If you’re bleeding to death and need a transfusion of AB Negative blood, you aren’t going to accept O positive just because it is cheaper.

But if you’re just feeling a bit peckish and there’s a McDonald’s on one side
of the street and an expense account steakhouse on the other, you might balance the $5 fast sandwich and drink at the drive thru (and the $25 you’ll still have in your pocket) against the $30 sandwich and drink (and the $6 tip you’ll have to leave, and the $4 for the valet to park and retrieve your car) and decide you’d rather spend the extra money on concert tickets. This is even more true if you’re not by yourself, but have 3 or 4 friends in the car with you– or a schoolbus full of folks to provide for.

You’re also right about PhotoImpact— the asterism filter is actually very cool, and trackball rotate is slick…and if all you need is quick and dirty extrusions, nothing could be easier ……but it doesn’t make up for the fact that the rest of the program is cumbersome and molasses slow on large images. With prosumer digital cameras now in the 5-10 Megapixel range, if PI doesn’t clean up it’s act it’s going to get left in the dust. Try editing a 6MB image on a P4 with 512MB RAM with PI— a pretty typical consumer computer– but make sure the parrot is out of the room first, or he’ll start squawking ‘Oh Sh*t!" the next time the vicar comes to visit.

But I think Elements is a dog’s breakfast. You call it easy to use. I call it painfully dumbed down. There are layer styles, but you can’t create your own, so unless you buy a book like Jack Davis’ they are fairly useless. Call me crazy, but buying a $50 WOW book (Plus Hidden Secrets for another $40)
to get functionality out of a $100 program seems counterproductive. You’ve spent $200 and you still can’t draw a smooth curved line. There’s no manual image straightening utility– you either accept the automatic one, or you do it with deform and guides and hope you get it right. No Curves. Rudimentary levels…. but I’d bet the folks at AutoFx and AlienSkin love it….
of course those cost a couple of hundred bucks a piece, too. So, invest about $600 in Elements and you’ll have patched it up so it’s just like big brother….

Or PSP, for $100.
H
helloworld
Feb 21, 2004
Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them

Lemme guess, you were saving in jpeg (a well known lossy format) then doing modifications, then reloading etc. Ah, i love when people blame softwares for their own incompetences πŸ™‚
G
Grant
Feb 21, 2004
Thanks for your detailed response. What are the upper end feature sets you mentioned below:

Photoshop is a superior piece of software, but it is not six times better ***unless*** you need the upper end of the feature set. If it is the only thing
that does what you need– as has been the case for a very long time– you can get away with charging whatever you like for it.

grant
G
Grant
Feb 21, 2004
Could you expand? When is PS faster and by how much? What powerful tools does it have that PSP does not?

Thanks, Grant

The biggest thing that I
have seen is that PS is much faster doing the same type of operation. In addition, it has more powerful tools.
G
Grant
Feb 21, 2004
Let’s expand on the discussion.

I want to reactivate my photography that I set aside for a couple of years including scanning a stack of transparencies and negatives in my filing cabinet.

I currently own a copy of Photoshop 5.5 LE which is about 4 years old now. I also have a professional version of Vuescan. I have now downloaded trial versions of Photoshop CS and Paint Shop Pro 8.

How would you suggest I compare these software considering that I can start the process by scanning with Vuescan?

Thanks in advance, Grant
QO
Queen of Denial
Feb 21, 2004
Open your largest resolution image in both. I think you will find that PSP is great for lower res images but when you get up to 10 megs or more images, it starts to really be a slug. Honestly, as a long time PSP user and a recent Photoshop convert (3 years) I tend to lean toward Photoshop for all of my work more and more. I prefer the ability to edit any text directly on the image. I enjoy the ease of the clipping path functions, the manipulation and correction options. There are many scripts for PSP 8 that can mimic some of the filters in Photoshop, I know as I have written a few myself. To me the comparison is not like apples and oranges, more like firm apples and sweetened applesauce. Oh JP what is this Asterism filter, is this new since version 8? I have no interest in upgrading since I just upgraded this past June. The quick turnaround on version in Photo Impact is stifling!
"Grant" wrote in message
Let’s expand on the discussion.

I want to reactivate my photography that I set aside for a couple of
years
including scanning a stack of transparencies and negatives in my filing cabinet.

I currently own a copy of Photoshop 5.5 LE which is about 4 years old now. I also have a professional version of Vuescan. I have now downloaded
trial
versions of Photoshop CS and Paint Shop Pro 8.

How would you suggest I compare these software considering that I can
start
the process by scanning with Vuescan?

Thanks in advance, Grant

JK
JP Kabala
Feb 21, 2004
Photoshop wins hands down on the following
Better curves and channels, prepress, CMYK, LAB, Pantone, color management, abilty–because of the dratted scratch disks– to, with the right hardware setup, handle huge– and I mean enormous–images at high res, healing brush,

I like PSP as an alternative to **Elements** BUT I think it has some growing to do before it can win in a head-to head with PS at the top end of the skillsets… the
questions the purchaser has to answer are
1) what do I really want/need to do?
2) how much do I want to spend on software?
3) how much time do I have to devote to learning this?

but there are some lessons Adobe could learn from the folks in Eden Prairie that apply to both PS and PSE
PSP’s histogram adjustment tool is killer, warp brushes make liquify look sick, Manual Color Correction and Gray World Color Correction are smart and powerful, edge and texture preserving smooth are great for noise reduction, and for some reason PSP’s Python scripts feel so much more friendly than PS’s more arcane Actions

I own, use, and teach them all. I’m going to sound like Yoda here but there is no "best"– there is only best for you.

T- Star Filter=Asterism… it’s ability to pick out and place highlights is more useful than one might think. Don’t use it the way it’s designed—looks cheesy like that…think outside the box.

"Grant" wrote in message
Thanks for your detailed response. What are the upper end feature sets
you
mentioned below:

Photoshop is a superior piece of software, but it is not six times
better
***unless*** you need the upper end of the feature set. If it is the
only
thing
that does what you need– as has been the case for a very long time– you can get away with charging whatever you like for it.

grant

J
Jim
Feb 21, 2004
(Hello World) wrote in
news::

Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them

Lemme guess, you were saving in jpeg (a well known lossy format) then doing modifications, then reloading etc. Ah, i love when people blame softwares for their own incompetences πŸ™‚

Well, let me show you about jpeg compression in Photoshop vs Paint Shop Pro

In this screen capture (the one thing I really like psp for) the left picture is the original, the middle picture was saved 10 times with no changes in PSP and the right picture was saved 10 times with no changes in PS.

The images were quite large, but scaled to actual pixels on the screen.

You’ll notice a big degridation in the image by PSP, but the PS image is still fairly close. Look at all the noise that was introduced by PSP.

What I’m saying is that Photoshop does a MUCH better job than Paint Shop Pro in handling jpeg images.
V
Voivod
Feb 21, 2004
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:23:50 -0600, Jim
scribbled:

X-Complaints-To:
N
nospam
Feb 21, 2004
On 2004-02-21, Grant wrote:
Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

Photoshop CS is 50 Euro for a Photoshop 6.0 OEM from Germany + $169 for the upgrade from Adobe. The $699 is a price set to help drive up the snob effect.
N
nospam
Feb 21, 2004
On 2004-02-21, Povl H. Pedersen wrote:
On 2004-02-21, Grant wrote:
Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

Photoshop CS is 50 Euro for a Photoshop 6.0 OEM from Germany + $169 for the upgrade from Adobe. The $699 is a price set to help drive up the snob effect.

Or buy Elements for $100, and upgrade to CS for $299.
EG
Eric Gill
Feb 21, 2004
Jim wrote in
news::

(Hello World) wrote in
news::

Paint Shop Pro images degrade extremely quickly when you load them

Lemme guess, you were saving in jpeg (a well known lossy format) then doing modifications, then reloading etc. Ah, i love when people blame softwares for their own incompetences πŸ™‚

Well, let me show you about jpeg compression in Photoshop vs Paint Shop Pro

Please do it some other way than by posting binaries to a non-binaries group. Thanks.

But Hello World was right. You are complaining that a lossy format loses information, but blaming the image editing software.

In this screen capture (the one thing I really like psp for) the left picture is the original, the middle picture was saved 10 times with no changes in PSP and the right picture was saved 10 times with no changes in PS.

At a very low compression rate, apparently.

But why the hell you’d want to open and re-save a JPEG file is completely beyond my comprehension.

The images were quite large, but scaled to actual pixels on the screen.

You’ll notice a big degridation in the image by PSP, but the PS image is still fairly close. Look at all the noise that was introduced by PSP.

That isn’t JPEG noise. I cannot get PSP 8 to reproduce that pattern. I dunno what you did to get that regular dot pattern, but I somehow doubt JPEG had anything to do with it at all.

What I’m saying is that Photoshop does a MUCH better job than Paint Shop Pro in handling jpeg images.

Making my living doing heavy-duty graphics, I would never use PSP. But it’s not nearly as bad as you make out.
G
Grant
Feb 21, 2004
Or buy Elements for $100, and upgrade to CS for $299.

The Adobe website clearly says the upgrade to CS does not include upgrading from Elements.

grant
JK
JP Kabala
Feb 21, 2004
There are ways. For Example, let’s say you would like a new scanner. You can buy a Microtek scanmaker 3740 for about $60.
That scanner comes with a copy of Elements and a link to this website

http://www.adobe.com/store/products/special.jhtml?id=catMicr otek&sourcecode=112300 Now you have
a new scanner
a copy of Elements
a legally licensed, upgradeable copy of PSCS
For @ $350

Now put the scanner back in the box
and give it to your cousin for Christmas.
H
Hecate
Feb 22, 2004
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 05:25:49 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

so is Ulead’s PhotoImpact (Which has one or two filters
that, if they were to appear in Photoshop, would have everyone saying how brilliant Adobe programmers were.).

Yeah? Which ones?

OK.

1. High Dynamic Range: This combines shots taken at different exposure levels to produce a final image with a higher "perceived tonal range". It’s a great feature and worth the price of PI alone.

2. The Color Cast Dialog is a quick way of fixing color casts in an image and works really well. You select a neutral colour point in the image and PI highlights it on a colour wheel. Dragging towards the centre corrects any colour cast. I know you can do this much more precisely in PS, but it works well for all but the most complex cases and takes a lot less time. πŸ™‚

And while I’m at promoting cheap software, if you want to do panoramas purchase Roxio Photosuite 5 Platinum Edition. It’s a lousy Photo Editor, but it now incorporates Photo Stitch (which MGI bought from Enroute and Roxio got when the took Photosuite from MGI). Photo Stitch takes account of an images detected focal length and the accuracy of the images is amazing. It’s far better the new Photomerge in PS or the one in Elements. And for $50 you’re getting, effectively a Panorama plug in at less than the cost of most plug ins which works better than anything Adobe has…. πŸ˜‰



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Feb 22, 2004
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:55:23 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:

There are ways. For Example, let’s say you would like a new scanner. You can buy a Microtek scanmaker 3740 for about $60.
That scanner comes with a copy of Elements and a link to this website
http://www.adobe.com/store/products/special.jhtml?id=catMicr otek&sourcecode=112300 Now you have
a new scanner
a copy of Elements
a legally licensed, upgradeable copy of PSCS
For @ $350

Now put the scanner back in the box
and give it to your cousin for Christmas.
LOL! Wonderful lateral thinking and the best post all week πŸ˜‰



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
J
Jim
Feb 22, 2004
Sorry about the image. I didn’t realize it shouldn’t be here, especially since I’ve seen several other images in here that nobody complained about.

But Hello World was right. You are complaining that a lossy format loses information, but blaming the image editing software.

My point is that PSP produces far worse results than PS. Another thing is filesize. I forgot to mention earlier that the original file was 3,053k the PS file was 1,903k, but the PSP file was 6,332k. I don’t want to trust my images (in ANY format) to PSP. It just makes sense to me to get PS (or PSE)

But why the hell you’d want to open and re-save a JPEG file is completely beyond my comprehension.

To make my point.

That isn’t JPEG noise. I cannot get PSP 8 to reproduce that pattern. I dunno what you did to get that regular dot pattern, but I somehow doubt JPEG had anything to do with it at all.

I don’t know where it came from either, but the fact is PSP introduced it into the picture.

What I’m saying is that Photoshop does a MUCH better job than Paint Shop Pro in handling jpeg images.

Making my living doing heavy-duty graphics, I would never use PSP. But it’s not nearly as bad as you make out.

If you would never use PSP, then why are you defending it? If it does an adequate job, then why not?

Jim
R
Rowley
Feb 22, 2004
FWIW, keep in mind that some of us don’t see binary attachments as our ISP filters out such things.

Martin

Jim wrote:

Sorry about the image. I didn’t realize it shouldn’t be here, especially since I’ve seen several other images in here that nobody complained about.
G
Grant
Feb 22, 2004
Brilliant. Thanks for that. Any other hidden offers like that?

grant

"JP Kabala" wrote in message
There are ways. For Example, let’s say you would like a new scanner. You can buy a Microtek scanmaker 3740 for about $60.
That scanner comes with a copy of Elements and a link to this website
http://www.adobe.com/store/products/special.jhtml?id=catMicr otek&sourcecode=112300
Now you have
a new scanner
a copy of Elements
a legally licensed, upgradeable copy of PSCS
For @ $350

Now put the scanner back in the box
and give it to your cousin for Christmas.

J
Joe
Feb 22, 2004
"Grant" wrote:

Could you expand? When is PS faster and by how much?

The speed will depend on how much you know Photoshop.

Faster doesn’t always mean loading faster *but* faster to get the job done. Else I would say MS Painter is much faster.

What powerful tools does it have that PSP does not?

You just display the menu, look at all the available options and count the number of powerful tools *behind* each tool, and learn what they can do. Example, take a look at the simple DRAWing tool and explore few dozens options behind that simple option.

Why don’t you list what PSP can do then who knows someone here may have the time to tell you what PS can or can’t not do?

Thanks, Grant

The biggest thing that I
have seen is that PS is much faster doing the same type of operation. In addition, it has more powerful tools.
JK
JP Kabala
Feb 22, 2004
Wacom had a discount with a tablet purchase for a while
on both PSCS and Painter. You might look there.

Anybody at your house a student or a teacher?
There are tons of academic discounts.
Again, all perfectly legal and above board as long as
you meet the requirements.

I needed a copy of Microsoft Project (another piece of software that is priced @ 600—because they can get away with it) and found it was cheaper and smarter to enroll in a Uni night class to learn the critter and buy my copy through the bookstore. Tuition was more than offset by the discount, and I ended up actually knowing what I was doing with Project, too.

"Grant" wrote in message
Brilliant. Thanks for that. Any other hidden offers like that?
grant

"JP Kabala" wrote in message
There are ways. For Example, let’s say you would like a new scanner. You can buy a Microtek scanmaker 3740 for about $60.
That scanner comes with a copy of Elements and a link to this website
http://www.adobe.com/store/products/special.jhtml?id=catMicr otek&sourcecode=112300
Now you have
a new scanner
a copy of Elements
a legally licensed, upgradeable copy of PSCS
For @ $350

Now put the scanner back in the box
and give it to your cousin for Christmas.

S
Stephan
Feb 22, 2004
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 05:25:49 GMT, Eric Gill

1. High Dynamic Range: This combines shots taken at different exposure levels to produce a final image with a higher "perceived tonal range". It’s a great feature and worth the price of PI alone.
2. The Color Cast Dialog is a quick way of fixing color casts in an image and works really well. You select a neutral colour point in the image and PI highlights it on a colour wheel. Dragging towards the centre corrects any colour cast. I know you can do this much more precisely in PS, but it works well for all but the most complex cases and takes a lot less time. πŸ™‚

And while I’m at promoting cheap software, if you want to do panoramas purchase Roxio Photosuite 5 Platinum Edition. It’s a lousy Photo Editor, but it now incorporates Photo Stitch (which MGI bought from Enroute and Roxio got when the took Photosuite from MGI). Photo Stitch takes account of an images detected focal length and the accuracy of the images is amazing. It’s far better the new Photomerge in PS or the one in Elements. And for $50 you’re getting, effectively a Panorama plug in at less than the cost of most plug ins which works better than anything Adobe has…. πŸ˜‰

Have you used Photo Stitch?
Could you show and example please?
I am using the very good but incredibly difficult PanoTools and would love something easier
Anything easy I tried so far produced horrible results

Stephan
J
Joe
Feb 22, 2004
"Grant" wrote:

Any one familiar with both of these software applications? Paint Shop Pro is considerably less expensive and I assume that Photoshop has a price additive strictly because of the name.

But how do they stack up?

grant

Why bother to ask when you don’t believe? <g> No kidding, if you ask the question in PSP then you will get tons of answers saying PSP not only better but it’s also cheaper. When you ask for the difference then very few will have the time to give you the straight answer. About 1-2 years ago, someone in one of the Photoshop newsgroups posted a very detail information about the main difference between Photoshop and PSP.

And if you think Photoshop is better just because of the name then put your money on PSP to make you and your pocket happy.
EG
Eric Gill
Feb 22, 2004
Jim wrote in
news::

Sorry about the image. I didn’t realize it shouldn’t be here, especially since I’ve seen several other images in here that nobody complained about.

Then they weren’t noticed by many. Binaries can play merry hell with what are supposed to be text-only newsgroups, at least for people with servers that enforce that.

But Hello World was right. You are complaining that a lossy format loses information, but blaming the image editing software.

My point is that PSP produces far worse results than PS. Another thing is filesize. I forgot to mention earlier that the original file was 3,053k the PS file was 1,903k, but the PSP file was 6,332k.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the file size *increased* after PSP applied JPEG compression to it?

I
don’t want to trust my images (in ANY format) to PSP. It just makes sense to me to get PS (or PSE)

If you make a regular habit of re-saving a JPEG image without keeping an original, I wouldn’t trust my images to *you*.

However, lossless formats stored by PSP are lossless. Your beef is *still* with compressed formats and not the software, no matter how you’d like it to appear otherwise.

But why the hell you’d want to open and re-save a JPEG file is completely beyond my comprehension.

To make my point.

Can you make it without resorting to circumstances that aren’t going to happen in the real world or not?

That isn’t JPEG noise. I cannot get PSP 8 to reproduce that pattern. I dunno what you did to get that regular dot pattern, but I somehow doubt JPEG had anything to do with it at all.

I don’t know where it came from either, but the fact is PSP introduced it into the picture.

The question is, why? I cannot get it to do anything vaguely similar, nor, apparently, can anyone else from a web search.

What I’m saying is that Photoshop does a MUCH better job than Paint Shop Pro in handling jpeg images.

Making my living doing heavy-duty graphics, I would never use PSP. But it’s not nearly as bad as you make out.

If you would never use PSP, then why are you defending it?

Innacurate is innacurate. I don’t particularly like seeing innacurate claims made.

If it does an adequate job, then why not?

"Adequate" isn’t "heavy-duty", now is it?

I use Photoshop because the bulk of my work is for offset press, a task for which PSP is not well suited for. Were I doing web graphics exclusively, I might not bother spending the money. Were I a very light-duty user, I wouldn’t be able to justify the expense. Were I a home user who liked to put up a few graphics for friends or family or the hell of it, I’d save the $600 extra bucks or so.

Suitability to task, bud.
G
Grant
Feb 23, 2004
Doh!

My wife is an at teacher at the high school level…I will have to chat her up.

Taking a course at the local college is a good route too.

grant

Anybody at your house a student or a teacher?
There are tons of academic discounts.
Again, all perfectly legal and above board as long as
you meet the requirements.

I needed a copy of Microsoft Project (another piece of software that is priced @ 600—because they can get away with it) and found it was cheaper and smarter to enroll in a Uni night class to learn the critter and buy my copy through the bookstore. Tuition was more than offset by the discount, and I ended up actually knowing what I was doing with Project, too.

"Grant" wrote in message
Brilliant. Thanks for that. Any other hidden offers like that?
grant

"JP Kabala" wrote in message
There are ways. For Example, let’s say you would like a new scanner. You can buy a Microtek scanmaker 3740 for about $60.
That scanner comes with a copy of Elements and a link to this website
http://www.adobe.com/store/products/special.jhtml?id=catMicr otek&sourcecode=112300
Now you have
a new scanner
a copy of Elements
a legally licensed, upgradeable copy of PSCS
For @ $350

Now put the scanner back in the box
and give it to your cousin for Christmas.

J
Jim
Feb 23, 2004
My point is that PSP produces far worse results than PS. Another thing is filesize. I forgot to mention earlier that the original file was 3,053k the PS file was 1,903k, but the PSP file was 6,332k.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the file size *increased* after PSP applied JPEG compression to it?

Believe what you want. I can see what happened to filesize on disk here.

To make my point.

Can you make it without resorting to circumstances that aren’t going to happen in the real world or not?

Trust your images to who you want. I merely am pointing out why I would rather not trust PSP.

That isn’t JPEG noise. I cannot get PSP 8 to reproduce that pattern. I dunno what you did to get that regular dot pattern, but I somehow doubt JPEG had anything to do with it at all.

I don’t know where it came from either, but the fact is PSP introduced it into the picture.

The question is, why? I cannot get it to do anything vaguely similar, nor, apparently, can anyone else from a web search.

My point was to show what happened to my image. The overall point is that if the software has problems – and from my point of view it has them – then stay away from it.

What I’m saying is that Photoshop does a MUCH better job than Paint Shop Pro in handling jpeg images.

Making my living doing heavy-duty graphics, I would never use PSP. But it’s not nearly as bad as you make out.

If you would never use PSP, then why are you defending it?

Innacurate is innacurate. I don’t particularly like seeing innacurate claims made.

So what you are saying is that I did NOT do the trials I claimed, and faked the evidence? Believe what you want I guess.

If it does an adequate job, then why not?

"Adequate" isn’t "heavy-duty", now is it?
I use Photoshop because the bulk of my work is for offset press, a task for which PSP is not well suited for. Were I doing web graphics exclusively, I might not bother spending the money. Were I a very light-duty user, I wouldn’t be able to justify the expense. Were I a home user who liked to put up a few graphics for friends or family or the hell of it, I’d save the $600 extra bucks or so.

Suitability to task, bud.

PSE and PSP are around the same price, and have similiar features. I think PSE would be a much more stable and trustworthy investment.
BN
Brooklyn NYC
Feb 23, 2004
I agree that PSP can’t touch the finished product of PS. I use both PSP7 and Adobe CS Premium and Adobe is a much better product. Hence the phenomenal fee.

"Jim" wrote in message
My point is that PSP produces far worse results than PS. Another thing is filesize. I forgot to mention earlier that the original file was 3,053k the PS file was 1,903k, but the PSP file was 6,332k.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the file size *increased* after PSP applied JPEG compression to it?

Believe what you want. I can see what happened to filesize on disk here.
To make my point.

Can you make it without resorting to circumstances that aren’t going to happen in the real world or not?

Trust your images to who you want. I merely am pointing out why I would rather not trust PSP.

That isn’t JPEG noise. I cannot get PSP 8 to reproduce that pattern. I dunno what you did to get that regular dot pattern, but I somehow doubt JPEG had anything to do with it at all.

I don’t know where it came from either, but the fact is PSP introduced it into the picture.

The question is, why? I cannot get it to do anything vaguely similar, nor, apparently, can anyone else from a web search.

My point was to show what happened to my image. The overall point is that if the software has problems – and from my point of view it has them – then stay away from it.

What I’m saying is that Photoshop does a MUCH better job than Paint Shop Pro in handling jpeg images.

Making my living doing heavy-duty graphics, I would never use PSP. But it’s not nearly as bad as you make out.

If you would never use PSP, then why are you defending it?

Innacurate is innacurate. I don’t particularly like seeing innacurate claims made.

So what you are saying is that I did NOT do the trials I claimed, and faked the evidence? Believe what you want I guess.

If it does an adequate job, then why not?

"Adequate" isn’t "heavy-duty", now is it?
I use Photoshop because the bulk of my work is for offset press, a task for which PSP is not well suited for. Were I doing web graphics exclusively, I might not bother spending the money. Were I a very light-duty user, I wouldn’t be able to justify the expense. Were I a home user who liked to put up a few graphics for friends or family or the hell of it, I’d save the $600 extra bucks or so.

Suitability to task, bud.

PSE and PSP are around the same price, and have similiar features. I think PSE would be a much more stable and trustworthy investment.
R
RTM
Feb 23, 2004
Unfortunately the fee is more phenomenal than the product. —

Ron.

Brooklyn NYC wrote in message
I agree that PSP can’t touch the finished product of PS. I use both PSP7
and
Adobe CS Premium and Adobe is a much better product. Hence the phenomenal fee.

G
Grant
Feb 23, 2004
I will admit to having pretty limited experience with any of the discussed programs but I am testing trials of PSP 8, PE2 and PS Cs. It seemed that PE2 was a bit simplistic compared to PSP8. Seemed like it is more automated. You don’t agree?

grant

PSE and PSP are around the same price, and have similiar features. I think PSE would be a much more stable and trustworthy investment.
H
Hecate
Feb 24, 2004
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:23:38 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:


Have you used Photo Stitch?

Seen excellent results from it, though I haven’t used it.

This is from a review on designer-info.com (the guy is a professional with his own company and does this reviews for a computer magazine. In the this review he said:

"Much the most impressive new feature is the complete overhaul of PhotoSuiteΒ’s Stitching capabilities based on PhotoVista technology MGI acquired from LivePicture. Now you can create seamless panoramas simply by dragging up to 48 images onto the main image window, roughly positioning them and then selecting your camera lens type. You can even choose to create 360-degree immersive panoramas. Generally the process is simple and the results are impressive and you could easily expect to pay more for less powerful dedicated stitching software."

In the current issue of the magazine (PCPro) he goes on to say that:

"Ever since MGI bought Photo Stitch from Enroute, this has been my favourite way of producing panoramas….It’s near seamless results put Photoshop’s PhotoMerge capability to shame and must be seen to be believed – similar, but less effective, dedicated panorama programs can easily cost five times as much as PhotoSuite…"

Incidentally, that’s a useful review site. But he never updates the reviews till the issue following the one he does the review in, of course.

Anyway, Photosuite is only Β£27 ($50) and for that price you can buy it just for Photostitch πŸ™‚ That’s what I’m going to do πŸ™‚


Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
SM
Steve Moody
Feb 24, 2004
In article <c1es0o$p1f$>, RTM
wrote:

Unfortunately the fee is more phenomenal than the product.

I’ve earned more with Photoshop than I’ve spent on it. You can do far more with Photoshop than you can with PSP. Photoshop is not overpriced.

For those in this thread who can’t see a big difference between PSP and PS, you don’t know everything PS can do.
R
RTM
Feb 25, 2004
Very few people need or use *everything* that photoshop can do. Or paintshop pro or any other similar program if it comes to that. I daresay there would be a few surprised people reading the thread if they knew everything that Paintshop could do too.

Not over-priced? That may have been so when Photoshop was the only choice, but these days I think it is struggling more and more to justify its price tag. After all, taken to its most basic, all we are talking about is changing the
colour of dots on the screen.


Ron.

Steve Moody wrote in message
In article <c1es0o$p1f$>, RTM
wrote:

Unfortunately the fee is more phenomenal than the product.

I’ve earned more with Photoshop than I’ve spent on it. You can do far more with Photoshop than you can with PSP. Photoshop is not overpriced.

For those in this thread who can’t see a big difference between PSP and PS, you don’t know everything PS can do.
BN
Brooklyn NYC
Feb 25, 2004
Ron:

I agree.
In the comparison of PSP and PS prices there is no question. PSP 8 is $85.00 and PS CS is $580.00 (Both prices from Amazon.com rounded to nearest $1). However, I am using both PSP7 and Adobe CS Premium and I can see that there are quality differences between PSP and PS with Adobe being best. However, I can’t justify an almost $500.00 difference between the two.

"RTM" wrote in
message
Very few people need or use *everything* that photoshop can do. Or paintshop pro or any other similar program if it comes to that. I daresay there would be a few surprised people reading the thread if they knew everything that Paintshop could do too.

Not over-priced? That may have been so when Photoshop was the only choice, but these days I think it is struggling more and more to justify its price tag. After all, taken to its most basic, all we are talking about is changing the
colour of dots on the screen.


Ron.

Steve Moody wrote in message
In article <c1es0o$p1f$>, RTM
wrote:

Unfortunately the fee is more phenomenal than the product.

I’ve earned more with Photoshop than I’ve spent on it. You can do far more with Photoshop than you can with PSP. Photoshop is not overpriced.

For those in this thread who can’t see a big difference between PSP and PS, you don’t know everything PS can do.

SM
Steve Moody
Feb 25, 2004
In article <c1hglh$hgh$>, RTM
wrote:

Very few people need or use *everything* that photoshop can do. Or paintshop pro or any other similar program if it comes to that. I daresay there would be a few surprised people reading the thread if they knew everything that Paintshop could do too.

By your logic, a Macintosh G5 is overpriced because some people might need only what the original Mac will do. Most cars are overpriced, because all you need is a vehicle that will get you to and from home. All houses are overpriced, because some people are happy with a simple rented apartment.
B
Bob
Feb 26, 2004
"Steve Moody" wrote in message
In article <c1hglh$hgh$>, RTM
wrote:

Very few people need or use *everything* that photoshop can do. Or paintshop pro or any other similar program if it comes to that. I daresay there would be a few surprised people reading the thread if
they
knew everything that Paintshop could do too.
I depends on your skill and imagination. Photoshop is not a simple program for simple people. To use it to full advantage requires a lot of effort. It works on the idea that you think of something and it provides the facilities to do it. After years of using it you can still discover a new technique/effect/or artistic element. You are right most people don’t need that. Most people just want quick effects. Thats why most people don’t produce anything any good.
As for ‘Paintshop’ it’s a nice program. Can you you show me any good artist/photographer/graphic artist who uses it ? Direct me to their web page !
R
RTM
Feb 26, 2004
I have no idea what a G5 even costs and I would find it difficult to care less, but I do know that at current rates of exchange
BN
Brooklyn NYC
Feb 26, 2004
"howldog" wrote in message
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:37:44 -0000, "RTM"
wrote:

By my logic Photoshop is overpriced. However, since I no longer buy Adobe products and you do, then by my logic its your problem not mine.

i work in pre-press and offset press graphics and from what i’ve seen, paint shop pro doesnt come close to Photoshop. I’ve fed my family for 10 years with this damned program. You cant overprice that.
I agree. I use both PSP7 and CS Premium and there is a huge difference — imo — between the quality that Photoshop puts out vs. PSP. I paid the price for Adobe CS and it was a smart investment. (Not to mention a tax write-off!)
H
howldog
Feb 26, 2004
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:37:44 -0000, "RTM"
wrote:

By my logic Photoshop is overpriced. However, since I no longer buy Adobe products and you do, then by my logic its your problem not mine.

i work in pre-press and offset press graphics and from what i’ve seen, paint shop pro doesnt come close to Photoshop. I’ve fed my family for 10 years with this damned program. You cant overprice that.
S
someone
Jun 5, 2005
If you want to see the difference between Paintshop Pro and Photoshop, open a picture with a sharp edge in it, then rotate the pictures 90 degreeds and zoom in. Then you will see a big difference.. Thanks…

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections