How to Improve Photoshop Performance
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Design resources, Photoshop add-ons, UI Kits and Inspiration
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
From: "gus"
Newsgroups: alt.graphics.photoshop
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:35:28 -0000
Subject: graphics programs
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
"gus" wrote in messagemaybe
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
Nope!
"gus" wrote in messagei know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
SamMan wrote:
"gus" wrote in messagemaybe
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…
"Brian" wrote in messageProbably best not to in this NG. I am here to learn and broaden my skills, not to get into debates about what is best. You ask a fair enough question, of course.
SamMan wrote:"gus" wrote in message
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…
maybe
Care to elaborate?
"Brian" wrote in message
SamMan wrote:"gus" wrote in message
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…
maybe
Care to elaborate?
gus wrote:
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
Any particular area of functionality that you feel is lacking? Photoshop is
not a page layout program, for example, nor is it particularly good for printing large numbers of images, or cataloging them. There are other specialized apps that do better than Photoshop in these areas.
But for pure unadulterated pixel pushing, color correcting, filter flinging
functionality, Photoshop is IT.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
Well, if you are referring to Photoshop CS … CS 2.0 is due out soon. It is code
named Space Monkey. Try looking on a search engine for the new features. Maybe
the new tools and attributes will be what you want.
Craig
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?There’s a software called photo retouch pro (I only saw a demo that came with a DLAB2)
thanks
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?Yes, that nifty little graphics program they have on CSI that can load up a facial image from a store video camera and enlarge it by 1000% so you can clearly see the persons features.
thanks
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:35:28 -0000, "gus" wrote:
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?Yes, that nifty little graphics program they have on CSI that can load up a facial image from a store video camera and enlarge it by 1000% so you can clearly see the persons features.
thanks
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
SamMan wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message
SamMan wrote:"gus" wrote in messagei know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something
that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…
maybe
Care to elaborate?
Forgive me for butting in, but Mr. SamMan can you tell us what it is about Photoshop you feel is missing – assuming you seek something which is not present in PS?
Jan
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
thanks
As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop. But on the down side it does not have the elegance of screen layout and therefore you will find your workspace diminishing into postage stamp proportions as you expand your knowledge of the application and get to open more toolbars, dockers and panels. But if you really want to expand your repertoire, it’s worth a look-see.At the risk of being letter bombed the same day that you are, I have to agree with you on that one Robin. Except, I actually think there is a bigger and less obtrusive workspace in PP than PS.
"gus" wrote in message
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?
As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop.
In article <d1rl5o$q6h$>,
"Robin" wrote:As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop.
Actually, it doesn’t. I have it; it offers far less than Photoshop.
However–and this is a big "however"–most Photoshop users do not ever touch, or even know about, more than 20% of Photoshop’s power. It’s simply invisible to them.
So, for example, the fact that Photoshop supports spot color is lost on most users, who do not know the difference between "spot color" and other kinds of color, do not know what "spot color" is or what it is used for, and do not know that Photoshop supports it. It’s an "invisible feature"–a feature the average Photoshop user is utterly unaware of.
Photo-Paint offers a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality; it’s easy to construct a rather lengthy list of things Photoshop does that Photo-Paint does not. However, most of the things on that list leave average Photoshop users saying "Huh? What does that mean? I don’t kno what that is–you mean to tell me Photoshop can do that? What’s it for?"
I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.
In article ,
Brian wrote:I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.
You can’t realistically have a button for everything, or else your whole screen would be nothing but buttons. 🙂
Photoshop has command key shortcuts to do all the things you describe. New image from clipboard? Control-N; the parameters of whatever is on the Clipboard are filled in automatically. If you choose to change these parameters, for example, by changing the setting from RGB to CMYK, then Photoshop will make those changes to what’s on the clipboard when you hit control-V.
Copy an image to the Clipboard? Control-C. Export to PDF? File->Save As, choose PDF. New layer from selection? Control-J.
Photo-Paint is aimed at casual and hobbyist users. It does many things with one click that most casual and hobbyist users find important.
What really sets them apart is power, though. Photo-Paint has a number of problems which make it unsuitable for professional work; that is why professionals use Photoshop, and that is why Photo-Paint costs only a fraction of what Photoshop costs.
For starters, Photo-Paint has a very poor quality separation engine. That means that when you convert an image from RGB to CMYK in Photo-Paint (or CorelDRAW), the quality of the CMYK image is very poor; it is flat and muddy, with too much black and low saturation. And unlike with a high-end professional program, the CMYK separations can not be tailored for different kinds of presses or paper; many CMYK separations produced by Photo-Paint are all but unprintable on press.
Photo-Paint also has an inferior interpolation engine. That means that if you resample (resize) or rotate images or portions thereof, the quality of the resized or rotated image is not as high as it is in Photoshop or another professional-quality program. This problem is ESPECIALLY pronounced when you are rotating portions of an image; you can see the quality of the portion of the image you are manipulating degrade very rapidly.
Photo-Paint has serious problems with the way it handles feathered (soft-edged) selections. Feathered selections in Photo-Paint are prone to banding, harsh breaks (especially at around the 2% and 45% marks), and other undesirable artifacts.
Photo-Paint lacks the sophisticated masking and color-correction tools of a program like Photoshop. Photo-Paint does not have the same range of selection tools and commands, and its color correction commands, where they exist, are not as sophisticated. Photo-Paint’s Curves command, for example, does not produce results as smooth as Photoshop’s, and Photo-Paint lacks Photoshop’s sophisticated Selective Color color correction capabilities.
I once stole a client from a competitor of mine just by not using Photo-Paint. The client supplied images in RGB, which needed to be converted to CMYK for printing. My competitor used Photo-Paint; I used Photoshop. Two of the same images, one separated in Photo-Paint and one in Photoshop, printed side-by-side on a proof were so radically different in color saturation, depth, and vibrancy that my competitor never had a chance. The $30,000 I made from that client more than paid for my copy of Photoshop.
Bottom line: It depends on what you intend to do. Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist or casual use, but it is not suitable for professional print production.
It’s probably more reasonable to compare Photo-Paint with Photoshop Elements, Adobe-s application aimed at casual home users. Photo-Paint has most of Photoshop Element’s functionality, but only a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality. If you sincerely believe that Photo-Paint can do almost everything Photoshop can do, then you are not aware of much of what Photoshop can do, and Photoshop has many capabilities and commands you don’t use–but that’s fine, as Photo-Paint is great for casual hobbyist use, and if you don’t know about Photoshop’s functionality, you clearly don’t miss it.
Tacit,
Fascinating article. Really enjoyed it. I even saved it.
I have PS7 and PP10 and love them both. However, I use PS7 far more. Having spent years reaching my modest proficiency in PS, I am not about to spend similar calories learning in depth a pgm no professional uses.
But in fairness to PP10, and the reason I use it, is it has a novel approach to FX, some of which are not available in PS. Why not enjoy both worlds, I say.
In article ,Hi Tacit,
Brian wrote:I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.
You can’t realistically have a button for everything, or else your whole screen would be nothing but buttons. 🙂
Photoshop has command key shortcuts to do all the things you describe. New image from clipboard? Control-N; the parameters of whatever is on the Clipboard are filled in automatically. If you choose to change these parameters, for example, by changing the setting from RGB to CMYK, then Photoshop will make those changes to what’s on the clipboard when you hit control-V.
Copy an image to the Clipboard? Control-C. Export to PDF? File->Save As, choose PDF. New layer from selection? Control-J.
Photo-Paint is aimed at casual and hobbyist users. It does many things with one click that most casual and hobbyist users find important.
What really sets them apart is power, though. Photo-Paint has a number of problems which make it unsuitable for professional work; that is why professionals use Photoshop, and that is why Photo-Paint costs only a fraction of what Photoshop costs.
For starters, Photo-Paint has a very poor quality separation engine. That means that when you convert an image from RGB to CMYK in Photo-Paint (or CorelDRAW), the quality of the CMYK image is very poor; it is flat and muddy, with too much black and low saturation. And unlike with a high-end professional program, the CMYK separations can not be tailored for different kinds of presses or paper; many CMYK separations produced by Photo-Paint are all but unprintable on press.
Photo-Paint also has an inferior interpolation engine. That means that if you resample (resize) or rotate images or portions thereof, the quality of the resized or rotated image is not as high as it is in Photoshop or another professional-quality program. This problem is ESPECIALLY pronounced when you are rotating portions of an image; you can see the quality of the portion of the image you are manipulating degrade very rapidly.
Photo-Paint has serious problems with the way it handles feathered (soft-edged) selections. Feathered selections in Photo-Paint are prone to banding, harsh breaks (especially at around the 2% and 45% marks), and other undesirable artifacts.
Photo-Paint lacks the sophisticated masking and color-correction tools of a program like Photoshop. Photo-Paint does not have the same range of selection tools and commands, and its color correction commands, where they exist, are not as sophisticated. Photo-Paint’s Curves command, for example, does not produce results as smooth as Photoshop’s, and Photo-Paint lacks Photoshop’s sophisticated Selective Color color correction capabilities.
I once stole a client from a competitor of mine just by not using Photo-Paint. The client supplied images in RGB, which needed to be converted to CMYK for printing. My competitor used Photo-Paint; I used Photoshop. Two of the same images, one separated in Photo-Paint and one in Photoshop, printed side-by-side on a proof were so radically different in color saturation, depth, and vibrancy that my competitor never had a chance. The $30,000 I made from that client more than paid for my copy of Photoshop.
Bottom line: It depends on what you intend to do. Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist or casual use, but it is not suitable for professional print production.
It’s probably more reasonable to compare Photo-Paint with Photoshop Elements, Adobe-s application aimed at casual home users. Photo-Paint has most of Photoshop Element’s functionality, but only a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality. If you sincerely believe that Photo-Paint can do almost everything Photoshop can do, then you are not aware of much of what Photoshop can do, and Photoshop has many capabilities and commands you don’t use–but that’s fine, as Photo-Paint is great for casual hobbyist use, and if you don’t know about Photoshop’s functionality, you clearly don’t miss it.
Someone in this group (excluding you or me) post an image and set a complex task to be achieved. That person can pretend to be a client and give us a job to do. You use Photoshop and I use Photopaint. We can then post the images somewhere for all to view and you can illustrate to the whole group how superior the results from Photoshop are! They can open the 2 images, examine them closely, print them, do what they like! If photoshop does things that Photopaint cannot, maybe you would like to give the poster of the image a few hints so they can set a task that would be impossible in Photopaint. My point here being, there is nothing you can create in Photoshop that I cannot in Photopaint to the same standard! I am not saying Photopaint creates a better image, it certainly does not, but it produces the same quality image with far less fuss!
I have stated my challenge and I await your response!
In article ,Thanks for the response Tacit. I am open and honest as they come, so I will say this in response to the above.
Brian wrote:Someone in this group (excluding you or me) post an image and set a complex task to be achieved. That person can pretend to be a client and give us a job to do. You use Photoshop and I use Photopaint. We can then post the images somewhere for all to view and you can illustrate to the whole group how superior the results from Photoshop are! They can open the 2 images, examine them closely, print them, do what they like! If photoshop does things that Photopaint cannot, maybe you would like to give the poster of the image a few hints so they can set a task that would be impossible in Photopaint. My point here being, there is nothing you can create in Photoshop that I cannot in Photopaint to the same standard! I am not saying Photopaint creates a better image, it certainly does not, but it produces the same quality image with far less fuss!
I have stated my challenge and I await your response!
Sounds good to me.
Be aware, though, that the images will have to be used more than simply for the Web; the place Photoshop shines is in things such as color separation, color correction, and the like–relevant primarily to press.
Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist and amateur work, and for work intended only for RGB, it does a good job. The nature of the challenge as you have stated it, though, leads me to believe that you do not work in print or prepress, which means you are probably unfamiliar with much of Photoshop’s functionality. I can give you an example of tasks that can be achieved with excellent results in Photoshop but not Photo-Paint:
– Separate an image for high-quality litho reproduction.
– Perform fine color correction in CMYK.
– Perform spot-color separation.
– Combine vector and raster elements which will stay vector and raster when output to a PostScript printer or imagesetter.
These are all things that hobbyist users do not need. Many hobbyist users do not know what "color separation" is, and most hobbyist users don’t know what "spot color" means, so the fact that Photoshop does these things is not relevant to hobbyist users.
I’m not saying that Photo-Paint should not be used; nor am I telling you that you personally should stop using it. I am simply correcting one mistaken idea that hobbyist users have; "Photo-Paint does everything Photoshop does." Photo-Paint does approximately 40% of what Photoshop does–but that other 60% is, for the most part, stuff that someone who does not work professionally for print would never see or even be aware of.
Hi Walter,
so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:Hi Walter,
so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.
And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Hecate wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:Hi Walter,
so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.
And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
So you keep telling me, but why is it that I have no printing problems, and why is it that most of the professionals in the Corel NG who have been involved for years with commercial printing have no problems? I dare say when you used Corel, Hecate, you used an older version for starters, and secondly, you did not know the programme to the extent you know Photoshop.
Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes. From what I have read from others in the Corel NG, a lot of them had some resistance from printers in the past, who quickly shut up and were happy to get the ‘extra business’ when they realised that there was no problem at all with the files they were being provided with. I can produce a PDF no different to one you would produce. These days, a lot of printers really want PDF’s from the enquiries I have made so far (I don’t usually get involved with commercial printing, soon I will have to due to up and coming work). So where is this great problem. Simple answer, in "your" head.
Brian.
Can we please all drop this Photoshop/Photopaint discussion altogether, it really is not the right thing to be doing in an Adobe Newsgroup. I feel ridiculous every time I respond to a statment on this topic as it really is an insult to the Adobe group. The problem is, if I do not respond, it is like conceding defeat, or having no comeback (which I do not), if you see what I mean.
respond, it is like conceding defeat (which I do
not), or having no comeback , if you see what I mean.
Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes.
Hecate wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:Hi Walter,
so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.
And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
So you keep telling me, but why is it that I have no printing problems, and why is it that most of the professionals in the Corel NG who have been involved for years with commercial printing have no problems? I dare say when you used Corel, Hecate, you used an older version for starters, and secondly, you did not know the programme to the extent you know Photoshop.
Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes. From what I have read from others in the Corel NG, a lot of them had some resistance from printers in the past, who quickly shut up and were happy to get the ‘extra business’ when they realised that there was no problem at all with the files they were being provided with. I can produce a PDF no different to one you would produce. These days, a lot of printers really want PDF’s from the enquiries I have made so far (I don’t usually get involved with commercial printing, soon I will have to due to up and coming work). So where is this great problem. Simple answer, in "your" head.Try doing co=lour separations in Photopaint, or spot colour for that matter, and see how far you get. Then come back and tell me it’s all in my head.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:47:33 +1000, BrianHi Howldog,
wrote:Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes.
Exactly. I use Corel on occasions, altho i’ve never messed around much with PhotoPaint, but why should I, when I have been using Photoshop for years and years. The problem i have with Corel, is that not many of my vendors can accept a raw Corel file. I can send an Illustrator file FTP to a printer in Shanghai and I know it’ll go thru their RIP with no problems. Corel? I wouldn’t dream of it.
I could probly rip a pdf out of corel and send that, etc.
The point is, I’m not knocking Corel, I use Corel Draw 12 for some things, but, from what I’ve seen, it simply isnt any better than the Adobe Suite, and, Corel isnt as universally accepted as Adobe is, unless you’re in Canada; there’s no reason for me to switch.
Try doing co=lour separations in Photopaint, or spot colour for that matter, and see how far you get. Then come back and tell me it’s all in my head.
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Try doing co=lour separations in Photopaint, or spot colour for that matter, and see how far you get. Then come back and tell me it’s all in my head.
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Like I said to Tacit, this whole thread should be dropped, an Adobe user group is not the place to talk about Corel. I don’t even want to talk about it. I just don’t want to read crap rubbishing it that misleads people who are none the wiser and who believe what they read in here whether it is accurate or not. Because you and Tacit would have good reputations (due to your strong knowledge of PS) people will tend to believe anything you tell thme. They don’t realise neither of you now enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.
Let’s focus on what this NG is all about, Photoshop! You do realise I am probably going to have some questions for you soon, and I really hope you will help me. The last thing I want to do is become enemies and then I won’t get any PS help when I need it. Then I will have to wait 3+ months till my friend comes back to ask her. So be nice you two and let’s all get along 🙂
Brian.
Hi Howldog,
Your points are very logical and I totally agree with you that it would be silly to switch programmes. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I just think it uneducated and very biased when a lot of people attack the product, and most of them know little about it.
They don’t realise neither of you now
enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:28:10 +1000, BrianReally? I have not seen that on the ‘official’ Corel Newsgroups on the Corel server, but I do know of one you may be speaking of. It is the wrong thing to do for sure! Especially what you are saying about criticising anything American. That is just a prejudiced lack of intelligence. It is very un-professional to criticise others’ products, generally, attacking products because they are American is ridiculous. Oh well, their loss, not yours. Just enjoy the benefits of using what you believe is best and be proud of it.
wrote:Hi Howldog,
Your points are very logical and I totally agree with you that it would be silly to switch programmes. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I just think it uneducated and very biased when a lot of people attack the product, and most of them know little about it.
this is true, however, the people on the corel forums, are every bit as bad. Even worse really, with their sort of arrogant frenchie haughtiness and disdain for anything perceived as American. I’ve seen the most ridiculous slams against Adobe products on the Corel forums.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:35:24 +1000, Brian
wrote:They don’t realise neither of you now
enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.
And how many years experience of using something would you consider enough in your obviously very great wisdom.? I used Photopaint from versions 7-11. Is that long enough or does have to have been a Dos Corel user?
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections