Do you like your Corel PaintShop Pro X7?

<p>How do you like it for common image editing, with and without layers? How about working with RAW files? Appreciate any inputs.</p>

<p>It does everything I need to do and does those things quite well. I prefer Capture NX2 for processing RAW files, PSP does handle them quite well but I like the availability of the color control points. I've never understood why so many photogs feel they need photoshop when this package is available. </p>

<p>I like it very much. I have both PS and X7. In the light of what Adobe is doing these days, requiring subscription and on-going payments, it is especially good.</p>

<p>Though it is not popular to say this, I think a ton of Photoshop's capabilities are just wasted or used making goofier and goofier pictures. This is not to say that X7 is not feature rich. </p>

<p>Unless you must use PS because it is the standard at work I would save your money and use Paintshop. At least until there is something you must do that it can not do. That will be a long time for most of us. </p>

<p>I used to be a loyal PSP user, up to PSP 9. I really loved PSP 9's user interface and still prefer it to PS CS5. But before I jumped ship to PS, I upgraded to PSP X on the promise of full 16 bit editing capabilities (with all their tools). The 16 bit capabilities were a farce, both with X and the subsequent two versions. However, if the user interface now is similar to that of 9 and X, it's very, very good. I found both versions to be very capable, except for the 8 bit editing limitation. They weren't fancy, but they were capable -- a collection of good, solid tools.</p>

<p>Now if I might piggyback onto the OP's question: Has Corel developed a full complement of 16 bit editing tools, or are they still dinking around with 8 bit?</p>

<p>Sarah Fox's comments make me laugh. I was also a long-time PSP user who fell for Corel's empty promises of PSP X. For me it was the promise of color management as well as 16-bit editing. I was so frustrated with what could only be called a "pre-beta" release (with documentation so incomplete that a group of loyal users effectively donated their labor to produce their own on-line reference) that I decided to make the switch to Photoshop CS2. It would be no exaggeration to say that it was Corel that sold me Photoshop!</p>

<p>That said, I really would like to see PSP become a serious alternative to Photoshop. Adobe alienated many users when they went to a rental model, so there's a large market for a genuine alternative. I know Corel have been adding numerous features since PSP X, but I haven't made the effort to assess whether they're actually delivering finished software that offers 16-bit editing in wide-gamut color spaces.</p>

<p>For the time being, I'm sticking with Photoshop CS5 and converting raw files from my new camera to DNG (I know that's also making a deal with the devil, but it's a less unattractive option than renting Photoshop). But for the long term, I'd really like to see Adobe have to face genuine competition after they exerted their monopoly power.</p>

 

<p>It's worth noting that PSP was a great product before Jasc sold it (ver 9 being the last Jasc version). The developers were great. I had a couple of enlightening conversations over the phone with one of them. I passed along a suggestion or two that they actually implemented. They really cared about their users.</p>

<p>But Corel? Blech! Corel bought a great software product and made it rather stupid. Of course there's at least one company worse than Corel: Adobe, with their new line of rentalware! I think I will be a CS5 user until I'm forced to buy something else (planned obsolescence). But I will never rent. So I hope PSP will eventually offer a product as serious as the one Jasc sold.</p>

<p>Downloaded the 30 day free trial of Corel PaintShop Pro X7. First issue: it didn't read the EXIF information of a .dng file correctly; it said the image I imported was taken in 2098 instead of 1998; also got the color temperature as shot wrong, 3500K or something versus the actual 4350K. You can't read the EXIF data correctly? Hmmm. Next was the RAW "converter" with extremely limited adjustments. Then, you can't finish the conversion and go on editing; you first have to save the file as e.g. a tif to whatever folder you want to and reimport the file into the program! The edit menus are far from intuitive, but be that as it may, the preview function was a joke: you are making adjustments say to the saturation of different colors and up to a point there are no changes to the preview; when you continue adjusting, there comes a point where PaintShop decides to wake up and do something, temporarily blocks any user inputs while clunking away at some computations and then after maybe 15 or 20 seconds the preview is updated and you can continue adjusting, all this while you haven't left the particular menu. The next preview update is similar. At that point I decided I'd had enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3500K or something versus the actual 4350K. You can't read the EXIF data correctly? Hmmm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if it could, every raw converter would produce a different result. Those numbers represent a big <strong>range</strong> of colors, not a specific one. Same numbers, different numbers, what you get as a result of the rendering from the raw data can be all over the place. <br>

Heck, even in Lightroom, if you examine the CCT value, update a DNG profile, that value can change as does the color appearance. Those numbers? Forget about it. </p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

This color temperature is NOT what the raw converter calculated from the image content; it's the "image as shot" data in the EXIF file! Got it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This color temperature is NOT what the raw converter calculated from the image content; it's the "image as shot" data in the EXIF file! Got it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn’t matter Franz. The CCT numbers from that EXIF are a broad description of an assumed color. You didn’t get the spectral data of the scene, not with the camera and raw. Heck you didn’t even get tri-stimulus RGB data. As I said, forget the numbers, certainly as anything based on precision data collection. They are fine within a broad ballpark use but every converter will treat them differently. The same converter will too as I illustrated by changing one input specific parameter.</p>

<p>I agree with Don Cooper about a good way to use PSP. We've had the product since around 2003, through the multiple generations, the sale to Corel and the fumbling start that Corel had on the X versions. Now on 7, and it does everything we need (and much more). We use Canon tools for RAW; PSP for everything else. Pretty much abandoned PS a couple of years back, not because of the subscription model but because we just weren't using it enough to keep it up to date.</p>

<p>Occasionally we will use PSP for RAW files, but I've never really built that into any workflow, and don't see the advantage.</p>

 

<p>Andrew, you still don't get it. I'm not talking about the merits of CCT numbers. I'm talking about the fact that PaintShop Pro 7X incorrectly reads the EXIF file information that was created by my Nikon camera: it got the date wrong and the CCT number.</p>

<p>http://digitaldog.net/files/CCTandRaw.jpg<br /> <img src="http://digitaldog.net/files/CCTandRaw.jpg" alt="" />CCT</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

First of, the temperature numbers in question are NOT from the EXIF file, but from the RAW converter analysis; my mistake. For the same RAW file I would expect any RAW converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K; after all we are talking about RAW data as shot and not yet modified in any way and accurate calculation of the CCT under those conditions should be a breeze: average out all pixels and find the line perpendicular to the black body locus. I think I'm way to generous with a couple of 100K.<br>

I looked at some more images to compare the Corel PaintShop Pro X7 RAW converter calculated CCT and what Photoshop CS came up with; the differences were anywhere between 800 and 1200K! That's way too much difference in my book and tend to put way more trust in Adobe's numbers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>First of, the temperature numbers in question are NOT from the EXIF file, but from the RAW converter analysis; my mistake.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, they are. But the numbers can’t be taken to the bank (any more than saying <strong>always</strong> calibrate a display to D50 or anything else!). You’re too caught up in numbers as absolutes which in both cases isn’t going to happen. Your idea of CCT values from a DSLR and how one should always set WP display calibration to D65 are equally flawed based on your misunderstanding of the process and thus the numbers provided. I only point this out so lurkers who read your mini-review will take the salient points in mind and forget the complaint:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>also got the color temperature as shot wrong, 3500K or something versus the actual 4350K.<br /> I'm talking about the fact that PaintShop Pro 7X incorrectly reads the EXIF file information that was created by my Nikon camera: it got the date wrong and the CCT number.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <em>actual</em> color isn’t something you have at your disposal without the proper tools and have you ever actually measured the same illuminant with two different brands of Spectrophotometers? I have. If you expect them to give identical CCT values, you’re in for a rude awaking Frans.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For the same RAW file I would expect any RAW converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And your <strong>expectations</strong>, based on how this all works is flawed and why I pointed out, your portion of a review knocking the CCT values provided isn’t an issue in anything but your thinking about this. <br /> You’re simply NOT measuring the colorimetry at the scene, not with a single capture DSLR that spits out a raw document (did you miss the part about the Spectrophotometer and tri-stimulus RGB data?).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I looked at some more images to compare the Corel PaintShop Pro X7 RAW converter calculated CCT and what Photoshop CS came up with; the differences were anywhere between 800 and 1200K!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and that’s to be expected (hopefully from you now too).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's way too much difference in my book and tend to put way more trust in Adobe's numbers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you <strong>do</strong> put your trust into those numbers, you’ve missed the lesson and deserve to be spoken to as someone you may know did just here, yesterday:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2220857">Frans Waterlander</a> , Dec 10, 2014; 03:37 p.m. Andrew, you still don't get it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The numbers vary, they are calculated differently, the raw converter plays a role and the capture device is inadequate for measuring what you are hoping to take to the bank. Simple as that.</p>

<p>So, let me see, Andrew: while evaluating the same RAW file, the temperatures calculated by your Lightroom and Iridient are 149K apart, the temperatures calculated by my Photoshop CS and PaintShop Pro 7X are up to 1200K apart and that's to be expected? Really?</p>

<p>Could you explain, beyond your usual "it's all over the place", how two RAW converters looking at the same RAW file can be 1200K apart and how that's just to be expected?</p>

<p>And by the way, I'm not looking for the capturing device, the camera, to come up with an accurate number for color temperature; I'm looking for RAW converters to come up with a reasonably similar answer when looking at the same RAW file.</p>

<p>I did explain Frans. There’s a group of variables. The number represents a range of color. Bottom line, the criticism you made regarding the numeric values being wrong isn’t valid. </p>

<p>Your "explanation" is nothing more than your routine "it's all over the place" assertion; no rationale as to how close RAW converters should or could be, no supporting data, no explanation of how the numbers are or might be established, no reference to clarifying articles, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your "explanation" is nothing more than your routine "it's all over the place" <strong>assertion...</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It isn’t an assertion, it’s a fact, illustrated by two raw converters providing different numbers and worse, not that of the scene illuminant. The differences spread CCT 411 K. These facts illustrate that your beef with the values (<em>the color temperature as shot wrong, 3500K or something versus the actual 4350K.</em>) provided are baseless no matter <strong>why</strong> the two converters get different values. Here’s the same raw with a difference of 100K <strong>just</strong> by virtue of a camera profile! <br>

<img src="http://digitaldog.net/files/CCTandDNGprofile.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Andrew, I don't know the program you are using. It apparently allows you to change the camera profile so now it seems to me that you are no longer comparing apples to apples.</p>

<p>You continue to make the point that "it's all over the place" without qualifying that in terms of how much difference is to be expected and why. Again, I don't see any reason why two different RAW converters, when looking at the same image taken with the same camera shouldn't come up with a color temperature within a couple of 100Ks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, I don't know the program you are using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lightroom. And exactly the same change happens in ACR of course. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again, I don't see any reason why two different RAW converters, when looking at the same image taken with the same camera shouldn't come up with a color temperature within a couple of 100Ks.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The facts are <strong>they do</strong> and the facts make your point about this converter something other’s should ignore, at least in terms of the CCT values. </p>

<p>Well, in my version of ACR I can't change the camera profile. So, how about the apples-to-apples issue with what you did in Lightroom? Want to gloss over that too?</p>

<p>You continue to evade the issue of how close the numbers ought to be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, in my version of ACR I can't change the camera profile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure you can. You just don’t know how to. Pointless to continue. </p>

<p>So, educate this dummy and tell me how in ACR 3.7 I can change the camera profile, and respond to the apples-to-apples issue with what you did in Lightroom and address the issue of how close the temperature numbers ought to be for different RAW converters.</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>ACR 3.7 only supports Adobe Standard Profiles; there is no Camera Calibration tab with a Camera Profile pop-up menu. So I can't apply a different camera profile. Period. And if I could, I would assume that my temperature number would change and then it's no longer an apples-to-apples comparison.</p>

<p>Per Adobe's website, the camera records the white balance at the time of exposure as a metadata entry and ACR reads this value and makes it the initial setting when you open the file. So, ACR doesn't second-guess the recorded temperature number and doesn't re-evaluate or measure anything. Period.<br>

Call me crazy, but I would expect other RAW converters to do the exact same thing. Well, Corel's PaintShop Pro X7 for one doesn't do that; it somehow comes up with its own, dramatically different color temperature number as the initial setting. This may be on purpose or it may be a flaw in the program, but I don't have much confidence in what Corel is doing here.</p>

<p>So, I'd appreciate it, Andrew, if you could be a little more specific as to why you feel that different RAW converters can and should come up with drastically different numbers if all they initially should do is read the temperature number in the metadata. </p>