Paint Shop Pro vs. Photoshop, PC vs. Mac

My wife is getting into digital and has Paint Shop Pro 8 on her PC

laptop. Before we get too deeply into this, would we be better to jump

right into Adobe Photoshop and forego learning Paint Shop? I've heard

for graphics you should go with a Mac over a PC. We're PC people from

the early days when MS-DOS was the only game, but for photo editing

purposes would we be better off in the long run to use a Mac? Sorry if

these queries are repititious.

Photoshop runs pretty much the same on both PC and Mac - it doesn't really matter. What is

important is pofiling your system for accurate colour.

 

Many like the Mac because of OS X - it's certainly the reason I switched recently. No spyware,

virii, Spotlight Search (can search on camera meta-data!), ExposeﾁL... I haven't looked back.

I agree with john's opinion. Yes, the accuracy of color is very impotant. If you're serious aobut

the photo retouching with computer application, you have to buy a reliable monitor. Cheap

LCD and CRT monitor does not provides accurate color matching.

I have been a Linux and PC user. So can not coment on the first part.

PSP is a fantastic tool for what they are charging. But for Photography-digitaldarkroom I would only go with PS. Color management is the single most important reason for this.

I know this will be contraversial, but why not?

 

I see Paint Shop Pro as the most sensible choice. It is admittedly always in catch-up with Photoshop, but by now the new features appearing in both applications are generally non-essential. The price bears no comparison - PSP is a fraction of PS.

 

I have yet to find someone actually using PS for something that can't be done in PSP, and all PS users seem to say (as though it's a compliment) that no one knows how to use all its features. I see this as a poor reflection on its user interface when compared to PSP and other photo editing tools.

 

Specifically looking at colour management (which I have to admit to not having got into for various reasons), I currently use PSP version 7 (several versions behind) and it already had the facility.

 

I will certainly be upgrading to PSP X (or whatever version it is by the time I get round to it). In the meantime I am happy with 7 and a few pennies remaining in my pocket.

 

This is of course not a two horse race. There are other applications out there, some free, some cheaper than PSP, some probably more expensive than PS. It is probably worth considering what you will be doing with your application. If it is just cropping, resizing, colour adjustment, spotting, etc. you are probably best sticking with one of the simpler applications on the market. Many people seem to buy PSP or PS and (particularly with PS) find that they are hampered in their simple editing by the unnecessarily (for them) complex interface.

 

On the other hand, if you want to do more complex and creative things with your images, and unless someone can come up with a useful action which can be performed in PS and not in PSP, I will stick with recommending PSP.

Out of curiosity; can you do LIQUIFY, CHANNEL MIXING, WORKING ON LAYERS and RAW

CONVERSION with Paint Shop Pro? I really dont no this sofware, thats why i am asking. I think

if you can afford CS2, and consider yourself professional...go with photoshop. For every day

use for fun, go with Paintshop.

<p>Simon, I have nothing against PSP or your choice to use it over PS, but your remarks do drag me out of the woodwork to respond just a bit.</p>

 

<p>Firstly this:</p>

 

<p><i>... and all PS users seem to say (as though it's a compliment) that no one knows how to use all its features. I see this as a poor reflection on its user interface when compared to PSP and other photo editing tools.</i></p>

 

<p>I strongly disagree with this characterization. As is true with most good software I've used which is both complex and flexible, PS almost always offers multiple ways of accomplishing any given task. Which way is "best" in PS often depends as much on your mindset and way of working as it does on any absolute measure. This is most certainly <b>not</b> a poor reflection on its UI, but rather a strong advantage which becomes increasingly apparent with time and experience.</p>

 

<p>I'm not suggesting that PS's UI is perfect - it's certainly not - but it's flexibility and depth are indeed its strengths, at least for the more experienced user.</p>

 

<p>And then there's this... Like it or not, one of the issues which must be seriously considered before investing learning curve time in any complex software package is the issue of defacto standards. This seems to be one of Karl's primary concerns, and its a valid one.</p>

 

<p>PS <b>is</b> the defacto standard amongst professionals and serious amateurs. Most examples on the web will be shown in PS. Most add-ons are developed primarily for PS (at least to begin with). There are more working experts to rely on for PS advice. There are more PS how-to books and materials available. Your lab will be more familiar with PS. And on and on.</p>

 

<p>For someone new to digital, I'd say this: If you believe that you're going to become serious in your digital imaging work and, most especially, if you believe that your work may eventually involve working with others (whether interfacing with editors, printers, pro labs or whatever) the choice is simple.</p>

 

<p>There are other good options, and I'm not for a second trying to imply that those who use these options are lesser beings who's work suffers as a consequence. Simon has recommended PSP, and I've certainly seen some useability features in the under-rated Picture Window Pro which I wish PS had, but the strong prevalence of PS does mean that you'd better be sure of what you'll be doing before investing time in another package.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

Paint Shop Pro is a very useable alternative to PhotoShop at about 1/8th the cost.

 

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/psp/pspx.html

As I noted, what I said was controversial.

 

Patrick - "can you do LIQUIFY, CHANNEL MIXING, WORKING ON LAYERS and RAW CONVERSION with Paint Shop Pro?"

 

I would have to look into this a bit more. No, my version of PSP does not do RAW conversion, but then I doubt that the equivalent version of PS did either... as for PSP X I have to admit I don't know; it's not on the top of my agenda. As for Liquify and Channel Mixing, I would have to research what these features actually do.

 

Scott - "it's flexibility and depth are indeed its strengths, at least for the more experienced user."

 

I agree with much of what you said, but what I hear from PS users (even professionals) is not just that they don't know every way of doing things (which I would expect), but that they don't know everything that PS offers them. I am an established IT professional as well as a keen amateur/semi-pro photographer, and a greater IT expert than I will probably ever be considers software you can't use without the manual to be poor.

 

Scott - "the issue of defacto standards. This seems to be one of Karl's primary concerns, and its a valid one."

 

Do we need a de-facto standard (see more consideration of that below)? PS or PSP or whatever is just an application. It's just a tool. You work out your own way of working with it and that's it. It's great that people discuss how to use their tools, but there seems to be too much prescription going on... "this is how you do it, otherwise you aren't doing it properly" (I am not suggesting that Scott said or implied that) We should be supporting each other whichever tools we choose.

 

Scott - "Most examples on the web will be shown in PS."

 

It is usually a very simple matter to "translate" instructions for PS into PSP. I don't know about for other similar tools, because I haven't tried, but I'd expect to be able to do it.

 

Scott - "Most add-ons are developed primarily for PS (at least to begin with)."

 

I agree that PS plug-ins have become a defacto standard, and indeed PSP supports them. I just wish the libraries to support development had been made open source. There are already a wide range of freely available as well as paid for plug-ins, but it just isn't currently feasible (unless anyone knows different) to develop your own to solve your own problems, with or without the eventual intention of making them generally available.

 

Scott - "There are more working experts to rely on for PS advice."

 

There should be minimal need for advice on how to use the tool itself. The advice that can be valuable is what features to use in what situations, and that is equally applicable to all applications. I have attended several talks given by PS experts and everything of value was applicable to PSP.

 

Scott - "There are more PS how-to books and materials available."

 

You're right, that is frustrating. I would be unlikely to buy a book on a particular application, but it does annoy me that most apparently general books refer to Photoshop as though it's the only show in town.

 

Scott - "Your lab will be more familiar with PS. And on and on."

 

I deliver image files to the lab (tif, jpg, etc.). They don't need to know what application I use.

 

Scott - "the strong prevalence of PS does mean that you'd better be sure of what you'll be doing before investing time in another package."

 

I don't follow this argument. Unlike the VHS/Betamax story which people trawl up for every eventuality, this is not a case of incompatibility - the main image file standards are all public. Sure, they will change, but you'll have time to make the necessary conversions.

 

Both Adobe and Corel have been around a long time, but ether could go under tomorrow. You'd still have the same version of the application on your PC which would keep on working and you could convert at your leisure between the two or any other, either already in existence or yet to come.

Personally, I think either version could work out fine for just about anybody. Both will do almost all of what the other will do, but they are not the same.

 

I do agree that PS is better in several ways. It is the standard photo editor, and many tutorials & actions are written for it. PSP also has tutorials and scripts written for it, many available for free on the net, but not as many as PS. PS also has color management that actually works as advertised, and PSP does not. It has it, it just doesn't work right. Same thing for 16 bit file editing. I'm sure they will work by the time the next version rolls out, but by then PSP will also come out with some other new feature that won't work right & you will have to wait until the next release to make that work.

 

If you don't mind dropping $500-600 for the best available editor, or you actually need the few features that PSP does not have, buy PS. If you can deal with its few short comings & want to save $400-500, PSP X is a good product. BTW, the cost is not over when you buy either one. Upgrading PSP is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of upgrading PS.

 

Patrick, Yes, PSP version X will do CHANNEL MIXING, WORKING ON LAYERS and RAW CONVERSION. I'm not sure what LIQUIFY refers to, but I suspect PSP just calls it by another name. You can morph objects in any direction you want, that's what you mean.

So many people say "Paint Shop Pro is almost as good as Photoshop." That is as good a testimonial for Photoshop as you can get - the sine qua non image editor (loosely translated, the one to which all others are compared).

 

If you need support (and who doesn't), it's a lot easier to get help for Photoshop than grade C applications.

The real question here is not only about PSP vs Photoshop but also about platforms and output devices. If you are going to use a PC and print to Epson or Canon or HP printers on their own papers then PSP is worth the $100 experiment. Try it and if you find that you can't get the output that you want, then think about upgrading to Photoshop. If you are going to a Mac, then the point is moot, PSP is only WINTEL. I have underwater friends using PSP and getting nice prints out using the PSP version ICC management. Taking the same camera generated JPEG file, you can get almost the same output using either program. Workflow is not too terribly different, nomenclature is. If it were me, I would try PSP and see if you get what you want. If not, then think about upgrading, but maybe its the hardware (Printer, camera, scanner) that needs upgrading first. Or maybe its the photographer that needs upgrading, in my hands at least for most pics, either program is better than I am.

 

Bill

I'll cut to the chase on this:

 

PSP is for housewives. PS is for serious graphics people who prefer to fine tune their images and maintain control.

 

I've noted that people who use PSP and Corel for image editing tend to be the same types who like to shoot amatuer print film because it costs $1.99 at Walmart, is just as good as the pro stuff, they can't tell the difference anyways, then gripe about how the teenager running the mini-lab is making their prints too light.

 

There is no debate about PS vs PSP. The only debate is how stripped down an alternative to PS you can tolerate using. One thing I use PSP for though is it's fast browser. PS CS2 has serious performance issues, and I woulnd't curse anybody with that piece of crap unless they have 8gig of RAM and a 15ghz processor.

 

As for Simon's comments, I also work as an "IT Professional" and I'd be happy to send him E-mail correspondence with several college kids I work with who can show him how to use Photoshop.

If you don't really need the latest, greatest then look for an older version of PS and save a bundle. Plus you have the option of upgrading for a fraction of the full version price. I think the sweet spot for value in computers and software is somewhere a year or two behind the cutting edge. And at little sacrifice in usability.

Scott, you are a photo.net treasure and a model of verbal economy. I don't believe anyone else on these boards can offend so many people in so few words. Your snappy little slogan "PSP is for housewives" might get picked up by Adobe, if Corel doesn't mind. Don't go changing.

Scott - "As for Simon's comments, I also work as an 'IT Professional' and I'd be happy to send him E-mail correspondence with several college kids I work with who can show him how to use Photoshop"

 

I didn't say I couldn't use PS, in fact I've barely tried although I have a version of Elements somewhere. What I said was that many people I talk to who use Photoshop seem to find it difficult. They are generally great fans of it and evangelise it's use, but that doesn't seem to square with the difficulty they have. They may be relatively inexperienced in computing terms, but that shouldn't matter; it is touted as a tool for photographers and designers, not for IT geeks like me (and you?) ;-). Maybe PSP just isn't hairy-chested enough for you, but that's surely not a bad thing, and if that means a (small) step down in functionality, it's worth the wait for it to catch-up, which it invariably does. I would happily use PS if someone gave me it for Christmas and I didn't have a perfectly good PSP (OK, I need to upgrade to the latest, but that's pennies in comparison).

 

I am not arguing that PS is a bad application, it's just not the only show in town as people try to make out. It's like saying "If you can't afford a big house with a pool your not in the gang"; there are people who know that having a pool, although nice, isn't everything even if they can afford it.

 

I suspect by the way the "housewives choice" (sorry to all you photographic housewives for whom it's not true) would be something like Microsoft PictureIt (if that still exists). Even so, I used to keep a few of those dinky little photo editing programs installed for those few jobs they did best - they are rarely needed now that the "big boys" have caught up.

<p><i>As I noted, what I said was controversial.</i></p>

 

<p>Simon, I don't find your comfort with, and support of PSP at all controversial. PS isn't for everyone, and PSP probably serves many needs admirably.</p>

 

<p>Your easy dismissal of potential issues involved in not working with the recognized industry standard for professionals is, on the other hand, another story. And as for useability, you're overstating PS issues. Since most of the skill involved in using PS well has more to do with skill in image manipulation rather than with using the tool, I'm sure most PS learning curve issues also apply to PSP or PWP.</p>

 

<p><i>I don't follow this argument. Unlike the VHS/Betamax story which people trawl up for every eventuality, this is not a case of incompatibility - the main image file standards are all public. Sure, they will change, but you'll have time to make the necessary conversions.</i></p>

 

<p>Since I didn't "trawl up" VHS/Betamax, I'm not sure why you did. It has nothing do with what I'm saying.</p>

 

<p>It's as simple as this: if you intend to ultimately work with other professionals in a given area, you're best served to learn the tools and language they use from the start, rather than having to retrench and learn them later. In this arena, PS is that tool, and PS terms constitute much of the language spoken. If these things don't matter to <i>you</i> now and are unlikely to in the future, then this argument is irrelevant and your options are broader. But if they do matter or might down the road, then the choice is quite simple.</p>

 

<p>This is not an indictment of other software, seems pretty fundamental and, I would think, is <i>not</i> terribly controversial.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

I've used Paint shop Pro extensively and as noted above, it's browser is quick & very usefull AND contained within the program.

 

I now have CS2 and I'm enjoying learning PS. The browser for PS, Bridge, a separate but intergrated program, can be a strain on underpowered machines. I'm running 2 GB RAM and RAID 0 drives, no problems.

 

The full version of PS2 & Bridge could overwhelm (or seriously slow down) the slower hardware in a notebook.

Great debate. I think I will go back to film, and wal-mart. By the way, Which is better...Canon or Nikon? :)

After trying PhotoShop and getting so frustrated I finally found the perfect solution. It is truly amazing. I feel guilty using it because it is so good, user friendly, and best of all FREE. It is called Paint.Net.

 

"Paint.NET is image and photo manipulation software designed to be used on computers that run Windows 2000, XP, Vista, or Server 2003. It supports layers, unlimited undo, special effects, and a wide variety of useful and powerful tools."

Thanks to all for your input. Since my wife has PSP 8 on her PC laptop, I think we'll stick with it for awhile. I ordered two books from Amazon on PSP, one is a "Dummies" book, which both of us will read, although she will take the lead on digital while I stick to film for the foreseeable future.

Recently I have been evaluating both PSP X and PhotoShop CS2. Both of them have had their issues in terms of performance. But I found PhotoShop CS2 was really bad in terms of performance and crashed often. I ran in to 10-15 bugs with in couple of days of usage.

 

Usability is another big area where Photoshop CS2 lacks and PSP X shines. The online help that comes with CS2 is really bad and does not help much. It does not matter how good a S/W is if the features are not easily discoverable and usable. PSP X on the other hand is really good in terms of documentation and usability along with a rich feature set.

 

I really find Scott's comment about "PSP is for Housewives" very immature. PSP X is a really good Software and many professionals use it and is a great alternate to Photoshop.

 

If you compare the features and the prices, PS CS2 is clearly overpriced (about $550) while PSP X is about $66 (with some rebates) consideing that PSP X can do pretty much a lot of things that PS CS2 can and a photograher needs.

 

While preference of S/W is based on individual needs, it seems like those who tout Photoshop as the greatest AND rest of the software are crap are just trying to too hard to differentiate themselves from others to make themselves *special*. Learning how to use a S/W is not a big deal. If you are creative enough and know what to do, you can get same results with either one of these two softwares.

I realize I am wading into this debate late, but on the off chance that Adobe is actually listening, here goes....They really need to put this application on a diet. I would like to see Adobe break this bloatware up into a basic app and then offer plugin modules that users could purchase based on the type and level of functions they need. This all or nothing junk sucks.

 

Kent