RAH
Well-known member
Huh? Isn't "Elements" the cheaper, scaled-down version, and "CS3" the full-blown Photoshop?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Which software is better? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The gaffer
- Start date
RAH
Well-known member
There are literally millions of PaintShop Pro users. It has been around for years and was shareware for a long time. Starting with version 5, it acquired layers, which brought it to a whole new level of power. Later, it got vector layers, which gives it the capability of a drawing program (e.g. Illustrator; Corel Draw), plus other refinements. It's layer handling now is VERY sophistocated. You can mix raster and vector layers, group them, mask them etc. etc.
Yes, Photoshop is more powerful and for the type of thing professionals need (color separation, etc), better. But for the type of work that most photographers and web developers do, PaintShop Pro is way more than enough.
Photoshop Elements is also quite good, although not as powerful as PaintShop Pro, IMHO.
I've also heard good things about Gimp, but haven't really tried it. For one thing, does it allow use of Photoshop plugins? One nice thing about PaintShop Pro is that it can use just about any plugin that works with Photoshop (although it cannot run Photoshop scripts). Elements can also use most plugins, too, of course.
Last edited:
I use DPP as my RAW convertor and then use an old version of Elements to do any fiddling (odd bit of cloning), cropping and resizing. But I am lazy at processing, if a shot requires more than tweeking it tends to get binned so DPP and Elements are more than enough for me.
Carless
Well-known member
Yes, you can use Photoshop plugins with The Gimp. On windows at least.
http://members.home.nl/m.weisbeek/gimp/#ps
You've prompted me to see if it's possible to run photoshop plugins on Linux using The Gimp and Wine.
The gaffer
Enthusiastic amateur
As I said at the start of this debate I am new to DSLR and the replies to my question has certainly given me some food for thought, thanks for that. Being new I have read two books to help me to get to grips with my camera and photgraphy one by Andy Rouse and the other by Bryan Peterson. It is interesting to contrast their respective philosphies in terms of taking the photos. Andy Rouse tending to like to spend more time processing his images and Bryan Peterson more time getting them right when taking them and less time at the computer.
To a certain extent this is coming through with the replies on this thread where some people don't want to sit and use software to correct their images whilst others don't mind.
I suppose to a certain extent this will also dictate whether you need to buy CS3 or use some cheaper or free alternatives. Would anyone agree with this or am I talking complete rubbish? |
|Any other suggestions would be very welcome. :t:
RAH
Well-known member
Gaffer, I think that you are correct, but I think it really boils down to the same thing. The better the original picture, the better your final results, with or without post-processing. I do a lot of tweaking with software, but I'm really happy when something comes out great right out of the camera.
With animal photography, there is no substitute for getting as close as possible (with optics or physically or both. After that, naturally, you try to get the best composition, the correct exposure, etc. But there is nothing "pure" about not having to work on the image with software. Back in the film days, people would routinely tweak their shots in the darkroom.
As far as "to a certain extent this will also dictate whether you need to buy CS3 or use some cheaper or free alternatives," I think I don't quite agree. In fact, this is one reason I kind of object to people recommending Photoshop to beginners. It gives folks the impression that if you are "serious," you need to spend big bucks, which is definitely not the case. It's like home office users spending a lot for Microsoft Office because they'll feel more "professional," when OpenOffice would probably be more than enough.
I do think that free products like Picasa are not sufficient for any kind of sophisticated web image creation - you need to be able to manipulate individual objects within images and move stuff around, which really requires layers, but for general photo enhancement, even these free, lesser products are usually fine. The intermediate products like Paint Shop Pro, Elements, and Gimp give you more control, and are also great for web design and sophistocated image manipulation like combining images, etc.
With animal photography, there is no substitute for getting as close as possible (with optics or physically or both. After that, naturally, you try to get the best composition, the correct exposure, etc. But there is nothing "pure" about not having to work on the image with software. Back in the film days, people would routinely tweak their shots in the darkroom.
As far as "to a certain extent this will also dictate whether you need to buy CS3 or use some cheaper or free alternatives," I think I don't quite agree. In fact, this is one reason I kind of object to people recommending Photoshop to beginners. It gives folks the impression that if you are "serious," you need to spend big bucks, which is definitely not the case. It's like home office users spending a lot for Microsoft Office because they'll feel more "professional," when OpenOffice would probably be more than enough.
I do think that free products like Picasa are not sufficient for any kind of sophisticated web image creation - you need to be able to manipulate individual objects within images and move stuff around, which really requires layers, but for general photo enhancement, even these free, lesser products are usually fine. The intermediate products like Paint Shop Pro, Elements, and Gimp give you more control, and are also great for web design and sophistocated image manipulation like combining images, etc.
Clive Watson
Well-known member
Quick question about Paint Shop Pro. Can it deal with TIFFs? I think I tried it once and it opened the file but wouldn't do anything with it. Is this a reflection of file size or file name, or should it work fine?
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Brian,
in my humble view, PostcardCV's statement still stands: I read it as meaning "take as much time as you need on any given image, but don't waste your time trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..."
That applies regardless of the software you're using.
As I've mentioned, I've got CS3 and PSP: admittedly my CS3 skills aren't at the highest level, but I've yet to see anything in CS3 that would allow me make a worthwhile job of an image I couldn't do a good job of anyway in PSP.
Clive,
yes, PSP (PSP X onwards for sure) can process TIFFs.
in my humble view, PostcardCV's statement still stands: I read it as meaning "take as much time as you need on any given image, but don't waste your time trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear..."
That applies regardless of the software you're using.
As I've mentioned, I've got CS3 and PSP: admittedly my CS3 skills aren't at the highest level, but I've yet to see anything in CS3 that would allow me make a worthwhile job of an image I couldn't do a good job of anyway in PSP.
Clive,
yes, PSP (PSP X onwards for sure) can process TIFFs.
Clive Watson
Well-known member
I think you'll find the saying is 'you can't polish a turd', but yes, I agree.
I'll have to have another go at a TIFF. I've got PSP 7 I think.
Markulous
Well-known member
I've a feeling I've found my RAW converter! Exactly what I'm after! I've been spoiled by my Sigma software which did everything, including superb Fill, and been doing it for years!
I've been dragged screaming and kicking into using Canon (currently 350D but upgrading to 40D) and Raw Therapee seems nearly as intuitive and easy to use (and I've tried every other RAW converter and only take RAW)
So, I'll process my RAW to TIFF for further processing in CS3 (preferred for portraits and landscapes where the extra control comes in extremely handy)
Cheers, Keith! B
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Yep, me too.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Glad to help, Mark - not that I did much.
Just bear in mind that RT isn't a DAM application, nor does it have any batch/automation features to speak of (yet) - and some of its interface features are a bit unusual: but for its one intended purpose of converting RAW files into excellent quality tiffs or jpegs, I love it.
And it will get better.
Don't forget that a very good user guide is available too.
You can tell that it has been authored by someone who hasn't got English as their first language, but that just makes for the odd bit of pleasantly quirky phrasing - it's still very well written, easy to understand and thorough.
It can be found here.
Just bear in mind that RT isn't a DAM application, nor does it have any batch/automation features to speak of (yet) - and some of its interface features are a bit unusual: but for its one intended purpose of converting RAW files into excellent quality tiffs or jpegs, I love it.
And it will get better.
Don't forget that a very good user guide is available too.
You can tell that it has been authored by someone who hasn't got English as their first language, but that just makes for the odd bit of pleasantly quirky phrasing - it's still very well written, easy to understand and thorough.
It can be found here.
Jeremy
Upstanding Member
As an alternative to PS or PSP, I use PWP - see: http://dl-c.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=28. Marvellous for the price.
Norman Koren has some tutorials on his website: http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html.
In the May 12th, 2007, edition of Amateur Photographer magazine, guru Geoffrey Crawley said: "...the best image-processing program is Digital Light's Picture Window Pro..."
Certainly worth trying out as an alternative to the others mentioned. A free trial is available from their website.
I have nothing to do with the company, but just think they deserve to be better known!
Norman Koren has some tutorials on his website: http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html.
In the May 12th, 2007, edition of Amateur Photographer magazine, guru Geoffrey Crawley said: "...the best image-processing program is Digital Light's Picture Window Pro..."
Certainly worth trying out as an alternative to the others mentioned. A free trial is available from their website.
I have nothing to do with the company, but just think they deserve to be better known!
Robert L Jarvis
Robert L Jarvis
I and my sons use PSE5 and find it good to use for all editing, also it can handle raw and convert it to JPEG etc, that's for Keith. There are times when it is impractical to hold onto old software as we found when we had PSE2. New software increasingly has more and new features added, it pays to keep up with the development news.
PSE5, or PSE6 yes can recommend it after all it is hundred of pounds cheaper the full blown photoshop.
PSE5, or PSE6 yes can recommend it after all it is hundred of pounds cheaper the full blown photoshop.
Ultimately unless you're in the business of preparing images for the press there's very little difference between Photoshop, Photoshop Elements and Paintshop Pro.
Initially I started off with Paintshop Pro however it was always freezing up and stalling Windows ME (probably more an indictment of ME than PSP) so I gave up and installed PSE. Since then and a couple of PC's later I've moved up to Photoshop CS and then to CS3.
Fortunately I'm in a position where I use Photoshop and Illustrator on a professional basis therefore it's a bit of a no brainer not to take advantage of the Adobe licence and install them on the home laptop as well. Strangely enough after creating and editing graphics all day long last thing I want to do is edit photographs when I get home.
If you're happy with the software you're using stick with it and take the time and trouble to learn how to use it properly. Photoshop gives you some amazing tools however it also has a steep learning curve. I suspect the majority of us would be better off spending our leisure time improving our photography techniques. Elements and Paintshop are excellent low cost alternatives (unless you're on Windows ME!).
BTW. If anyone on this thread is considering jumping ship to Nikon don't waste your money on buying a full version of Photoshop. Nikon's own software (as available free with the D300) is noticeably better at converting NEF's than Adobe Camera Raw. However it's so painfully slow that if you're going to be shooting in RAW all the time the 40D suddenly looks a lot better.
Initially I started off with Paintshop Pro however it was always freezing up and stalling Windows ME (probably more an indictment of ME than PSP) so I gave up and installed PSE. Since then and a couple of PC's later I've moved up to Photoshop CS and then to CS3.
Fortunately I'm in a position where I use Photoshop and Illustrator on a professional basis therefore it's a bit of a no brainer not to take advantage of the Adobe licence and install them on the home laptop as well. Strangely enough after creating and editing graphics all day long last thing I want to do is edit photographs when I get home.
If you're happy with the software you're using stick with it and take the time and trouble to learn how to use it properly. Photoshop gives you some amazing tools however it also has a steep learning curve. I suspect the majority of us would be better off spending our leisure time improving our photography techniques. Elements and Paintshop are excellent low cost alternatives (unless you're on Windows ME!).
BTW. If anyone on this thread is considering jumping ship to Nikon don't waste your money on buying a full version of Photoshop. Nikon's own software (as available free with the D300) is noticeably better at converting NEF's than Adobe Camera Raw. However it's so painfully slow that if you're going to be shooting in RAW all the time the 40D suddenly looks a lot better.
RAH
Well-known member
I used this PSP version 7 for years (still do for some things), and it handles tifs fine. I think I remember occasionally running into a tif that it had a problem with, but these were few and far between. If you are having trouble with one particular file, I'd recommend opening it in some other program (say Irfanview freeware - www.irfanview.com), saving it to tif with a different name, and then opening it PSP. It will probably work.
Barry Boswell
Well-known member
As I said at the start of this debate I am new to DSLR and the replies to my question has certainly given me some food for thought, thanks for that. Being new I have read two books to help me to get to grips with my camera and photgraphy one by Andy Rouse and the other by Bryan Peterson. It is interesting to contrast their respective philosphies in terms of taking the photos. Andy Rouse tending to like to spend more time processing his images and Bryan Peterson more time getting them right when taking them and less time at the computer.
To a certain extent this is coming through with the replies on this thread where some people don't want to sit and use software to correct their images whilst others don't mind.
I suppose to a certain extent this will also dictate whether you need to buy CS3 or use some cheaper or free alternatives. Would anyone agree with this or am I talking complete rubbish? |
Any other suggestions would be very welcome. :t:
Hi Brian,
I was just reading through this thread. I would strongly recommend you stick with Canon DPP and give it a fair trial. I struggled a bit at first but I reckon its pretty much as good as Photoshop Elements (although I never got past version 4).
I take all my pictures in RAW and DPP does a good (and quick) job of processing them. With regard to time spent at the computer, I think you need a balance. When you take pictures keep an eye on the histogram to try and ensure the tones are well centred ie not over or under-exposed. That way you generally don't have too much post-processing to do. As someone already said - if a picture needs that much tweaking then you probably screwed up when you took it. However with longer lenses you always need a fast shutter speed, especially for anything that's moving, and sometimes a slight under-exposure will help to keep the speed up. In DPP RAW editing you can correct 2 stops on the exposure either way.
It is rare that I have to re-work a jpeg file once I have converted from the RAW image, but I do sometimes use Elements to fine tune.
Barry Boswell
www.britishbirdphotographs.com
baillieswells
Well-known member
K-Lex
Well-known member
As a working pro, I swear by Adobe Lightroom. I have Photoshop CS but very rarely see the need to use it because LR does everything I need.
I've always been of the opinion about bundled software, if they're giving it away it can't really be that good. I know there are some exceptions but by and large I've found that to be true.
No you don't need CS3 - I still have the original CS and I can see almost zero reason why I'd need to upgrade unless you're after a very specific feature that only CS3 has (I haven't found that yet!). It may be worth shelling out the extra for a used copy of CS2 though, that is a bit better than CS - even something as simple as it can save a jpeg file in 16 bit - useful for libraries because it means you'll end up with a better quality file and possible less interpolation.
Elements is a very underrated programme. People dismiss it too quickly. If you're not in the market as a pro or don't want to make images available for commercial work, for £60 or whatever it costs these days it's a viable alternative - but to be honest you're better off shelling out about £120-150 for a copy of CS2 from ebay.
Budget dependant I'd say your shopping list is:
<£100 - PS Elements or Capture One
£100-200 - PS CS2 or Adobe Lightroom
£200+ - CS2 and Capture One/Lightroom. CS3 if you have £600 lying around with nothing to do.
Hope that helps.
I've always been of the opinion about bundled software, if they're giving it away it can't really be that good. I know there are some exceptions but by and large I've found that to be true.
No you don't need CS3 - I still have the original CS and I can see almost zero reason why I'd need to upgrade unless you're after a very specific feature that only CS3 has (I haven't found that yet!). It may be worth shelling out the extra for a used copy of CS2 though, that is a bit better than CS - even something as simple as it can save a jpeg file in 16 bit - useful for libraries because it means you'll end up with a better quality file and possible less interpolation.
Elements is a very underrated programme. People dismiss it too quickly. If you're not in the market as a pro or don't want to make images available for commercial work, for £60 or whatever it costs these days it's a viable alternative - but to be honest you're better off shelling out about £120-150 for a copy of CS2 from ebay.
Budget dependant I'd say your shopping list is:
<£100 - PS Elements or Capture One
£100-200 - PS CS2 or Adobe Lightroom
£200+ - CS2 and Capture One/Lightroom. CS3 if you have £600 lying around with nothing to do.
Hope that helps.
