Paintshop Pro versus Photoshop -- just for fun

[pwholmes Profile Private message]

This is not meant as a knock at Photoshop because I'm learning Elements and hope to graduate to Photoshop eventually, but I just thought you might get a laugh out of this YouTube video done in the Mac versus Microsoft vein. Those of you who use Paintshop Pro will obviously appreciate it most.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtGXTxl ... re=related

Paul Holmes

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I think I would have enjoyed it more if I could have understood beyond a word or two out of each sentence the woman spoke. Do you think it was done on purpose--kind of representative of the perception people have of Photoshop? Subtle.

Barbara

[mrcracked]

I think I would have enjoyed it more if I could have understood beyond a word or two out of each sentence the woman spoke. Do you think it was done on purpose--kind of representative of the perception people have of Photoshop? Subtle. Very Happy

Barbara

Don't think it was done purposefully, I think it was a bunch of amateurs trying to make a creative idea work. The first thing I noticed is that it was too long. It in no way matched the length of the Mac/PC commercials. Apple has a winner with those commercials. They have an ideal length (probably more based on commercial time constraints and the size of flash downloads, but it works), they are well scripted, they are professionally recorded, and the actors have practiced enough to know their parts.

Of course these lessons could be carried over to Proshow as well.

I would like to see them make another attempt with a better script, practice, and the use of a real microphone. The Mac guy on the real commercials looks so cool because he never looks like he is searching for the next line like the Paint Shop Pro guy.

And just for the record; Photoshop does all the things mentioned in the commercial very easily. The reason it looks harder is because many times there is more than one way to accomplish the same thing, and because those features are in the middle of a much larger feature set.

Mark

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

You're right about the Mac commercials. They're excellent. And no, I didn't think the bad sound was done on purpose, but it amused me to think how it might have been.

You're right about Photoshop doing all of it easily and a whole lot more, too. The problem for newcomers to the program is that the learning part isn't equally easy.

Barbara

[Herriot2 Profile Private messageWebsiteYIM]

Ah the old xxxx Vs xxxx debate

Here's my tuppence (2 cents) worth

IMHO Photoshop is not an easy program to get to grips with. It never has been - for the majority of users. Hence the inception, many years ago, of Paint Shop Pro. JASC Software (original creators of PSP) created a graphic program for the masses at a price they could afford - geez PSP was shareware before Corel took over and murdered it.

PSP was (note the emphasis on the "was" word) much easier to use but had a lot of the same features. While Mark rightly points out that all the features mentioned in the movie are easy to use he also pointed out one of Photoshop's flaws too (albeit unintentionally) - it's buried deep underground, so to speak, whereas PSP's were (note the emphasis on the "were" word) at ground level. For the non professional that is much easier than mining for it. However you'll notice that I used the past tense for PSP's ease of use and that's because I feel the latest versions of PSP have lost it (again IMHO)

Prices too contributed to the bloatware arguement with Photoshop costing considerably more than PSP. But, given Photoshops intended audience and features it's easy to see why there was/is a huge price difference Current prices in the UK after a cursory search reveals that the latest version of Photoshop (CS3) is £555 UKP (or around $1000 USD). Paintshop pro comes in at around £100 UKP ($180 USD) some price difference.

As mentioned, Photoshop was created for the professionals in the creative design area who need the huge bells and whistles offered by Photoshop. Compared to PSP of yesteryear photoshop is bloatware and is not as easy to use as PSP. But, unlike the various versions of Windows, however, that's not necessarily a problem considering Photoshop's intended audience - the professional.

To combat PSP's rise in popularity Photoshop Elements appeared, priced at a level that was closer to PSP and therefore the intended audience changed from professionals to the masses. But the features changed as well to suit (obviously).

If you are using the full blown Photoshop and you are not a professional I would hazard a guess that you would only be using around, oh I don't know, maybe 30% of Photoshops features. That being the case then you could have saved yourself a bundle of money (not to mention disk space) and bought PSP where the feature use would maybe increase to around 60-70% (it is reckoned that people only use about 30% of the functions of MS Word - the king among kings of bloatware) but even then you wouldn't use all of the features.

There seems to be many, many people on this forum as well as the Yahoo groups who appear to use Photoshop and I have to wonder how much of it is being used (the professionals amongst us notwithstanding).

Having said all that, I am of the opinion that Corel murdered PSP by making it a commercial program and by trying to cram too much into the latest version. So much so, that I consider it now to be as much bloatware as Photoshop. The easy to use factor of PSP has also diminished to a similar level as Photoshop. However, I did buy PSP because I couldn't afford Photoshop but does offer much the same features but more importantly the features I will use.

I find a lot of snobbery with Creative Designers in that; if it doesn't fill up the hard disk; doesn't cost mega bucks; isn't made by adobe and isn't called Photoshop it's no use.

Regards

Peter (ok that was more than 2Cents worth)

PS In my work I could have access to the latest version of Photoshop CS3 but I choose to use PSP V7 because that has all the features I am currently needing to access in one part of my job which is web development support.

EDIT: note that I inadvertantly said I use Photoshop V7 but in fact I use PSP V7 sorry for any confusion

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Peter, in the U.S., Photoshop's price at Adobe is $649, not $1000, and the upgrade is $199. I tend to upgrade every other edition, so it comes out to something less than $100 per year.

My husband has Elements, and after checking it out thoroughly, I found it was missing a lot of the things I use constantly, a particular area being that of certain plug-ins because the 16-bit variety don't necessarily work with it. And then there are Actions. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do tend toward perfectionism, and to that end, I use a lot of those "deeper" tools in PS. I wouldn't doubt that there are others here in the forum who are like this, too, so be careful when making broad statements based on your personal use or when coming up with statistics based only on viewpoint.

As for your comments about PSP, I can't say yea or nay to them since I'm exclusively an old-time and very happy user of Photoshop.

Professionals use Photoshop, by and large, because it's the tool that best suits. But this leads to a question: where have you encountered snobbery?

Barbara

[pwholmes Profile Private message]

One of the pleasant surprises I've received using Elements and taking both Elements and Photoshop Professional tutorials on Lynda.com is that Elements really does contain almost all the features even a professional would need. I'm exaggerating a little because Elements only works in 8 bit, not 16 like Photoshop, and to get it to that final professional CMYK for the print industry you need the professional version. But when it comes to layers (adjustment, painting, text, shape and layer masks) Elements has got almost all of it, plus a ton of filters (unfortunately not filter layers).

Personally I think Elements is just as hard to learn as Photoshop (with Photoshop having, of course, even a steeper learning curve), but Lynda.com has demystified so much of it for me that it now seems easy to use. In the beginning I only understood that layers stacked one on another, but it would have taken me quite a while and a lot of patience to try to figure out how everything fit together without being tutored as I have.

Paul

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Paul, you certainly did the right thing by going to Lynda.com. That's a whole lot better than the $$$ I spent on books way back when I began learning Photoshop. And you're correct in stating that Elements contains a lot of power. Whenever someone asks my advice on what photo editor to get, I always recommend Elements. If later on it stops meeting their needs, they can always upgrade to the monster.

Barbara

[Herriot2 Profile Private messageWebsiteYIM]

Peter, in the U.S., Photoshop's price at Adobe is $649, not $1000, and the upgrade is $199. I tend to upgrade every other edition, so it comes out to something less than $100 per year.

My husband has Elements, and after checking it out thoroughly, I found it was missing a lot of the things I use constantly, a particular area being that of certain plug-ins because the 16-bit variety don't necessarily work with it. And then there are Actions. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do tend toward perfectionism, and to that end, I use a lot of those "deeper" tools in PS. I wouldn't doubt that there are others here in the forum who are like this, too, so be careful when making broad statements based on your personal use or when coming up with statistics based only on viewpoint.

As for your comments about PSP, I can't say yea or nay to them since I'm exclusively an old-time and very happy user of Photoshop.

Professionals use Photoshop, by and large, because it's the tool that best suits. But this leads to a question: where have you encountered snobbery?

Barbara

Hi Barbara

Sorry I didn't say/mean that that was the cost in the US. The cost in the UK was/is £555 (based on a cursory seacrh) and that translates to approx $1000. No real point in me getting it cheaper from the States because I would get hammered by our VAT at 17.5% plus Packaging etc which would largely negate any savings.

It's great that you can get it that the price you mentioned cos that only works out at around £50 ukp which is very competitive

The users of Photoshop has changed over the years to include very competent users like yourself who use features not necessarily found in PSP (actions for example). As for the plugins PSP handles most of them very well but I do know that there are photshop only plugins. I don't know why this should be but if one of them is the one you are after then the choice of program is not an option it wil lhave to be Photosshop

As for snobbery...from several marketing departments I have dealt with who have creative designers in them. I have asked them what features they use and I can tell you most of them can be found in the cheaper PSP. When offered a cheaper alternative that would do what they want they recoiled in horror

Peter

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

When offered a cheaper alternative that would do what they want they recoiled in horror

You're right--that's stupid snobbery. Silly rabbits.

Barbara

[XaiLo]

I have used photoshop for probably 13 years primarily for graphic arts. I can honestly say there is a big difference in photoshop compared to like programs. And this is in my estimation why newcomers to photoshop have a hard time with it... the power of photoshop is in understanding techniques which in turn allows the tools to then make sense. Many times when I am asked how I did something it's hard to explain it because most of the time I'm not thinking about it I'm just using various techniques. Now here's the problem most techniques involve several tools and the end result is not obvious without knowing the techniques employed. It's like the proverbial catch 22, what I am saying is just because one may know what a tool does is not the same as knowing how to use it.

This statement makes no sense "Photoshop is not an easy program to get to grips with. It never has been - for the majority of users." What users are you refering to? Photoshop users??? As to why professionals use it? more than likely they grew into it, it's the industry standard and it's always been the best at what it does and that's allowing professionals to be creative by giving them the option to use the tools they need. Calling it bloated is kind of out there??? a resource hog... yes it is, but that can be controlled. you'll find that it's used by many industries graphic designers, digital artists, and photographers.

"As mentioned, Photoshop was created for the professionals in the creative design area who need the huge bells and whistles offered by Photoshop." I beg to differ here. No! This was not why it was created. It never ceases to amaze me why people seem to over look the name when defining photoshop. It was and has always remained an image manipulation program which happened to be so powerful it was used for other purposes. Photoshop has never been a paint program though it has been professionally used as one along with graphic design. And over the years has made some concessions to those segments. It was never marketed as an application for the masses. Yet you get people who want to whine about how hard it is to use. Well anything that's not understood usually is hard.

Now I could go into why it's kind of silly to compare the two but I'll forego that rant.

P.S. I'm apologizing ahead of time if I offended anyone. And for many years guys who have written books on Photoshop made them long and boring not Photoshops fault.