What makes PhotoShop worth the money?

Jim Woodworth

Senior Member
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
0
Location
Spokane, WA, US
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for $650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
 
I use PS CS even tho Im not a pro..It's definitly worth the money to me, it's something any amateur needs to decide for his/herself...I started with PS 6 from the get go, as my first photo editing software, but I'm a self learner..not too many people are willing to tackle software such as that or pay the money...

--
http://www.pbase.com/wbrosen/
 
Although I use PS CS daily and couldn't be without it I agree with you Jim. If a person isn't using professionally then it probably doesn't make much sense in buying it.

The shear amount of support that comes in the form of books, magazines, web-sites, DVD's etc etc etc make it a lot easier to learn for an amateur though.
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
 
I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?
Always ask if what you have takes care of you. If so, then you don't don't need to invest in PS.

That being said, download the demo version of Photoshop CS, and play around with it if you are curious.

Gene--
 
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
I've been using both programs for many years. If you're just comparing function lists, one might easily think that PSP is not that far off from Photoshop, but it's not quite accurate to look at it that way.

Photoshop is ultimately much more streamlined and the user interface generally works with you instead of getting in your way. PSP's user interface has always seemed much busier and less predictable to me.

Photoshop is also much more responsive in my experience. With a few specific exceptions where you're doing things like applying a filter or image adjustment, Photoshop generally reacts to your input instantly, while on the same machine, I find that PSP often sort of lags behind. For example, when you're doing something like moving the paint brush around in the window.

If you want to talk about something more tangible, then one thing you can do in Photoshop that isn't possible with PSP is use masks together with adjustment layers. (Unless there's some special trick I've never figured out.)

That might sound esoteric, but it's actually a really basic image editing technique that everybody could find useful.

Adjustment layers are a feature that allows you to apply an image adjustment to the composite of whatever layers are underneath (within the same group). You can adjust brightness & contrast, curves, levels, color balance, and more.

A layer mask, of course, is a grayscale bitmap that controls pixel by pixel if a particular layer is visible or not. A black pixel means that the layer is completely invisible, while a white pixel means it's visible. Intermediate gray values indicate the pixel is semi-visible to some degree.

In Photoshop, you can use a mask with an adjustment layer just like with any other kind of layer. PSP can only use masks on regular bitmap layers or vector layers. They cannot be used with adjustment layers.

What does that mean? Well, using adjustment layers is almost always a better idea than applying a permanent adjustment to the original bitmap data when you need to adjust the brightness, contrast, gamma curve, color balance, etc. With an adjustment layer, you can always go back and make changes, and you're not piling up a bunch of destructive edits like you would if you simply did those operations to a bitmap layer.

But of course, you don't always want to apply such an adjustment to the entire image. You might only want to increase the contrast in the sky to bring out the clouds, for example. Or you might want to use a gamma correction to bring up shadow detail in one specific area.

With a layer mask, you can have an adjustment layer apply only to specific parts of the image as needed. Furthermore, you can use several adjustment layers together. Each one can affect a different part of the image through proper use of the layer mask. You can even use several of the same type, each with a somewhat different setting.

This basically gives you pixel-perfect control over brightness, contrast, and color balance for the entire image. You can do the equivalent of nearly every traditional darkroom technique for adjusting an image and experiment endlessly with different settings without affecting the original image data.

Mike
 
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
Thanks to all of you who responded, I got exactly what I was hoping for.
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
 
One other difference is that Photoshop will manipulate the RAW images from a number of digital cameras.
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
 
Photoshop is ultimately much more streamlined and the user
interface generally works with you instead of getting in your way.
PSP's user interface has always seemed much busier and less
predictable to me.
Intreresting, I find just the opposite.
Photoshop is also much more responsive in my experience. With a
few specific exceptions where you're doing things like applying a
filter or image adjustment, Photoshop generally reacts to your
input instantly, while on the same machine, I find that PSP often
sort of lags behind. For example, when you're doing something like
moving the paint brush around in the window.
I agree with you here for large images.
If you want to talk about something more tangible, then one thing
you can do in Photoshop that isn't possible with PSP is use masks
together with adjustment layers. (Unless there's some special
trick I've never figured out.)
I don't know where you got this info, but sure you can. PSP8 has layer masks and adjustment layers just like PS. And of course layer groups, too. PSP7 had masks and adjustments associated with a particular layer so it was a little more kludgy but certainly possible.
 
Photoshop is ultimately much more streamlined and the user
interface generally works with you instead of getting in your way.
PSP's user interface has always seemed much busier and less
predictable to me.
Intreresting, I find just the opposite.
Well, to each his own.

I will admit that they've gotten a lot better in the last few versions. PSP 8.0 is actually fairly decent, but older versions were pretty cluttered.

Of course, I suppose the relative stability of the Photoshop interface is part of what I like about it. While they do add things to the user interface for new functions, they generally don't change too much about the way existing features work.
Photoshop is also much more responsive in my experience. With a
few specific exceptions where you're doing things like applying a
filter or image adjustment, Photoshop generally reacts to your
input instantly, while on the same machine, I find that PSP often
sort of lags behind. For example, when you're doing something like
moving the paint brush around in the window.
I agree with you here for large images.
I usually deal with images that are least 3 or 4mp, and frequently much bigger. I expect the situation gets better as the image gets smaller, but I don't know at which point it goes away.
If you want to talk about something more tangible, then one thing
you can do in Photoshop that isn't possible with PSP is use masks
together with adjustment layers. (Unless there's some special
trick I've never figured out.)
I don't know where you got this info, but sure you can. PSP8 has
layer masks and adjustment layers just like PS. And of course
layer groups, too.
Well, I got this info from personal experience. However, I figured you might use the program more often so I took another look.

I stand corrected. This is a good example, however, of the user interface getting in my way.

Apparently, the option to create a mask for the adjustment layer was always disabled when I tried it because such a mask was already being created automatically when I created the layer. That make perfect sense in hindsight.

Unfortunately, the UI didn't really make it obvious what was happening. By default, more than half the width of the layer palette is not shown unless you scroll the palette. And of course, the little icon that indicates the mask is at the far right side where you can't see it until you DO scroll all the way to that end.

I'll admit that it never even occurred to me at first to try scrolling through the palette. Mainly because one normally scrolls through documents, not user interfaces.

Yeah, there was a horizontal scroll bar for the palette, but it was half a screen away at the bottom of the screen. It was simply too far away to register on my brain until I went looking for the missing part of the user interface.

I suppose I would have known about all this if I'd read the manual sometime in the last version or two of the program. And of course, once you learn the program, then this sort of thing isn't really a big issue.

But in contrast, I never had to read the Photoshop manual to figure out stuff like this. It shows you the mask status quite clearly in the layer palette at all times unless you go out of your way to hide it.

Mike
 
Mike

Since you provided a very fine outline (which I printed and posted to my cork board) of using adjustment layers and layer masks, may I ask you for that one last step after making all the adjustment layer/masking corrections. You will see from what follows that I am very new at this. I presume the final step then is to flatten the image. That irrevocably changes the original image which lies under the adjustment layers in the layers pallette. To repeat, my question is, what do you do as far as finalizing and saving the image after you finish all the editing via layer masks and adjustment layers? Is "flattening" plus "save as" all there is to it? Is this too simple a question?

Many thanks

Fred
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
I've been using both programs for many years. If you're just
comparing function lists, one might easily think that PSP is not
that far off from Photoshop, but it's not quite accurate to look at
it that way.

Photoshop is ultimately much more streamlined and the user
interface generally works with you instead of getting in your way.
PSP's user interface has always seemed much busier and less
predictable to me.

Photoshop is also much more responsive in my experience. With a
few specific exceptions where you're doing things like applying a
filter or image adjustment, Photoshop generally reacts to your
input instantly, while on the same machine, I find that PSP often
sort of lags behind. For example, when you're doing something like
moving the paint brush around in the window.

If you want to talk about something more tangible, then one thing
you can do in Photoshop that isn't possible with PSP is use masks
together with adjustment layers. (Unless there's some special
trick I've never figured out.)

That might sound esoteric, but it's actually a really basic image
editing technique that everybody could find useful.

Adjustment layers are a feature that allows you to apply an image
adjustment to the composite of whatever layers are underneath
(within the same group). You can adjust brightness & contrast,
curves, levels, color balance, and more.

A layer mask, of course, is a grayscale bitmap that controls pixel
by pixel if a particular layer is visible or not. A black pixel
means that the layer is completely invisible, while a white pixel
means it's visible. Intermediate gray values indicate the pixel is
semi-visible to some degree.

In Photoshop, you can use a mask with an adjustment layer just like
with any other kind of layer. PSP can only use masks on regular
bitmap layers or vector layers. They cannot be used with
adjustment layers.

What does that mean? Well, using adjustment layers is almost
always a better idea than applying a permanent adjustment to the
original bitmap data when you need to adjust the brightness,
contrast, gamma curve, color balance, etc. With an adjustment
layer, you can always go back and make changes, and you're not
piling up a bunch of destructive edits like you would if you simply
did those operations to a bitmap layer.

But of course, you don't always want to apply such an adjustment to
the entire image. You might only want to increase the contrast in
the sky to bring out the clouds, for example. Or you might want to
use a gamma correction to bring up shadow detail in one specific
area.

With a layer mask, you can have an adjustment layer apply only to
specific parts of the image as needed. Furthermore, you can use
several adjustment layers together. Each one can affect a
different part of the image through proper use of the layer mask.
You can even use several of the same type, each with a somewhat
different setting.

This basically gives you pixel-perfect control over brightness,
contrast, and color balance for the entire image. You can do the
equivalent of nearly every traditional darkroom technique for
adjusting an image and experiment endlessly with different settings
without affecting the original image data.

Mike
 
If you buy an older version of ps through a software clearing house you can then purchase the upgrade to cs, end up saving 100 to 150 bucks

and its fully registered and legit. (I paid full price and then found out this method 2 days later) My camera's raw program was very challenged so that was enough reason for me. Oh and I had bought PSE2 three weeks earlier because everyone thought sony wouldn't release their encoding for
raw to adobe, Then adobe only makes it work with cs hate when that happens lol.

--
Caution; Newbie in training !
John(picks2592)
http://www.newbie-828.smugmug.com
it's nice to be important,but more important to be nice!!
 
Mike

Since you provided a very fine outline (which I printed and posted
to my cork board) of using adjustment layers and layer masks, may I
ask you for that one last step after making all the adjustment
layer/masking corrections. You will see from what follows that I
am very new at this. I presume the final step then is to flatten
the image. That irrevocably changes the original image which lies
under the adjustment layers in the layers pallette. To repeat, my
question is, what do you do as far as finalizing and saving the
image after you finish all the editing via layer masks and
adjustment layers? Is "flattening" plus "save as" all there is to
it? Is this too simple a question?

Many thanks

Fred
Final can have many requirements. The above example with all the layers could be called a finished composite after which flattened dupes can be made for different outputs, such as web or print or else, each again with it's own requirements of USM and the like. The finished composite always stays intact for possible further refinements.

--
Bernd Taeger
 
Mike

Since you provided a very fine outline (which I printed and posted
to my cork board) of using adjustment layers and layer masks, may I
ask you for that one last step after making all the adjustment
layer/masking corrections. You will see from what follows that I
am very new at this. I presume the final step then is to flatten
the image. That irrevocably changes the original image which lies
under the adjustment layers in the layers pallette. To repeat, my
question is, what do you do as far as finalizing and saving the
image after you finish all the editing via layer masks and
adjustment layers? Is "flattening" plus "save as" all there is to
it? Is this too simple a question?
The final step MIGHT be to flatten the image, but it really depends on what the image is for. I would only do that if I could not foresee any need to do any other editing to the image.

In most cases, when I'm done editing, I save the image in PSD format without flattening it, so that I might come back later and make further adjustments if wanted.

If I need a flattened version, say a JPEG or BMP, then I do "save as" or "save for web", although PS isn't always happy with the latter if the image is large.

Mike
 
Unfortunately, the UI didn't really make it obvious what was
happening. By default, more than half the width of the layer
palette is not shown unless you scroll the palette. And of course,
the little icon that indicates the mask is at the far right side
where you can't see it until you DO scroll all the way to that end.
Hi, Mike -

I have heard that some default installs/monitor resolution combos cause problems, but that is easily corrected so no scrolling necessary. Just drag the left border to the left and the middle border to the left and all will show. Mine came up like this:


 
Jim Woodworth wrote:
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.
Not a chance - this is the same issue I went through recently as well - and it is a hard decision!
I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?
Not for me. I just switched completely to PSP 8.01 instead of upgrading to Photoshop CS (I have never tried Photoshop CS). I found for my editing needs that the PSP user interface was easier to use. I also much prefer the scripting support in PSP over photoshop. Given an unlimited budget I would choose Photoshop, but to me PSP is the clear winner for me because of it's $80 price tag!
What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
So far I have not found anything that I normally do, that I can't do in PSP that I could do in Photoshop. The main difference for me is that editing photos is much quicker in Photoshop than PSP. I have an old computer (900 MHz Athalon) and the speed difference is striking (but so is the price difference - I can accept the slower performance).
Good Luck
Rick K
 
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
--
ilachina
http://www.ilachinski.com/digital_images_intro.htm
'That which you are seeking is doing the seeking' - St. Francis of Assissi
 
I've come to the same conclusion you have, and not just because of your occupation.

Although, if money was no object, I'd prob'ly have both Photoshop CS and PSP. I find the scripting to be very powerful with PSP and a real time saver.

I'd like to use PS CS, but I can't justify the expense at me level of usage.

Jim
Jim Woodworth wrote:
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.
Not a chance - this is the same issue I went through recently as
well - and it is a hard decision!
I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?
Not for me. I just switched completely to PSP 8.01 instead of
upgrading to Photoshop CS (I have never tried Photoshop CS). I
found for my editing needs that the PSP user interface was easier
to use. I also much prefer the scripting support in PSP over
photoshop. Given an unlimited budget I would choose Photoshop, but
to me PSP is the clear winner for me because of it's $80 price tag!
What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
So far I have not found anything that I normally do, that I can't
do in PSP that I could do in Photoshop. The main difference for me
is that editing photos is much quicker in Photoshop than PSP. I
have an old computer (900 MHz Athalon) and the speed difference is
striking (but so is the price difference - I can accept the slower
performance).
Good Luck
Rick K
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
 
Jim,

It's alot of money. Do you go to school or do you have any children that go to school (K-12)? If yes, then you can purchase the student version. It's identical to the normal version--just cheaper. Academic Superstore has the full version Photoshop CS for $280. That's a great deal. I originally bought PS 5.5 this way (for my daughter) and have upgraded to 7 and now to CS.
http://www.academicsuperstore.com
Please don't start flaming me in the mistaken assumption that I'm
being sarcastic.

I use, and like, Paint Shop Pro, version 8.01. I realize that for
$650 US PhotoShop is going to give it's users a lot more, but is it
worth it to someone who is not doing this professionally?

What would I be able to do with it that I can't do with Paint Shop?
--
Jim Woodworth
http://www.pbase.com/wdwrth
--
Bill
http://www.pbase.com/bmack/
 
Unfortunately, the UI didn't really make it obvious what was
happening. By default, more than half the width of the layer
palette is not shown unless you scroll the palette. And of course,
the little icon that indicates the mask is at the far right side
where you can't see it until you DO scroll all the way to that end.
Hi, Mike -
I have heard that some default installs/monitor resolution combos
cause problems, but that is easily corrected so no scrolling
necessary. Just drag the left border to the left and the middle
border to the left and all will show.
I appreciate you're trying to help, but it wasn't really any big mystery to figure out... it's just that it didn't originally occur to me that there was anything to figure out.

My monitor is always set to 1280x1024 except when playing games, so there's plenty of screen real estate.

And I think the width of the palette is just fine. I certainly wouldn't want it to be wide enough to see all of the layer options, because it would waste a LOT of screen area. Making it wide enough to see everything at once requires that it take up nearly 1/3 the width of the screen while in 1280x1024 mode. If that's what you need to do to see the entire UI, then something is seriously wrong.

The real problem is just the way the palette is laid out. It's OK for the layer option items to line up horizontally if there's room for them to all be seen at once. But if there's NOT room, then they should stack vertically instead.

Even if each layer took up 3x as much vertical space in the palette, you'd still need 5 or 6 layers before you would have to scroll or make the palette bigger.

And when you DID have to scroll, it would be vertical only, through a list of layers. That makes perfect sense and is exactly what a user would expect to see.

In contrast, making the user scroll horizontally to see vital UI components is simply a bad idea. Especially when you're ignoring a lot of unused screen area in the process.

Mike
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top