Actually you can beat the price (or could) by buying into Paint Shop Pro,
which is more powerful still with a similarly user-friendly (for my money
more intuitive) interface than what Adobe has managed over the years.
But no way Jose do either programs approach the sophistication of
Photoshop, and when it comes to third-party interest and practical support
the latter beats the competition (if you can call it that) in that area
hands down as well.
We've all seen the following demonstration before, I'm sure, but I'll offer
this for whatever it's worth and then let it be. (It took me less than an
hour, this to include downloading the demo, installing it, getting as far
as USM in the tutorial, accessing PS, uploading everything to my site and
then hitting this list.)
The following two links to images are blowups of an area of feather (on top
of the bird's head) taken from the PW test image. The first image was
derived by following the PW tutorial and applying the USM twice to the
image, the second example was derived by using the Fred Miranda IS action
twice at 5 (medium) in PS. For what it's worth it's posible to achieve
better results with Miranda's action and sometimes I don't use it at all
but resort to another technique in PS using layers but this will give you a
rough idea of the difference I want to illustrate.
Both files were saved as .TIF so as not to introduce any possible
aberrations due to the JPEG compression scheme, but are, I believe, small
enough in size not to overly tax anyone's pipeline. (Both images were
interpolated to 4x their crop size for purposes of display using another
handy and excellent FM action. This might have added slightly to any
corruption of the original images but you couldn't live on the difference.)
First image (using the Picture Window Pro demo USM function):
http://www.tristanjohn.com/PWUSM.TIF
Second image (using FM IS action in PS):
http://www.tristanjohn.com/PSUSM.TIF
Check out the background noise, then tell me PW is as good as PS.
And it's not just the USM routine. Automatic color balancing utilities and
whatnot have their place and can save heaps of time if nothing else, but
for serious work one needs the power of a full-blown program dedicated to
the needs of that serious worker, and PS is the best around. (No, I do not
own stock in Adobe or applaud the company's pricing structure, but
nevertheless PS is the most powerful image tool out there in all respects.)
I could easily take the PW test image and compare what they arrive at in
the tutorial with a superior image using PS instead, only doing the work
"manually," as could anyone else familiar with PS.
Please forgive me if that sounds like a lecture. I have no problem at base
with these in-and-out programs for fast-and-dirty work meant for web
display where 1) there is no standard for display and 2) even if there were
few users could (or would bother) to meet that standard . . . so what the
hell! I often use PSP v7 when I'm on the run and don't want to hassle with
PS. But let's get real with the actual difference when push comes to shove.
To compare PW or PSP or any number of other image programs favorably with
PS does no one justice in the long run, is, in fact, misleading.
Having said that, I just got through recommending (possibly) this program
to my wife, Katie, who is presently busy developing a site for a friend of
ours who in her spare time runs an organization called Rabbit Haven. It's a
project to save bunnies let loose in the wild (partly, at least--the sad
truth is there are, believe me, worse fates yet for bunnies) after they're
given, say, to children as gifts for Easter, Christmas or whatever the case.
And as long as I'm on it, please check Katie's latest effort here and if
you feel so inclined spread the word. Afterall, there might well be a bunny
in need around your neighborhood.
http://www.therabbithaven.org/
If you bother you'll notice immediately that the site is hardly finished,
but I told Katie to publish what she had and then just go upward, outward
and beyond from there as time allowed.
Tris
P.S. Shuman (that little brown bunny with only one leg pictured in the
lower-left quadrant of the first page) is presently fishing around in his
pellet bowl for something good to snack on. He's the friendliest little
rabbit you ever heard of, comes right up to anyone and everyone (even
Beamer, our gigantic German shepherd) with his nuzzling nose and winning
ways and just gets it on.
At 12:17 PM 2/4/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>I started using PS LE after I got my scanner. I switched to PW Pro
>after John Lind (where are you John?) recommended it... as does Norman
>Koren.
>
>I describe PS as a "graphic artist's tool" and PW Pro as a
>"photographer's tool". They do many of the same things but PW's
>orientation is to the photographer and it doesn't contain much of those
>things that are purely the province of the graphic artist.
>
>I have always found PW Pro much easier to use than PS, particularly the
>clone tool. Perhaps I don't use PS properly but in PS I can't always
>see the source position for the clone operation and frequently make
>mistakes that I have to undo. PW always keeps cross hairs visible for
>both source and destination and I can move a lot faster with it.
>
>That said, PW does not support layers. Experienced PW users say that
>layers are not necessary and PW provides alternate means of doing
>anything you can do with PS. I have never needed PS layers until
>recently when I couldn't figure out how to easily move a head from one
>photo to another to fix a group portrait or easily simulate the utility
>of the PS patch tool (basically, cloning through an irregular mask).
>
>Fortunately, the author of PW (Jonathan Sachs, original programmer on
>Lotus 1-2-3) and PW users maintain a good support operation on Digital
>Light & Color's website <http://www.dl-c.com> I got some suggestions to
>try there but haven't tried them yet.
>
>I'm forced to use full blown PS periodically giving touchup editing
>assistance to a pro I work with occasionally. I don't profess to be
>expert in either application but, in general, find PW preferable and
>easier to use even though PS was the first digital editor I was
>introduced to.
>
>Two things are certain. You can't beat the price (under $100 for the
>Pro version) and you can't beat the on-line support. I doubt that there
>is any photographic editing operation that you can't do in PW Pro. I
>find some things much easier there than in PS. Whether that's true for
>all things I don't know.
>
>You can download a full-function 30 day free trial at:
><http://www.dl-c.com>
>Note that there are all sorts of of PDF how-to white papers that are
>called up by the manual. These must all be separately downloaded if you
>don't buy the CD ($10 extra).
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>Piers Hemy wrote:
>
> > Chuck
> >
> > PW Pro - You like it?
> >
> > You prefer it to PS?
> >
> > Piers
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|