X3 is really a mess... when will be fixed?

[jaxman43]

And I'm saving my pennies so I can buy the "enemy". I just hate starting over at my age.

[LeviFiction]

I find Deke McClelland to be an excellent teacher for the "enemy."

[Joelle]

" ...... hate to say it, but I have kind of "gone over to the enemy" while waiting. Not so much because of bugs, but because of how it is lagging in features."

I refuse to use 'the enemy' - not being able to customise anything is a no-no in my book.
I am very curious to find out what features PSP doesn't have that PS does.


Joëlle

[LeviFiction]

I can tell by the smiling face that you don't actually want a list.....but I'm making a list anyway.

Gradient Map (the actual filter and the adjustment layer)
Smart objects
Clipping masks
Refine Mask tools - special tools for effecting masks by expanding them, compressing them, it's a tool I wish I had.
Refine Edge tools - similar for selections....unless I have this wrong but I don't think I do.
Shape based blur
More blend modes
The curves tool is better
Our Crop Tool (PSP's Crop Tool that is) might be superior only because it can keep its last known size and you can move out of "crop mode" to do other things before coming back without losing anything.
Ability to manipulate the clone source
You can change the color of the paste board. You can even color on the paste board like it's a palette.

I still prefer PSP though. Even horrible mixed up X3.

[Joelle]

Yes, yes, I DO want to read your list

A decent Gradient editor would be very nice! The current one is awful.
I think this has been requested for a very long time.
Can the PS gradient tool make a gradient follow a curve?

Easier masking sounds nice.
Shape based blur sounds interesting.
The dumbed down Curves Tool in PSP has been cried over by many beta testers, but Corel hasn't listened.
Xara Graphic Designer (a great vector program and my other passion) has a clone tool that can be manipulated.
It would be very nice if PSP had too, but again, there is always a way around, it just takes longer.

I agree about your preference for PSP, but maybe not that version, hehe.

Thanks for posting your list.

Joëlle

[LeviFiction]

I don't think the gradient tool can but you can either use the stroke command or the stroke layer style to simulate the effect that way.

But with the exception of a few extra options (Solid vs Noise, Dithering, and smoothness settings) the gradient editor in PS is not all that different from that of Pant Shop Pro. In fact I learned a lot of what I know about the gradient editor from Photoshop tutorials. Usually not a good place to go but a lot of the functionality is similar.

The shape based blurring would give us what the "Depth of Field" filter gives us for blurring. Currently if you want to fake depth of field manually you use Gaussian blur, which is nice, but the highlights and such usually take on the shape of the aperture of the camera. The filter gives us the ability to define the aperture shape for the blurring but I hate using that horrible tool. An actual shape blur would be really nice to have in PSP to bypass the desire to use DOF for that bluring feature alone.

I'm curious, have you ever tried Easy Filter's Smart Curves plugin? Would be wonderful if Paint Shop Pro had this functionality built in but the plugin seems to be decent enough. It allows for editing in multiple colorspaces, as well as sampling curve points from the image itself.

With a fun little histogram at the bottom.

[Joelle]

I have heard of the Easy Filter's Smart Curves plugin, I might even have downloaded it, but haven't got it installed.
I can get the current Curves Adjustment to perform ok, but it is a pain and needs to be changed back the way it was.

I have zillions (well, not quite ) of scripts with settings of every description tied to icons in custom menus on the toolbar.
Perish the thought that customisation wouldn'd be possible, a la PS, everything would take forever to do.
When the PSPX resize box was changed in X2, it not remembering the previous setting prompted me to have a menu of resize settings, from 20% to 95%!
All this changing for the sake of change is very frustrating.

I admit to not using the gradient editor much any more (have made enough gradients I think), but then again, there is always a way to achieve an end result.

You sound like you also enjoy fiddling with tools and settings, I do too, but many people don't and prefer to push one button to turn their photograph/graphic into a masterpiece.
I am sure that is what Corel is aiming at, as there are likely more of 'them' than of 'us'.
I feel cheated, but am sure that isn't worrying Corel much...
Of course it does mean that I no longer recommend PSP with as much enthusiasm as I used to.

Joëlle

[Tadjio]

I have zillions (well, not quite ) of scripts with settings of every description tied to icons in custom menus on the toolbar.
Perish the thought that customisation wouldn'd be possible, a la PS, everything would take forever to do.
When the PSPX resize box was changed in X2, it not remembering the previous setting prompted me to have a menu of resize settings, from 20% to 95%!
Joëlle

Having X3 would resolve that particular issue

[LeviFiction]

Yes I do like to fiddle but more to understand how something works. I don't usually get it quite right but it's fun to try. I also don't do it to quite the same degree you do. I have very few scripts, most are made for other people, and a total of 3 presets of my own making throughout the entire program.

I always put my scripts in menus because I can't stand the pre-set bound script icons and would easily forget what they are. Your best bet for something similar in PS would be making your own extensions and panels (possible using Flex and Actionscript). Of course if you don't want to learn to make your own panels and such the hard way Adobe does have the Configurator which makes creation of panels and such very easy in a drag and drop interface. This allows you to use actions and advanced scripts as well as commands and such in a push button interface.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/configurator/

You would then only need to remake your presets. Unless there is an automated method for that as well....but I don't know of any.

[Joelle]

Having X3 would resolve that particular issue [/quote]


Has the resize box been put back the way it was in PSPX with the Print Size at the bottom and the Pixel Dimensions at the top, so you only need to use Shift+S, put in the percentage size and then when using it again and again you only need to click Shift+s and OK?
That's how it used to be.
Quick access and very handy when there were a number of images to resize the same percentage or size.
Then is was turned around.
Corel might have reinstated 'remember last setting', but it still needs 2 click instead of one, because the top is highlighted, not the bottom.

Using my scripts, I access a dropdown custom menu from the toolbar, click on what percentage I want and Bob is your close relative

Joëlle

[Tadjio]

Here is the ReSize screen in X3.
(I couldn't resist showing off my new grandson and all my icons too

You just have to press Shift+S to change the Print Width (!)
and then click on the Pixels / Percentage to enter them...

Uncle Tadjio

[LeviFiction]

As a matter of fact I do have an Uncle Bob...well....Rob but it's the same difference.

And it's that extra click that Joelle was so against. So, as the picture shows, print dimensions are still on top and still get the focus.

[Tadjio]

And it's that extra click that Joelle was so against. So, as the picture shows, print dimensions are still on top and still get the focus.

One small click for mankind...
If you want to ReSize a number of images to resize the same percentage or size,
X3 does the job perfectly, compared with X2

[dejudicibus]

I agree with Radim. It is a matter of the way you develop a piece of code. Today, to save money, many brand prefer to rely on autamatically generated code, huge libraries, and poor development rather than in good developers writing performing code. I know, it is more expensive to write good code, but products are expensive and users should get performing products for their bucks!

[Crunchy Doodle]

I'm a software engineer who has been developing embedded application and system code for about 20 years. I have never worked on a user application such as Paint Shop Pro. However, I have spent some years with user applications that are a mix of embedded and commercial applications, such as flight simulators for testing aerospace vehicles. It is hard to decide on the make or buy question. One important simulation application I've been working with for the last few years was almost completely made here, including the entire simulation application programming platform. It works quite well for our needs most of the time. The real issue is support. The two engineers who created this simulation application programming platform no longer work here, and though they did leave some supporting documentation, it can be very difficult and time consuming (this equals money spent with little return) to make any changes or use the system in other ways. If this were a commercial systems library supported by a reputable software firm, it would be easier to deal with, though maybe not as custom tailored to its original application. So that's the trade-off. I assume Corel has had to make these kind of decisions with Paint Shop Pro, along with whatever business goals they may set.

These kinds of choices and decisions are not an excuse for creating a poor piece of software to generate sales from an existing customer base. The last few versions of Paint Shop Pro seemed more driven by the Corel sales and marketing people than anything else. Yes, a company like Corel needs to make money to stay in business. I would want to see upgrade offerings that are not a back-step or loss of even subtle features that customers are used to, but real improvements and advantages over the competition.

Bye.

I agree with Radim. It is a matter of the way you develop a piece of code. Today, to save money, many brand prefer to rely on autamatically generated code, huge libraries, and poor development rather than in good developers writing performing code. I know, it is more expensive to write good code, but products are expensive and users should get performing products for their bucks!