ASP from the perspective of long-time PaintShop Pro users

[Hobgoblin]

So you guys are saying that I right clicked one file, hovered over the wrong thing and clicked, and now the whole program is screwed up? This really does not instill confidence.

Hi df;

Appearently, they too are unaware of how to get back to what I have called a "Virgin" rendering of your RAW file.

Please do it as I suggested:

1. Get DefaultRaw.xmp back to its original condition as supplied by Corel.

To restore the original post-installation DefaultRaw.xmp
From within ASP:
File / Preferences / Default Settings
Select 'DefaultRaw.xmp' and reset.

Ctrl+R will apply these settings to any selected image.

If you have already created a Camera Raw Settings file this will take precedence and you will need to use the same technique to remove it if the settings are incorrect or not appropriate.


HTH,
R.

[DocBrown]

So you guys are saying that I right clicked one file, hovered over the wrong thing and clicked, and now the whole program is screwed up? This really does not instill confidence.

Mistakes only happen in ASP? Did not CTRL+Z take you back to where you were before the accidental click?

[MarkZ]

Well Bob, you really started something. This post has certainly brought the Corel and Bibble folks together.

I started using Corel products about twenty years ago when I received a free demo disc when I purchased a tax program and received some more later. When I started digital photography and found that what I had could be used for editing I stuck with Corel (the fact it began as a Canadian company helped) and used various version of Paint Shop Pro up to X4. Since, until recently, I had a relatively slow computer and not a lot of storage room I stayed away from Adobe - and I seem to dislike crowds.

I was fortunate to get onto the Beta test for ASP. I found that it filled the enormous gap that I felt (and let Corel know) exists in PSP, Raw conversion and image management. ASP raw conversion is far superior than PSP's but not as good as the Pentax/SilkyPix editor that came with the camera. So for good shots I use ASP and if I need really fine results I go to SilkyPix.

Because of earlier storage limitations and for backup many of my photos are on an external drive. I tried a number of programs. ACDsee, Bibble and others but disliked some features of each and I already had the photo editor that I had learned and got to appreciate with PSP. (I think I was unable to see my offsite collection with basic ACDsee). The ASP catalog feature, in spite of its glaring deficiencies, works for me. I spent some time with keywords and can usually find an image I want quickly and fire up the external drive if I want to edit it and that is where it is. Agreed, it may not be a DAM but with my modest needs it fills the gap.

Initially I thought I would use ASP for RAW conversion and then do final editing with PSP but as I have tested the tools available and installed plugins I find I do more and more of the editing in ASP and touch up on PSP less often; I don't do much manipulation but if I get into that would use PSP. I think having the two tools separate is better than making ASP a built-in front end to PSP; early on I thought that was the way to go, before I learned ASP's strengths.

One of the themes that has evolved in this thread refers to the documentation, help, available for ASP. Also, the somewhat chaotic placement of tools within the program. Sometimes you right-click, other times open a menu item, or at other times click on an icon. This feels like a program that started as a kernel and many people pasted bits and pieces to it to make it grow - happens frequently in software development until someone says enough, let's redraw the beast. I think the time has come for Corel to do that and while fixing bugs review the structure of the program. Retain the functionality, but rethink how the program is to be used. In the Help files, often step by step instructions are provided; what is missing in many instances is what could be called the "philosophy" of what is to be accomplished and how. Diagrams of a better quality than what is in help would be useful.

So, I am happy enough with both ASP and PSP to continue with them. One complements the other. Others have different need and will end up with different systems and tools.

Mark

[df]

And instead of complaining that things do not work in the way you think they should, ask how to get to specific results (and ask for complete steps if this is something you feel unsure about...).
Often enough there will be a a much better way then the one you had envisioned and failed with.

cheers
afx

Fare enough, please take a look at http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=45368

[marbly]

Of these competitors only Lightroom offers a complete DAM ( although I am not sure whether it is able to catalogue all image file types). Bibble introduced DAM functionality in B5 as response to the introduction of Lightroom and Aperture, but certainly does not have a full flexed DAM.

I had installed the Lightroom 3.2 30 day trial version to play around with and compare to ASP. What does the LR DAM do that ASP doesn't? I don't recall any big differences in functionality, but maybe I just missed seeing it. Overall LR 3.2 was a more refined and much less buggy program -- found no bugs in my usage of it whereas with ASP it is a bug a minute almost.

[Tadjio]

Initially I thought I would use ASP for RAW conversion and then do final editing with PSP but as I have tested the tools available and installed plugins I find I do more and more of the editing in ASP and touch up on PSP less often; I don't do much manipulation but if I get into that would use PSP. I think having the two tools separate is better than making ASP a built-in front end to PSP; early on I thought that was the way to go, before I learned ASP's strengths.
Mark

I would agree with you here.

[B4b5]

Initially I thought I would use ASP for RAW conversion and then do final editing with PSP but as I have tested the tools available and installed plugins I find I do more and more of the editing in ASP and touch up on PSP less often; I don't do much manipulation but if I get into that would use PSP. I think having the two tools separate is better than making ASP a built-in front end to PSP; early on I thought that was the way to go, before I learned ASP's strengths.
Mark

I would agree with you here.

It's catching; & Once you get the bug, there is no cure!

[JStanley]

deleted

[Tadjio]

I prefer to do destructive editing on an image that I copied to a new location rather than associate an XMP to an image for better distribution of a final product, while maintaining the original at another location. I'm sure other users would argue with this, but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

I understand the gist of what you are saying but I am not sure of the detailed implications.
Are you saying you want to maintain the original in one location and the final product for distribution in another location?
If so, why can't you have non-destructive editing on the original and then Batch Output the final product, as I do?
This is similar to using SaveAs in PSP after doing your editing (with possible interim copies saved too).

[darKing]

I prefer to do destructive editing on an image that I copied to a new location rather than associate an XMP to an image for better distribution of a final product, while maintaining the original at another location. I'm sure other users would argue with this, but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

I understand the gist of what you are saying but I am not usre of the detailed implications.
Are you saying you want to maintain the original in one location and the final product for distribution in another location?
If so, why can't you have non-destructive editing on the original and then Batch Output the final product, as I do?
This is similar to using SaveAs in PSP after doing your editing (with possible interim copies saved too).

He answered this already

[...], but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Instead of saying ASP is not like PSP and that's why it sucks. He just says "the way I did it for years just works for me. No need to learn anything new."
The bottom line is, you have to be happy with your pictures and you have to be happy the way you "create" them. Why bother with new stuff when you don't see a problem with the old. You can still give it a shot when you think the old stuff can't achive what you want.

[MarkZ]

He just says "the way I did it for years just works for me. No need to learn anything new."
The bottom line is, you have to be happy with your pictures and you have to be happy the way you "create" them. Why bother with new stuff when you don't see a problem with the old. You can still give it a shot when you think the old stuff can't achive what you want.

This old dog who was happy with what he created discovered that by trying something new he found a better way to achieve what he wants.

[darKing]

He just says "the way I did it for years just works for me. No need to learn anything new."
The bottom line is, you have to be happy with your pictures and you have to be happy the way you "create" them. Why bother with new stuff when you don't see a problem with the old. You can still give it a shot when you think the old stuff can't achive what you want.

This old dog who was happy with what he created discovered that by trying something new he found a better way to achieve what he wants.

Well, there are dogs and there are dogs.

[RickHeath]

Personally, I have never really found the value in DAMs (Digital Asset Managers ) when I could get more efficient results using system programs (e.g. Explorer and other file managers), but I have noticed when I taught people in the past that everyone chooses there own methods to suit their own needs. Having used other DAMs in the past (Cumulus, ACDSee, etc.), I just didn't see the usefulness of these products when I could perform the same essential functions without them.

You don't have to learn anything new if you don't want to, but...

From my perspective I was getting too many images to be easily able to find things even though I have always had a logical chronological filing system (i.e. "2011/2012-12-25 Christmas Day", etc.) so I invested in a DAM program (IDimager in my case) which I have set up to work quite happily over the top of this. I can, for example, now find all 2776 images that are labelled as featuring my nearly 4 year old grandson (or a subset using other criteria). Older images are currently less well labelled, I tend to add them to the database as I find the need. Since I got a camera that took RAW images, I keep the RAWs in a separate subfolder, so they don't clutter up the image folders if they are viewed view Explorer, and use relative paths in output batches to put the output in the right parent folder automatically. I now have around 30,000 images plus derivatives stored.

Once I had a camera that took RAWs, I used RAWshooter for a while - I think it came bundled with a CorelDraw update (which I have been using since v3), until it got bought up by Adobe & discontinued. I found Bibble (v4 then) through IDI users and preferred it over Lightroom (I never liked early versions & haven't got round to trying the newer ones). I don't like Adobe's insistence on using their catalogue system when I've already got a perfectly usable one already up and running. Since having Bibble, I've found that most of the editing I would have done in any other editor gets done in Bibble (& now increasingly ASP). I've got Corel PhotoPaint if I need to do any other image mangling & I did have PhotoShop (v7 I think) but I never got round to installing it when I got a new computer 4-5 years ago and haven't missed it. PhotoPaint is PS like enough to not have too much of a learning curve. I've considered PSP but just haven't got round to looking at it.

But what works for me, may not work for you. When I was looking for a DAM app, a friend who does a lot of freelance press work, tried to get me into Fotostation which he raved about. It worked for him but I never really got on with it and found my own solution.

Regards

Rick

[claudermilk]

It is all about what works for you. I had a similar path as Rick. I sitll miss RawShooter, BTW--that was a great start. I found Bibble for the same reason.

It actually took me two tries to finally land with IMatch. I started out as many casual shooters did with a really basic Windows directory structure & naming each image. That got out of control quickly. I ended up looking at every DAM I could lay hands on and finally wrapped my brain around the benefits. For me IMatch works the best and has repeatedly proven its worth. I have gotten a lot more serious about photography and managing the growing archive, and cannot imagine doing it without a database-oriented DAM.

[DocBrown]

Interesting. My introduction to Bibble/ASP very closely follows Rick and claudermilk's experiences.

Personally, I have never really found the value in DAMs (Digital Asset Managers ) when I could get more efficient results using system programs (e.g. Explorer and other file managers), but I have noticed when I taught people in the past that everyone chooses there own methods to suit their own needs. Having used other DAMs in the past (Cumulus, ACDSee, etc.), I just didn't see the usefulness of these products when I could perform the same essential functions without them.

You are certainly correct in that its all about what one needs. I started using ACDSee when Windows Explorer became woefully inadequate for pulling up photos of the same subject type that are stored in different directories. One or two clicks and I can find and quickly display all my photos on any given subject or location. The cataloging possibilities and flexibility are endless with a DAM. I have nearly 10 years of digital photos and am now scanning photos from the previous 25 years, and some old family photos dating back to the early 1900s. No way would I be able to effectively catalog and find those photos without an efficient DAM.