PaintShop Pro vs. Aftershot Pro

[RayC]

Hope I'm not opening up a can of worms...

Can anyone provide an educated comparison of Aftershot Pro vs. PSP? I've had PSP for a while, and I'm wondering if Aftershot Pro has anything truly different/better than PSP.

I guess the real question is, if I've got PSP, is ASP redundant?

I appreciate your experiences.

(I was also going to post this in the ASP section, but it appears locked! )

[hartpaul]

That is like asking if Lightroom is better than Photoshop. Depends on what you want it to do. Both Aftershot Pro and Lightroom are specialist programs for processing and managing RAW images. Specialist programs will generally be better than a be all and end all program that tries to do everything. Bit like compating going to a General practitioner or a brain surgeon for a brain problem.
PSP and Photoshop both handle Raw images but probably not as well as Lightroom or AftershotPro otherwise there would not be a "need" for Lightroom and Aftershot Pro.
I personally use Canon Digital Photo Professional to process my Raw images and finish off in PSP. That is like 20% processing in DPP and 80% in PSP.
Others may do 60% in Lightroom ASP and 40% in PSP, PS. Just depends on what you are trying to do and which programs have the best features for doing that.

[pdxrjt]

Agree with the above answer.... different beasts. While I often like Corel Programs (IMHO) Aftershot Pro is pretty bad. I think there are better options for RAW development. I know there are some who will disagree, so we are all entitled to an opinion. I have used PSP since the JASC days and really like the cost/value ratio...... tried Bibble, then Aftershot Pro after Corel bought it..... no improvement.....so I've erased it from my disc and will not waste additional money on it. But PSP and AFP are different beasts.

[brucet]

PSP is really 'average' at handling Raw files. ASP is really 'average' at editing.
I like to use ASP for Raw conversion especially lens correction etc. But all my other work is done in PSP using a 16 bit tiff that comes out of ASP.
Works for me.

regards

[RayC]

Thanks,

I'm getting the picture (pardon the pun). Corel has a good deal on ASP right now, but I wondered if it was worth it since I have PSP which has RAW processing abilities. I've only recently started shooting in RAW so I don't have a lot of experience with this sort of processing. Looking at a couple of ASP youtubes, it might be nice to be able to make (and see) adjustments in real time.

Bruce's comment that PSP is an editor with some RAW processing tacked on, while ASP is a dedicated RAW processing tool makes sense.

I'm seeing a lot of unhappy ASP campers, but I also noted a post that work on v2.0 is starting.

Thanks for the insights.

[photodrawken]

RayC,

I've also just started working in RAW, and I found that the free RawTherapee program
http://www.rawtherapee.com/
offers the most (and highest quality) RAW processing.

I use it to correct chromatic aberration, sharpen, etc., and then save the image as a 16-bit TIF image that PSP can use for it's editing (selecting areas for targeted adjustments, etc.).

I use each program for what it does best.

[MarkZ]

As with all software, a product will appeal to one person and not at all to another.

When I started shooting Raw I tried a number of inexpensive or free programs, among them RawTherapee, ACDSee and Bibble. At the time I could not get the hang of Bibble and did not like the others well enough to go there. I'd been using PSP for a few years and really liked it but found the Raw conversion quality terrible (it's somewhat better now.) My camera software for Pentax, powered by SilkyPix produced good quality but I did not like the interface. I was invited to participate in the Beta testing for AfterShot Pro which meant that I spent enough time to learn it and its quirks. I quickly became a big fan of the program - I shoot only Raw now and ASP is the program I use all the time for adjusting the raw files, creating jpgs and cataloging.

ASP, as others have said, is primarily a non-destructive raw editing program. It is extremely fast and has extensive editing options. Again, non-destructive. The original file is never altered. The conversion quality is very good and I use it for 99% of my conversions from raw. I use PSP on some images in cases where PSP has editing capabilities that ASP does not.

It has excellent batch processing capabilities for tasks such as renaming file, moving and copying them, or creating different versions, jpg or TIFF.

Although it is not a full-blown digital asset management (DAM) program it has excellent cataloging capabilities. I store most of my image on a hard drive which is normally not connected. After creating a catalog I can search through my offsite collection and decide if I want to pick something from the hard drive. I use ASP to view my images when I first download, go through a culling process and then use it to move them to the final directory. The catalog has great capabilities for searches using a variety of parameters.

There are many plug-ins available allowing processing beyond the basic program.

I'm a big fan of ASP and use it extensively. There are better, more professional programs available but this one does very well what I need at a very low price.

[Tadjio]

Hope I'm not opening up a can of worms...
Can anyone provide an educated comparison of Aftershot Pro vs. PSP? I've had PSP for a while, and I'm wondering if Aftershot Pro has anything truly different/better than PSP.
I guess the real question is, if I've got PSP, is ASP redundant?
I appreciate your experiences.
(I was also going to post this in the ASP section, but it appears locked! )

I agree with Mark on the sentiment and detail about AfterShot Pro. I started with PSP and took up ASP about 2 years ago.
In practice I use both programs, each of which I like. I use ASP for Raw Conversion of my Olympus files although I tend to use Canon's DPP for my important EOS 100D images. I think PSP Raw Conversion is worse and up to now I have avoided it. It may be better with X6 and you need to compare with your own camera's images.

Whether using DPP or ASP, I often pass images to PSP for final processing - this is automated and quick and easy.

As someone said, ASP is best for RAW and PSP is best for Editing. In practice ASP is good for normal editing but I prefer to revert to PSP if it is difficult. For example, I use PSP for Histogram/Levels adjustments and for any Layers/Cloning work, both are comparable for Graduated Filters but I prefer ASP's zPerspector plug-in to PSP's Perspective Correction.

One of ASP's strengths is the Batch Output although this can be achieved in PSP whereas I much prefer Printing in PSP.

PSP's workspace is more configurable, together with the power of Scripting.
ASP scores in one very significant area:-
Every action on an image can be reversed or adjusted later, even after the program is closed and reopened.
With ASP you 'build' a final image but you can change your mind on anything you have already done. Truly non-destructive.