Where does PSP rank?

[Joelle]

There is nothing wrong with PSP, it's the user who should look at himself, but preferes to blame the program for his own shortcomings.
N-Photo is a Nikon magazine, so I am not surprised I hadn't heard of it as I use Canons, always have done.

Yes, PSP's RAW converter isn't very good, but users don't HAVE to use it. It will do the job if necessary
Canon cameras come with Digital Photo Professional, a very excellent RAW converter.
I am sure Nikon has it's own RAW converter.

The snobby people who make these little you-are-good-and-you-aren't comments are usually not very good at editing
Photo magazines are very very boring, squazillions of sunsets.
Users prefer to blame a program to producing well edited images themselves.

Corel, don't go without sleep over stupid articles like this!

Joëlle

[MikeFromMesa]

There is a simple way to fix the Raw issues in PSP. Simply develop ASP to the point of being a competent converter. Then package both PSP and ASP together. Package price! Then make it clear in ASP that, as you can already do, you can open PSP as the editor of choice. Is this any different than what much of the competition does already? Why not drop the very 'average' Raw in PSP and make the effort to improve ASP? After all most users who are using Raw are looking for more than just basic Raw conversion.
I understand ASP and PSP are different programs, different platforms, but they can easily be made to work together seamlessly. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Photoshop and ACR. Maybe someone is already doing it successfully.

Corel, test the waters. Do a onetime promotion of a package deal and gauge the reaction. ASP Pro and PSPx7 for $xx. Simply highlight the feature in ASP that will 'push' the file to PSP. It will cost you half of nothing and may just squash the notion the PSP is a basket case when is come to Raw conversion.

regards

Actually I think that is a very good idea, but requires that Corel get serious about ASP and I have seen no indication that there is any likelihood of that happening. I bought ASP when it first came out (and I was working on Windows systems) and thought it was OK. But that was years ago and the competition has improved significantly and ASP has not.

As it is, of course, you can easily use PSP in connection with another workflow tool like Dxo Optics Pro, CaptureOne or even Lightroom and just define PSP as the external editor. Those options are already available on Windows, but not for me on the Mac since there is no Mac version of PSP.

[brucet]

The way I see it is that there is nothing 'basically' wrong with PSP. The 'problem' is getting the message through to new users. After all if we never liked it we wouldn't be on this forum would we? What do they say about preaching to the converted?

Bangs for bucks it's great value. What got me 'motivated' was the 'test/comparisons' against other programs that simply never offered what PSP offered yet they were rated higher.
This discussion is not about any 'apparent' problems with PSP, that's another discussion for another thread, rather about how the 'perceived problems' are addressed. As users we can only do so much. It's up to Corel to address the problem. If they succeed then we all will get the benefits of a more popular program that will generate more following and thus more pressure on Corel to meet that pressure. (Maybe even more profits for Corel!!!).
From my point of view it's a purely selfish goal of making PSP more popular and 'forcing' Corel to give us more. More of everything.

Here's a link that compare Photoshop to PSP. The mere fact that so much of what can be done in PS also has an equivalent in PSP. Get that message alone out there and you're part way there. http://video-books.net/paintshoppro/tut ... ionary.htm . Yes it may be out of date. But if Corel was to quietly have it updated and publish the results it would make a great 'talking' point.

regards

[DPainter]

There is nothing wrong with PSP, it's the user who should look at himself, but preferes to blame the program for his own shortcomings.
N-Photo is a Nikon magazine, so I am not surprised I hadn't heard of it as I use Canons, always have done.

Yes, PSP's RAW converter isn't very good, but users don't HAVE to use it. It will do the job if necessary
Canon cameras come with Digital Photo Professional, a very excellent RAW converter.
I am sure Nikon has it's own RAW converter.

The snobby people who make these little you-are-good-and-you-aren't comments are usually not very good at editing
Photo magazines are very very boring, squazillions of sunsets.
Users prefer to blame a program to producing well edited images themselves.

Corel, don't go without sleep over stupid articles like this!

Joëlle

The way I see it is that there is nothing 'basically' wrong with PSP. The 'problem' is getting the message through to new users. After all if we never liked it we wouldn't be on this forum would we? What do they say about preaching to the converted?

Not saying it's perfect Joelle.

People that are coming here and writing down what they feels is lacking in this product is "good" feedback!
Far better then those who post how great and perfect a product is as their finger clicks "delete"! Wouldn't you say?

[MikeFromMesa]

Yes, PSP's RAW converter isn't very good, but users don't HAVE to use it. It will do the job if necessary
Canon cameras come with Digital Photo Professional, a very excellent RAW converter.
I am sure Nikon has it's own RAW converter.

The snobby people who make these little you-are-good-and-you-aren't comments are usually not very good at editing

The whole idea is to provide a seamless working experience. Yes, someone can use one tool to produce an intermediate file and then another to work on that intermediate file, but why should they have to? PSP should be able to produce a first class raw converter and a first class pixel editor. Photoshop can do it, Elements can do it. Corel can do it also if they just spend the time necessary.

And, as far as people making those "comments", I assume you are referring to people who are saying that one product is not as good as another. But exactly what is so bad about making those kind of comments? Telling Corel that things are perfect when they are, in fact, not perfect, is not really helpful to anyone, especially Corel. When there is a problem the people in charge need to know or they have no chance at correcting whatever is amiss.

While I have no idea exactly who you were referring to when you said they these people were not very good at editing I personally think that you are making a bold statement when you do not know these people or their editing skills. If you are suggesting that if these people should be capable of doing what they want in PSP if they were good enough at editing, then I think you are missing several points. First, editing tools should be made to be as easy to use as possible, second, there is no intrinsic benefit in taking 30 minutes to do something that should be able to be done in 10 minutes and, third, products that are perceived to be failures in the market often end up failing, even if they are not "failures" in the strict sense of the word. Consider the fate of the BetaMax video recorder. Thought to be technically superior, but considered by customers to be less useful than VHS. The end result was the failure of the product and its removal from the market. In the business world perception is often reality.

Those criticizing Corel are often being more helpful to Corel than you may think.

[coolrat]

I'd have to agree with many of the criticisms of Paintshop Pro and Aftershot

A few years ago I was using Aftershot Pro 1. I really liked it and was impressed by its speed and ability to run on Linux as well.
But then updates stopped completely for a very long time and it appeared to be completely dead.
It seemed that Corel was not serious about Aftershot and I abandoned it for Lightroom, then switched PhotoNinja. I'll never go back to Adobe. As for Aftershot, I use it only for its excellent ability to compare 2 photos. Aftershot 2 was a great disappointment and I could see no reason to buy it.

Paintshop Pro X6 is nice, but very slow when applying effects even on my Corei7 with 16gig RAM. The release of X7 didn't remedy this. Corel really needs to reengineer/rewrite the next version to improve speed levels so they at least approach those of Photoshop. And like a previous member suggested, why not integrate ASP with Paintshop Pro- merge them into one program that can do proper RAW conversions, non-destructive edits, and have the ability to do advanced editing as well?

It would be a shame if the new version Paintshop Pro (perhaps it will be x8) is not significantly improved. Corel has a decent fan base of semi-professionals-- why erode their confidence?

[MikeFromMesa]

I'll never go back to Adobe.

Just curious. Did LR disappoint you? Or did you have some issues with Adobe? Or something else?

[hartpaul]

MikeFromMesa wrote:The whole idea is to provide a seamless working experience. Yes, someone can use one tool to produce an intermediate file and then another to work on that intermediate file, but why should they have to? PSP should be able to produce a first class raw converter and a first class pixel editor. Photoshop can do it, Elements can do it. Corel can do it also if they just spend the time necessary.

And yet the opposite seems to be the case - even the Photoshop people with their better Raw converter will look for 'something better' whether it be Lightroom or some other program to eventuate in the future.
I would suggest that most photographer that use Photoshop or PSP also use a different program to process their Raw images. There will be no 'all in one', streamilned process super program that will suit all. There will always be people that have another opinion that something else does a better job with Raw files.

We also need to remember that there is a large proportion of PSP users that are not photographers and do not deal with Raw files. The graphic artists, the scrapbookers , the tubers the beginner photographers, the travelographers (look at these slide shows of my last vacation). For these the ability to process Raw images, save in 16 bit Tifs , apply chroma subsampling, use advanced vector graphics is an often unused feature. I know of at least 3 other forums where Raw file processing is not mentioned.

I wonder if a survey of users exists that has analysed the user profile of PSP. What are the profiles of each of the posters?

I have taken over 93000 images in a typical year (averaging 250 images a day). I try to get the images "right" in camera to reduce the extra processing time required with Raw images. For me the Raw converter was just a method of fixing white balance, and exposure mistakes and doing the rest in PSP. Starting with images that were 4000 x 3000 pixels or greater they were being reduced eventually to 1024 x 768 (camera club), 1500 pixels long side (web images) , and smaller images for composites, emailing, social media, and very occasionally 3000 x 2400 pixel images for 8 x 10 " prints.

I only use Raw conversion for correcting mistakes to get a quality Jpg image which can show 16 million colors of which I can see less that 10 million. I have no use for Tif files which can show over 1 billion colors of which I can see nor display on my display less than 1%.
And yes I read elsewhere that the tif is needed for professional work to help prevent banding when images are heavily edited and processed but how often is that?

[brucet]

hartpaul is on the money. We/us here on these forums could be described as the 'nutters'. The 'nerds' of the camera world. We have to be very careful that what 'we' want is not blurring the market that Corel is after. Take a look at what's happening the the camera sales figures. Point and shots are dying so quick the market is in shock. DSLRs have declined. The 'average' photo is now taken with a smart phone by a not so smart photographer. We have to distinguish between picture taking and picture making.

The 'editing' world is also changing. Some folks want a 'one program does all' solution. While others, us, want our cake and the ability to eat it as well. If I was in Corels board room I would be looking at maximising profits. As they should be. But to do that they need to define what their market is. At the moment they seem to be stuck between the mass market and us 'nerds'. The solution? Goodness knows. But having a program such as PSP is a great place to start. It offers a 'one stop' solution for most folks. BUT Corels also needs to be at the sharp end of improvements. Those improvements need to include the ability for us 'nerds' to tap into other programs, such as ASP, Topaz etc.

Make it easy for everyone to 'customise' their work flow with PSP at the centre and I believe that Corel will hit the sweet spot. But only if their core program, PSP is up to standard.

regards

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126753097@N02/

[MikeFromMesa]

And yet the opposite seems to be the case - even the Photoshop people with their better Raw converter will look for 'something better' whether it be Lightroom or some other program to eventuate in the future.
I would suggest that most photographer that use Photoshop or PSP also use a different program to process their Raw images. There will be no 'all in one', streamilned process super program that will suit all. There will always be people that have another opinion that something else does a better job with Raw files.

What I said was that users prefer a "seamless" manner of processing and I believe that to be true. Consider.

Users who work with a workflow tool like LightRoom (or CaptureOne or Dxo's Optics Pro or some of the others) and then want to do some pixel editing only have to access a command in their workflow tool to send their images to a pixel editor and have their images returned back to the workflow tool. Similarly users buy and use plugins because they give the illusion that the work is being done in their tool. That is, all of the external calls look and act like they are being taken care of by the single tool and there is no need to do more than one pass through the images to get them processed. The work is done seamlessly. The actual separation of the work is not important. What is important is that the user has the impression and experience that all of the work is integrated and presents itself as being handled by a single "combined" tool. That is what I meant by "seamless".

The suggestion another user made that users can always use something like Canon's DPP and then process the converted image in PSP misses the point that there is no way to combine those two tools since DPP does not have any way to call an outside external editor to do whatever extra work may be required and thus any processing requires two separate passes.

So there is no need, and I suggested no need, for there to be a single super program to do all of the work. I only suggest that users want a seamless working experience.

And one other point. LightRoom uses Photoshop's ACR raw converter to do its processing, although the raw converter is in a different form and adjustments are made through presets and manual settings rather than either the Default" or Manual settings of Photoshop so it is misleading to suggest that PS users are looking for something "better" when they use LightRoom to process their photos. The LR/PS combination provides them with a seamless manner of processing just as the PS only processing does. Just as the PSP only processing does, although the PSP RAW Lab is not as versatile as it should be. The suggestion that ASP could be improved and used in connection with PSP is also another way to produce a seamless editing process since ASP can call PSP to do any external editing, although Corel does not seem very serious in its approach to ASP.

I was not, and am not, suggesting that PSP cannot be used in connection with a better RAW convert. I can call PSP from Dxo's Optics Pro if I wish. I am only suggesting that if Corel wants to be considered a complete tool for photo editing and wants to compete for the users that Adobe currently has, it needs to improve its RAW converter to the point where it can compete.

[Steveatesh]

Personally I loved PSP X6, it was more than capable of doing what I wanted as a hobbyist and really good value. However, times move on.

I agree with many comments above - the RAW converter is absolute rubbish and is probably the reason PSP is not seen as a serious contender in this market.

I have to say that I recently tried Aftershot 2 Pro along with Lightroom 5 and Capture 1 Pro 8. ASP easily showed its budget price, it simply wasn't in the same league as the other two I'm afraid and was not stable on my Mac - the image would scroll uncontrollably when I touched the magic mouse and it made it unusable. The Lock Scrolling button didn't make any difference at all, it simply didn't work.

Needless to say I didn't buy it and went down the LR route, the first stage in moving to Adobe totally maybe!

In addition the direction of travel in the graphics market is Hi def monitors and I'm afraid PSP doesn't scale well at all when I use it via Parallels or Bootcamp on my retina iMac. The workspace is ok but the toolbars, some popups and menus are tiny and the "use large icons" setting makes next to know difference. It is not much use on the retina iMac I'm afraid and I am looking for an alternative that doesn't involve subscription.

So Corel, if you want to be seen as a serious contender - sort the RAW side out and make sure the program scales properly on HiDef monitors. Even the PC world seems to be moving to 4K monitors.

Oh, release a Mac version too!

[Joelle]

So Corel, if you want to be seen as a serious contender - sort the RAW side out and make sure the program scales properly on HiDef monitors. Even the PC world seems to be moving to 4K monitors.

Oh, release a Mac version too!

Corel has battled with RAW conversion for a long time.
Somewhere in the past the RAW converter they were hoping to use was no longer available (something to do with Adobe and patents) and the result is clear.
To be honest I don't know why the in-house RAW converter is such a huge issue.
I use Canon cameras, Canon's RAW converter software is excellent.
But yes, as has already been mentioned many times, users want the "press this button and it's all done for you" kind of software.
Preferably free..
PSP for a Mac? No chance, it is w-a-y too expensive to code and I wouldn't think there is the demand to justify such an expense.
As with so many other things and from what I read, the initial enthusiasm for image editing appears to have waned, making it hard for Corel and others to keep on top of things.

Joëlle

[MikeFromMesa]

But yes, as has already been mentioned many times, users want the "press this button and it's all done for you" kind of software.
Preferably free..
Joëlle

I can not speak for others but I am not looking for a "press this button and its all done for you" solution. All I have been saying is that I think Corel's raw solution is not up to the quality of the rest of the tool. What I want is a single integrated editing experience and I can get that using workflow tools like Optics Pro or LightRoom or CaptureOne. I can then hook X7 in as an external editor and I have a workable editing solution. I have to do the work to get the image processed, but that is what and expect I want to do.

The comment I was making is that Corel ought to be able to produce a set of tools that will do what my current workflow does - provide a good raw converter and hook into a good pixel editor. Their prior attempt at this, using ASP, has been, at least in my opinion, a failure as the raw conversion and the available tools are not up to market standards. ASP cannot hold a candle to Optics Pro, CaptureOne or, yes, LightRoom as a raw converter. I consider X7 to be a good competitor for Photoshop so why don't they create a competitive raw converter?

I believe that a photo editor is rated on the quality of the tool as a whole and is no better than the weakest part. Given the poor quality of the current raw conversion process compared to its market equivalent it does not seem a big surprise to me that X7 is rated so poorly by many people and that directly relates to market share. X7 is a high quality pixel editor and ought to have an equivalent high quality raw converter.

[brucet]

I'd be interested if anyone from Corel is still reading all of our 'expert' opinions on what would/could/should happen. After the initial reaction has anything actually been done at Corel?
Anyway here's another 'opinion'.
I'm anti the one stop solution. Take a look around the 'real' world and tell me how many business have succeeded in being a one stop shop. Walmart? No not even Walmart. Corel/PSP may well be trying to do too much. I would rather see Corel fiddle with PSP as just an editor. Albeit an 'advanced' editor. Why? A few reasons. The majority of folks just want something to fine tune a Jpeg. Heaps of options out there from free to expensive and of various levels of capabilities. So how many will pay for features they don't need/want? A smaller percentage shoot in Raw. Those folks are what I consider the 'nutters'. Me included. Now when you get to being a stage one 'nutter' you may like/accept the capabilities of ASP or PSP's own Raw converter. But here's where is gets harder. Because you are now dealing with stage two 'nutters'. Me!..... Us 'nutters' want to screw the heck out of all the data we can get our hands on. To do so we are more than happy to shop around and find a Raw converter that suits our needs. That's where Corel is falling over. The simple sad truth though is the number of stage two 'nutters' is so small that it wouldn't pay Corel's light bill.

IMHO Corel needs to concentrate on the editing features of PSP and bail out of trying to be a Walmart. I wouldn't worry for a second if Corel dumped ASP and their Raw conversion features as long as their efforts were shifted over to PSP. Make PSP a WOW editor. Heavens there are enough Adobe haters out there to make a killing. However make sure that PSP has the ability to accept plugins and files from all those other programs that us 'nutters' are using. Make PSP something that is so 'flexible' that is works with just about any other program. By doing so PSP benefits from the efforts of other for little cost to Corel.

Back to sleep and more dreaming!!!!

regards

[DPainter]

Hey all.
Been reading all this one program dose all concept. For the most part the posts are talking about RAW and converting. I have no idea about RAW and what doesn't work in psp for it.
But I'm not new to the idea of using other programs alongside psp. It's the norm here. I often have three different programs running and the image (PSD file) is moved around. Sometime saved to DDS to view in another program on a 3D model.
The work flow is clean and not as complicated as some of you RAW converters are making out it is. Do your work in RAW converter then save and open it in psp. Both programs can run side by side. If your not 100% happy with the RAW convert, do it again and save. Always keep the original. Edit a copy.
If the ranking was down graded because of the RAW converter not being so great in psp to bad! That review wont stop us using psp by a long shot. We'll all buy the next version. Well maybe. If it's anything like X7 I want be. But most will.

I agree that as a editor psp is up there with the big boys but if what we read here that a free program like gimp has gone forward were psp has fallen back, That should be concerning for Corel. Not just this RAW issue it has and really a very simple work around. I haven't bothered with gimp sins 2007 as it was a lesser program then psp was then. Maybe it's worth a second look now.

I could list quite a lot of things I'd love to have in psp as a "editor". I have no need or want for these two other programs that are added to psp. "Manager" and "Ajust". These two things are useless to me and so many others. "Adjust", Nothing you can't do in Edit and have better tools. "Manager", If Corel had kept the far better "Organizer" that X1 has this bloat ware wouldn't be needed at all. That Organizer "Is" the same as the Manager is today but now it's a separate program. No different from the Photoshop's "bridge". These two bloat ware should be scrapped and more time and resources put into stronger, better and more new editing tools. BUT remember we use psp because it's not Photoshop! It works different to Photoshop and that's what we like about psp. So "Stop" making it more like Photoshop! (Text tool for example.) (Reinstate RGB color) Not even Abode are that stupid! Give the 3 as options.

[Edit]..
Just on that Photoshop's Bridge. The interesting thing here is Photoshop CS6 has still got the Bridge which can be used with psp as long as their not pspimage format. CS6 has now got in addition a Organizer option with the same layout that was used by Corel for X1. So no need for the bridge if you choose. I only have X4 so I don't know the exact version this new organizer concept and bloat ware came in.