Wish List for PaintShop Pro version X9

[Rick_R]

Have Corel added the option to resize a canvas as a percentage in X8? e.g. resize to 200% current width?
If not, add to the wishlist for X9..
Epi

Corel significantly expanded the options in X8. They are confusing. I posted about that early on and Levi Fiction responded with a fairly detailed overview. Screw around with the checkboxes at the top (percent, pixels, etc.) and the dialogs each invokes. The dialogs interact. It gives the impression that if you use one dialog to change the pixels per inch and then switch to a dialog about percent, that your changes in the first dialog will have no effect. But they will.

[Rick_R]

Panorama stitching.

I've responded to that in detail in one of the earlier wishlists (probably for X8, maybe X7).

Bottom line is that Adobe spends large amounts adding features to their professional-level/cost tool Photoshop, then just omits certain things from Photoshop Elements. PSP is a completely separate product aimed at the low-end market. So anything added to PSP involves using development resources just for PSP.

Most people who do intermediate or higher work with PSP also have PE. Plus, there are a number of free programs available that can do photo stitching. So for the people most likely to do photo stitching, the lack of that capability in PSP is just a minor annoyance, not a major shortcoming that would cause them to not buy the program.

There is a stitching feature in Corel Photo-Paint that is miles ahead of anything in PSP. It doesn't automatically stitch the images together, but it does tell you when they line up. Corel has already developed a working feature, they just need to move it into PSP.

By your logic, there isn't any reason to have a fill tool because every other image editing program has it.

You're missing the point. Corel's high-end professional products use a different code base than PSP. Photoshop Elements doesn't use a different code base than Photoshop. When writing PS code, all Adobe has to do is put some "conditional compilation" indicators for certain blocks. Set the compiler to "Compile all" and the output is Photoshop. Set the compiler to "don't compile conditional" and the output is PE. Because PSP uses a different code base from Corel's professional line, it means completely writing and testing all the code -- for a product that often can be purchased for $35 if you check around for the previous version.

[Rick_R]

To add Lazy Nezumi Pro [http://lazynezumi.com/home] into Corel PaintShop Pro X9 Ultimate package as bonus.

Better support. To make it work automatically--"out of box" with PaintShop Pro canvas without any settings.

Keep in mind that the "add-ons" in Ultimate vary significantly with each version. I definitely would not want them to "work automatically out of the box". I basically do photo retouching for genealogy, mainly cleaning up documents and yearbooks. I don't do any "artistic" things with brushes, picture tubes, gradients, etc. I don't do any portrait touchup. So things like Face Filter and a huge collection of brushes, etc., are useless to me and would just clutter up my installation. On the other hand, I do buy Ultimate versions when they include things like a large number of effects that can make retouching easier.

By the way, although "extras" in an Ultimate version need that PSP version for the initial install, once the add-on installer generates its files, those can be copied to another PSP version and they will work even if the original PSP version is not on that machine. In other words:

• Add-on ABC comes with X5 Ultimate.
• Install X5, install ABC.
• Note where the ABC files installed.
• Copy the installed ABC files.
• Uninstall X5.
• You later install X7.
• Copy to the appropriate X7 folders the ABC files you previously saved.
• Even though X5 isn't on the machine and you didn't run the ABC installer, the ABC add-on will still run under X7.

That might not work with fully independent programs such as Face Filter. It definitely does work with programs that integrate with PSP.

[Rick_R]

Start by saying I agree with most of what you said. What I disagree with is the comparison to CorelDraw.

They wouldn't have to give PSP the same abilities as Corel Draw just make the current tools better than they are.
[SNIPPED] ... but they can easily make the current tools more robust without raising the price or competing directly with CorelDraw.

I won't argue with that, Levi. Or at least they could make the current graphic/vector tools more robust without either competing directly with CorelDraw and at least with only a nominal price increase if they desired (say $5.00) in the price of PSP.

My original reply to @Ravelli was because of what he appeared to be asking for, as below:

"- make 'creating' the main focus of PSP, not 'photo editing'
- better and more vector tools"

In other words, he specifically asked that the focus of PSP change from what it is marketed as (i.e., photo editing) to something it is not designed to be focused on (i.e. graphics creation). And given that PSP is a photo editor as its focus then that just doesn't make sense to me, nor would it to Corel if I'm any judge of marketing. And he didn't just ask for more robust existing tools. He asked for More vector tools.

What you suggest is entirely reasonable. What he suggested, IMHO, is not because he was asking that the focus of a photo editing program be changed to focus on something completely different.

We do all need to keep in mind that despite what the "suggested retail price" should be, the FACT is that there are not MAJOR new features from one version to the next and for years, if you check around you can easily find the previous version selling for as low as USD $35. And even if there are significant new features compared to 3-4 versions ago, a lot of people don't use those anyway.

[JoeB]

DELETED BECAUSE DOUBLE POSTED - SEE BELOW.

[JoeB]

There is a stitching feature in Corel Photo-Paint that is miles ahead of anything in PSP. It doesn't automatically stitch the images together, but it does tell you when they line up. Corel has already developed a working feature, they just need to move it into PSP.

By your logic, there isn't any reason to have a fill tool because every other image editing program has it.

[You're missing the point. Corel's high-end professional products use a different code base than PSP. Photoshop Elements doesn't use a different code base than Photoshop. When writing PS code, all Adobe has to do is put some "conditional compilation" indicators for certain blocks. Set the compiler to "Compile all" and the output is Photoshop. Set the compiler to "don't compile conditional" and the output is PE. Because PSP uses a different code base from Corel's professional line, it means completely writing and testing all the code -- for a product that often can be purchased for $35 if you check around for the previous version.

What Rick R said. Plus the fact that Corel Photo-Paint is a native Corel Product, whereas PSP was an existing product purchased by Corel from Jasc Software after Jasc's version 9. All of the added features to Jasc's v.9 are kind of "stitched on to" Jasc's original coding, because Corel didn't try to re-invent the wheel and re-code PSP from scratch. So Corel can't simply take the panorama stitching feature from Photo-Paint and "move it into PSP" because it wouldn't be compatible with the original code. They would have to code a panorama stitching feature from scratch that would integrate with PSP and also not end up creating some unexpected issues/bugs with the original program.

Given the availability of many good, existing, free or inexpensive panorama stitching programs (and the fact that not many people would actually need that feature nowadays because most modern cameras can do panorama's in-camera and often better than outside software can) it just wouldn't make economic sense for Corel to spend time and resources trying to integrate such a feature into PSP. And the existing programs and in-camera programs work better than the Photo-Paint stitcher because they auto align the images.

[jukka]

I would like to get a hotfix or servicepack to REMOVE the must hold shift for file save click! Not in X9 but in X8!
Or is there a workaround ? This is really making me crazy! Change something that is totally against every other app and every other workflow for decades.

[ADonahoo]

I would like to get a hotfix or servicepack to REMOVE the must hold shift for file save click! Not in X9 but in X8!
Or is there a workaround ? This is really making me crazy! Change something that is totally against every other app and every other workflow for decades.

When do you have to hold the shift key to save a file? I've never done that.

[Kathy_9]

When do you have to hold the shift key to save a file? I've never done that.

I think they are referring to bypassing the "save as" dialog box that appears when you click on "save".

BTW Levifiction has kindly created a script for that http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=57756

[hartpaul]

I think the point is that we should not have to use a work around for what Corel has stuffed up. The Save has worked the same for all versions up to X7 and then Corel goes and changes that feature to in effect eliminate the Save function and convert it into another Save As.

[Kathy_9]

Agreed but the workaround could help those who choose to use it until such time as Corel fixes it.

[Rick_R]

Two wishlist features:

1) Ability to save and load a set of adjustment and masking layers, to create a user-defined effect without having to record a script.

• I would prefer to be able to save any set of applied effects. But it looks like that would be pretty difficult to implement and so as a practical matter that would probably need to be done as a recorded script.

But it should be fairly simple to code that after the user has applied multiple masking and/or adjustment layers, s/he can click on those layers to select them, then right click and "Save as Adjustment Set". In the Layers drop-down and/or the Layers palette, have a "Load Adjustment Set" option that brings up a selection dialog of saved sets.

I tried using several Adjustment Layers and then deleting the image layer in the Layers palette, but the Delete choice gets grayed out. I figured that if you can save a bunch of Adjustment Layers without an actual image, it should be possible to just load the adjustment set like an image, then hi-lite that "image" and paste it into a real image.

2) Related to that, add the ability for users to upload and download saved adjustment sets to a "community" -- which would constantly add value to PSP.

[Rick_R]

I also just tried this:

• Add a raster layer and put a brush stroke on it.
• Add adjustment layers above the "stroke" layer.
• Delete the original visible image.
• Save the "stroke" layer and the adjustment layers as an "Adjustment Set".
• Close the Set file.

So far, that works. However, ...

• Load a different image.
• Load the "Adjustment Set".
• In the "Adjustment Set" select all, then Copy.
• Switch to the image file.
• Various types of paste. (Just paste, paste as new layer, etc.)

It pastes the "stroke" image with the the adjustment applied, as a single raster layer. The adjustment layers are not also pasted.

[daioros]

- A improve of speed if you're working with >20 megapixels photos.
It's quite frustating the slowness at this stage.

- An easy way to transform an "Adjustament Layer" to "Mask Layer". An option in the Right-click layer would be nice.

- Better help and lots of examples for advanced working with scripts, not just a mild reference to "learn Phython" without knowing how to interact with the PaintShop Pro program and his variables.

[hartpaul]

-

- An easy way to transform an "Adjustament Layer" to "Mask Layer". An option in the Right-click layer would be nice.

Not sure that this will be what you want.

I think of a mask layer as being an adjustment layer for Opacity. If you applied a Levels adjustment or a Vibrancy Adjustment and was able to convert that to a mask then you would lose the effect of the levels or vibrancy and finish with just another Mask (opacity mask).

But yes it would be nice to be able to copy or save the adjustment layer whether to disk or in the alpha channel and then be able to use that mask on another image and convert it to an adjustment layer for any of the adjustments and then be able to apply that to the same or another image without having to redraw the the masking / adjustment.