Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Corel Photo Paint v. Photoshop Elements

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 10:41:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would be .interested in views on how Photo Paint 11 compares to Adobe
Photoshop Elements
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 11:47:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PhotoPaint is closer to the full-blown version of PhotoShop than it is to
Elements.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 6:20:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Celtic Boar notes:

>PhotoPaint is closer to the full-blown version of PhotoShop than it is to
>Elements

True, but a lot cheaper. I'm now using PS Pro 9, a change from Elements 2, and
am very much pleased with the lower level of effort needed to imporve my
photos. PS Pro is easier to use in just about every way.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000
Related resources
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I used Photopaint for several years but switched to Photoshop. Photopaint
allows full color management just as Photoshop as well as most of the same
image manipulation tools. However Photoshop, as complex as it is, is
relatively more straightforward in its command structure and in learning
operations. Photopaint has a few built in filters that are actually superior
to what Photoshop offers. Photopaint comes packaged with Draw and a few
other programs that make the whole package a real bargain. Photopaint does
not offer the kind of support for digital camera images that CS contains
and, according to Corel, there are no plans to offer these for Photopaint. I
suspect that Paintshop Pro, now owned by Corel, will supplant Photopaint in
the Corel Draw package.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:54:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bmoag wrote:
> I used Photopaint for several years but switched to Photoshop. Photopaint
> allows full color management just as Photoshop as well as most of the same
> image manipulation tools. However Photoshop, as complex as it is, is
> relatively more straightforward in its command structure and in learning
> operations. Photopaint has a few built in filters that are actually superior
> to what Photoshop offers. Photopaint comes packaged with Draw and a few
> other programs that make the whole package a real bargain. Photopaint does
> not offer the kind of support for digital camera images that CS contains
> and, according to Corel, there are no plans to offer these for Photopaint. I
> suspect that Paintshop Pro, now owned by Corel, will supplant Photopaint in
> the Corel Draw package.
>
>
I have used (or tried to) several Corel applications in the past, and
ended up deleting them. It seems that the way I want to work just isn't
possible with Corel software. Everyone has a different way of doing
thing, and Corel and I just don't go at things the same way. I can
bludgeon PSE 3 into doing most of what I want, even though it might
force me to rethink the order, or method, sometimes. I have a definite
love-hate relationship with the Organizer function of PSE3.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 8:08:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Because it is a part of the Corel Graphics Suite, it is aimed at
professional graphics artists. There are no wizards to speak of, there is
superb color management, there is a really useful and powerful cutout tool
not found in other editors, and there is not one but TWO different scripting
languages (i.e. Adobe actions)!

There is the original Corelscript, which longtime CGS users are familiar
with, and there is Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (a subset of VB
proper). What this means, is that Photopaint automation can be incorporated
into cross application MS Office and Corel Office work flows. For instance,
you could create a work flow to retrieve a photo from disk, auto correct
contrast - levels - color, etc., and then auto paste it into a PowerPoint
presentation or brochure (or webpage, for that matter). Even if you never
need cross application automation, the incredible programmability of
Photopaint with VBA opens up a whole new level of "actions" only dreamed of
in the past.

It's the difference between a tricycle and the kind of bike that Lance
Armstrong would ride.

Corel seems to be drifting away from Macintosh support, I think you can
still get a Mac version of CGS 11, however it isn't clear to me that CGS 12
has Mac support. This trend may, or may not be reversed in the future.
Some well heeled investors bought Corel last year and then Corel bought JASC
(Paint Shop Pro) a couple of months ago.

<rmacnabs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106970087.965578.243250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I would be .interested in views on how Photo Paint 11 compares to Adobe
> Photoshop Elements
>
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 8:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In my opinion, the support for downloading images directly from a camera is
a useless function for a professional level editor. It has been my
experience that at some point, most photographers (at least those who shoot
a lot of photos and fill multiple media cards) stop downloading directly
from the camera and use a card reader. Besides, since WinME forward, the
WIA function built into Windows, makes application specific camera drivers
redundant.

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gdPKd.17760$wZ2.7713@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> I used Photopaint for several years but switched to Photoshop. Photopaint
> allows full color management just as Photoshop as well as most of the same
> image manipulation tools. However Photoshop, as complex as it is, is
> relatively more straightforward in its command structure and in learning
> operations. Photopaint has a few built in filters that are actually
superior
> to what Photoshop offers. Photopaint comes packaged with Draw and a few
> other programs that make the whole package a real bargain. Photopaint does
> not offer the kind of support for digital camera images that CS contains
> and, according to Corel, there are no plans to offer these for Photopaint.
I
> suspect that Paintshop Pro, now owned by Corel, will supplant Photopaint
in
> the Corel Draw package.
>
>
January 29, 2005 10:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would even rather have Corel Photo Paint 10 then Photoshop Elements
The USM works better with Photo Paint 10 then the one in Photoshop 5,6, or 7

<rmacnabs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106970087.965578.243250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I would be .interested in views on how Photo Paint 11 compares to Adobe
> Photoshop Elements
>
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 11:44:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I prefer photo paint to photoshop. Not elements, photoshop itself. I
have both, but I do almost everything I need to do in photopaint, and
have been for years. Photopaint is easier to use from my standpoint, and
for the most part, have not found anything I can do in one that I can't
do in the other.

YoYo wrote:
> I would even rather have Corel Photo Paint 10 then Photoshop Elements
> The USM works better with Photo Paint 10 then the one in Photoshop 5,6, or 7
>
> <rmacnabs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106970087.965578.243250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I would be .interested in views on how Photo Paint 11 compares to Adobe
>>Photoshop Elements
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:56:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1107049453.0c6d7d976bba0aca944880be7b1a9337@teranews>, w@w.com
says...
>
>I prefer photo paint to photoshop. Not elements, photoshop itself. I
>have both, but I do almost everything I need to do in photopaint, and
>have been for years. Photopaint is easier to use from my standpoint, and
>for the most part, have not found anything I can do in one that I can't
>do in the other.

Have to admit the last PhotoPaint I used was 8 and working with big images it
just didn't have the memory management that Photoshop has. With Photoshop I can
work all day and never have the computer lock up, With Photopaint I'd do one
big image (say 30x40 inches x 300ppi) and I'd expand another one and my machine
would always lock unless I exited photopaint and restarted it. I do like Corel
Draw, feel it is more intuative than Illustrator.

Tom
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:57:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ctjakv1tb3@enews4.newsguy.com>,
tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote:

>Have to admit the last PhotoPaint I used was 8 and working with big images it
>just didn't have the memory management that Photoshop has. With Photoshop I can
>work all day and never have the computer lock up, With Photopaint I'd do one
>big image (say 30x40 inches x 300ppi) and I'd expand another one and my machine
>would always lock unless I exited photopaint and restarted it.

That could have a lot to do with your virtual memory settings, and file
cache settings, especially in the Win9x/ME OSes, all of which have
problems with the defaults, and all of which have popular "solutions"
that do more harm than good.

Limiting the size of the swapfile is almost always a bad idea; the best
performance is had when you purposely set the minimum size *large*, and
in Win98 and ME, don't use the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" switch. My
last Win98 machine had a permanent swapfile size of 2GB. My current
Win2k and XP machines have minimums of 2GB and 4GB (from combined
pagefiles on multiple hard disks).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:57:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've never had that problem with Photopaint (which isn't to say it never
crashes, but Photoshop will crash occasionally too). I think that both
Corel programs are way ahead of the Adobe stuff in ease of use. I can do
things in Corel that seems to take hours extra time in either Photoshop
or Illustrator. COuld be just because I'm more used to it. Illustrator
in particular has always seemed 100 times more complicated than it needs
to be. Most of the graphics and photo retouching on my website were
done either with Photopaint or Coreldraw. There is only one file on it
that was made in Photoshop 7, and it's been so long since I did it, I
can't remember why. I occasionally will use Photoshop just to stay
familiar with it. http://www.toyrobotgraphics.com
Btw, Corel is up to version 12 now, definitely better than 8, so if
you're thinking of upgrading, I would.

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <ctjakv1tb3@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote:
>
>
>>Have to admit the last PhotoPaint I used was 8 and working with big images it
>>just didn't have the memory management that Photoshop has. With Photoshop I can
>>work all day and never have the computer lock up, With Photopaint I'd do one
>>big image (say 30x40 inches x 300ppi) and I'd expand another one and my machine
>>would always lock unless I exited photopaint and restarted it.
>
>
> That could have a lot to do with your virtual memory settings, and file
> cache settings, especially in the Win9x/ME OSes, all of which have
> problems with the defaults, and all of which have popular "solutions"
> that do more harm than good.
>
> Limiting the size of the swapfile is almost always a bad idea; the best
> performance is had when you purposely set the minimum size *large*, and
> in Win98 and ME, don't use the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" switch. My
> last Win98 machine had a permanent swapfile size of 2GB. My current
> Win2k and XP machines have minimums of 2GB and 4GB (from combined
> pagefiles on multiple hard disks).
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:34:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

As i said before I like Corel Draw, it does seem much esier than Illustrator,
familiarity does have a lot to do with it. But I like Photoshop it just works
for me. When you are in the upgrade path it doesn't take that big of a bite.
Upgradeing Corel has occurred to me but I just don't use vector based programs
that much any more. Nice thing about photoshop there are always friends where I
can exchange information.

Tom

In article <1107133791.4c6f432b405c619b3781ff27ea77bf2f@teranews>, w@w.com
says...
>
>I've never had that problem with Photopaint (which isn't to say it never
>crashes, but Photoshop will crash occasionally too). I think that both
>Corel programs are way ahead of the Adobe stuff in ease of use. I can do
>things in Corel that seems to take hours extra time in either Photoshop
>or Illustrator. COuld be just because I'm more used to it. Illustrator
>in particular has always seemed 100 times more complicated than it needs
>to be. Most of the graphics and photo retouching on my website were
>done either with Photopaint or Coreldraw. There is only one file on it
>that was made in Photoshop 7, and it's been so long since I did it, I
>can't remember why. I occasionally will use Photoshop just to stay
>familiar with it. http://www.toyrobotgraphics.com
> Btw, Corel is up to version 12 now, definitely better than 8, so if
>you're thinking of upgrading, I would.
>
>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <ctjakv1tb3@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have to admit the last PhotoPaint I used was 8 and working with big images
it
>>>just didn't have the memory management that Photoshop has. With Photoshop I
can
>>>work all day and never have the computer lock up, With Photopaint I'd do one
>>>big image (say 30x40 inches x 300ppi) and I'd expand another one and my
machine
>>>would always lock unless I exited photopaint and restarted it.
>>
>>
>> That could have a lot to do with your virtual memory settings, and file
>> cache settings, especially in the Win9x/ME OSes, all of which have
>> problems with the defaults, and all of which have popular "solutions"
>> that do more harm than good.
>>
>> Limiting the size of the swapfile is almost always a bad idea; the best
>> performance is had when you purposely set the minimum size *large*, and
>> in Win98 and ME, don't use the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" switch. My
>> last Win98 machine had a permanent swapfile size of 2GB. My current
>> Win2k and XP machines have minimums of 2GB and 4GB (from combined
>> pagefiles on multiple hard disks).
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:42:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <ctjakv1tb3@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote:
>
>
>>Have to admit the last PhotoPaint I used was 8 and working with big images it
>>just didn't have the memory management that Photoshop has. With Photoshop I can
>>work all day and never have the computer lock up, With Photopaint I'd do one
>>big image (say 30x40 inches x 300ppi) and I'd expand another one and my machine
>>would always lock unless I exited photopaint and restarted it.
>
>
> That could have a lot to do with your virtual memory settings, and file
> cache settings, especially in the Win9x/ME OSes, all of which have
> problems with the defaults, and all of which have popular "solutions"
> that do more harm than good.
>
> Limiting the size of the swapfile is almost always a bad idea; the best
> performance is had when you purposely set the minimum size *large*, and
> in Win98 and ME, don't use the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" switch. My
> last Win98 machine had a permanent swapfile size of 2GB. My current
> Win2k and XP machines have minimums of 2GB and 4GB (from combined
> pagefiles on multiple hard disks).

A permanent swapfile will, at least, eliminate the problem with the
swapfile becoming fragmented with use. The real solution is to add more
ram if the swapfile gets regular use with large applications.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!