Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photo Editor Recommendations

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 30, 2005 7:56:56 PM

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

Hi All,

Was prepared to purchase Photoshop Elements 3 recently, but found that
PE3 does not run on Win98SE <sigh>.

Getting back to the drawing board now, I was wondering what the
consensus was between Elements 2 vs MS Digital Image 10 Suite vs
Ulead's PhotoImpact. All of them will run under Win98, so they should
be OK here. Anyone have any strong opinions?

Looking primarily for a photo editor, but photo management would be
nice. Looked at Picasa, but it appears to be a mgmt tool fist, with a
little editing included,

Thanks for all the help! Much appreciated!

Mike

PS -- No quite ready yet to upgrade my system to support the photo
editor. Better PC & XP wil come, but have some other priorities ahead
of it <grin>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:56:57 PM

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

Mike wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Was prepared to purchase Photoshop Elements 3 recently, but found that
> PE3 does not run on Win98SE <sigh>.
>
> Getting back to the drawing board now, I was wondering what the
> consensus was between Elements 2 vs MS Digital Image 10 Suite vs
> Ulead's PhotoImpact. All of them will run under Win98, so they should
> be OK here. Anyone have any strong opinions?
>
> Looking primarily for a photo editor, but photo management would be
> nice. Looked at Picasa, but it appears to be a mgmt tool fist, with a
> little editing included,
>
> Thanks for all the help! Much appreciated!
>
> Mike
>
I still have a couple of computers running Win 98SE and PhotoShop 7
runs great on them. 7 was a great improvement over 6. You can probably
still find a copy.
Corel Draw Graphics Suite may also be an option, I believe 11 or 12
runs on 98SE. If you can find a copy of PS7 definitely go that way.

Tom
> PS -- No quite ready yet to upgrade my system to support the photo
> editor. Better PC & XP wil come, but have some other priorities ahead
> of it <grin>
May 30, 2005 7:56:57 PM

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

"Mike" <fspilot_nospam@spambad_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9hdm915gkka73hhuim34k6ivspdg5n8ehn@4ax.com...
> Hi All,
>
> Was prepared to purchase Photoshop Elements 3 recently, but found that
> PE3 does not run on Win98SE <sigh>.
>
> Getting back to the drawing board now, I was wondering what the
> consensus was between Elements 2 vs MS Digital Image 10 Suite vs
> Ulead's PhotoImpact. All of them will run under Win98, so they should
> be OK here. Anyone have any strong opinions?
>
> Looking primarily for a photo editor, but photo management would be
> nice. Looked at Picasa, but it appears to be a mgmt tool fist, with a
> little editing included,
>
> Thanks for all the help! Much appreciated!
>
> Mike
>
> PS -- No quite ready yet to upgrade my system to support the photo
> editor. Better PC & XP wil come, but have some other priorities ahead
> of it <grin>

A program very similar to Photoshop is Paint Shop Pro by Jasc. Stick with
v8.0 or earlier. I started with PSP 6 and have all subsequent versions as
well as Photoshop CS. Not sure about Photoshop but I know there are alot of
PSP groups on the net that offer online tutorials/classes for free. Its
also not nearly so big a memory hog as Photoshop which you may find more
beneficial on an older OS.

--
Tara
Related resources
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:56:57 PM

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

I have a P4 1600mhz running Win98SE and I use Ulead Photo Impact 7 for most
of my editing. I also have Photoshop 5 and Corel Photo Paint but I find both
of those cumbersome.

I usually edit and clean up old family photographs and find Photo Impact to
be a very intuitive and capable tool.

BTW, lots of memory is more important than processor speed.

Allan


"Mike" <fspilot_nospam@spambad_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9hdm915gkka73hhuim34k6ivspdg5n8ehn@4ax.com...
> Hi All,
>
> Was prepared to purchase Photoshop Elements 3 recently, but found that
> PE3 does not run on Win98SE <sigh>.
>
> Getting back to the drawing board now, I was wondering what the
> consensus was between Elements 2 vs MS Digital Image 10 Suite vs
> Ulead's PhotoImpact. All of them will run under Win98, so they should
> be OK here. Anyone have any strong opinions?
>
> Looking primarily for a photo editor, but photo management would be
> nice. Looked at Picasa, but it appears to be a mgmt tool fist, with a
> little editing included,
>
> Thanks for all the help! Much appreciated!
>
> Mike
>
> PS -- No quite ready yet to upgrade my system to support the photo
> editor. Better PC & XP wil come, but have some other priorities ahead
> of it <grin>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:56:57 PM

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

Mike wrote:

> Anyone have any strong opinions?

Any photo editor should work in 16-bit mode. If you shoot only
jpegs, convert to 16-bit, do your editing, and then if you
want to save disk space, convert back to 8-bit. If you edit
in 8-bits/channel, any editing posterizes and you effectively
only get 7-bits or worse. In a few years, I bet most editors will
be 16-bit. Right now, to my knowledge, it is pretty much
photochop CS, ImagesPlus and scientific software.

Roger Clark
Photos, digital info at:
http://www.clarkvision.com
May 30, 2005 7:56:58 PM

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

Here's a link to the product I was talking about. For $79 you can get the
Studio version which is Paint Shop Pro, the editor similar to Photoshop,
bundled with the Photo Album. I've always gotten both. It appears that
version 9, the latest, will run on 98SE. I want to say that some
compatibility with Photoshop was lost in v9 and by that I'm thinking
primarily of tubes. I'm sure you can find new & unopened v8 on Ebay. I
have 9 but haven't installed it as I'm partial to 8.

http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/...

--
Tara
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:03:52 PM

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

How about an older version of Photoshop? Essentially, it's still the same
package as CS but far more powerful than any version of Elements.
May 30, 2005 8:14:54 PM

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

"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message news:BEC0F7E2.15FE0%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> How about an older version of Photoshop? Essentially, it's still the same
> package as CS but far more powerful than any version of Elements.

That would be my suggestion as well. PS6 or 7 has infinitely
more power and flexibility and can be had for cheap now that
PS CS and CS2 have been released.
May 30, 2005 8:15:55 PM

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

If your computer can run XP you really should upgrade as many programs will
no longer run earlier versions of WIndows and this will get worse over time.
Otherwise PSE2 is a relatively powerful image editor with color management
and much, but not all, of the functionality of Photoshop 6.
The advantage of being able to run Elements 3 is that E3 has a raw converter
and certain other enhancements for digital camera imaging along with catalog
features.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:56:48 PM

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

Mike <fspilot_nospam@spambad_hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Was prepared to purchase Photoshop Elements 3 recently, but found that
> PE3 does not run on Win98SE <sigh>.

The GIMP.

<http://gimp.org/windows/&gt;
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 11:33:21 AM

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any strong opinions?
>
> Any photo editor should work in 16-bit mode. If you shoot only
> jpegs, convert to 16-bit, do your editing, and then if you
> want to save disk space, convert back to 8-bit. If you edit
> in 8-bits/channel, any editing posterizes and you effectively
> only get 7-bits or worse. In a few years, I bet most editors will
> be 16-bit. Right now, to my knowledge, it is pretty much
> photochop CS, ImagesPlus and scientific software.

And Picture Window (Pro), which has been fully 16-bit for years. Its model
of doing things is completely different from Photoshop's, but it's zippy
fast and has some nice features (I like its curves dialog better than PS's,
since it shows both input and output histograms).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 1:29:05 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
> And Picture Window (Pro), which has been fully 16-bit for years. Its
> model of doing things is completely different from Photoshop's, but
> it's zippy fast and has some nice features (I like its curves dialog
> better than PS's, since it shows both input and output histograms).
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Paint Shop Pro 9 also shows both input and output histograms.

David
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 11:06:53 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> []
>> And Picture Window (Pro), which has been fully 16-bit for years. Its
>> model of doing things is completely different from Photoshop's, but
>> it's zippy fast and has some nice features (I like its curves dialog
>> better than PS's, since it shows both input and output histograms).
>
> Paint Shop Pro 9 also shows both input and output histograms.

Great!

Actually, the latest Photoshop may as well*. Resting on one's laurels is a
bad idea in this business...

*: I seem to recall some muttering about this somewhere. But I won't be
upgrading: the activation BS is too off-putting.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:44:56 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> []
>
>>And Picture Window (Pro), which has been fully 16-bit for years. Its
>>model of doing things is completely different from Photoshop's, but
>>it's zippy fast and has some nice features (I like its curves dialog
>>better than PS's, since it shows both input and output histograms).
>>
>>David J. Littleboy
>>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
> Paint Shop Pro 9 also shows both input and output histograms.
>
> David
>
>

David and David,
This is good news.

When you say both input and output histograms, photoshop CS shows
them both superimposed on each other so you can see the change.
Is this what you mean? I would also like to see all histograms
(RGB and luminance) as separate plots at the same time.

I would like to see the option for showing a cumulative histogram.
Also needed are the minimum and maximum data values (should show
RGB and luminance). The curves tool should have a histogram
(toggle regular/cumulative) superimposed under the curves tool.
This histograms should be scalable so you can see what is going on
at the low end.
I have all this this at work in software we made and it is a great tool
(but dated--only works on 8-bit x-windows), but it does do 8-bit,
16-bit and 32-bit integers and 32-bit floating point.

Roger
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:02:19 PM

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

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Paint Shop Pro 9 also shows both input and output histograms.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
> David and David,
> This is good news.
>
> When you say both input and output histograms, photoshop CS shows
> them both superimposed on each other so you can see the change.
> Is this what you mean? I would also like to see all histograms
> (RGB and luminance) as separate plots at the same time.
>
> I would like to see the option for showing a cumulative histogram.
> Also needed are the minimum and maximum data values (should show
> RGB and luminance). The curves tool should have a histogram
> (toggle regular/cumulative) superimposed under the curves tool.
> This histograms should be scalable so you can see what is going on
> at the low end.
> I have all this this at work in software we made and it is a great
> tool (but dated--only works on 8-bit x-windows), but it does do 8-bit,
> 16-bit and 32-bit integers and 32-bit floating point.
>
> Roger

With Paint Shop Pro, the input and output histograms are superimposed.
Neither RGB nor cumulative histograms are available (as far as I know).
The max & min values are shown, but you can't expand the display to see
the low end. Given that you are working in the gamma-corrected (log)
domain (say when editing JPEGs), I'm not sure that's required, although it
clearly /is/ required for 16-bit or linear domain operations.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 4:36:29 PM

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:429D2128.3020006@qwest.net...
SNIP
> I would like to see the option for showing a cumulative histogram.

Yes, I second that. It can help a lot with tonemapping (also with HDR
conversion).

> Also needed are the minimum and maximum data values (should show RGB
> and luminance). The curves tool should have a histogram (toggle
> regular/cumulative) superimposed under the curves tool.

Yes, that would allow to have a somewhat larger histogram display as
well.

> This histograms should be scalable so you can see what is going on
> at the low end.

Or allow a logarithmic display of the bin quantities. I use that
option as a default with my VueScan scanning software.

Bart
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 10:21:49 PM

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> When you say both input and output histograms, photoshop CS shows
> them both superimposed on each other so you can see the change.
> Is this what you mean? I would also like to see all histograms
> (RGB and luminance) as separate plots at the same time.

I've not seen this latter functionality. PWP shows the input and output
histograms separately, not superimposed.

See the bottom of this page.

http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 7:29:19 AM

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

Mike <fspilot_nospam@spambad_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:9hdm915gkka73hhuim34k6ivspdg5n8ehn@4ax.com:

Try Photo-Brush (free for 30 days) or the Gimp (just plain free):

PhotoBrush:
http://www.mediachance.com/

Gimp for MS Wind:
http://www.gimp.org/windows/

> Hi All,
>
> Was prepared to purchase Photoshop Elements 3 recently, but
> found that PE3 does not run on Win98SE <sigh>.
>
> Getting back to the drawing board now, I was wondering what the
> consensus was between Elements 2 vs MS Digital Image 10 Suite vs
> Ulead's PhotoImpact. All of them will run under Win98, so they
> should be OK here. Anyone have any strong opinions?
>
> Looking primarily for a photo editor, but photo management would
> be nice. Looked at Picasa, but it appears to be a mgmt tool
> fist, with a little editing included,
>
> Thanks for all the help! Much appreciated!
>
> Mike
>
> PS -- No quite ready yet to upgrade my system to support the
> photo editor. Better PC & XP wil come, but have some other
> priorities ahead of it <grin>
June 6, 2005 7:34:35 AM

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

I am also in the market for a photo editor. I really like Photoshop
CS, but one glitch; it strips any information I added about the photo
and locks me out of adding it back. I think they call it metadata. It
would be the name, comments about where it was shot, etc. that can be
viewed when in Windows File Explorer.

I know there differing views as to whether adding this sort of data to
a photo, but I like the concept.

Those of you in to scanning and archiving of photos, what is the best
way to organize the photos along with the related information? I would
prefer to keep the info attached to each photograph.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:01:06 AM

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

About metadata, there is the standard way and the Microsoft way.
The standard way is called IPTC (www.iptc.org) and Photoshop CS is 100%
with it as almost any other photo editind or organizing application.

For organizing my pics I use fotoware fotostation.
http://www.fotostation.com/


Photo-Plugins
www.photo-plugins.com


Growler wrote:
> I am also in the market for a photo editor. I really like Photoshop
> CS, but one glitch; it strips any information I added about the photo
> and locks me out of adding it back. I think they call it metadata. It
> would be the name, comments about where it was shot, etc. that can be
> viewed when in Windows File Explorer.
>
> I know there differing views as to whether adding this sort of data to
> a photo, but I like the concept.
>
> Those of you in to scanning and archiving of photos, what is the best
> way to organize the photos along with the related information? I would
> prefer to keep the info attached to each photograph.
>
June 10, 2005 6:20:17 AM

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

What's the chance of losing the IPTC info at a later date?

One thing that would be helpful would be a program that took all your
photos and exported the filename with the IPTC (if this is the
"standard") info in some sort of delimited format. That way if
something caused the information to be removed from the photo it would
not be lost.

An additional benefit would be to be able to import the same info at a
later date.

Is this already possible or am I whistling Dixie?
!