Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Jasc PhotoShopPro, Elements 3.0 or ACDSee 7.0 Powerpack ?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 14, 2005 6:13:20 PM

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

Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those of
you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
jpeg. format).
Thanks.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 6:13:21 PM

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

Give Corel Photopaint a try (I think
they have a trial version), I still use
version 10 and it beats Adobe 5,6,7 and
Elements in sharpening, printing,
compression and speed to my eyes.


"Tech" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08...
> Just getting into digital photography
and am trying out the trial versions
> of these three programs. Would
appreciate any additional input from
those of
> you who have experience with either of
them. I am using a D70s (shooting
> jpeg. format).
> Thanks.
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 6:13:21 PM

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

>Tech writes ...
>
>Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
>of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those of
>you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
>jpeg. format).

For just doing the basic image editing tasks with jpegs and printing at
Wal-Mart or Costco all three of these (or half a dozen others) should
do OK once you learn their quirks. You are doing it the right way,
trying out trial versions to see which one 'feels' best for you.
However there are things you might consider as your skills increase and
you need more from a program later on (you have a nice camera),
especially once you start shooting RAW (NEF) instead of jpegs.

I know Elements and PSP a little and ACDSee not at all, but based on
what I've seen I would choose Elements over PSP for these four reasons.

1) Sooner or later most people want to try the best, which is
Photoshop, and Elements is a stripped down version of Photoshop so
learning Elements will make any future move to Photoshop easier. Also,
occasionally Adobe offers registered Elements users a relatively cheap
Photoshop upgrade, as low as $200 a couple of years back IIRC.

2) Elements has some 16 bit/channel support while PSP does not, PSP is
limited to just 8 bits/channel. This doesn't matter at all for your
jpegs but it will matter for RAW files, which can be converted as 16
bit files. Usually you can do fine with 8 bits but occasionally you'll
need to edit the heck out of a file (got the exposure wrong or white
balance or something) and the more edits you make the more you need 16
bits/channel.

3) PSP has very weak ICM color management support, with only sRGB
supported as a 'working space'. sRGB is fine for web images and
Wal-Mart type prints but has a much smaller color gamut (range of
colors) than other working spaces, like AdobeRGB. Elements 3 supports
both sRGB and AdobeRGB (it calls sRGB 'web space' and AdobeRGB 'printer
space') so you can move from AdobeRGB down to sRGB if you need to
(typically for outputting to the web), but you can't go the other way.
If you ever hope to submit work to a magazine or print with fullest
quality on the better photo inkjets or the high end laser printers from
Chromira or LightJet then you'll appreciate the extra gamut of
AdobeRGB.

4) You could argue that the above three aren't all that important to
many people, who don't aspire to Photoshop, don't feel they need 16
bits/channel or only print on the lowest level printers so don't need
wider gamut working spaces, but it's hard to argue with this last point
.... if you open a file with a working space other than sRGB in PSP then
the profile is dropped (ignored) and the colors are assumed to be in
sRGB, meaning saturated colors are represented wrong. In other words,
your colors get screwed up ... and when the file is saved the sRGB tag
is applied. Better behaved programs like Elements will convert the
color info from one working space to the other (which is the only way
to do it and still keep colors correct). There is no excuse for PSP
doing something destructive to color files like this.

So if you are happy working only in sRGB mode with 8 bit files and
don't care if any non-sRGB tagged files you import from someone else
get their color info garbled then PSP might be perfect for you. But if
you might want to work with Photoshop some day, or use 16 bits/channel
or work in other than a bare minimal gamut working space like sRGB and
don't want your other tagged files corrupted then Elements 3 is a
better choice.

Bill
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 6:13:22 PM

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

John,
Odd. Professional studios, photo shops, etc. all use Photoshop.
I guess they haven't been told about the merits of Corel Paint ;-)
Cheers,
Marcel


"John_B" <photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com> wrote in message
news:42d678e8$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
> Give Corel Photopaint a try (I think
> they have a trial version), I still use
> version 10 and it beats Adobe 5,6,7 and
> Elements in sharpening, printing,
> compression and speed to my eyes.
>
>
> "Tech" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08...
> > Just getting into digital photography
> and am trying out the trial versions
> > of these three programs. Would
> appreciate any additional input from
> those of
> > you who have experience with either of
> them. I am using a D70s (shooting
> > jpeg. format).
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 7:04:17 PM

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

In article <4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08>, no@spam.com says...
> Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
> of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those of
> you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
> jpeg. format).
> Thanks.
>
>
>

Having used Elements, Photoshop, and now PaintShopPro, I can say all 3
have a learning curve steepness depending on one's ability to pick up
the nuances and comfort with the process.

That said, I personally prefer PaintShopPro because many of its
automatic settings render better results (in my eyes) than those in
Elements or Photoshop. Both PaintShop and Elements aren't too hard to
figure out how to use the products on a superficial level but additional
guidance/tutorials would be helpful for more in depth knowledge. There
are many more 3rd party books for Elements/Photoshop than for
PaintShopPro v 9.

Just my .02

Paula
July 14, 2005 7:04:18 PM

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

Paula Sims wrote:
> In article <4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08>, no@spam.com says...
>
>>Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
>>of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those of
>>you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
>>jpeg. format).
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Having used Elements, Photoshop, and now PaintShopPro, I can say all 3
> have a learning curve steepness depending on one's ability to pick up
> the nuances and comfort with the process.
>
> That said, I personally prefer PaintShopPro because many of its
> automatic settings render better results (in my eyes) than those in
> Elements or Photoshop. Both PaintShop and Elements aren't too hard to
> figure out how to use the products on a superficial level but additional
> guidance/tutorials would be helpful for more in depth knowledge. There
> are many more 3rd party books for Elements/Photoshop than for
> PaintShopPro v 9.
>
> Just my .02
>
> Paula

A very helpful site for PSP users is at http://www.campratty.com/. There is also a
helpful users group, and more information, at
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/....
As others have said the easy one-click functions in PSP are very effective. You can
start with that, and pick up other skills as you need them.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 7:04:18 PM

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

Paula Sims wrote:
> In article <4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08>, no@spam.com says...
>
>>Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
>>of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those of
>>you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
>>jpeg. format).
>
> Having used Elements, Photoshop, and now PaintShopPro, I can say all 3
> have a learning curve steepness depending on one's ability to pick up
> the nuances and comfort with the process.
>
> That said, I personally prefer PaintShopPro because many of its
> automatic settings render better results (in my eyes) than those in
> Elements or Photoshop. Both PaintShop and Elements aren't too hard to
> figure out how to use the products on a superficial level but additional
> guidance/tutorials would be helpful for more in depth knowledge. There
> are many more 3rd party books for Elements/Photoshop than for
> PaintShopPro v 9.
>

If you feel there's a good chance you will carry your initial digital
experiments forward into a fairly full blown passion, one consideration
is the learning curve in Elements; it's mostly transferrable to
Photoshop CS when, if and as you step up to that. If you are thinking of
going Pro, you may as well start with Photoshop now. Take a class or two.

OTOH, you're on the right track trying each out.

Best of luck.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:41:11 PM

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

In article <4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08>, no@spam.com says...
> Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
> of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those of
> you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
> jpeg. format).
> Thanks.
>
>
I haven't used PSP, but I use both Elements 2 and ACDSee 7 Powerpack.
For basic editing you can't go wrong with either of these progrmams. My
nephew has Elements 3, but I don't like it. It looks like they tried to
make it look "pretty". Elements has enough overhead without the added
eye candy.

If all you want to do is basic editing then I would go with ACDSee.

If you plan on more advanced editing you might want to consider
Photoshop Elements. Elements (and PSP too I think) allow you to create
layers witch is handy if you want to combine exposures. I did this with
some of my fireworks shots to create a stunning picture.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:24:57 AM

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

"Tech" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:4quBe.9540$C15.4050@trnddc08...
> Just getting into digital photography and am trying out the trial versions
> of these three programs. Would appreciate any additional input from those
> of
> you who have experience with either of them. I am using a D70s (shooting
> jpeg. format).
> Thanks.
>
Paint Shop Pro is owned by Corel Corporation now. When you run the trial you
downloaded from Corel, you will see the start screen stating Corel Paint
Shop Pro 9.

You are doing the right thing by trying all three. This way you can find the
one that meets your needs best.

For me, PSP 9 has been the best, but I do a lot more than just photography,
and even then most of the time I get the settings right on the camera so I
don't need to edit the photographs afterwards. For those photos that do need
some minor tonal corrections I use Raw Shooter Essentials (also by Corel in
partnership with Pixmantec) which is a free Raw Converter with built in
correction features. Very nice; getting better each version, plus it is
free! It works seamlessly with the Corel line of image editors including
CorelDraw/PhotoPaint, and the Paint Shop product line.


Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:28:48 AM

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

"John_B" <photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com> wrote in message
news:42d678e8$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
> Give Corel Photopaint a try (I think
> they have a trial version), I still use
> version 10 and it beats Adobe 5,6,7 and
> Elements in sharpening, printing,
> compression and speed to my eyes.
>

Is Corel PhotoPaint available as a separate purchase? I thought it was only
available as part of the CorelDraw 12 Graphics Suite. Personally I much
prefer Corel Paint Shop Pro 9 over Corel PhotoPaint, but I love Corel
Draw12! Its vectors are much better than Paint Shop Pro's, and equal to
Adobe Illustrator.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:31:55 AM

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

"Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:11dd4e0kppfun03@corp.supernews.com...
>
> A very helpful site for PSP users is at http://www.campratty.com/. There
> is also a helpful users group, and more information, at
> http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/....
> As others have said the easy one-click functions in PSP are very
> effective. You can start with that, and pick up other skills as you need
> them.

Campratty is wonder, as is http://www.psplinks.com Last time I looked there
were links to over 11,000 Paint Shop Pro (and Animation Shop on a much
smaller scale) tutorials online, all free.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:06:46 AM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121361775.341723.262390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I know Elements and PSP a little and ACDSee not at all, but based on
> what I've seen I would choose Elements over PSP for these four reasons.
>

'A little' can't be emphasized enough, considering in a previous post you
tried PSP (you couldn't remember if it was version 7 or 8, and didn't seem
to even know PSP 9 existed) for all of 30 minutes. In that time you couldn't
figure out how to open a 16-bit TIFF file, and insisted that PSP couldn't
open them. Now you seem to feel you are some sort of expert on what it can
or cannot do.

>2) Elements has some 16 bit/channel support while PSP does not, PSP is
>limited to just 8 bits/channel. This doesn't matter at all for your
>jpegs but it will matter for RAW files, which can be converted as 16
>bit files. Usually you can do fine with 8 bits but occasionally you'll
>need to edit the heck out of a file (got the exposure wrong or white
>balance or something) and the more edits you make the more you need 16
>bits/channel.
>

Really? Before giving people advice on the relationship between RAW and
16-bit and tonal adjustment it would be wise if you first gain an
understanding of how RAW works, and what it does with shooting data. You're
speaking the techno babble, but not quite sure how it all fits together yet.
Plus people use 16-bit to do tonal adjustments, and curves is the most
heavily used tool to adjust the tonality in a photography. Elements 3 still
doesn't have curves having 16-bit is sort of an ironic joke at the expense
of users. I don't remember for certain but I'm pretty sure Elements 3
doesn't have adjustment layers either.
>
>3) PSP has very weak ICM color management support, with only sRGB
>supported as a 'working space'. sRGB is fine for web images and
>Wal-Mart type prints but has a much smaller color gamut (range of
>colors) than other working spaces, like AdobeRGB. Elements 3 supports
>both sRGB and AdobeRGB (it calls sRGB 'web space' and AdobeRGB 'printer
>space') so you can move from AdobeRGB down to sRGB if you need to
>(typically for outputting to the web), but you can't go the other way.
>If you ever hope to submit work to a magazine or print with fullest
>quality on the better photo inkjets or the high end laser printers from
>Chromira or LightJet then you'll appreciate the extra gamut of
>AdobeRGB.>

Paint Shop Pro is weak on the color space side of things, but then again
most people who have to ask which software they should use don't have the
hardware to do the necessary color calibrations anyway, and most likely have
inkjet printers that are limited to sRGB. In this case PSP is perfect for
them, nothing to get confused over. Any one who calibrates using 'eye
determined' software may as well not bother since it is the least accurate
method, and often defeats the whole color management purpose (getting as
close to exact as possible...exact is never possible). If your calibration
is cheap than your concern for profiling is moot.

Your comment on 'cheap printers' that cannot print aRGB is laughable since
the large majority of consumer inkjets use the sRGB gamut, and well most
consumer level photographers use those inkjets. They can work in 16-bit all
they want, but they better be willing to toss out the dollars on
professional level printers to make it worth their while. Let's not forget
that 16-bit is also much more resource intensive so they have better invest
in better computers with more ram, faster harddrives, and learn how to set
up a scratch disk. I see it now, all these people who are looking to spend
$100 or less on software are now going to rush out and splurg hundreds of
dollars on a good calibration spider, hundreds more on a printer that
supports the aRGB color space, a thousand or more on a digital camera that
supports aRGB, and yet another $1000+ on a computer to support the whole
process. Hmmm, yeah I see it.


Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:05:52 PM

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

>>Bill Hilton wrote
>>
>> I know Elements and PSP a little and ACDSee not at all

>Linda N replies ...
>
>'A little' can't be emphasized enough

Gee, a little touchy since I've criticized your favorite software? I'm
an expert level Photoshop user (passed the "Adobe Certified Expert"
exam) so I don't use these stripped down programs often, which is why I
said "a little" ... did you want me to put it in bold italics?

Anyway, a friend in Holland is trying to learn digital and has E 3 and
I just got a free copy with a Wacom tablet, so I loaded a copy and I've
been using it to teach him simple things. That's my only experience
with E 3. And my experience with PSP is with V 7 2 1/2 years ago (I
looked up the invoice for my computer, which I received Jan 19, 2003
with a free 30 day trial of PSP). As I mentioned before I thought PSP
7 was awful given my files are tagged with Ektaspace or AdobeRGB and
PSP doesn't recognize them, ruining the color info by simply putting a
different tag for sRGB on them (bad programming). Also my scans and
digital camera files are 12 or 14 bit/channel and PSP has no support
for those either. So to me it is a worthless program (Elements has
some 16 bit support and doesn't strip tags so it's not). It's
surprising to me that almost three years and two revisions later PSP 9
has the same shortcomings that convinced me to delete V 7 ... you'd
think it would improve over the years.

Given all that I listed four reasons for intermediate to advanced
photographers to pick Elements 3 over PSP 7. I don't hear you
disputing those reasons, just making attacks.

>Now you seem to feel you are some sort of expert on what it can
>or cannot do.

Actually, according to Adobe, I *am* an expert on imaging software, or
at least on Photoshop (which is good enough for me). It took me just a
couple of minutes to figure out what PSP cannot do, fatal flaws for
advanced users. As to what it CAN do better than Elements, perhaps you
can tell us instead of attacking me?

>Before giving people advice on the relationship between RAW and
>16-bit and tonal adjustment it would be wise if you first gain an
>understanding of how RAW works

Would you care to elaborate? I have four different RAW converters on
my computer (including the one bundled with PSP) and use them all
occasionally, and the best one almost every day. All my digital
photography is done in RAW mode with Canon Professional cameras (1Ds
and 1D Mark II). I'm certain I have a high level of "understanding of
how RAW works". The point of what I said was that with a RAW converter
you can generate 16 bit/channel files, which PSP cannot work on, so if
you are shooting RAW it's all the more reason to avoid this program. I
*think* what you're trying to imply is that you can do the 16 bit
editing in RAW mode, then convert to 8 bits (ie, a file even PSP
recognizes) when you generate the tiff, which is an OK point, but many
of us still prefer to generate a 16 bit file from the converter since
there are still a lot of things you can do in Photoshop that you can't
do in the converter (like local changes with masking, for a simple
example).

>You're speaking the techno babble,

I am? I thought it was all so clear ...

>but not quite sure how it all fits together yet.

Oh, I'm real sure of how it all fits together :) 

>I don't remember for certain but I'm pretty sure Elements 3
>doesn't have adjustment layers either.

You're "pretty sure" huh? LOL ... maybe you can download the demo and
learn a bit more about what E 3 does before you look silly (yes, E 3
does have adjustment layers)

>Paint Shop Pro is weak on the color space side of things

We can agree on something, though the correct terminology is "color
management", not "color space".

>most people who have to ask which software they should use don't have the
>hardware to do the necessary color calibrations anyway

That's a valid point, but are they doomed to uncalibrated monitors
forever? Will they never buy a decent $200 photo printer, or a decent
dSLR camera? Even PSP lets you assign a monitor profile and helps you
generate an ICC file for it. And if Adobe Gamma doesn't do the trick
they are only a $200 Spyder away from salvation.

I guess I have no problems with generalizing that people with
uncalibrated monitors, lousy cameras and limited gamut printers are
better off with sRGB, but Elements gives you a choice if you decide to
improve your standing later on, while with PSP you are stuck with no
choice except sRGB.

>most likely have inkjet printers that are limited to sRGB.

The four color business inkjets have a pretty limited gamut, but all
the 6, 7 and 8 Photo Stylus color inkjets from Epson I've tested have a
wider gamut than sRGB. You can check this easily enough with a program
that plots gamuts of ICC profiles, which I have. These photo printers
start as low as $99 or so for the letter sized models. So there's no
reason the do-it-yourself home user has to stay at the bottom and limit
his printer gamut to sRGB.

>Your comment on 'cheap printers' that cannot print aRGB is laughable
>since the large majority of consumer inkjets use the sRGB gamut

I don't think you understand this whole color management concept very
well ... printers have their own device-specific gamut of colors they
can print (which is wider than sRGB for the photo class printers from
Epson, HP, and Canon) and the proper flow is to have this characterized
(typically by the vendor) and then during printing the input file data
is converted to this profile. Photoshop and Elements allow you to do
this. There is no such thing as an aRGB printer.

>I see it now, all these people who are looking to spend
>$100 or less on software are now going to rush out and splurg hundreds of
>dollars on a good calibration spider, hundreds more on a printer that
>supports the aRGB color space, a thousand or more on a digital camera that
>supports aRGB

I agree with your point (except "splug" and "spider" are spelled wrong
and there is no "printer that supports the aRGB color space"). Most
people will not do these things, and for them sRGB and 8 bits is fine.
It doesn't matter much which program these folks use, as I mentioned in
the opening sentence of my first post. But for those who want more,
who decide to calibrate their monitor or who realize that even their
$500 camera has AdobeRGB support (even cheap cameras have much wider
gamuts than sRGB), or have a 6, 7 or 8 color inkjet to take advantage
of the added tonalities of wider gamuts then I feel Elements 3 is a
better program, for the four reasons mentioned in my earlier post.

Bill
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:36:20 AM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121475952.063782.271190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>Bill Hilton wrote
>>>
>>> I know Elements and PSP a little and ACDSee not at all
>
>>Linda N replies ...
>>
>>'A little' can't be emphasized enough
>
> Gee, a little touchy since I've criticized your favorite software?

I see you continue to make things up.

> I'm
> an expert level Photoshop user (passed the "Adobe Certified Expert"
> exam) so I don't use these stripped down programs often, which is why I
> said "a little" ... did you want me to put it in bold italics?
>

What 2-3 year Arts & New Media Diploma do you have. Oh wait, if you had
proper certification that all professionals have you would not have bothered
with the Adobe quicky certificate since you would have used PS more
intensively than the certifcate covers during your years of study. I do know
3 admin support people who did a self study and passed the Adobe
certificate. It was the only way they could be a Secretary in the graphics
department where they needed a basic understanding of PS and its
terminology. I also know 2 professional Photographers who completed their 3
year Photography Diplomas during the darkroom days. They did a quick self
study and took the Adobe certification to upgrade what they had, and to
prove they had computer experience (so nobody would assume they were old
school only).


> And my experience with PSP is with V 7 2 1/2 years ago (I
> looked up the invoice for my computer, which I received Jan 19, 2003
> with a free 30 day trial of PSP).

And you stated in another thread that you used it for only an hour or so.
Yet you act like some sort of expert. Which is my point. You should not be
advising people against software when you have no clue what it can or cannot
do yourself. That includes Elements.

Also, if indeed you were a professional as you claim you certainly would not
snub your nose at tools like PSP just because it does not support 16-bit,
aRGB. It still has a lot of features that many professional Photographers
and Graphics Arts like a lot, and that are not found in PS CS2 or earlier.
Also if indeed you were a professional Photographer you would not be so
dependant on 16-bit or aRGB as you seem to be. In fact you would use
corrective features only rarely since 99% of your photos would have been
taken correctly in the first place.

I may sound harsh, but frankly if you talked about what you know instead of
what you think you know all those people wondering what software to use for
their hobby would be far better off. Most would be thrilled with PSP and all
it has to offer, since most can't afford PS CS. Elements 3 is substandard,
16-bit or not.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:36:21 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121475952.063782.271190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>>
>>Gee, a little touchy since I've criticized your favorite software?
> >
> I see you continue to make things up.

Kinda in the eye of the beholder, what?? Maybe he's criticized a
current, former or prospective employer.

>
> I may sound harsh,

No, you are harsh.

but frankly if you talked about what you know instead of
> what you think you know all those people wondering what software to use for
> their hobby would be far better off. Most would be thrilled with PSP and all
> it has to offer, since most can't afford PS CS. Elements 3 is substandard,
> 16-bit or not.


Hilton has demonstrated what he knows time and time again. You have not.

Go figure.

--
John McWilliams

Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your
audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:37:36 AM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:euCdnUkp64mu2H3fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> Hilton has demonstrated what he knows time and time again.

Which is not much when it comes to various software applications.

>You have not.

I've shown enough to show Bill was wrong about PSP, and that's about all I
wanted to show for the sake of the user asking a legit question about
software.

You're clearly showing that Bill needs help by the way you rush to his
defence. John and Bill up in a tree...

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:37:37 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:euCdnUkp64mu2H3fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>>Hilton has demonstrated what he knows time and time again.
>
> Which is not much when it comes to various software applications.

Afaik, Bill Hilton is a top notch photographer, not a software developer.
>
>>You have not.
>
> I've shown enough to show Bill was wrong about PSP, and that's about all I
> wanted to show for the sake of the user asking a legit question about
> software.

Nah. You've had, and have, an agenda
>
> You're clearly showing that Bill needs help by the way you rush to his
> defence. John and Bill up in a tree...
>
Bill don't need no help no how from me- or anyone, really.

I post here to call it as I see it regarding your over-the-top promotion
of PSP, and your bashing of others who don't see it your way.

You still have avoided answering my questions re your links to software
companies....

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:31:41 PM

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

>>Bill Hilton wrote ...
>>
>> I'm an expert level Photoshop user (passed the "Adobe
>>Certified Expert" exam) so I don't use these stripped down
>>programs often

> Linda Nieuwenstein writes ...
>
>What 2-3 year Arts & New Media Diploma do you have.

I have three degrees, including one in Electrical Engineering, but have
not studied graphics in college. It seemed easy enough to pick up on
my own.

>if you had proper certification that all professionals have ...

I am not a professional graphics person (the pay is too low). But I
still have "Adobe Certified Expert" credentials in Photoshop, which I
doubt you have. But none of this has any bearing on the four reasons I
listed earlier as to why intermediate and advanced users would be
better off with Elements 3 than with PSP.

>> And my experience with PSP is with V 7 2 1/2 years ago

>And you stated in another thread that you used it for only an hour or so.

More like 20 minutes ... as I've explained several times my files are
mostly 16 bit/channel film scans or RAW conversions and the only files
I have tagged with sRGB are reduced size jpegs for web pages, so it
didn't take me long to see that PSP was a complete waste of my time.
What's surprising is that 2 1/2 years and two revisions later nothing
has really changed on those four points I listed earlier.

>Yet you act like some sort of expert. Which is my point.

In my first sentence to my first post to this thread I clearly wrote "I
know Elements and PSP a little ..." so it's hard to see where I'm
claiming to be an expert in either of them.

>You should not be advising people against software when you
>have no clue what it can or cannot do yourself.

I listed four valid reasons why advanced and intermediate photographers
would be better off with Elements. Feel free to counter them if you
can (you've tried but haven't really offered convincing arguments
against them). The fact that you are so worked up about this seems to
indicate I've hit a nerve.

>You should not be advising people against software when you
>have no clue what it can or cannot do yourself.

In a previous post you said you were "pretty sure" Elements 3 doesn't
have adjustment layers, but you were wrong. So perhaps "YOU should not
be advising people against software when you have no clue what it can
or cannot do yourself" either?

>if indeed you were a professional as you claim ...

Where did I "claim" to be a "professional"?

> ... you certainly would not snub your nose at tools like PSP just
>because it does not support 16-bit, aRGB.

Actually those are two excellent reasons for snubbing PSP. I probably
know 50 or so professional photographers who use Photoshop and zero who
use PSP.

>Also if indeed you were a professional Photographer you would not be
>so dependant on 16-bit or aRGB as you seem to be.

Here's the argument for 16 bit/channel ...
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html

As for aRGB, anyone with a dSLR or high end point/shoot digital camera
or a good film scanner can capture colors outside the gamut of sRGB.
Anyone with a decent monitor that has been calibrated can view colors
outside the gamut of sRGB. Anyone printing on 6, 7 or 8 color Epson or
Canon or HP inkjets or high end laser printers like the Chromira or
LightJet can print colors outside the gamut of sRGB. Elements or
Photoshop lets you work in either sRGB or wider gamut spaces while PSP
does not.

And then you haven't mentioned PSP's fatal flaw, the nasty habit of
stripping off any profiles of files not in sRGB, thus throwing off the
colors.

>I may sound harsh

"Harsh" is not the first word that comes to mind ...

>frankly if you talked about what you know instead of what you think you
>know all those people wondering what software to use for
>their hobby would be far better off

I listed the four factual reasons why I think Elements 3 is a better
choice for intermediate and advanced photographers. Most people are
smart enough to weigh all the facts and make up their own minds as to
what's best for them.

Bill
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:43:40 PM

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

>Linda Nieuwenstein wrote: (to John McWilliams)
>
>You're clearly showing that Bill needs help by the way you rush
>to his defence.

While I certainly appreciate John's comments I also try to stick to the
facts when defending myself in threads like this one, namely with the
four reasons I gave for recommending Elements 3 over PSP to
intermediate and advanced photographers.

>John and Bill up in a tree...

The kind of taunt you'd expect to hear on a junior high school
playground ... do you know how silly and unprofessional you sound now?

Bill
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:15:57 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZaSdnREkErpxxX3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> You still have avoided answering my questions re your links to software
> companies....
>
No, you just can't read for comprehension. I repeat, considering your
experience with stalking in newsgroups I find it rather odd that you would
be asking for personal information that could expose a person to the same.
Again my contractor's client list has nothing to do with anything in this
thread, nor is it any of your business.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:15:58 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZaSdnREkErpxxX3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
>>You still have avoided answering my questions re your links to software
>>companies....

> No, you just can't read for comprehension. I repeat, considering your
> experience with stalking in newsgroups I find it rather odd that you would
> be asking for personal information that could expose a person to the same.
> Again my contractor's client list has nothing to do with anything in this
> thread, nor is it any of your business.


Deflect, dodge n burn, obfuscate, duck.

You are either paranoid, or indeed have something to hide.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 6:04:25 PM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122050620.888457.109950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Linda Nieuwenstein wrote: (to John McWilliams)
>>
>>You're clearly showing that Bill needs help by the way you rush
>>to his defence.
>
> While I certainly appreciate John's comments I also try to stick to the
> facts when defending myself in threads like this one, namely with the
> four reasons I gave for recommending Elements 3 over PSP to
> intermediate and advanced photographers.
>
You don't know PSP at all, nor Elements very much so you don't know the
facts to stick to them. In your last post you state more misinformation
about sRGB support and printers. You have not a clue what you talk about,
yet you keep talking. It isn't worth arguing points with you because you
simply correct your misinformation by flip flopping in another post with an
answer the contradicts what you said in earlier posts, all the while never
admitting to giving misinformation in a previous thread. People like you are
always right in your own mind even when the facts dictate otherwise.
Continue on, I'll not waste more time arguing the points with you. I'll
simply correct your mistakes when I see them directly to the original
poster.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 6:10:41 PM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122049901.741036.92520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>if you had proper certification that all professionals have ...
>
> I am not a professional graphics person (the pay is too low). But I
> still have "Adobe Certified Expert" credentials in Photoshop, which I
> doubt you have. But none of this has any bearing on the four reasons I
> listed earlier as to why intermediate and advanced users would be
> better off with Elements 3 than with PSP.
>

This is a photography group. You again flip flop as earlier you claimed to
be a professional. Now it turns out all you have is an Adobe self study
certificate for PS.
Unlike you I don't profess, nor pretend to be a professional photographer,
and unlike you if I wanted to become a professional photographer I certainly
would not feed Adobe more money by paying dollars for their make shift
certificate which would never get me a professional level photographers job.
I'd instead invest my dollars in a 2 or 3 year Photography/New Media Diploma
Program that would include intensive study of various software, hardware and
include on the job work terms.

Again I'll not argue with you, you're always right the way you flip flop
around, changing answers per post as you go. I'll correct any misinformation
directly to the poster asking for help.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:16:35 PM

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

On 14 Jul 2005 10:22:55 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:


>I know Elements and PSP a little and ACDSee not at all, but based on
>what I've seen I would choose Elements over PSP for these four reasons.

Snip, snip.

We've had our repartee' on this before. The color managements issues you
bring up want me to move to something else other than PSP. However, I'm
struggling with the PSE3 trial. Coming from Micrografx Picture Publisher
and PSP I can't fathom how to do a simple crop with the PSE3 crop tool.
Please tell me I'm an idiot and one can simply specify an X by Y pixel
crop. The options don't appear to allow such and the help files are no help
whatsoever.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:27:58 PM

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

>Ed Ruf writes ...
>
> I can't fathom how to do a simple crop with the PSE3 crop tool.
>Please tell me I'm an idiot and one can simply specify an X by Y
>pixel crop.

I'm on the road with a laptop and don't have E 3 loaded on it, but to
do this I would use the Rectangular Marquee tool (maybe 5th down from
top in Tool bar) and note there are style options for something like
'fixed aspect ratio' and 'exact pixels' in addition to 'normal' (the
exact syntax is probably wrong since I can't look it up, but you get
the idea). So either pick an aspect ratio or exact pixel size and draw
a selection box with this tool. Make sure feather is set to 0. If you
don't like the selection do cntrl-d to deselect and redraw it (or
Select > deselect if you don't like keyboard shortcuts). Once you have
the box right in Photoshop it's Image > Image Crop but in E3 I think
it's something like Image > Image Resize (or Resize Image?) > Crop,
something like that ... 'crop' is somewhere under the Image command but
I can't recall exactly where. If I had E3 I could tell you exactly (I
just went thru this with my Dutch friend who's learning E3) but the
Help files on Rect Marquee tool should give the details.

>The options don't appear to allow such and the help files are no
>help whatsoever.

Do the steps I described do the trick? Don't feel bad about asking,
I've already asked 3 times on the Photoshop NG 'how do I do XXX in
Elements?" :) 

Bill
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 10:16:13 AM

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

On 24 Jul 2005 10:27:58 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>
>I'm on the road with a laptop and don't have E 3 loaded on it, but to
>do this I would use the Rectangular Marquee tool (maybe 5th down from
>top in Tool bar) and note there are style options for something like
>'fixed aspect ratio' and 'exact pixels' in addition to 'normal' (the
>exact syntax is probably wrong since I can't look it up, but you get
>the idea). So either pick an aspect ratio or exact pixel size and draw
>a selection box with this tool. Make sure feather is set to 0. If you
>don't like the selection do cntrl-d to deselect and redraw it (or
>Select > deselect if you don't like keyboard shortcuts). Once you have
>the box right in Photoshop it's Image > Image Crop but in E3 I think
>it's something like Image > Image Resize (or Resize Image?) > Crop,
>something like that ... 'crop' is somewhere under the Image command but
>I can't recall exactly where. If I had E3 I could tell you exactly (I
>just went thru this with my Dutch friend who's learning E3) but the
>Help files on Rect Marquee tool should give the details.
>
>>The options don't appear to allow such and the help files are no
>>help whatsoever.
>
>Do the steps I described do the trick? Don't feel bad about asking,
>I've already asked 3 times on the Photoshop NG 'how do I do XXX in
>Elements?" :) 

Thanks, I found this out. Being an engineer, I assumed one would use the
crop tool. Every entry of cropping in the PSE3 trial help system points to
the crop tool and none to the marquee tool. Go figure.

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:49:58 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tIKdnXE-gIpDpnzfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>
>
> Deflect, dodge n burn, obfuscate, duck.
>
> You are either paranoid, or indeed have something to hide.
>

That's original coming from you...I'm confident you were speaking of your
own character traits with that list.

Take care,
Linda
!