Yesterday, I finally bought a copy of Adobe Photoshop. It was on sale at the NYU Computer Store for the low price of “only” $180. Not exactly cheap, but it would be painful indeed to buy it at the regular price of $620. That’s more expensive than a DSLR!
The last time I was a student, back in 2001, I bought the Corel Graphics Suite at the student price. At the time, Photoshop was $100 more, so I figured why not save $100 and get an entire suite of stuff? That turned out to be a big mistake. I never used any of the other programs in the suite besides Photo-Paint, and for the next seven years I had Photoshop envy.
Whether or not it’s possible to accomplish the same effects in Photoshop as you can in a less expensive photo editing program, it’s indisputable that Photoshop is the industry standard, and as such there is a lot more help available in the form of books, online tutorials, and formal instruction. Advanced photo-editing is quite complicated, and I found that without any quality instruction materials, I was stuck using the very ineffective trial-and-error method.
What other photo editing programs might you use if you can’t afford to buy Photoshop? You might consider Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 for $65. I don’t have it currently running on my computer, but a few months ago I did check out the 30-day trial of the previous X1 version, and I found it to be quite feature-packed. It has a useful easy-to-use purple-fringe-removing tool that you won’t find in Photoshop. It even runs some Photoshop plugins.
Another program I like is Picture Window Pro. It comes with very good documentation that fully explains how to accomplish all of the most important photo-editing tasks. Picture Window was the very first program to include a chromatic aberration correction tool, but that feature is now in Photoshop. Picture Window Pro also includes the best color correction tool, that’s not like anything in Photoshop. (The same company sells this tool separately for $60 as a Photoshop plugin.) Unfortunately, Picture Window is weak in some areas, such as its inferior unsharp mask tool and its inability to run Photoshop plugins. Nevertheless, I really like this program, and would recommend it as the best inexpensive alternative to Photoshop, but with the caution that it has a unique interface that’s very different from every other program.
A program I don’t recommend is Adobe Photoshop Elements 6. This is a program in which advanced tools, such as curves (included in every other program mentioned above), have purposely been removed in order to punish the user for not buying the full price version of Photoshop. It’s much better to buy a program in which the programmers are trying to develop the best possible program instead of one where the programmers are intentionally making it less capable. And the lack of curves is a deal-breaker.
Any thoughts on The Gimp vs. Photoshop? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP
Posted by: SteveBrooklineMA | February 10, 2008 at 02:25 PM
About Gimp, after bad experiences using open source software development tools, I try to avoid open source software.
Posted by: Big Mike | February 10, 2008 at 02:30 PM
What about Paint.Net?
Posted by: dan tdaxp | February 10, 2008 at 03:47 PM
I never even heard of Paint.NET until the comment above. But it seems to have a pretty active user forum. But what I don't see at the Paint.NET site is an instruction manual (which they do have at the Picture Window Pro website). And if you buy Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, there are a few books you can buy at Amazon.com.
Once you're used to using a certain program, it's very hard to switch. Even though I'm trying to phase out my use of the ancient 2000 edition of Corel Photo-Paint, I still keep instinctively going there because I'm so familiar with it.
Posted by: Big Mike | February 10, 2008 at 04:08 PM
I agree that Elements is a scaled-down version of Photoshop, which is what it is meant to be... Of course it's going to have fewer features and less power than the full version, but it's incredibly cost-effective for most hobby or enthusiast users. And most folks at that level won't know what to do with Curves. What should Adobe offer instead? Elements already uses much of the same engine as Photoshop, and many people in the PS world are amazed at how much Elements *can* do at such a low price. I use Photoshop in a professional capacity, so it is worth the extra cost to get the extra features. It is also a business expense. If I were just a snapshot shooter, I'd use Picasa. If I needed to add graphics, I'd use Elements. And if I were a pro photographer who never did graphic or web design, I'd use Lightroom.
It's unfair to slam Adobe for making that particular decision; it's like telling a car company not to offer options or lower priced models, but instead force everyone to buy the biggest and baddest, even if they are just cruising to the corner store.
Posted by: Scott | February 11, 2008 at 01:45 PM