Paint Shop Pro or Photo Shop?

Hi - I am hoping someone will be able to give me some advice on this. I have never used either of the above software, but would like to have a go at making clothes and realise that I will need one of the above. Is there any difference between them, or is it just that one costs more than the other? It also looks like I am going to have to do a lot of reading! Could someone also let me know the best place to start.

Thanks
KindraX

Well I've never used Paintshop Pro so I can't comment on that one, but I use Photoshop CS3 and I just find it incredible...probably the only drawback with Photoshop is that it's a little expensive but I really feel it's worth it.

There's another program called 'Gimp' which is available for download free of charge. You can also create clothing with this and it does a great job but, for me anyway, the interface is a bit confusing and it's not as 'intuitive' as Photoshop....(in my humble opinion ).

http://www.gimp.org/

Anyway, regardless of which one you decide to use...good luck with your creating.....

Both are really full featured graphics packages. Photo Shop is way more expensive, but I'm sure there will be a ton of people to let you know that you get what you pay for. I myself use Jasc PSP and GIMP... GIMP is free BTW. (^_^)y

Thanks for your advice. Not sure which I will go with yet, but as cost is always an issue I will have to check them all out. I did notice that there are a lot of different types of Photo Shop available and wasn't sure which one I would need. Do they all work with Vista?

The difference is not just the money, no. You do get what you pay for. Photoshop is the most powerful, most full featured, and most universally standard image editor on the planet. It has loads of features that Paintshop Pro does not. PSP is a fine program too, though. It's more than adequate.

The quickest way to boil it down is this. If you want the best program you can possibly get, it's Photoshop, hands down. But if you want a program that costs less upfront but is still good, PSP gives you the most bang for the buck in its price range. Neither of those descriptions probably means much to you right now, though, since as you said, you've never used a graphics program before at all. People could make all the arguments in the world in favor of one or the other (and I'm sure they will), but you're not yet capable of really understanding what they'd be talking about. You need some experience before you can can know.

Here' what I'd suggest. Dowlaod the 30 day free trial of Photoshop from adobe.com. Spend the next month learning everything you can about using it. Invest in a good book, follow as many tutorials as you can, maybe even take a class if you can. 30 days is not much time, but at least it's something. Commit yourself to learning Photoshop well, and you'll develop an understanding of certain principles of graphics that you'll then be able to apply to lots of other programs, including PSP.

When it gets toward the end of your trial, say day 25 or so, downlaod the trial for PSP, and give it a whirl. You'll find that much of it is similar enough that you'll be able to transition pretty quickly. But you'll also find that a lot of things are missing.

Spend the next few days considering carefully. Now that you've learned enough to understand the differences, at least to a degree, are the missing features in PSP worth the initially lower price? Remember, time is money, and you can recover the higher upfront cost of Photoshop fairly quickly if you put it to good use. But if you're only planning on using it very casually, then PSP might well be the better choice for you. Only you will be able to say what's best for you. The important thing is that you've educated yourself well enough to make an informed decision from experience, not just from the opinions of others.

I would not recommend going the other way around, by the way. It won't work as well to start with PSP and then move up to Photoshop, not when all you have for experience is 30 days. By learning Photoshop first, you will have developed a knowledge of 2D graphics principles that surpasses PSP's toolset. You'll then be a in a good position to appraise the relative values of the tools in both programs. But were you to start with PSP first, you wouldn't learn as much, since you wouldn't be exposed to as much. Because PSP doesn't have as many features, it forces the user to approach certain things in roundabout ways instead of head on. This can make for a distorted initial understanding of what's really happening. At that point, when you try Photoshop, you'll most likely keep right on using those same roundabout methods, even though you don't need them, and you won't as readily grasp the differences between the two programs.

In other words, there's nothing PSP can do that Photoshop can't. But there is a lot that Photoshop can do that PSP can't. And for a lot of things, Photoshop will do it in a much more direct, and more deeply understandable, way. It makes sense to learn the one that can do the most first if you truly want to understand the differences. Run Photoshop through the mill for a month, then give PSP a go, and then make your decision.



By the way, even though you didn't ask about it, I'm sure the GIMP fans will throw their 2 cents in here too about why GIMP would be a good choice for you too. As I usually say, GIMP is a good program, suffering from a bad interface. I don't recommend people start with it, as it's kind of an oddball. The habits you'd pick up from it won't be as well applicable to other programs as would be those you'd gain from Photoshop. When you're brand new to any subject, I think it always makes sense to start with whatever will to teach you the most universally applicable principles. In this case, that happens to be Photoshop.

That said, GIMP is free, so if you want to try it out, it's easy enough to get hold of it. I find its interface to be very, very frustrating, but that doesn't mean you necessarily won't like it. A high percentage of the people who do like it tend to be engineering types, programmers, and such. To hear most of them tell it, the interface couldn't be better. If your personality leans that direction, you might well love GIMP. Mine doesn't, and I don't.





This is where Adobe really drops the ball in their business model. Because Photoshop is their flagship product, the one with the most recognizable name, they slap that name onto products that have nothing to do with Photoshop itself. The only one that is actually Photoshop is called simply Photoshop. Photoshop Elements is not Photoshop. Photoshop Lightroom is not Photoshop. Photoshop Album is not Photoshop. Don't waste your money on any of those things.

The latest version of Photoshop is called Photoshop CS3. Within that, there are two editions, the regular one and the extended one. The extended one comes with some extra features for animation, video, and 3D. For SL stuff, the extended version's 3D capabilities are handy. You can paint on the clothing templates and then see the results on the 3D avatar model. It saves a lot of time.



All Adobe programs for Windows that came out in the last couple of years will work with Vista.

I used PSP8 for about a year before buying Photoshop. They both have similar controls, so switching was fair easy.

Is Photoshop a better program? The short answer is yes--it really gives you the ability to precisely manipulate texture parameters. I was trying to look for a less clunky way of saying that, but for example colour matching is much easier. The various tools seem to work better, as well and can be fine tuned more than they can in Paintshop.

Is it worth the HUGE difference in price? Only you can answer that. I switched over because I had to for the projects I'm making (realistic animal skin textures). I don't regret it, but at the same time, said projects paid for the program. When I started out and just wanted to make some clothing for fun, well, $600 was an awful lot to pay for a hobby I wasn't sure I was going to stick with at the time.

And as ImNot mentioned, if you really wish to save money, go ahead and use GIMP. I've never used it myself, but I've heard the main drawbacks are a) not as much documentation/help and b) since the controls are somewhat different from Photoshop, it's harder to make the switch later on (mind you, I think Photoshop is extremely intuitive, so that might not be so hard to do)

Take a look at Photoshop Elements. I have it at home, but use Photoshop CS at work. To be honest, Elements does what I need and is MUCH cheaper.

it all depends if you like chocolate or vanilla

I'd recommend PSP over PS Elements. For the exact same price, PSP delivers more power. The only benefit you get with Elements is that it shares much of its interface design with Photoshop. Years ago, back when PSP was a bit weirder than it is now, that was arguably important. But the makers of PSP have done such a good job over the past few years of making PSP more closely resemble Photoshop, it's no longer an issue.

Really? I don't actually know anything about Elements, but I've been assuming it's just a photo retouching tool and doesn't really have functionality for creating images.

ADDITION: I just found this while looking up the features of Photoshop Elements -
http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/vs_elements.html

bookmark'd

Johan, I'd say that while PSE isn't as limited as you previously had thought, it's also not as useful for our purposes as that article, if taken out of context, might imply. The article wasn't written with texturing in mind, after all. It primarily talks about what's needed for photography and print production. Much of what the author said about the relative importance of certain features is distorted, or even backwards, when the goal is texturing.

Also, it's a bit dated. PSP has come a lot further in its development since the time the article was written than PSE has.

That said, PSE is certainly not useless. It can do a lot. It's absolutely capable of image creation.

But it's also missing a lot. In my opinion, the two most extremely basic everyday features that PSE lacks are paths and layer masks. There are some workarounds for masking, but as far as I know, there is no way to draw or utilize paths in PSE at all. For me, that's a total show stopper. I use paths constantly, as I'm sure do the majority of texture artists.

I'll add that it depends on what your doing and at what level...

if you're only dabbling in part time texture or retuouching type of work, go with PSP or GIMP, if you're looking to do some more serious and indepth work on a regular basis, go with PS.

PSP will give the most common tools, and most PS plugins you run across will also work in PSP. PS has more accurate tools, and many options that just aren't available in the stock PSP app (some can be added through plugins). but if you're just a weekend hobyist, you aren't likely to use or miss many of the features PS has over PSP.

GIMP is some ways is more full featured than PSP but less so in other areas, and the interface can seem clunky at time...

if you're ever thinking of trading up from PSP to PS I'd recommend you start with at least v8 of psp, since that where they really started to try and copy PS. v7 is good for a simpler interface and layout, but has no macro support, (although you can get it secondhand for almost nothing these days).