PS vs PSP

As I look through the posts here I notice that all the "superstars" of design in SL seem to be using Photoshop. I own Paint Shop Pro X and was under the impression that it's professional grade software, but now I am wondering. Is PS really better than PSP, or is it more a matter of personal preference? PSP seems good to me, but I have never tried PS, so have no idea if it's better/easier.

If it actually is better software, is it so much better that I should consider investing in it, both in terms of money and time to learn the software? Or is PSP "good enough"?

Has anyone out there used both?

Photoshop always was better, so people who've been into computer based painting for a while tend to have/use it. The difference is less these days so Photoshop, PaintShop Pro and the GIMP are all about equal. It's mostly a matter of what you know. Of course, if you're that good, you could use any of them with a few hours cross-training.

all professional photographers, artists and graphic designers (which i am) use photoshop. Im sure the other software will do what you need, but in the professional world photoshop has been the standard for like 15 years. In an interview no one ever asks about your experience with psp or gimp.

True ... most of the time at least, but also in computing, people only ask about your experience with MS Office rather than the alternatives... but it doesn't make it any better.

All that means is that it's more standard, not that it's better.

They aren't quite equal yet, but the difference is rapidly closing with each version. I use PSP exclusivly, and while there are occasionlay the odd things my friend using PS can do that I can't, I wouldn't trade PSP for anything - it's a comfortable friend that I've grown with for years, and it's good enough for 99.5% of what I need to do.

Until you've used PSP to the point where you ARE approaching the skills of a master, the differences wont be particularly evident.

I've never used PSP, since I'm on a Mac (and PSP isn't,) but I believe that there are quite a few things that PS CS2 does that PSP cannot.

For instance, PS allows you to have "Smart Objects," which are instances of an object. Since all instances reference a single object, it only takes an instant to change that one object, and all the corresponding objects change. So you can change from buttons that look like bows to round buttons, to square ones with a single mouse click, and all your buttons are already sized, and in place. (I have it on a Keyboard Shortcut, so it's really fast. You can customize all keyboard and menus items, in PS CS2.)

Also, since you can warp Smart Objects, and all you're warping is the Instance, not the base object, you can do things like take a piece of lace, make it into a Smart Object, Warp it to follow a neckline, click on the Smart Object Layer, Replace Contents, and have a totally different piece of lace, or line of pearls, or string of sequins, or anything you want, already placed and perfect.

I use this little trick all the time for making collars, pockets, and so on for my Hawaiian shirts.

Photoshop also has a lot more tools to make irregularities vanish, from what I understand, which is important if you are using Photosourcing to make stuff.

Not to mention the stitching tools, or the camera correction tools, or the range of distortion and automatic shading tools, or all the filters (and all the third party filters available, for free and commercially.)

In fact, there are so many tools in Photoshop that have no corresponding tool in PSP, from what I understand, that I can't just list them.

On the other hand, the one thing that PSP has that Photoshop doesn't have is the Paint Tube. But there are a dozen plug-ins, of various prices, that will restore that capability. However, if you already have PSP, you might find, even if you get PS, that you will use them both. I use both PS and Painter, because of things like the Image Hose that Painter has, and PS doesn't have.

But don't take anyone's word for it. Download the demo of PS, and see what you think! It's much, much more expensive; so I wouldn't invest in it without really trying it out. Don't forget that a lot of the things in PS are kind of hidden. So I suggest that you download the demo when you have time to run through a bunch of tutorials, and try things out for yourself.

Ultimately, you're the only one who will be able to tell which one is better suited to your particular workflow, habits, and expectations. All the extra tools in the world won't help you, if you find them irritating to use!

Hope this helps!

Some observations I've found using both.

- Do not believe anyone who says PSP has less functionality when all they've used is PS.

- You have to ask yourself if there is a feature or group of features that can justify enough the purchase of Photoshop when you already have Paint Shop Pro and learnt how to use it. Its hard to consider a purchase of 600USD just to be able to do some shirt collar. On the other hand, if you have to work with external parties like a printhouse for printing things you can't do yourself, like large format or mass production, its best to use what they use. The effort saved will pay for PS. Nothing to do with which is better.

- There are some things that both software don't do that well that require either a plugin or another software. An example being image resampling / resizing. I use XnView to resample digital photos simply because it offers more interpolation algorithms that visually look better than whats available for both PSP and PS. While something like XnView is free, consider what other software you can get to complement PSP with the money.

- PS has limited functionality for vector graphics or natural media tools. Simply because they have reserved some of those functions for Illustrator. Until the day they combine these two, the tasks will seem a bit bifurcated.

- Technical reasons aside, if you're considering PS because the branding has some aire of professionality to it and might look good in your resume, don't. Some of the 'superstars' that you mention use the Adobe name as crutches. They'd simply sound amateurish using something less mainstream. Both are just general purpose tools. Concentrate on gaining knowledge on the principles and the quality of the end product instead. If I'm an employer, I'm not going to believe if you're any good just because you said in your resume you know how to use PS.

In my limited experience, third party plug-in filters for PS tend to work fine in PSP. I've never had a plug-in meant for PS not work in PSP, in fact, though I'm sure such plug-ins are out there.

I had tried to use PSP and after years of familiarity with Photoshop (primarily) and GIMP (passingly). I found there to be a great conceptual divide between PS and PSP, so much so that I didn't even know what muscle to move. Granted, as I didn't have to use PSP, I gave up after a few hours.

The only other anecdote I can relate is that I had given a friend my old copy of PS 7 when I upgraded to PS 9 (aka CS2) and after a couple of years working with PSP just for SL clothing and textures she found it to be astoundingly easier to accomplish what she wanted to do.

That said, both programs will work for you; I don't think someone can credibly argue otherwise. PS is pricey though especially as a hobbiest's "toy". Fortunately, I think you can still find shops that sell PS7 at "trying to get these boxes out of our stockroom" prices and for SL there is almost nothing that PS9 has that PS7 doesn't that you need for SL use.

I would guess that much of the difference in usability comes from Adobe's 15 years of fine-tuning the interface to support professionals who use the tool for their jobs under deadlines and the huge amounts refinement resulting from that. Similarly, I was recently try-before-you-buy comparing web editing software. Macromedia's Dreamweaver did what I wanted to far more easily than the second-tier program that cost 1/10th the price. For my limited purposes, I just couldn't justify using the "pro" tool, even though it was much smoother to use (and also did 100 things I have no need for at all). Photoshop will also do a bunch of things that will be of no use to the SL artisan, but it isn't more expensive for no reason at all.

Ummm, I'm very sorry, but honestly, there are many things that I can do in PS CS2 (PS 9) that are not available in PS 7, and that I use constantly for SL. (It's true that all I know about PSP functionality is what's listed on the Corel site; but I know PS 7 quite well.)

Granted, many of these are not exactly obvious; but if you already have CS2, and take the time to learn about these tools, I think that you will find that they save you countless hours of work.

For me, just the stuff that I do for SL would have paid for CS2 in a month or two of saved hours.

As it happens, CS2 is also the way that I earn my bread and butter, and the work that I'm currently doing would be flat impossible with any earlier version of PS. The differences between CS2 and earlier versions are that great, once you figure out how to use them.

So, Vares, I stand by my earlier advice. You have PSP, and you know it. Download the free trial version of CS2, use it for a month, and then decide for yourself if it's worth the extra money. Because that's really the only way to tell.

Whether it's better for me, or better for any of the other posters really isn't important. You need to figure out if it's better for you.

(Yes, there is a great price difference, especially considering that you already own PSP. But I'm assuming that you can afford it, or you wouldn't be asking. )

Edited to add the second line.

Thanks everyone for the good info.

hehe, CS2 does sound like it's really great, but at $650 it's a bit more "pro" than I am ready for at this time.

Maybe when I am up to Robin's level I will get it. (Translate as: Never! lol)

Oh and Robin, thanks for the great t-shirt template! Needed it, use it, Love it! You rock!

You may be able to qualify for a student discount on the software if you're in College or education. I'm a huge Photoshop fan. I recently upgraded to Photoshop CS 2 and really love it.

When I bought my first professional, full version of Photoshop, it was such a huge workflow helper that there's no way I'm going back to anything else anytime soon.

No, 'tis I who should apologize. Should one ever find me in disagreement with Robin in matters Photoshoppy, assume I'm wrong.

Robin, if you would be so kind, what are the CS2 features that you have found to be of use in SL work? For photographic/pre-press you can pry CS2 from my cold fingers, but I've not seen the advantages that you have for SL. Just a word or two would be appreciated.

Thanks, Vares. (And don't be so sure that you won't get sucked into doing a lot of graphics work, and wind up being a pro. It happened to me! )

Hi Introvert! In a single word Smart Objects. In two words, Smart Objects, and Image Warp. In four words, Smart Objects, Image Warp, and Multiple Layer control. Among the words... Smart Objects, Image Warp, Multiple Layer control, Optical Lens Correction and (for me) HDR Support (because I've been known to render things in LightWave to use in world, and all LightWave renders are HDR by default.)

Seriously though, the combination of Smart Objects and Image Warp is amazing. It allows me to take an image of anything, warp it to fit any part of the templates, and replace the contents at any time. Which means that I only have to warp something once; after that, it's automatically pre-warped.

What does that mean? Among other things not mentioned in my post above, it means that you can take a numbered test grid, make a Smart Object of it, position it over a seam on the Avatar, tap Command/Ctrl T and click the Warp icon, and fit it perfectly to the edge of the avatar.

Then you can Duplicate it, Command/ctrl T and click the Warp icon again, choose None from the Warp Preset drop down menu and the duplicate unwarps. Click the Warp icon to disable it, position it over the matching seam, click the Warp icon again, and choose Custom from the menu. Then warp the duplicate to exactly fit this part of the seam, starting where the opposite side stopped of course.

Make a test, and check it in the Upload Preview, to be sure that it matches perfectly. When it does (and it's not difficult at all to make it do it,) you can start using the Magic.

Select either Smart Object layer, go to Layers > Smart Object > Replace Contents (I think, something like that. I'm not on the right computer to check just now,) and choose any tattoo image you have prepared.

Instantly, you have a prefect tattoo, over a seam, with no further work.

Want to change the tattoo? Choose a different image when you Replace Contents.

Want to make it faster? Assign a Keyboard Shortcut to the menu command, which you can also do in CS2. (I use Control+Command+R, since I'm on a Mac, and have both keys. )

So say that you want to put one image on the pocket of a shirt, and the same image, but much larger, on the back. Make the image a Smart Object, and you can place it and resize the pair once, then change both into any other design with the same single mouse click.

You can even use a Vector Smart Object, so that both instances are razor sharp, whether you're resizing to 512 to upload, or to 2048 to match a difficult seam.

Make the straps on your bra once, and replace them with as many lace designs as you can imagine.

Make the top of your shoe once, and replace it with any other shoe top, with a single mouse click.

You get the idea, I'm sure.

For my money, this combo alone is worth the price of the upgrade for anyone who sells clothing in Second Life. It makes things so very simple that there is no comparison, and will pay for the upgrade in no time.

Want more? I should put together a set of tutorials just for CS2 in SL, shouldn't I?

Zowie! that alone was worth the price of admission. I knew all the bits but lacked the requisite brain to put them together in that elegant way.

CS2 indeed was like a new program (CS1 seemed a name change in comparison). For those who are interested Adobe is offering an upgrade via download from any prior version to CS2 for US$170; quite the bargain! (I expect it wants to see an old installation, so I don't suggest getting this by itself but don't know).

Gracia muchas!

It does require an old installation - when I bought my new machine I misread the advertising and found I had a version that I couldn't use because my old version of PS was too old for it to recognise!

Fortunately I sold it on eBay for a reasonable price, and saved for a bit to get CS2.

I made a bigger upgrade that you're considering Introvert, but I wouldn't go back... Even with not using smart objects etc. to their full potential (which I don't) CS2 is a much nicer environment to work in for me, still familiar, but better access to the controls and things that I want and do use, and some lovely odd things. Warp image isn't always useful in SL, but the times it is, it's so easy to use I'm left wondering how I managed without it...

As a hobbyist, I've used PSP for years and have never had issues figuring out what I needed to do for anything I do with my clothing. PSP X has a lot more functionality than PSP 7, 8 or 9 and is, in my opinion, getting closer to the full functionality of PS with every new version. The PSP X version is also a lot more logical and user-friendly to my mind than PS and than previous versions of PSP. But that may be that I learned to do what I do with PSP. While the ability to warp sounds awesome, it also more oriented toward those that use photo sourcing just because it makes the ability warp those photos much easier (or at leat I would think). I use photosourcing only on details (i.e. thoe cool PSP picture tubes which I make myself) so the warping part doesn't necessairly help out really.

I think it's just a matter of technique and style. I have a friend who is a professional texture artist for video games and his position is that if you know enough about each piece of software, you can pretty much make it do whatever you want it to do. It's a matter of technique more than anything, IMHO.

Z

Honestly, I've been in the business since 1981 and find it offensice when someone calls me a hobyinst or claims my choice of app is less good because it's not MS or Apple supported. Believe me when I tell you this... when I learned to programme, windows didn't exist! If you consider yourself a .net guru, then as far as I'm concerned, then at best you're a noob... more likely, you're a wannabe.

Yeah, Introvert, I agree. CS2 is a huge step forward from CS. There are so many new features that it took me months to even figure out where they all were, let alone how to use them. Honestly, it wasn't until I joined the National Association of Photoshop Pros (which is open to everyone, but a little pricey) that I realized the potential of some of the stuff. It's really helped me a bunch.

Zana, I very seldom use photographs as anything but reference. For me, it's simpler to just draw something than it is to manipulate a photo so it will match the UVs and still look good.

As I said, I use the Smart Object/Warp combo to match things over seams, where it's invaluable.

However, I'm pretty sure that PSP has always had a warp feature. If I recall correctly, it's one of the things that I used to wish we could do in PS, that you guys had in PSP. That and your tubes used to make me wish they'd port the program to the Mac. But, of course, they have yet to do that.

I would also respectfully disagree with your friend. There are things that certain apps can do that simply cannot be done in other apps. (For instance, working with 32 bit images. If your app can't do that, then you can't do that in that app, no matter what. If your app doesn't do transparency, then it simply doesn't, and you can't make it. If your app doesn't support layers, then you can't make a layered file in it. Period. If there is no Envelope Warp, then there isn't, and you can't get the same effect any other way. The Smudge tool just doesn't cut it. And on and on.) That's why most of us who are pros have a bunch of apps, and use different ones for different things.

Edited to include the first paragraph, which was somehow left behind when I copied/pasted from the text program where I type these things, to avoid massive spelling errors.

I was not going to reply to this thread because everything that needed to be said has been said, in particular by Robin Sojourner. But there is blood in the water so here goes...


PaintShop Pro and Photoshop are not even remotely in the same arena let alone the same universe. I have used Photoshop since version 1.0. It has nothing to do with being an Adobe product if I gave you my real name and you searched the Adobe forums you would quickly realize that I have no fondness for Adobe.

Their new corporate onslaught, total disregard for customer service, the artificial upgrades forced through by the greedy creative suite concept and their appalling documentation have left me wishing that there was an alternative. But at this point there isn't one and it certainly is not PaintShop Pro. Corel in every way manages to be a company who makes unreliable software, whether it be vector or bitmap.

This does not mean that people who are on a PC or who use PaintShop Pro cannot do great work or that the tools are not a good solution for Second Life but this does not make it in any way a professional product. If I had to work on a PC I would still choose Photoshop.

That being said let me tell you what is wrong with Photoshop:

1. The first and most important issue is that it owned by a company who now places it at the bottom of the list as a priority. If any of you attended the NAB this year and watched Adobe's carnival act about their Apollo initiative this would be made abundantly clear. Creativity software is not what Adobe is interested in any more except when Apple frightens them and produces an application that knocks them out of the water. I predict that we will see a competitive product from Apple or someone else before too long.

2. Photoshop is fat and sloppy and because of this, slow. Adobe decided not to have a 64 bit version of Photoshop so 32 bit images and HDR are a joy to work with and RAW, patience is everything.

3. Photoshop is reaching its peak, other than performance enhancements, it suffering the same problem of other 'aging' software, how much more can you stuff into it to justify another upgrade?

Despite these 'professional' complaints Photoshop is the only game in town when it comes to serious work. PaintShop Pro and other programs like gimp do a lot of great work and maybe they are good enough for Second Life but when it come to high resolution printing, sub-content for motion graphics or high end texture maps for the 3D Photoshop is the choice. Believe me, places like Pixar, Industrial Light and Magic as well as every other 'pro' shop choose Photoshop not because they are trying to impress someone, except that is, their clients and customers.

I use a teeny weeny paint program called ArtGem. I could use Photoshop if I wanted, but when using Photoshop, it takes me a few hours just to decide which of its many options to use to achieve a certain effect.

This sounds like you've been reading and listening to more propaganda than anyone else. There is nothing fat or sloppy about PS. It still outperforms the other image editors in terms of speed of interactivity, especially when working with large files. It may have less bellls and whistles as other paint or illustration software, but it does what its meant to do very well. I'd only tell people to stear clear of Photoshop if its a matter of financial budget and their purpose. Of which, in this case, the person who asked has already purchased Paintshop and will probably be using it for SL.



This is the usual fanboy response and is a terrible example in this context. Like the Oral-B slogan. Its the best toothbrush because more dentists use it. Meaning other toothbrushes won't come close to even cleaning my teeth. Film studios use a plethora of tools of which many of them are unsuitable for general use by end users. Studios like Sony Pictures use Cinepaint, which used to be called Film GIMP (derived from GIMP) for retouching. Why are they using it?

In the film industry, the artists are worth more than the equipment, so they sometimes get to choose anything they are most familiar with, or whatever thats fastest for the pipeline. It normally results in a long list of software dedicated to very specific tasks. Its true they don't choose Photoshop to impress anyone, since they're already famous. Its people like you who do.

The "PSP vs. Photoshop" question comes up often on these forums, and is in many ways a fallacy of the false dilemma. While these are indeed the most commonly mentioned tools, they are by no means the only ones that fill the same niche.

I tried PSP, once upon a time, and it was pretty nifty. It was also ultra-simplistic when compared to photoshop, which is a double-edged sword. PSP offers some of the most commonly-used features, but does not offer the bells and whistles Adobe holds under *cough* software patent.


Photoshop, from my own limited use and the testament of others, is a fairly good tool. The interface is (usually) simple once you know where everything is, and advanced features are offered on the web for photoshop all over the place.

The downside is, Photoshop can be quite monolithic to the new user. The UI, while good, can still be a touch counter-intuitive on the first few uses. Photoshop is also quite expensive, but I doubt I need to remind anyone of this.

Another thing to consider for the long haul is Adobe's stance on software. It is in some cases relevant, given Adobe has been swayed on such issues as not allowing people to print or in some cases save scans of money. One of their former employees also tried to screw me on a job contract recently, but heh... I don't blame them for that.


-----

As for the other alternatives, there are several. Corel Painter is a brilliant natural media tool if you happen to own an art pad or equivalent. It offers a "layer blending" feature that can be very nice in practice, and ostensibly the most advanced brush system on the market. If you like widgets, I would run with this one -- even if it too is on the pricy side. I own a copy of Painter IX, though frankly, I don't use it that much these days.


Then there are the free tools. Project Dogwaffle offers a free version of their software that I tried some time ago. It was quite simplistic, but the UI was very good and easy to navigate. PD only runs natively on Windows, however... so any other OS user is stuck using Wine or equivalent.


Then there's the GIMP. While most people frankly despise its UI, I find it to be pretty easy to navigate once I get down to it. It offers a smart docking system for tools and utilities -- meaning UI elements can be attached to other UI elements fairly easily. It supports all operating systems, all major art tablets, filters, features, and best of all -- is free!

Heck -- it supports my Intuos 3, in Linux, with pressure, tilt sensitivity, and all!


The GIMP is the one I personally use the most. It offers a few oddball features that aren't commonly found on other applications, including a fractal explorer that's saved me a couple dozen times, and Python-Fu, for defining custom filters on top of its open API.

What I like most about GIMP is its exporter tools, which make saving out to any file specification painless (including annoying .TGAs). I also have found that, with rare exception, GIMP just works.

Should the UI be a problem, there's also GIMPshop, but this is more of a UI skin for GIMP than a real application.


-----

So, as far as I'm concerned, I would start with the GIMP (or GIMPshop). If it does not work for your tastes, I would probably go for Photoshop.

Oooh, I hope you didn't think I was calling you a hobbyist, Siobahn. I'm the hobbyist and in no way a professional . I just do this stuff for fun. My professional life is all about words .

Z

Not sure hun, lol... I was annoyed by some peoples reactions, and lashed out... which I shouldn't have. Let's face it, being called a hobbyist isn't (or shouldn't be) an insult. I reacted badly, sorry.