PSP V Photoshop

A careful study of this forum over the last 6-8months demonstrates a clear preference for Adobe's Photoshop so that was the route I followed with 7.01 and a trial CS.

A week ago I became curious about PSP 8. Wow!! Here in the UK, assuming one is starting from zero, CS is over 600 UK pounds whereas PSP on offer at present is under 45. There is no way that I can see a digital photographer getting 13 times the value from Photoshop. I suspect there are far fewer times than professional forum members would admit that PSP would not do the job required - assuming a 3rd party RAW conversion programme which is fairly common anyway. I'm not saying Photoshop is not more able at the 'edges' but for the keen amatuer anyway the value for money seems to me to be so far in PSP's favour I'm surprised it does not rate more here. Or is this heresy?

someone once said "you only get what you pay for" and that is very true in this case.

I have nothing agaianst PSP...

I tried it back with Version 5... paid for it.... used it for a time.. then went right back to Adobe 4.

I've never looked back.

I use PSP all the time.

But not for photography, just website stuff, where I find PSP beats PS easily. Many (most?) thing in PS can be done in PSP - but most (all?) can't be done as well as PS.

For 1/14th the price, you won't go wrong. But just remember that you will have to get your monies' worth out of PSP, because you will (probably) replace it with PS sooner or later.

But it's well worth the price. I have both, and keep them both up to date, though I might skip a PSP release now and again.

I use PSP 8 and would recommend it to anyone, I think for the money it can't be beat. The learning curve is much shorter and the truth of the matter is I have found it does must of what photoshop does. I've used photoshop 5 and I suppose if I was a design house or professional photographer I might consider photoshop, I just can't justify the cost, and I would venture to say alot of people who use it may not be registered. I think if you took a general survey where everyone could see the question you might be suprised as to how many use PSP, like I said for what it does the price can't be beat

http://www.jasc.com/

please explain how this could possibly be true???????

PS is made to handle large images and manipulate colors and such large subtleties. PSP is much easier and better at handling the small images with less colors. It's kinda hard to explain, I guess. But PS on websites is kinda like using a Lamborghini to go to the corner store.

Not for everything, of course. But I've been using both for many years and I just find PSP to be faster and easier on the small stuff. I like PSP's palette handling better for GIFs, I think it's easier to do transparencies in PSP, I like PSP's small font handling better... And I don't have to wait for PS to start up just to move a pixel. PS is made for large images, and I just find that many of PSP actions and filters and such produce better results on a small image.

I know both about equally well - PS a bit better probably. (12 or 13 years of PS vs 9 or 10 of PSP.) If I had to learn PSP just to do websites then I would never do it. But I like PSP for the small stuff.

Have you looked at or used ImageReady? It's supposedly the PS for web design and stuff. Haven't used it myself so I can't go into the specifics.

PSP 8 is a really nice, powerful and user-friendly program, but unfortunately it lacks essential features, especially color management is too limited (only works with sRGB), and no support for 16-bit images.

PSP 8 is more in the range of Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 - about the same features and the same price. The full version of Photoshop is a step up in features and price.

Yes, but there were a few funky things I didn't like. And the reasons why I don't like PS for small images mostly exist in ImageReady, too. Besides, I've been using PSP for 9 or 10 years - I have no need to learn another program just to see if it can do what I already know that PSP can do. And since the things that PSP lacks are easily handled by PS, again I see no reason to learn IR.

However, I will admit that IR may very well have a "killer function" which I'll never discover... That's the downside.

I doubt very much PSP can do half what photoshop can do with regards to web work.

Photoshop wasn't made for large images as you say - it was made for any images.

Can psp apply matts to transparent images?
Can psp use selective layer masks for transparent images?
Does psp even have the ability to slice artwork?

A daily example of this is that I can create a site design, slice it, name the slices and export the artwork with the html if i want.
I can send this psd file to anyone and they can make any changes they like and use the slices i have already made.
If they want to change the colour of a logo, they make the changes and save that slice only and the job is done.

Selective layer masks are used for text etc - i can set the compression of an individual slice and if it has text in it I can give the text a different compression - so it says sharp while its background can be compressed further.

I can use colour matts on transparent buttons so they are seamless against the background. If i change the background colour from black to white, I just update the matt colour and export the image again.

can psp do all this??

Knock yourself out, EE. I'm not going to get into an argument over this.

who's arguing???
You just made a few remarks that psp was as good or better at web work than photoshop - I'm just pointing out a few features photoshop has and asking if psp can do those things?