Talk:PaintShop Pro

What about Animation Shop Pro?

I have Paint Shop Pro 6, and it came bundled with Animation Shop Pro 2. Animation Shop is a tool for making animated .gif files using imported frames. There seems to be no main article about Animation Shop, which isn't even discontinued. Its only mention is two sentences in the PSP article, and I feel it deserves its own article. I don't know enough about the program's history and even about some of its functions, so I'm afraid I can't be much of use in writing the article itself. You can find the official page easily enough from the Corel website link at the bottom of the main article. --67.180.200.204 03:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked at JASC during the time when Animation Shop was created and bundled with the last GREAT Paint Shop Pro version ... Version 7! There was a contest at JASC to name the new Animation program, I wanted Animation Shop Pro, but "Animation Shop" won out in the end.

Version 8 was horrible. All subsequent versions were bad as well. Why? Because if I want a slow-loading Paint program, I'll use Photoshop from Adobe. I *still* use PSP7 as my main bitmap editor, since it loads fast, works with my AlienSkin plugins, and doesn't crash like the later versions.

Mr Voit, a pilot who created the first Paint Shop, sold his products to Corel for good reasons. The development team was out of control, and quite ornery.

You know the sample images that come with Paint Shop Pro? The saxophone player image was created by Kelly Anderson using the new vector tools. The multi-layered image of the guitar was created by Todd Matzke.

- Ben Lindelof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

Is it just me, or does this article seem rather biased against Photoshop? I'm a Paint Shop user myself, but this page still seems pretty slanted, especially for an encyclopedia article. Romtobbi 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The "Comparison" section doesn't list any of Photoshop's advantages over Paint Shop Pro, aside from having a Mac version available. The part about Photoshop only being able to import vector graphics isn't even true. Recent releases of Photoshop include a variety of vector tools, though they aren't as extensive as those in ImageReady, or likely those in PSP. Cryoburner 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this entry may be biased against Paint Shop Pro IX, devoting more space to its limitations than its virtues. I have looked at user opinions listed in Amazon's web site and find that most users find it to be satisfactory to excellent. PhotoShop is certainly a more powerful tool but Paint Shop Pro should be compared to other software in its price class. It has a larger set of tools than, for example, PhotoShop Elements but costs less. No major photo editing software costing less than $200 offers as wide an array of tools.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.4.50 (talk • contribs)

It is certainly not deliberately biased but if you can source that last sentence then we can add it in to the article. BlueValour 03:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't do it, though of course I could. I think the whole "Critisisms" section should just be deleted. It's useless, biased, and there's really not "pro" section to counterbalance it. How about a listing of it's virtues instead? Me I use both PS and PSP - love the one step photo process for snapshots, and its much faster for simple things, BTW. Jjdon (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary the section is quite useful. I'm a user of PSP myself, but I like to know exactly what it is that I'm using. As good as PSP is, it has its flaws, and why should they be hidden. It may be true, however, that the article could use more info on the virtues of PSP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelani (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Simplicity

I think some mention should be made of PSP's simplicity, particularly in earlier versions, being another factor in its success. I own the current version of Photoshop, but still re-install PSP 4.0 when I need to work on indexed color (256 and fewer colors) files (e.g. bitmaps for icons, UI buttons, etc.) --Oscar 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The line "Some users complained that the time to start version 8.0 was tens of seconds, whereas the previous version started up in a few seconds" is confusing. Does that mean it starts up 'faster' in the new version and people complained? Or should it say "tenths of a second" for the older version?

Not sure what is confusing you. 8.0 takes tens of seconds (i.e. 10 or 20 seconds) to load while previous versions loaded in a few seconds (i.e. 4-5 seconds). Matt Deres 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Get used to seeing 'tens of' in place of 'dozens of'...

OOOO! Tens Of! Just tell us the number if its less than a hundred. Or a range...

Never heard (or read) anyone talk about "scores" of something? That's multiples of twenty. Abe Lincoln famously used this term. The key to understanding is NOT for everyone to speak exactly the same. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"The difference in price between the two programs is due to the fact that JASC is a smaller, less famous company, and the less amount of tools on PSP." -- how do we know this? It would seem to me that it would require inside information on both Adobe and JASC to get to such knowledge.--Branko

User:²¹² has modified it. --Menchi 13:57, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Yo people I have a question which one of Gimp / Paint Shop Pro is better to remove white pixels on a night photo and also to increase the level of details? I have to play with this picture and remove those noisy pixels. [[1]] ***Xhamlliku

RE: Noise on dark digicam images; these are called "Hot Pixels" and there are specialized tools out there (some for free!) which remove them much, much better than a general purpose editor (what they have in common is that you take a "black frame" image - ie, cover the lens then take an all-black image, to identify which CCD pixels are stuck "on")

Try a google search on "Hot Pixel" for suitable tools.

DaveHowe 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding noise: PSP has a "despeckle" tool, and a "less static" tool, as well as tools for adding artificial noise/static. --67.180.200.204 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on my own experinces with both PSP and Photoshop, and a general, informal consensus by online communities, the applications provide similar tools and functions. But, Photoshop does provide more tools, tends to produce better-looking results, and is far more well known. That's why office companies prefer Photoshop. Whether the difference in quality affects the price, I couldn't say. --Pengwy 14:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am SURE there have to be better advantages than the cmyk colourspace (which more recent versions of PSP do support - at least my copy of 9 here does - however, they won't edit natively in CMYK space, merely being willing to convert the RGB files to same; there are advantages to working natively in CMYK, but not that many) and apple mac support (which again, the GIMP probably does better these days, given the shift to OSX)

Full CMYK support is absolutely critical for print production; if PSP lacks full CMYK support and only, as you say, converts to CMYK then it would be useless for a number of tasks it might be called upon to perform in a print setting, particularly in a print house's pre-press area.

Any one want to contribute some better reasons why photoshop should be worth a large multiple of the price for (apparently) less features?

It smells funny 156.34.27.141 (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DaveHowe 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a history buff of either program but finances dictated that I go with PSP (from v.3) and I now have v.X2. It would appear that there was a nitch for such a program to fill so Adobe (?) kept building a better product, advertised it, and it *became* the standard graphics creation/manipulation program for the industry.

It is not that PSPP can't do the same thing. Will Corel back PSPP and make it more compatible with PS? I doubt it. Why would they: it is marketed to amateur's and billed as easy to use. I agree it is easy to use but you can do so much more with the newer programs than you ever could with the early ones.

I would like to see someone who is at least intermediate in skill knowledge with both programs put a side by side comparison of features. There are certainly things PS will do automatically that can be done in PSP via more steps, just as there are built in scripts in PSP that is the envy of PS users. Pete1948 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are some things, such as Vector Text that makes Photoshop look a decade old. And little things like mouse wheel zoom by default, which Photoshop with a strong Mac preference doesn't seem to understand all that well.156.34.27.141 (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember when PSP first came out? Actually came here looking for the date.  :(

The earliest Google Groups results are from 1992. It was originally a 'Pro' version of an earlier piece of software called Paint Shop. BillyH 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the screenshot is of PSP running on Windows Server 2003 (as the credit states). why would anyone run such an app on a server? --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I do know of people who install "user applications" on servers, sadly. There are also people who run Windows Server 2003 as their desktop OS - presumably because it's newer than XP. Oscar 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some very old, dated comments in this discussion. Is anyone monitoring? There should be mention in here somewhere that even Adobe has admitted that PSP has an edge over PS right now; The intuitive interface. This is due (according to Adobe) to the fact that each successive version of PS has simply stacked tool upon tool without a redesign of the interface and tool layouts. (Nice for PS gurus who've been using all along, but not for a newbie.) Also the fact that PSP is really more appropriate (at 1/10th the price of PS) for 90% of the overall user base seems to be glossed over on a regular basis. I don't need a ferrari or a hummer to drive the 5 miles to work in the morning when a much less expensive car will do the same job. [[User:Hyejohn[John]] 16:00 10 November 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk)

History

Anybody want to fill-in the version history prior to 1996? Oscar 03:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see a reasonably complete version history. Surely someone must have this? I'm checking the Wayback Machine... --Oscar 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 3.0 states that it is copyright 1990-1995 ... would that mean that PSP began in 1990 and not 1992?

I came to the Talk page to ask for more info on the history of the software, as the article seriously lacks that.

From my memory, I think I started using Paint Shop in the early 90s -- probably 92 or 93 (so this doesn't really help with the question above) -- and it was called just that, Paint Shop, not Paint Shop Pro. During what seems to me now like a long time I used early versions of it; and I'm pretty sure that for a good while it was simply a graphic-file conversion software, and not a graphic editor. In other words, its main or sole purpose was to convert between different graphic file formats, like BMP, GIF, TIFF, RLE, etc. It may just be, though, that my memory is failing me.

Can someone confirm this and add some info about this to the article? Thanks. --Cotoco 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps whomever has edited this article didn't know much of the history. I remember when it was a windows 3.1 application and fit on a couple of floppies. It and LView Pro were very similar in size and functionality. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some Corel person removed the content. There was information regarding Jasc Software in this article. Wikipedia is under control of the users? GOD HELP YOU! HAHAHA

Fair use rationale for Image:PSP100.png

Image:PSP100.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bitmap/Raster

In the upper right of the article we find Genre: Bitmap/Vector/Raster Graphics Editor, is there really a diffrence between raster and bitmap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibernate SWE (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

48bit Color Support

If it's true that 12.01 patch introduces full color support for all editing, that's huge. I first added a longer version of that criticism in this article after I got version X and discovered the pathetic limited support and half way job.

Then countless software sites copied the wiki article for their software summaries, and copied each other so it was everywhere. Seems someone at Corel might have noticed. Thanks. 156.34.27.141 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this fact is false despite being listed on the page. Full 48bit support is not included in the latest version of the software.156.34.17.63 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

dewikifying Version and event history dates

I suggest "dewikifying Version and event history dates" as they really serve no purpose. gioto (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)