Photo Programs

[Graueradler]

I have two photo programs that came packaged with other things I bought. One is MGI Photosuite. The other is Adobe PhotoDeluxe. I don't see any need to have two loaded on my computer. Which one is better? Is there any clear difference?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I have two photo programs that came packaged with other things I bought. One is MGI Photosuite. The other is Adobe PhotoDeluxe. I don't see any need to have two loaded on my computer. Which one is better? Is there any clear difference?

Used Adobe to scan, copy & print color and was fairly pleased so 'deluxe' should be better but I don't know the other one.

 

[Lawreston]

I have two photo programs that came packaged with other things I bought. One is MGI Photosuite. The other is Adobe PhotoDeluxe. I don't see any need to have two loaded on my computer. Which one is better? Is there any clear difference?

Without any prior knowledge of the MGI Photosuite, my first inclination would be to put my faith in an Adobe product. Theirs is a track record of fine repute.

HR

 

[Henning]

Without any prior knowledge of the MGI Photosuite, my first inclination would be to put my faith in an Adobe product. Theirs is a track record of fine repute.

HR

I don't know, I use photoshop, and I'm not impressed in the least. The main part that irks me is the burn feature. When you burn on paper (neg RA-4) you burn in that color with a slight shift to green on long burns. With photoshop, it just lays in grey and muddies up the color. I'm still looking for a top end photo manipulation software.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I don't know, I use photoshop, and I'm not impressed in the least. The main part that irks me is the burn feature. When you burn on paper (neg RA-4) you burn in that color with a slight shift to green on long burns. With photoshop, it just lays in grey and muddies up the color. I'm still looking for a top end photo manipulation software.

I don't think there is a better one... Some compitition would be a good thing.

And guess what, they just got in bed (bought?) with Macromedia.

 

[mmilano]

a 'burn' feature is a reason not to like photoshop? maybe i like it so much because i don't touch that feature =) .. i will usually modify the light levels in a picture, maybe saturate/desaturate or modify contrast. the save-for-web feature is great for getting file sizes down, and it does a great job with jpg compression.

adobe bought macromedia. it will be interesting to see how flash evolves in the future.

 

[ausrere]

I don't think there is a better one... Some compitition would be a good thing.

Has anyone tried Ulead's Photoimpact (the full version, not the Express version that comes with some scanners) . I'd be curious what you thought. I'm not even close to being a pro at graphics manipulation, but I like it. Been using it since version 3.0. I never did like Photoshop, but then again I'm a amateur at graphics editing so that may be why.

 

[Henning]

a 'burn' feature is a reason not to like photoshop?

Yep, for me it is. It is very rare in anything but studio conditions to get the entire light range between 2.5 and 3 stops, and often times you don't want a small bright but insignifigant object drawing the viewer out of the flow of the picture, so you use dodging and burning to correct the imbalance and maintain the focus and attention where you want it in the composition. BTW, the dodge feature is just as bad, and to me, these are primary tools in photo printing. Plus I'd like a "cigarette cellophane" dodge tool as well. I used to shoot portraits on a 4x5, and while printing take a crumpled cigarette cellophane and move it through the faces of the old ladies for about 1/3 of the exposure to get rid of their wrinkles. That trick picked me up a bunch of work including a couple major banks.

 

[Iceman]

I don't know, I use photoshop, and I'm not impressed in the least. The main part that irks me is the burn feature. When you burn on paper (neg RA-4) you burn in that color with a slight shift to green on long burns. With photoshop, it just lays in grey and muddies up the color. I'm still looking for a top end photo manipulation software.

Not sure what you are getting at. Photoshop is the best program available and it is a good value. What version of photoshop are you using? What kind of camera are you using? Have you tried shooting in raw and merging different exposure files giving your self more range? Have you seperated out the problem ares in different layers to give more color blanace/control?

I'm sorry if I come off harsh but to me only using the burn/dodge tool in photoshop is A LOT worse than only using the direct button on a $10,000 aviation GPS.

 

[Henning]

Not sure what you are getting at. Photoshop is the best program available and it is a good value. What version of photoshop are you using? What kind of camera are you using? Have you tried shooting in raw and merging different exposure files giving your self more range? Have you seperated out the problem ares in different layers to give more color blanace/control?

I'm sorry if I come off harsh but to me only using the burn/dodge tool in photoshop is A LOT worse than only using the direct button on a $10,000 aviation GPS.

I'm using a Fuji S2 Pro, and I own PS 6, although I have played with the newest and it has the same flaws I find in 6, so I haven't seen a reason to buy it. My point is when you use the burn or dodge features, rather than controlling the saturation of the color, it just adds or subtracts neutal base (grey) which muddies up or washes out the color rather than bringing out detail if you hve to go beyond 9% or so. I just don't have nearly the control of the process that I had with a D-5500 enlarger and paper printing from film. As for layer composite work, I save absolutely no time with photoshop and get a lower quality result than I got using pin registered litho stripping. The only advantage to using the consumer end digital is it's much cheaper to get into. I can't believe professional labs and photographers are using Photoshop, there must be other better programs. There were better programs 10 years ago when I last worked in the field. Problem was they were $25,000 for the software and $10,000 for the computer to run it, not to mention the $250,000 for the Sci Tex scanner and $2,500,000 for the film recorder. There just has to be something better, I just haven't gone around the industry to look for it yet.