I'm surprised you find Photoshop slow? On my system Photoshop is much faster then PaintShop Pro. Once PS is loaded it handles large file sizes better then PSP as well. I haven't tried any 16 bit images with grain surgery yet though. I'm hoping it will handle them, as PSP will not. The right click to reverse zoom is really nice though and working with the clone tool to clean up any dust spots left is handy there. I'm running PSP7 and PS7. I've updated them both as much as I can. The thing I really like about Photoshop is when I go into history I can go back and forth to see what I've done in a second. PSP will do undo fast, but has to go through the entire process again for redo. PSP does not allow me to use the Adobe color profile though that I have my monitor and printer calibrated by, so printing and final viewing and printing are almost done from Photoshop. Working in layers is much more smooth and seamless for me as well in PhotoShop. That's where I need to work more is in using the layers for editing. I'm still learning there. I not sure of this yet but last nights session was indicating that the grain removal from Grain Surgery left a more pleasant and smooth background then PSP. However it requires more custom settings. It appears that you can save your settings for later usage for similar images.
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Grain Surgery for PS Yeah, colour management is an area where PSP is really letting itself down. However I still use it because although I have tried hard with several incarnations of Photoshop on several occasions, I just cant stop loathing it. It is slooooow, unfriendly and has some bad issues with non-dockable toolbars and control usage. PSP is an absolute joy, although I think it has lost some of its 'niceness' in the move up to version 8 and I prefer to stick with version 7 still. One of the best things in PSP is the magnifying glass tool (left click zooms in and right click zooms out, whereas PS needs a shift left click which is far less intuitive and is quite annoying if you like zooming in & out quite a lot). I find Photoshop really poor at displaying images on screen too. When not viewing at 1:1 magnification you get REALLY bad Jaggies all over the place whereas PSP is fantastic. I just this last weekend has another go with Elements 2.0 because I REALLY want to get somewhere with using colour profiles etc, but I just couldn't make head nor tail of how to do this in Elements - do you need full CS to do it properly? >From what I can deduce, I think David's preference for PSP is that the tools for grain reduction are perhaps better than his version of Photoshop. Personally I only look at grain reduction when scanning and then use the ICE/ROC/GEM built into the Nikon Scanning interface because it is partly hardware based. I am interested to hear more of David's (and anyone elses) thoughts and comments having used both pieces of software. > -----Original Message----- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 February 2004 11:22 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Grain Surgery for PS > > > then i don't get the point of the reference to or the use of > PSP 7 and grain in your original msg. PSP 7 is a lot worse > than Photoshop at color management and that means it's not > very useful for photographic work. it only color manages to > the monitor and not to the printer. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:22 PM > Subject: RE: Grain Surgery for PS > > > > I'm not using Photoshop or grainsurgery for scanning itself. But > actually > > the scanning program does make a difference IMHO. VueScan gets much > better > > shadow detail then the Minolta software that comes with the > scanner no > > matter how manually I've tried it. VueScan also focuses > the scanner > > much faster then the Minolta software and I've yet to > notice any loss > > of sharp focus there. To a point the scanning program can make a > > difference as > well > > because of some compensation built into the manufacturers > software for > > the hardware created noise. I think I do get a bit more > noise out of > > VueScan, but usually better overall results in the end. But as for > > this post it > only > > refers to after scanning processing, not scanning itself. > > >
