graphics programs

Nope!

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

Is there a next step up?

Steve

— faith \’fath\ n : firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Webster’s Dictionary

From: "gus"
Newsgroups: alt.graphics.photoshop
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:35:28 -0000
Subject: graphics programs

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

"gus"

| i know this is a Photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something | that’s the next step up from Photoshop?

Prayer? Photoshop Elves/Fairies?

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…

—
SamMan
Rip it to reply

SamMan wrote:

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…

maybe

gus wrote:

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

Any particular area of functionality that you feel is lacking? Photoshop is not a page layout program, for example, nor is it particularly good for printing large numbers of images, or cataloging them. There are other specialized apps that do better than Photoshop in these areas.

But for pure unadulterated pixel pushing, color correcting, filter flinging functionality, Photoshop is IT.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Nothing compares to PS
"Roy" wrote in message

Nope!

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

"Brian" wrote in message

SamMan wrote:

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…

maybe

Care to elaborate?

—
SamMan
Rip it to reply

SamMan wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

SamMan wrote:

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…

maybe

Care to elaborate?

Probably best not to in this NG. I am here to learn and broaden my skills, not to get into debates about what is best. You ask a fair enough question, of course.

Have a great day SamMan.

SamMan wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

SamMan wrote:

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…

maybe

Care to elaborate?

Forgive me for butting in, but Mr. SamMan can you tell us what it is about Photoshop you feel is missing – assuming you seek something which is not present in PS?

Jan

I am sure Microsoft makes something better than Photoshop, don’t they!! Wombatwal

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

gus wrote:

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

Any particular area of functionality that you feel is lacking? Photoshop is
not a page layout program, for example, nor is it particularly good for printing large numbers of images, or cataloging them. There are other specialized apps that do better than Photoshop in these areas.
But for pure unadulterated pixel pushing, color correcting, filter flinging
functionality, Photoshop is IT.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Well, if you are referring to Photoshop CS … CS 2.0 is due out soon. It is code
named Space Monkey. Try looking on a search engine for the new features. Maybe
the new tools and attributes will be what you want.

Craig

In article <l7V%d.1669$ says…

Well, if you are referring to Photoshop CS … CS 2.0 is due out soon. It is code
named Space Monkey. Try looking on a search engine for the new features. Maybe
the new tools and attributes will be what you want.

Craig

I asked this question once on another group and never got a straight answer…

Wut da HELL is up with software companies and these "codenames" anyway…??? Seems to me…something with a "codename"…is usually something SECRET, like "The Manhattan Project", etc.
Microsoft Windows "codename Longhorn"…Photoshop CS "codename Space Monkey"… If these are "codenames"…and supposed to be secret (which I would assume…or why else HAVE one)…
Why da heck does everybody KNOW them…???
Somebody can ‘splain dis Lucy…???

nothing’s wrong with cs, i just didnt know there wasnt anything better.

PS is the best of it’s type.
There are other types of graphics progams such as 3d modelers which you might like to try.
3ds max is a good example

—
www.micromountain.com
"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

Opening your own service bureau.

gus wrote:

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

There’s a software called photo retouch pro (I only saw a demo that came with a DLAB2)
And some people say that the color management is better than in PS. http://www.binuscan.com/prp_multilangues/us/infos_prp.html

The price seems better too…(4 990

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:35:28 -0000, "gus" wrote:

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

Yes, that nifty little graphics program they have on CSI that can load up a facial image from a store video camera and enlarge it by 1000% so you can clearly see the persons features.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:35:28 -0000, "gus" wrote:

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

Yes, that nifty little graphics program they have on CSI that can load up a facial image from a store video camera and enlarge it by 1000% so you can clearly see the persons features.

Yes, the programs on CSI are so cool. At the flick of a mouse they can achieve things that would take me hours or days using adjustment layers, plugins, the lot. …

Big Craigie

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

Aye, there is a wee program that comes with Windows called Paint. Pretty darn good, bloody hard to master but kicks PS’s arse. 😉

"Jan" wrote in message

SamMan wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

SamMan wrote:

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something
that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

The only step from Photoshop is down, I’m afraid…

maybe

Care to elaborate?

Forgive me for butting in, but Mr. SamMan can you tell us what it is about Photoshop you feel is missing – assuming you seek something which is not present in PS?

Jan

Jan,

Please follow the thread carefully… I do not think that PS is missing anything.

—
SamMan
Rip it to reply

As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop. But on the down side it does not have the elegance of screen layout and therefore you will find your workspace diminishing into postage stamp proportions as you expand your knowledge of the application and get to open more toolbars, dockers and panels. But if you really want to expand your repertoire, it’s worth a look-see.

"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

thanks

Robin wrote:

As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop. But on the down side it does not have the elegance of screen layout and therefore you will find your workspace diminishing into postage stamp proportions as you expand your knowledge of the application and get to open more toolbars, dockers and panels. But if you really want to expand your repertoire, it’s worth a look-see.
"gus" wrote in message

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

At the risk of being letter bombed the same day that you are, I have to agree with you on that one Robin. Except, I actually think there is a bigger and less obtrusive workspace in PP than PS.
At the end of the day, both programmes are fantastic and do everything one could wish for.

Brian.

gus wrote:

i know this is a photoshop newsgroup, but can anyone recommend something that’s the next step up from photoshop?

A rock wall and a pointed stone.

In article <d1rl5o$q6h$>,
"Robin" wrote:

As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop.

Actually, it doesn’t. I have it; it offers far less than Photoshop.

However–and this is a big "however"–most Photoshop users do not ever touch, or even know about, more than 20% of Photoshop’s power. It’s simply invisible to them.

So, for example, the fact that Photoshop supports spot color is lost on most users, who do not know the difference between "spot color" and other kinds of color, do not know what "spot color" is or what it is used for, and do not know that Photoshop supports it. It’s an "invisible feature"–a feature the average Photoshop user is utterly unaware of.

Photo-Paint offers a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality; it’s easy to construct a rather lengthy list of things Photoshop does that Photo-Paint does not. However, most of the things on that list leave average Photoshop users saying "Huh? What does that mean? I don’t kno what that is–you mean to tell me Photoshop can do that? What’s it for?"

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Tacit wrote:

In article <d1rl5o$q6h$>,
"Robin" wrote:

As you may have noticed, us Photoshop groupies are a protective lot; however, (and I know I am diving into a hornets nest here), Corel Photo Paint – although nowhere near as popular as Photoshop, is a damn fine paint and image manipulation application. I would even say that technically it offers more than Photoshop.

Actually, it doesn’t. I have it; it offers far less than Photoshop.
However–and this is a big "however"–most Photoshop users do not ever touch, or even know about, more than 20% of Photoshop’s power. It’s simply invisible to them.

So, for example, the fact that Photoshop supports spot color is lost on most users, who do not know the difference between "spot color" and other kinds of color, do not know what "spot color" is or what it is used for, and do not know that Photoshop supports it. It’s an "invisible feature"–a feature the average Photoshop user is utterly unaware of.
Photo-Paint offers a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality; it’s easy to construct a rather lengthy list of things Photoshop does that Photo-Paint does not. However, most of the things on that list leave average Photoshop users saying "Huh? What does that mean? I don’t kno what that is–you mean to tell me Photoshop can do that? What’s it for?"

Hi Tacit,

I also have both programmes and disagree with you. Photopaint does offer more features than Photoshop and is a lot more logical and easier to use. One can perform operations a lot faster in PP than PS. It has more options for a lot of the functions/tools too.

Both programmes have things the other does not have, so depending on your type of work, which programme would be best for you. I did not want to "Go there" in this NG because I am here to learn more about PS, not compare it to what I mainly use. When I hear the usual "Corel is crap" (usually from people who either never used it, or used it years ago when it was crap!), it annoys me because they are spreading incorrect information. I am not accusing you of this Tacit, you did not say that at all. A lot of people do though.

I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.

I will NEVER comment on Corel in this NG again, I promise that! I want to get along in here and learn from the terrific wealth of knowledge that resides in this NG. I just had to respond to your comment Tacit, as you were making a comparison, so I felt I had the right to give my comparison. I could have written MANY pages on the differences, I only scratched the surface, but why bother. Everyone here uses PS, it is a terrific programme and no-one is going to change what they are using and like. I would never want anyone to change. I am learning PS because it is so widely used and I love learning alternative programmes.

Thanks everyone in here for all the great advice you have posted which has helped me to acclerate my learning process with PS!!!

Brian.

In article ,
Brian wrote:

I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.

You can’t realistically have a button for everything, or else your whole screen would be nothing but buttons. 🙂

Photoshop has command key shortcuts to do all the things you describe. New image from clipboard? Control-N; the parameters of whatever is on the Clipboard are filled in automatically. If you choose to change these parameters, for example, by changing the setting from RGB to CMYK, then Photoshop will make those changes to what’s on the clipboard when you hit control-V.

Copy an image to the Clipboard? Control-C. Export to PDF? File->Save As, choose PDF. New layer from selection? Control-J.

Photo-Paint is aimed at casual and hobbyist users. It does many things with one click that most casual and hobbyist users find important.

What really sets them apart is power, though. Photo-Paint has a number of problems which make it unsuitable for professional work; that is why professionals use Photoshop, and that is why Photo-Paint costs only a fraction of what Photoshop costs.

For starters, Photo-Paint has a very poor quality separation engine. That means that when you convert an image from RGB to CMYK in Photo-Paint (or CorelDRAW), the quality of the CMYK image is very poor; it is flat and muddy, with too much black and low saturation. And unlike with a high-end professional program, the CMYK separations can not be tailored for different kinds of presses or paper; many CMYK separations produced by Photo-Paint are all but unprintable on press.

Photo-Paint also has an inferior interpolation engine. That means that if you resample (resize) or rotate images or portions thereof, the quality of the resized or rotated image is not as high as it is in Photoshop or another professional-quality program. This problem is ESPECIALLY pronounced when you are rotating portions of an image; you can see the quality of the portion of the image you are manipulating degrade very rapidly.

Photo-Paint has serious problems with the way it handles feathered (soft-edged) selections. Feathered selections in Photo-Paint are prone to banding, harsh breaks (especially at around the 2% and 45% marks), and other undesirable artifacts.

Photo-Paint lacks the sophisticated masking and color-correction tools of a program like Photoshop. Photo-Paint does not have the same range of selection tools and commands, and its color correction commands, where they exist, are not as sophisticated. Photo-Paint’s Curves command, for example, does not produce results as smooth as Photoshop’s, and Photo-Paint lacks Photoshop’s sophisticated Selective Color color correction capabilities.

I once stole a client from a competitor of mine just by not using Photo-Paint. The client supplied images in RGB, which needed to be converted to CMYK for printing. My competitor used Photo-Paint; I used Photoshop. Two of the same images, one separated in Photo-Paint and one in Photoshop, printed side-by-side on a proof were so radically different in color saturation, depth, and vibrancy that my competitor never had a chance. The $30,000 I made from that client more than paid for my copy of Photoshop.

Bottom line: It depends on what you intend to do. Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist or casual use, but it is not suitable for professional print production.

It’s probably more reasonable to compare Photo-Paint with Photoshop Elements, Adobe-s application aimed at casual home users. Photo-Paint has most of Photoshop Element’s functionality, but only a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality. If you sincerely believe that Photo-Paint can do almost everything Photoshop can do, then you are not aware of much of what Photoshop can do, and Photoshop has many capabilities and commands you don’t use–but that’s fine, as Photo-Paint is great for casual hobbyist use, and if you don’t know about Photoshop’s functionality, you clearly don’t miss it.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Tacit,

Fascinating article. Really enjoyed it. I even saved it.

I have PS7 and PP10 and love them both. However, I use PS7 far more. Having spent years reaching my modest proficiency in PS, I am not about to spend similar calories learning in depth a pgm no professional uses.

But in fairness to PP10, and the reason I use it, is it has a novel approach to FX, some of which are not available in PS. Why not enjoy both worlds, I say.

Tacit wrote:

In article ,
Brian wrote:

I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.

You can’t realistically have a button for everything, or else your whole screen would be nothing but buttons. 🙂

Photoshop has command key shortcuts to do all the things you describe. New image from clipboard? Control-N; the parameters of whatever is on the Clipboard are filled in automatically. If you choose to change these parameters, for example, by changing the setting from RGB to CMYK, then Photoshop will make those changes to what’s on the clipboard when you hit control-V.

Copy an image to the Clipboard? Control-C. Export to PDF? File->Save As, choose PDF. New layer from selection? Control-J.

Photo-Paint is aimed at casual and hobbyist users. It does many things with one click that most casual and hobbyist users find important.
What really sets them apart is power, though. Photo-Paint has a number of problems which make it unsuitable for professional work; that is why professionals use Photoshop, and that is why Photo-Paint costs only a fraction of what Photoshop costs.

For starters, Photo-Paint has a very poor quality separation engine. That means that when you convert an image from RGB to CMYK in Photo-Paint (or CorelDRAW), the quality of the CMYK image is very poor; it is flat and muddy, with too much black and low saturation. And unlike with a high-end professional program, the CMYK separations can not be tailored for different kinds of presses or paper; many CMYK separations produced by Photo-Paint are all but unprintable on press.
Photo-Paint also has an inferior interpolation engine. That means that if you resample (resize) or rotate images or portions thereof, the quality of the resized or rotated image is not as high as it is in Photoshop or another professional-quality program. This problem is ESPECIALLY pronounced when you are rotating portions of an image; you can see the quality of the portion of the image you are manipulating degrade very rapidly.

Photo-Paint has serious problems with the way it handles feathered (soft-edged) selections. Feathered selections in Photo-Paint are prone to banding, harsh breaks (especially at around the 2% and 45% marks), and other undesirable artifacts.

Photo-Paint lacks the sophisticated masking and color-correction tools of a program like Photoshop. Photo-Paint does not have the same range of selection tools and commands, and its color correction commands, where they exist, are not as sophisticated. Photo-Paint’s Curves command, for example, does not produce results as smooth as Photoshop’s, and Photo-Paint lacks Photoshop’s sophisticated Selective Color color correction capabilities.

I once stole a client from a competitor of mine just by not using Photo-Paint. The client supplied images in RGB, which needed to be converted to CMYK for printing. My competitor used Photo-Paint; I used Photoshop. Two of the same images, one separated in Photo-Paint and one in Photoshop, printed side-by-side on a proof were so radically different in color saturation, depth, and vibrancy that my competitor never had a chance. The $30,000 I made from that client more than paid for my copy of Photoshop.

Bottom line: It depends on what you intend to do. Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist or casual use, but it is not suitable for professional print production.

It’s probably more reasonable to compare Photo-Paint with Photoshop Elements, Adobe-s application aimed at casual home users. Photo-Paint has most of Photoshop Element’s functionality, but only a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality. If you sincerely believe that Photo-Paint can do almost everything Photoshop can do, then you are not aware of much of what Photoshop can do, and Photoshop has many capabilities and commands you don’t use–but that’s fine, as Photo-Paint is great for casual hobbyist use, and if you don’t know about Photoshop’s functionality, you clearly don’t miss it.

Ok Tacit,

I did not want to get into this debate, this is a Photoshop group and not a Corel group, but seeing that you have made some statements here that are NOT correct (typical of Adobe people who know nothing about Corel), I will address every one one of them later on today. My parents are on their way to visit me as I type. I will give you a detailed response once they have gone later in the day. I am still laughing at your statement about "selection tools" and I will have fun pointing out to you that Photopaint has more selection tools than Photoshop, and better ones at that! You picked the wrong person here to make false statements too. I have used Photopaint at a professional level as a Photographer and Photo Restorer for 8 years. It is a totally professional application and produces excellent results. Clearly you are not proficient in it and have no idea what features and capabilities it has. If you have ever taken the trouble to customise it (something that is incredibly limited in Photoshop)you would have a far better idea how much quicker you can get things done in it.
I look forward to addressing your issues later on and giving you some of my statements about what is better in Photopaint.

Best regards,
Brian.

Walter Donavan wrote:

Tacit,

Fascinating article. Really enjoyed it. I even saved it.
I have PS7 and PP10 and love them both. However, I use PS7 far more. Having spent years reaching my modest proficiency in PS, I am not about to spend similar calories learning in depth a pgm no professional uses.
But in fairness to PP10, and the reason I use it, is it has a novel approach to FX, some of which are not available in PS. Why not enjoy both worlds, I say.

Hi Walter,

so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop. That stems back to reputation (outdated reputation) from the Mac mentality. One day, perform a difficult task in Photoshop and write down every single keystroke, tool selection, etc you used in the process. Then I will perform the same tasks the way I have to in Photopaint. I guarantee you we will end up the same result, but I will have had to do half the keystrokes you had to!

Brian.

Tacit wrote:

In article ,
Brian wrote:

I really like PS a lot, and I am becoming more proficient in it…especially since coming to this NG. The things that make it ‘unusal’ for me are the very "basic" things. I open an image in PP by clicking an Open Button. I open an image from the clipbaord by choosing "New from Clipboard". Wow, funny that? I want to copy an image to the clipbard….I click on a Copy Button, funny that too? Just like I click on Print/Print Preview, I hit a button to export to PDF, another to export to HTML. I hit a button to Import an image. I have a selection and I click on a single button to produce a new layer from that selection, etc etc. I choose the brush tool and not only get pen, pencil, art brush, sprayer, airbrush, etc etc, but then what type of pen, pencil, airbrush, etc etc do I want….the list goes on and on. It is "how the programme works" that sets is apart from PS.

You can’t realistically have a button for everything, or else your whole screen would be nothing but buttons. 🙂

Photoshop has command key shortcuts to do all the things you describe. New image from clipboard? Control-N; the parameters of whatever is on the Clipboard are filled in automatically. If you choose to change these parameters, for example, by changing the setting from RGB to CMYK, then Photoshop will make those changes to what’s on the clipboard when you hit control-V.

Copy an image to the Clipboard? Control-C. Export to PDF? File->Save As, choose PDF. New layer from selection? Control-J.

Photo-Paint is aimed at casual and hobbyist users. It does many things with one click that most casual and hobbyist users find important.
What really sets them apart is power, though. Photo-Paint has a number of problems which make it unsuitable for professional work; that is why professionals use Photoshop, and that is why Photo-Paint costs only a fraction of what Photoshop costs.

For starters, Photo-Paint has a very poor quality separation engine. That means that when you convert an image from RGB to CMYK in Photo-Paint (or CorelDRAW), the quality of the CMYK image is very poor; it is flat and muddy, with too much black and low saturation. And unlike with a high-end professional program, the CMYK separations can not be tailored for different kinds of presses or paper; many CMYK separations produced by Photo-Paint are all but unprintable on press.
Photo-Paint also has an inferior interpolation engine. That means that if you resample (resize) or rotate images or portions thereof, the quality of the resized or rotated image is not as high as it is in Photoshop or another professional-quality program. This problem is ESPECIALLY pronounced when you are rotating portions of an image; you can see the quality of the portion of the image you are manipulating degrade very rapidly.

Photo-Paint has serious problems with the way it handles feathered (soft-edged) selections. Feathered selections in Photo-Paint are prone to banding, harsh breaks (especially at around the 2% and 45% marks), and other undesirable artifacts.

Photo-Paint lacks the sophisticated masking and color-correction tools of a program like Photoshop. Photo-Paint does not have the same range of selection tools and commands, and its color correction commands, where they exist, are not as sophisticated. Photo-Paint’s Curves command, for example, does not produce results as smooth as Photoshop’s, and Photo-Paint lacks Photoshop’s sophisticated Selective Color color correction capabilities.

I once stole a client from a competitor of mine just by not using Photo-Paint. The client supplied images in RGB, which needed to be converted to CMYK for printing. My competitor used Photo-Paint; I used Photoshop. Two of the same images, one separated in Photo-Paint and one in Photoshop, printed side-by-side on a proof were so radically different in color saturation, depth, and vibrancy that my competitor never had a chance. The $30,000 I made from that client more than paid for my copy of Photoshop.

Bottom line: It depends on what you intend to do. Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist or casual use, but it is not suitable for professional print production.

It’s probably more reasonable to compare Photo-Paint with Photoshop Elements, Adobe-s application aimed at casual home users. Photo-Paint has most of Photoshop Element’s functionality, but only a small fraction of Photoshop’s functionality. If you sincerely believe that Photo-Paint can do almost everything Photoshop can do, then you are not aware of much of what Photoshop can do, and Photoshop has many capabilities and commands you don’t use–but that’s fine, as Photo-Paint is great for casual hobbyist use, and if you don’t know about Photoshop’s functionality, you clearly don’t miss it.

Hi Tacit,

I am still sitting here waiting for my parents to arrive, grrr. I have an idea to end this debate the quickest and simplest way. Rather than me typing dozens of pages about why I prefer Photopaint (how boring for Adobe readers, and how insulting to even post in their group!), how about we put our money where our mouth is! Simple as this: Someone in this group (excluding you or me) post an image and set a complex task to be achieved. That person can pretend to be a client and give us a job to do. You use Photoshop and I use Photopaint. We can then post the images somewhere for all to view and you can illustrate to the whole group how superior the results from Photoshop are! They can open the 2 images, examine them closely, print them, do what they like! If photoshop does things that Photopaint cannot, maybe you would like to give the poster of the image a few hints so they can set a task that would be impossible in Photopaint. My point here being, there is nothing you can create in Photoshop that I cannot in Photopaint to the same standard! I am not saying Photopaint creates a better image, it certainly does not, but it produces the same quality image with far less fuss!

I have stated my challenge and I await your response!

Brian.

In article ,
Brian wrote:

Someone in this group (excluding you or me) post an image and set a complex task to be achieved. That person can pretend to be a client and give us a job to do. You use Photoshop and I use Photopaint. We can then post the images somewhere for all to view and you can illustrate to the whole group how superior the results from Photoshop are! They can open the 2 images, examine them closely, print them, do what they like! If photoshop does things that Photopaint cannot, maybe you would like to give the poster of the image a few hints so they can set a task that would be impossible in Photopaint. My point here being, there is nothing you can create in Photoshop that I cannot in Photopaint to the same standard! I am not saying Photopaint creates a better image, it certainly does not, but it produces the same quality image with far less fuss!

I have stated my challenge and I await your response!

Sounds good to me.

Be aware, though, that the images will have to be used more than simply for the Web; the place Photoshop shines is in things such as color separation, color correction, and the like–relevant primarily to press.

Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist and amateur work, and for work intended only for RGB, it does a good job. The nature of the challenge as you have stated it, though, leads me to believe that you do not work in print or prepress, which means you are probably unfamiliar with much of Photoshop’s functionality. I can give you an example of tasks that can be achieved with excellent results in Photoshop but not Photo-Paint:

– Separate an image for high-quality litho reproduction.

– Perform fine color correction in CMYK.

– Perform spot-color separation.

– Combine vector and raster elements which will stay vector and raster when output to a PostScript printer or imagesetter.

These are all things that hobbyist users do not need. Many hobbyist users do not know what "color separation" is, and most hobbyist users don’t know what "spot color" means, so the fact that Photoshop does these things is not relevant to hobbyist users.

I’m not saying that Photo-Paint should not be used; nor am I telling you that you personally should stop using it. I am simply correcting one mistaken idea that hobbyist users have; "Photo-Paint does everything Photoshop does." Photo-Paint does approximately 40% of what Photoshop does–but that other 60% is, for the most part, stuff that someone who does not work professionally for print would never see or even be aware of.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Tacit wrote:

In article ,
Brian wrote:

Someone in this group (excluding you or me) post an image and set a complex task to be achieved. That person can pretend to be a client and give us a job to do. You use Photoshop and I use Photopaint. We can then post the images somewhere for all to view and you can illustrate to the whole group how superior the results from Photoshop are! They can open the 2 images, examine them closely, print them, do what they like! If photoshop does things that Photopaint cannot, maybe you would like to give the poster of the image a few hints so they can set a task that would be impossible in Photopaint. My point here being, there is nothing you can create in Photoshop that I cannot in Photopaint to the same standard! I am not saying Photopaint creates a better image, it certainly does not, but it produces the same quality image with far less fuss!

I have stated my challenge and I await your response!

Sounds good to me.

Be aware, though, that the images will have to be used more than simply for the Web; the place Photoshop shines is in things such as color separation, color correction, and the like–relevant primarily to press.
Photo-Paint is fine for hobbyist and amateur work, and for work intended only for RGB, it does a good job. The nature of the challenge as you have stated it, though, leads me to believe that you do not work in print or prepress, which means you are probably unfamiliar with much of Photoshop’s functionality. I can give you an example of tasks that can be achieved with excellent results in Photoshop but not Photo-Paint:
– Separate an image for high-quality litho reproduction.
– Perform fine color correction in CMYK.

– Perform spot-color separation.

– Combine vector and raster elements which will stay vector and raster when output to a PostScript printer or imagesetter.

These are all things that hobbyist users do not need. Many hobbyist users do not know what "color separation" is, and most hobbyist users don’t know what "spot color" means, so the fact that Photoshop does these things is not relevant to hobbyist users.

I’m not saying that Photo-Paint should not be used; nor am I telling you that you personally should stop using it. I am simply correcting one mistaken idea that hobbyist users have; "Photo-Paint does everything Photoshop does." Photo-Paint does approximately 40% of what Photoshop does–but that other 60% is, for the most part, stuff that someone who does not work professionally for print would never see or even be aware of.

Thanks for the response Tacit. I am open and honest as they come, so I will say this in response to the above.
1. you are correct, due to the nature of what I do, I have historically not had to send images for commercial printing, other than 3 particular jobs. One was a poster for a martial artist, he became the world granite breaking champion and wanted a promo poster. The second job was a set of business cards for a client (I generally do not get involved with this line of work at all as I hold no interest in it, however the particular client was a good one in other areas). Thirdly, some certificates and vouchers for another client. These jobs printed spot on and the clients were most happy. The printer was quite happy to take Illustrator or CorelDraw file formats (amongst others) and I gave him the files in native CDR format.
2. I have to admit to you that I actually find your use of the word "hobbyist" quite insulting and offending. I am a professional and I am good at what I do. I am a photographer and a photo restorer. I deal with around 30 picture framers on a "regular" basis (my main source of photo restoration work) and 73 altogether on my books. My photographic work mainly consists of photographing strippers (sorry to admit that), some model portfolio work and some small products for graphic designers (to place in their designs…and obviously they organise their own printing). Like Hecate, I have to do the occasional wedding too. So I am far from a hobbyist thank you very much. The graphic designers I deal with, of which 99% work with photoshop, are most happy with the images I provide to them. I still shoot film at this point in time, scan it in to Photopaint and prepare the images. Unless they have to perform special effects, etc. the designers are happy with the fact that my images are ready for press.
Like I said earlier on, I am really disappointed I am having this discussion in an Adobe forum, I feel it is not the thing to be doing. I really enjoy participating in this NG and pick up some terrific advice in here. I have picked up some good points from yourself. I feel sad as I suspect a lot of people in here will not like me after this discussion. I just could not sit by while someone rubbished the software that I use though, because it is not worthy of insult. For the record, after reading your post earlier, I opened an image in Photopaint and the same image in Photoshop. I resampled both images to about 50% of their original pixel heights/widths and compared the 2 at 100% magnification. They were almost identical!! Photoshop does not produce a better resampling..it produces the "same" quality.
If 2 images were posted here for the group, one from PS and one from PP, there is no way known anyone would be able to tell which image came from which programme.

When I mentioned all the function buttons on my toolbars in Photopaint, that is an important feature to me. I am not talking about a hobbyist-type programme that has a one click does all. I am talking about fast ways of working. I am left-handed and use a grahpics tablet. Most shortcuts are aimed at right-handed people so they can hold a stylus/mouse in their right hand and use the shortcuts with their left. That is inappropriate for me…I would have to keep on putting the mouse/stylus down to do shortcuts and that would be ridiculous. In PP I can work without ever letting go of the stylus. Everything (tools/features) is a click away…not delving into menus because the toolbars are so sparse.

Let’s drop this discussion as we will never agree and it will only turn the people in this NG against me. You know far too little about Photopaint to comment on it, that is clear by your comments. If you want that "challenge", fine by me, but we better cease this debate because I so much wanted to fit in here and I think there is little chance of that happening now 🙁

On a final note, I cannot comment, and I open enough to say it, on separations, spot colour and other technical printing matters. I have always produced my own prints. I offer my photographic clients the option of commercial pro lab photographic prints, and my photo quality inkjet prints. The clients invariably go for the inkjet prints. I get them right! I therefore cannot argue with you about which programme prepares an image better for commercial press, I honestly don’t know. That is one of the reasons I wanted to become proficient in PS as a fall back, because up and coming work opportunities are going to lead to some regular commerical printing being required. If PS gives a much better result then that will be the programme I use.

Nothing personal here Tacit, I respect you for your great skills and knowledge in both photography and Photoshop! All the best,

Brian.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hi Walter,

so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.

And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hi Walter,

so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.

And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

So you keep telling me, but why is it that I have no printing problems, and why is it that most of the professionals in the Corel NG who have been involved for years with commercial printing have no problems? I dare say when you used Corel, Hecate, you used an older version for starters, and secondly, you did not know the programme to the extent you know Photoshop.
Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes. From what I have read from others in the Corel NG, a lot of them had some resistance from printers in the past, who quickly shut up and were happy to get the ‘extra business’ when they realised that there was no problem at all with the files they were being provided with. I can produce a PDF no different to one you would produce. These days, a lot of printers really want PDF’s from the enquiries I have made so far (I don’t usually get involved with commercial printing, soon I will have to due to up and coming work). So where is this great problem. Simple answer, in "your" head.

Brian.

Brian wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hi Walter,

so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.

And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.
—

Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

So you keep telling me, but why is it that I have no printing problems, and why is it that most of the professionals in the Corel NG who have been involved for years with commercial printing have no problems? I dare say when you used Corel, Hecate, you used an older version for starters, and secondly, you did not know the programme to the extent you know Photoshop.
Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes. From what I have read from others in the Corel NG, a lot of them had some resistance from printers in the past, who quickly shut up and were happy to get the ‘extra business’ when they realised that there was no problem at all with the files they were being provided with. I can produce a PDF no different to one you would produce. These days, a lot of printers really want PDF’s from the enquiries I have made so far (I don’t usually get involved with commercial printing, soon I will have to due to up and coming work). So where is this great problem. Simple answer, in "your" head.

Brian.

Can we please all drop this Photoshop/Photopaint discussion altogether, it really is not the right thing to be doing in an Adobe Newsgroup. I feel ridiculous every time I respond to a statment on this topic as it really is an insult to the Adobe group. The problem is, if I do not respond, it is like conceding defeat, or having no comeback (which I do not), if you see what I mean.

I genuinely want to learn Photoshop to a high standard, so please let’s move on from this discussion. I totally respect the power of Photoshop and your choice to make it your image editor, please respect where my skills lie and leave it at that. If Photoshop carries on improving at the rate it has since version 4, and Photopaint stands still, as it largely has for a few versions, I will be on your side anyway! LOL.

Now let’s kiss and make up
Brian 🙂

Can we please all drop this Photoshop/Photopaint discussion altogether, it really is not the right thing to be doing in an Adobe Newsgroup. I feel ridiculous every time I respond to a statment on this topic as it really is an insult to the Adobe group. The problem is, if I do not respond, it is like conceding defeat, or having no comeback (which I do not), if you see what I mean.

That last sentence was meant to read..The problem is, if I do not

respond, it is like conceding defeat (which I do
not), or having no comeback , if you see what I mean.

Ok, I will not comment any further on this topic and I will ignore anyone else’s. I want to move on and keep leanring Photoshop.

Thank you,
Brian.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:47:33 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes.

Exactly. I use Corel on occasions, altho i’ve never messed around much with PhotoPaint, but why should I, when I have been using Photoshop for years and years. The problem i have with Corel, is that not many of my vendors can accept a raw Corel file. I can send an Illustrator file FTP to a printer in Shanghai and I know it’ll go thru their RIP with no problems. Corel? I wouldn’t dream of it.

I could probly rip a pdf out of corel and send that, etc.

The point is, I’m not knocking Corel, I use Corel Draw 12 for some things, but, from what I’ve seen, it simply isnt any better than the Adobe Suite, and, Corel isnt as universally accepted as Adobe is, unless you’re in Canada; there’s no reason for me to switch.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:47:33 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hi Walter,

so you are a sheep, I see? Plenty of professionals use Photopaint, but nowhere near as many as those that use Photoshop.

And there’s lots of good reasons for that, not the least of which is colour management and , in particular, print capability.
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

So you keep telling me, but why is it that I have no printing problems, and why is it that most of the professionals in the Corel NG who have been involved for years with commercial printing have no problems? I dare say when you used Corel, Hecate, you used an older version for starters, and secondly, you did not know the programme to the extent you know Photoshop.

Last version of Photopaint I have (and still use, but only as an image viewer) is 11. Late enough for you?

Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes. From what I have read from others in the Corel NG, a lot of them had some resistance from printers in the past, who quickly shut up and were happy to get the ‘extra business’ when they realised that there was no problem at all with the files they were being provided with. I can produce a PDF no different to one you would produce. These days, a lot of printers really want PDF’s from the enquiries I have made so far (I don’t usually get involved with commercial printing, soon I will have to due to up and coming work). So where is this great problem. Simple answer, in "your" head.

Try doing co=lour separations in Photopaint, or spot colour for that matter, and see how far you get. Then come back and tell me it’s all in my head.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

howldog wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:47:33 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Lastly, it all steps back to perception of the industry and programmes.

Exactly. I use Corel on occasions, altho i’ve never messed around much with PhotoPaint, but why should I, when I have been using Photoshop for years and years. The problem i have with Corel, is that not many of my vendors can accept a raw Corel file. I can send an Illustrator file FTP to a printer in Shanghai and I know it’ll go thru their RIP with no problems. Corel? I wouldn’t dream of it.

I could probly rip a pdf out of corel and send that, etc.
The point is, I’m not knocking Corel, I use Corel Draw 12 for some things, but, from what I’ve seen, it simply isnt any better than the Adobe Suite, and, Corel isnt as universally accepted as Adobe is, unless you’re in Canada; there’s no reason for me to switch.

Hi Howldog,

Your points are very logical and I totally agree with you that it would be silly to switch programmes. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I just think it uneducated and very biased when a lot of people attack the product, and most of them know little about it. I am not asking anyone to change, just to stop rubbishing something they know nothing about. That is all I am saying here.

If you are using software that does the job to a professional standard, you know it well and get what you want time-after-time…..don’t change it!!! That is exactly what you are getting out of Photoshop, and good on you. I am happy you are having a great experience with the software you are using. Most people do enjoy that experience with the Adobe Suite as they do with the CorelDraw Graphics Suite. You cannot go wrong either way. Macromedia makes some nice software too, I love Flash. I write applications with it, rather than making animations. I use anything that is good and gets the job done.

Keep on enjoying Photoshop!

Regards,
Brian.

Try doing co=lour separations in Photopaint, or spot colour for that matter, and see how far you get. Then come back and tell me it’s all in my head.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Like I said to Tacit, this whole thread should be dropped, an Adobe user group is not the place to talk about Corel. I don’t even want to talk about it. I just don’t want to read crap rubbishing it that misleads people who are none the wiser and who believe what they read in here whether it is accurate or not. Because you and Tacit would have good reputations (due to your strong knowledge of PS) people will tend to believe anything you tell thme. They don’t realise neither of you now enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.

Let’s focus on what this NG is all about, Photoshop! You do realise I am probably going to have some questions for you soon, and I really hope you will help me. The last thing I want to do is become enemies and then I won’t get any PS help when I need it. Then I will have to wait 3+ months till my friend comes back to ask her. So be nice you two and let’s all get along 🙂

Brian.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:35:24 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Try doing co=lour separations in Photopaint, or spot colour for that matter, and see how far you get. Then come back and tell me it’s all in my head.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Like I said to Tacit, this whole thread should be dropped, an Adobe user group is not the place to talk about Corel. I don’t even want to talk about it. I just don’t want to read crap rubbishing it that misleads people who are none the wiser and who believe what they read in here whether it is accurate or not. Because you and Tacit would have good reputations (due to your strong knowledge of PS) people will tend to believe anything you tell thme. They don’t realise neither of you now enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.

The merits of this thread or lack thereof aside, I disagree that this ng is exclusive to Adobe. By analogy, please tell me which newsgroup one would use to discuss the relative merits of Honda vs Toyota. By your logic, neither.

Let’s focus on what this NG is all about, Photoshop! You do realise I am probably going to have some questions for you soon, and I really hope you will help me. The last thing I want to do is become enemies and then I won’t get any PS help when I need it. Then I will have to wait 3+ months till my friend comes back to ask her. So be nice you two and let’s all get along 🙂

Brian.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:28:10 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hi Howldog,

Your points are very logical and I totally agree with you that it would be silly to switch programmes. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I just think it uneducated and very biased when a lot of people attack the product, and most of them know little about it.

this is true, however, the people on the corel forums, are every bit as bad. Even worse really, with their sort of arrogant frenchie haughtiness and disdain for anything perceived as American. I’ve seen the most ridiculous slams against Adobe products on the Corel forums.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:35:24 +1000, Brian
wrote:

They don’t realise neither of you now
enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.

And how many years experience of using something would you consider enough in your obviously very great wisdom.? I used Photopaint from versions 7-11. Is that long enough or does have to have been a Dos Corel user?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

howldog wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:28:10 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hi Howldog,

Your points are very logical and I totally agree with you that it would be silly to switch programmes. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I just think it uneducated and very biased when a lot of people attack the product, and most of them know little about it.

this is true, however, the people on the corel forums, are every bit as bad. Even worse really, with their sort of arrogant frenchie haughtiness and disdain for anything perceived as American. I’ve seen the most ridiculous slams against Adobe products on the Corel forums.

Really? I have not seen that on the ‘official’ Corel Newsgroups on the Corel server, but I do know of one you may be speaking of. It is the wrong thing to do for sure! Especially what you are saying about criticising anything American. That is just a prejudiced lack of intelligence. It is very un-professional to criticise others’ products, generally, attacking products because they are American is ridiculous. Oh well, their loss, not yours. Just enjoy the benefits of using what you believe is best and be proud of it.

Regards,

Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:35:24 +1000, Brian
wrote:

They don’t realise neither of you now
enough about ‘some’ other programmes to even comment.

And how many years experience of using something would you consider enough in your obviously very great wisdom.? I used Photopaint from versions 7-11. Is that long enough or does have to have been a Dos Corel user?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Omg, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I cannot escape this thread. Versions 7-11 would more than suffice 🙂 I have used it 7-12, so similar to you. 12 is BY FAR the best version, it is VERY stable.

The only reason I did not go down the PS track stems back, coincidentally, to Version 4. I started out using absolute crap software, but it was the best thing I ever did. I had to do "everything" manually. I mean literally everything. No clone tool in what I began using, I had to copy and paste selections over and over and over! There was no way of editing a selection, so I had to get it right before copying it. I really developed some skills. Then I stumbled upon PP 7 and it was totally unbelievable to me at that time. It had so many professional tools/features, it was well ahead of its time back then. I heard all the hype about PS, which was in version 4 at that time. I was flat broke and could not afford it. Then a friend of a friend swapped me his original PS4 disk for some VCD movies and other software I had. I was so excited, could not believe I finally had this highly rated programme. I took it home and installed it. It was the biggest disappointment of my life. It was totally useless compared to what I was already using. It had about half of the features I had grown accustomed to. Professional features, not "hobbyist" features. A word that Tacit is hung up on.
I uninstalled it after several attempts to get into it. It was just too "light on" in functionality. Had one undo, always printed in the centre of the page (could not be unlocked), I don’t even think it had print preview.
Being an unbiased and dedicated person to the art I love, I downloaded every trial version of PS from 5 to CS. I am totally openminded and I always look for what is best for me. I don’t give in on something because I don’t like the version I see. I will look at it again and again and see if it improves. I have also talked to graphic designer friends and had them demonstrate various things for me, to see how they would be done in PS. One thing that has really impressed me, is how PS has grown and improved. It is a tremendous programme now, its "improvements" since version 4 have far exceeded Photopaint’s improvements since version 7.
I have noticed something with PS. PS follows the competition (generalising here) in terms of most features. So many "new" features in Adobe are old hat in Corel, BUT!!!!!! there is a very smart logic to this. Adobe sees what other programmes have that it doesn’t have….improves those features and adds in into new versions of PS. Very very smart thinking on Adobe’s part! The history palette was a good example. Corel has had an undo list as long as I can remember. Back to when PS had only one undo! Adobe later implemented the history palette and it works a lot better than Corel’s undo list.
This post is becoming a book, I better quit now! Sorry everyone,

Brian.