Corel or Photoshop?

[jude01]

I have the trial version of corel Paintshop photo pro x3 already installed on my computer but its about to expire. Before i buy it, I would like to know which one do you guys like Corel or Photoshop?. I was looking at Photoshop CS5 and it looks pretty cool. From the info I found online it looks like I can download it for 109.99, corel is 59.99. Any opinions? which should i get?

[Grant]

If up are able to get CS5 for 109.99 it is not a legit copy. You can however get Photoshop Elements for about that much money. "Which is better?" can start a troll war that can go on and on and on. While I do use the Adobe's Creative Suite I also teach graphic and the course is generic and can be apply to all flavours of CS, Elements, PSP and Gimp. From that you can probably guess that for the average photographer all will do the job.

Photoshop CS is still the front runner and by a large margin but its cost to performance value may only be needed by \professional.

Elements and PSP should appeal to the same market. PSP many more feature than Elements and should seem to be the logical choice. Unfortunately here are tree draw back with PSP. It is not made for the Mac so the market is a bit smaller. Secondly it is not quite as snappy as element, some applications of filters take longer, this is not to say it is bad just a bit slower at times. Third and maybe the most importune, is that there are not tons of information out there to help you earn how to use it. On the other hand for Elements there is lots of help and if you ever decide to move to CS then all you have learned can move with you.

GIMP is a great program and it is free. It is just hard to learn and there is even less help for it than there is for PSP.

When I was a Windows user I did own and use Elements and PSP and loved both but used Elements more.

[jude01]

Thanks for the info

[Bambi]

I use PSP and I like it a lot. The price was reasonable and it seems similar in functions to elements/lightroom. It's a bit harder to find tutorials on it and it sometimes takes some thinking to do the same things as the elements/LR tutorials. If money were no object I would get LR (I know it's not horribly expensive but everything adds up).

[Marko]

If you are going to spend the cash, spend it on what nearly 100% of the photography pros use.....that's photoshop.

Lightroom shares some of the features you can do in photoshop...but AFAIK (I just haven't gotten around to it yet) its primary goals are quick fixes and image cataloging.

Obviously you don't need to spend cash as there are other free programs available that do a GREAT job....but if you are going to learn and are in it for the long haul and have the bucks to spend - photoshop over corel for sure. Amazing tutorials are available for everything at linda.com or kelbytraining.com for 20-25 dollars a month.

[F8&Bthere]

Do you do, or plan to do, a lot of pretty intense editing? If so, and you can justify the price, then yes I agree with Marko, photoshop is the standard and there are tons of resources out there for learning and expanding the capabilities of that program. But if you really only need basic editing, you might expand your radar to include a few other options. As Marko mentions Lightroom is mainly for cataloging and quick-fixes, but if you don't already have a D.A.M./cataloging platform the importance and utility of a program like LR is huge IMO. And with LR3, the editing capabilities are quite powerful- though nothing to the extent of PS/PSP, it's also a lot cheaper than PS (Photoshop), inherently non-destructive, and easier to use. Personally I have tried PSP (trial period, found it less intuitive because I was already getting used to Photoshop at that time), I used PS CS3 for quite some time, and I currently use Lightroom and PS Elements. I am just ga-ga over Lightroom and it is able to handle about 90% of my editing needs, on top of the cataloging, but then I am not that into extensive editing. If Lightroom had layers, I wouldn't even need Elements at all.

I'm not 100% sure about PSP as my trial was short-lived, but Elements has some kind of catalog feature that blows chunks, and Photoshop can utilize Adobe Bridge which is quite powerful, but I still find LR preferable as an all-in-one solution that's geared to photographers.

Aside: Yes, as Grant points out, you can't get a legit full version of CS5 for $110 or anywhere close to that...I don't even think there's an upgrade/academic version for anywhere near that.

[jude01]

I ended up going for corel since it was already on my computer and it really wasn't to expensive. I'm having fun trying to learn it anyway. Might as well go the cheap route for now.

[Bambi]

I ended up going for corel since it was already on my computer and it really wasn't to expensive. I'm having fun trying to learn it anyway. Might as well go the cheap route for now.

we can share tips

[Greg_Nuspel]

One thing that convinced me to buy Photoshop is that on the web you can find info on how to do just about anything.

As for the price I used to have a full darkroom so I think Photoshop is an inexpensive solution. A good enlarger would cost much more than this and the chemicals and paper I used up would cover the updates. I do miss the magic of printing but not the setup and cleanup required. If your going to buy a download, you will have an illegal copy. If that is your intention you might as well find a pirate copy for free so at least you don't support someone who is just a leach on society.

[jude01]

This is where i got corel from,( unless u meant photoshop?) looks legit to me
Photo Editing Software
was considering trying to get a key gen and getting it for free, but just didnt want to spend the time and hassel, and half the time it dosnt work anyway.