having never used Photoshop, I was wondering how well cheap or free software like Picasa or ACDSee are doing compared to Photoshop for enhancing image contrasts, and cropping or sharpening images. So far I have found Picasa extremely simple and quick to use. I understand Photoshop can do millions of things but I am not really interested for the moment in more sophisticated functionalities than those offered by Picasa. Any hints?
Many thanks for any feedback.
Kind regards
Gregoire
Posted by Daniel Moore on December 4, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I'm not sure about those programs, as I have never used them. However I have use GIMP and it is also free. GIMP will most likely give you the most features that you will use in photoshop: clone and healing brush, dodge and burn, many sharpening options, levels, curves, layers, filters, etc. I use GIMP sometimes and I get great results, so before you buy PS (which is the best, and highly recommended) you could download GIMP and try it out. Here is the website: http://www.gimp.org/
Hope this helps.
Posted by Mark Hudon on December 4, 2007 at 1:20 PM
The one thing about Photoshop is that everyone here "talks" Photoshop. I can tell you how to do things in Photoshop but I can't in Picasa. There is a large industry out there devoted to teaching people how to use Photoshop, books, videos, classes, etc. Picasa has none of that.
I agree with Mark on this. "PhotoShop Spoken Here" is the sign over the door. While it is expensive, the capabilities of the program, the enormous quanitity of information about it, and the learning tools available, make it a no-brainer in my opinion.
I have used Elements, Corel PhotoPaint and other editing software, but have found PS to be the 'best of breed'.It is a little intimidating at first, but once you get rolling with it, its power will be very evident.
-PB
Posted by David Bostedo on December 4, 2007 at 5:01 PM
The big thing that Gregoire eluded to, that others might be missing, is that a lot of people probably don't want the capabilities of Photoshop (CS3, Elements, or equivalent). I'd guess that the large majority of people taking pictures don't typically do any editing of their photos, and Picasa is a gateway into starting.
From the little bit I've used it, it's a very nice tool. And for someone who isn't serious about editing, it's great. I also think it could lead people into looking into Photoshop, or an equivalent. That would be once they realize what they want to be able to do with their photos. I know that I started with IrfanView and Picasa (among some other freebies I downloaded), and eventually realized that I wanted PS Elements.
And when most of my friends, who aren't "photographers", ask about taking out red eye, doing a little cropping, or getting rid of a color cast, I point them at those same free tools. I wouldn't recommend they spend any money on anything. If they follow the same path I did, they'll realize that on their own. But most of them have never cared, and would never put in the effort, to create or craft an image the way most here would - so there is no reason to buy PS.
At the same time, if someone realizes that they need more editing capability (which includes the large percentage of people on this site), by all means get Photoshop for the reasons stated above. And there is probably the occasional person who doesn't really see what oppotunities PS brings with it until they try. But I think that's probably pretty rare. Especially for someone who takes the time to browse sites like this one.
Posted by David Bostedo on December 4, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Sorry for the double post, but I was thinking about what I just wrote versus what Gregoire wrote, and thought he might have been asking about something slightly different as well...
For any functions that both Photoshop and Picasa can do, Photoshop will have a lot more options and flexibility. The algorithms used in Picasa are likely very good - image processing has been around a long time now. Things like color and contrast enhancement, and sharpening/edge/line detection are pretty well established, and PIcasa could be using a number of different algorithms. If Picasa can do something, and you do the exact same thing in Elements, you likely won't see much difference.
That being said, the options available in Elements, and the tools used in conjuction, for even simple fixes can be pretty powerful. Say all you want to do is increase the contrast and saturation a little bit. Well in Elements, the layer, masking, and selection tools would allow you to specify this much more precisely and in a myriad of different ways than you could in Picasa. (Unless Picasa has greatly changed since I used it.)
As an example, perhaps you only want to increase the contrast in the sky, nowhere else. This is simple in Elements, and might be impossible in Picasa (please correct me if it's not). Or something that's common on these forums is to select the subject, typically an animal, and sharpen only the animal, leaving the BG smooth. These kinds of things, that are still pretty simple, aren't available in Picasa.
Posted by Rick Dunn on December 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I use Picasa a lot. I also use PS and Corel PhotoPaint a lot. While Picasa obviously has far far fewer features, and those features that it does share with PS are not nearly as customizable as in PS, you can easily get an image to look very very good using nothing more than Picasa, and without the steep learning curve.
Because it's so user-friendly, I like using it for a quick/rough estimate of where I want to go with a particular image; I then do the actual editing mostly in PS. If you have a particularly challenging photograph with regards to adjustments needed, Picasa may not get you there; but for 95% of the photos that I'm working with, Picasa could easily handle the bulk of the work, with final refinements being made in PS.
The biggest limitation in Picasa, imo, is that changes are universal, meaning that if you want to increase contrast or saturation for example, you increase it across the entire image. The more sophisticated programs give you much more control over specific parts of an image.
I think you pretty much answered your own question. If you're happy with the results from Picasa, why change at this time? Mark's comments are valid - you may get suggestions on this forum that are worded in "PS-speak", but the suggested change might still be accomplished (more or less) in Picasa. As your expectations for an image's final presentation evolve, or critiques from this site lend you to believe that a more robust program could help you further improve your final presentation, then you can pick up a copy of a more sophisticated editing program.
Posted by Gaurav Manglik on December 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I use both picasa and photoshop
For personal photos from parties, outings, etc. Picasa is a good way to easy edit JPEG files, and upload them to picasaweb and share with friends. Other than I use PIcasaweb to just do a quick feasibility check on whether I want to keep an image or not. However I recently started shooting RAW and I cant even do that any longer.
For anything serious or close to hinging on prosumer/pro images, it is a no-brainer. Photoshop is way better.
Thanks very much to all for your kind feedback, very useful indeed.
Maybe a last question that would help drawing conclusions: are the algorithms for contrasting and sharpening images significantly different between Picasa and Photoshop?
Many thanks again,
Gregoire
Posted by David Bostedo on December 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM
The algorithms used in Picasa are likely very good - image processing has been around a long time now. Things like color and contrast enhancement, and sharpening/edge/line detection are pretty well established, and PIcasa could be using a number of different algorithms. If Picasa can do something, and you do the exact same thing in Elements, you likely won't see much difference.
This was in my previous comment Gregoire. I don't know exactly what algorithms are used, but I have a little bit of background in writing basic image processing algorithms. Edge sharpening (USM) and contrast enhancement are pretty standard. But there are many other sharpening algorithms, some of which are available in PS, and more specific options for contrast enhancement like the Levels and Curves dialogs. The basic "increase/decrease contrast" options and "sharpen" are probably pretty much the same.
Posted by Rick Dunn on December 7, 2007 at 2:45 PM
are the algorithms for contrasting and sharpening images significantly different between Picasa and Photoshop?
Yes. Also, it's more about control than the alogorithms. PS has many more options for sharpening than Picasa - many different types of sharpening with much greater control over the magnitude of adjustment. Same for contrast.
The main issue on sharpening is that Picasa has a one-size-fits-all sharpening technique; you have practically no control over it. It sharpens everything, and sharpens it all by the same, fixed amount. Sooner or later you'll want/need more control.
Contrast is a slightly better situation in Picasa, in that you can adjust "contrast", but you also have individual controls for highlights, shadows and "fill light", and you can control the amount of adjustment. It's rudimentary compared to PS, but it also works suprisingly well for many images.
Discussion
11 replieshaving never used Photoshop, I was wondering how well cheap or free software like Picasa or ACDSee are doing compared to Photoshop for enhancing image contrasts, and cropping or sharpening images. So far I have found Picasa extremely simple and quick to use. I understand Photoshop can do millions of things but I am not really interested for the moment in more sophisticated functionalities than those offered by Picasa. Any hints?
Many thanks for any feedback.
Kind regards
Gregoire
Hope this helps.
I have used Elements, Corel PhotoPaint and other editing software, but have found PS to be the 'best of breed'.It is a little intimidating at first, but once you get rolling with it, its power will be very evident.
-PB
From the little bit I've used it, it's a very nice tool. And for someone who isn't serious about editing, it's great. I also think it could lead people into looking into Photoshop, or an equivalent. That would be once they realize what they want to be able to do with their photos. I know that I started with IrfanView and Picasa (among some other freebies I downloaded), and eventually realized that I wanted PS Elements.
And when most of my friends, who aren't "photographers", ask about taking out red eye, doing a little cropping, or getting rid of a color cast, I point them at those same free tools. I wouldn't recommend they spend any money on anything. If they follow the same path I did, they'll realize that on their own. But most of them have never cared, and would never put in the effort, to create or craft an image the way most here would - so there is no reason to buy PS.
At the same time, if someone realizes that they need more editing capability (which includes the large percentage of people on this site), by all means get Photoshop for the reasons stated above. And there is probably the occasional person who doesn't really see what oppotunities PS brings with it until they try. But I think that's probably pretty rare. Especially for someone who takes the time to browse sites like this one.
For any functions that both Photoshop and Picasa can do, Photoshop will have a lot more options and flexibility. The algorithms used in Picasa are likely very good - image processing has been around a long time now. Things like color and contrast enhancement, and sharpening/edge/line detection are pretty well established, and PIcasa could be using a number of different algorithms. If Picasa can do something, and you do the exact same thing in Elements, you likely won't see much difference.
That being said, the options available in Elements, and the tools used in conjuction, for even simple fixes can be pretty powerful. Say all you want to do is increase the contrast and saturation a little bit. Well in Elements, the layer, masking, and selection tools would allow you to specify this much more precisely and in a myriad of different ways than you could in Picasa. (Unless Picasa has greatly changed since I used it.)
As an example, perhaps you only want to increase the contrast in the sky, nowhere else. This is simple in Elements, and might be impossible in Picasa (please correct me if it's not). Or something that's common on these forums is to select the subject, typically an animal, and sharpen only the animal, leaving the BG smooth. These kinds of things, that are still pretty simple, aren't available in Picasa.
Because it's so user-friendly, I like using it for a quick/rough estimate of where I want to go with a particular image; I then do the actual editing mostly in PS. If you have a particularly challenging photograph with regards to adjustments needed, Picasa may not get you there; but for 95% of the photos that I'm working with, Picasa could easily handle the bulk of the work, with final refinements being made in PS.
The biggest limitation in Picasa, imo, is that changes are universal, meaning that if you want to increase contrast or saturation for example, you increase it across the entire image. The more sophisticated programs give you much more control over specific parts of an image.
I think you pretty much answered your own question. If you're happy with the results from Picasa, why change at this time? Mark's comments are valid - you may get suggestions on this forum that are worded in "PS-speak", but the suggested change might still be accomplished (more or less) in Picasa. As your expectations for an image's final presentation evolve, or critiques from this site lend you to believe that a more robust program could help you further improve your final presentation, then you can pick up a copy of a more sophisticated editing program.
For personal photos from parties, outings, etc. Picasa is a good way to easy edit JPEG files, and upload them to picasaweb and share with friends. Other than I use PIcasaweb to just do a quick feasibility check on whether I want to keep an image or not. However I recently started shooting RAW and I cant even do that any longer.
For anything serious or close to hinging on prosumer/pro images, it is a no-brainer. Photoshop is way better.
Maybe a last question that would help drawing conclusions: are the algorithms for contrasting and sharpening images significantly different between Picasa and Photoshop?
Many thanks again,
Gregoire
This was in my previous comment Gregoire. I don't know exactly what algorithms are used, but I have a little bit of background in writing basic image processing algorithms. Edge sharpening (USM) and contrast enhancement are pretty standard. But there are many other sharpening algorithms, some of which are available in PS, and more specific options for contrast enhancement like the Levels and Curves dialogs. The basic "increase/decrease contrast" options and "sharpen" are probably pretty much the same.
Yes. Also, it's more about control than the alogorithms. PS has many more options for sharpening than Picasa - many different types of sharpening with much greater control over the magnitude of adjustment. Same for contrast.
The main issue on sharpening is that Picasa has a one-size-fits-all sharpening technique; you have practically no control over it. It sharpens everything, and sharpens it all by the same, fixed amount. Sooner or later you'll want/need more control.
Contrast is a slightly better situation in Picasa, in that you can adjust "contrast", but you also have individual controls for highlights, shadows and "fill light", and you can control the amount of adjustment. It's rudimentary compared to PS, but it also works suprisingly well for many images.