psp8 vs pse (2 or 3)

[Harleybabe]

Which program do you think is better?

If I have both, are there compatible file forms?

Are there certain things you can do or make in one easier than the other??

[cropper127]

I have both programs but I still don't know how to use ps9 (cs2) very well. If I want to really work on layouts I just open pse2 and get them done. I know that there is a lot of cool stuff that pscs does and I really want to take to Paths call by JAG but I think I need to learn the program better. PSE2 is more userfriendly but pscs does alot more from what I hear....
If you save things as pngs you should be able to open them up in either program.. but I am just a beginner too. I am sure there are many others here more experience than I...

I am interested to see what others say.

[anne357]

Here is a thread (http://www.digitalscrapbookplace.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=81) regarding this issue. Hope it helps. :)

[Janet]

WOW...how did I miss that thread??? Thanks, Anne for pointing that out.

I can't really compare the two because PSP makes sense to me whereas I'm LOST in PSE. I think it has something about the way each of us thinks that makes one make more sense than the other(s).

HEY EMMA!!!!!! I *really* DO want to learn PSE...it came with my camera. Any way to create a "crossover class"???? I probably will always be a PSPer, but I can see some definite advantages in PS/PSE and it'd be nice to have both under my belt.

Not sure if there's a desire by others for a class like this, but just a thought! :)

[Lauren]

I was a long time PSP user - I moved to Photoshop ( not pse but the full version) I must say it took me a few weeks to find all the relevant commands but once I had them in my brain I was away laughing - I rarely open psp now - I find that there are many limitations ( brush sizes, bevel features and sizes, and lack of the wonderful photoshop layer styles palette)
Im not into external filters in a big way and with Photoshop you can get buy without it ( many ps layer styles work in pse also)

[Pam]

I've used PSP forever (v.3) and the last few versions have really added features that make it more versatile -- and the latest ones have tools for adjusting photos from digital cameras (even RAW) - but much like Lauren said, there are basic things most program do. There are tools to help you adjust color, size, texture -- many programs will do enough for you to create marvelous layouts (and no one will ever guess which program you used).

If you own them both, I'll bet you'll eventually use them both (each has some features the other doesn't). But I don't own PS and am content with PSP (I use a few outside filters, but PSP will do many effects - I just need to learn where they are and how to combine them). The files are compatible -- PSP will open a Photoshop file, and recognize the layers.

[Emma]

Adobe won't open PSP files, but PSP will open Adobe files (some the of the features aren't intact, like some layer blending modes and some effects, but for the most part they open well).

I like PSP for digital painting over PSE because while PSE has access to more brush downloads and has larger brushes, PSP has so many more painting options, and the Art Media tool in PSP 9 is just amazing. There are a lot of PSP brush downloads available, and if you can get the Adobe brush images instead of the brush file, you can make your own brush from those images. Most of my brushes are custom or stock anyway, I'm not a big downloader.

PSP is amazing for patterns too, it can resize, rotate, and very easily work with them. I love making backgrounds and papers in PSP. The history palette in PSP 9 is better than Adobe's since you can pick out one step at a time to undo, instead of undoing everything in the palette back to where you click. PSP is also much more customizable than PSE and even PS CS. Lots of ways to arrange everything.
PSP needs a few good filters to make it really work well, whereas PSE can use downloaded layer styles for instant effects that PSP just can't duplicate. I think the Adobe graphics are rendered with sharper, cleaner edges, and smoother color transistions. PSP makes amazing elements, but in my opinion the process is more efficient and hence faster in Adobe, skill level being equal in each software.
The ability of PSE to use PS presets like brushes and layer styles and custom shapes makes its resources endless. Right out the of the box PSE isn't great for scratch scrapping, you need a lot of PS fun stuff added to it! PSP is better out of the box, but with some select filters it's much improved. PSP is also gaining much more web presence with experienced users writing tutorials and offering preset downloads for brushes and shapes.
Most filters that work in Adobe work in PSP. I haven't had any that don't work, but there are some that only work in one or the other.
Tubes in PSP are often overrated, they're like "stickers" or small images you stamp onto the layout. I like more control of where I place my elements and what it is rather than see what spills out of the brush. I prefer to use tubes for things like fibers, textures and other repetetive elements. Since they're images and not brushes, you can get an opaque item with all the shading and color intact, rather than the ghostly effect of brushes, which is almost all Adobe has for this.
PSP can paint or fill with any combo of color, pattern, gradient, and texture, and some of the vector options for fill and Stroke are superior to PS.]
Adobe's layer styles stand out head and shoulders from the crowd, they are amazing and powerful tools you can't live without once you learn how to use them.
I think anyone can learn multiple programs. While I agree there is a certain "how my brain works" association with software, you learn the second one the same way you learned the first! Open it for all your needs, read tutorials and take classes, and make things with it. Slow down, and devour the resources and Help file. If you let yourself learn the second software in the same way and the same pace as you learned the first, you won't be frustrated or lost, and you'll probably learn it faster since you know what's possible. Enjoy!

[GizmoBird]

Emma, this is a great comparision. I know everyone will appreciate the time it took you to do it.

I do have to disagree with you on tubes as "stickers". They can be very powerful and in v8 & 9 you can wrap a tube around a vector image. Take a look at this TUTORIAL (http://members.home.nl/j.backer/steps/tubes/pearly.html) and see what can be accomplished with one tube. Stitching, crochet, these pearls just to name a few around vector shapes for frames, matting, elements, etc., hmmm.

[Emma]

I agree w/you on the tubes for things like pearls and other repetitive objects like fibers. For the actual images, they are like stickers (stickers aren't bad, they have a bad connotation in scrapping now, but they're great tools).

But those images are usually extracted photos and the real value of tubes is more in the drawing capabilities and textures. I can get images at DSP, or make my own, and I like the control I have over placement more than playing with settings on the tube brush. But rope, pearls, or random objects like bubbles and sparkles, tubes are grat!

[GizmoBird]

I agree w/you on the tubes for things like pearls and other repetitive objects like fibers. For the actual images, they are like stickers (stickers aren't bad, they have a bad connotation in scrapping now, but they're great tools).

But those images are usually extracted photos and the real value of tubes is more in the drawing capabilities and textures. I can get images at DSP, or make my own, and I like the control I have over placement more than playing with settings on the tube brush. But rope, pearls, or random objects like bubbles and sparkles, tubes are grat!
I don't really understand "bad connotation", I have seen elements that have started out as tubes and have been altered, then they become the designers own work. I guess I have not been around long enough to have heard the bad rap they have or why. I personally have made a paperclip, almost from scratch -- used a font, but I don't see the difference in that and and altering a tube to make it your own, for instance I bronzed a pair of baby booties, moved the ties, when I was finished the only thing left was the general shape. Just curious, I really don't understand unless we are talking commercial vs. personal use?

[Pam]

Tubes are far from stamps (though many only use them that way). I have saved portions of lace or rope (beads, too) as a tube with the total number of cells across, one cell down, and the step size set at 1, continuous and incremental. When drawing with them I get a continuous rope or ribbon (if you want it from point to point, click somewhere then hold down the shift key and click somewhere else -- it will draw the ribbon in a straight line between the points. But with the PSP scripts by Gary Barton here (http://pixelnook.home.comcast.net/), VectorTube paints the edges of vector objects with the picture tube of your choice). So by drawing a vector line, a vector shape, or vector text - you can make the ribbon or stitching or beads follow the vector path -- hence stitched text or a stitched circle and more.

[Lauren]

I think what Emma is referring to is when people offer tubes on their websites that are basically just transparent single images ( not the type of tube that can be used as one part of an element ( ie strings of pearls rope, fibres, crochet etc etc ) I have to agree that that part of psp is marvellous - the ability to create a 3d brush- which in effect is what the tube is in this case) photoshop doesnt have anythign to compare to that one feature ( however by using a ps brush with a layer style you can achieve the same effect)
Like Emma I cant see the point in saving those single images as tubes ( why not just use the png format) - however I can definitely understand the value of the tube when used in the manner mentioned above.
As a long time user of both programmes I have to say that the later versions of psp have some great photo editing tools however I rarely open psp ( even versions 8 or 9 ) since I got photoshop - The only reason I can give you for that is that once hooked in ps I couldnt ever go back. When I beta tested psp9 I had to fill in a long survey and I did tell them that if they ever developed a layer style type of application I would certainly move back to psp.

[Emma]

Exactly what Lauren and Pam said:

Tubes as single "sticker" images are better used as PNG file elements, and that shouldn't be a draw to PSP. Tubes as 3D brushes for lace and beads and textures and such as a GREAT tool and should be a draw to PSP.

Stickers have the bad connotation from paper scrapping, because for years the only tools were cutesy papers, funky scissors, and stickers galore! The stickers now are much more mature and beautiful, but when people say sticker in paper scrapping they think cartoony clip-art, even though clip art has matured as well!

So that's why I think tubes are overrated, because most people think of them like stickers, and most people USE them only as stickers. When used to their potential, they're really amazing, but for the purppose of tubes most people coveting PSP, the PNG elements are superior in my opinion.

And I agree with Lauren on the layer styles: for the price point of PS and PSP, if PSP had layer styles I think a LOT of home users would switch. That single capability is the most amazing and versatile thing I've seen in 2D graphics.