photoline vs photoshop

[bawe]

I have just completed a 6 month advanced photoshop course and I have somehow managed to do all the assignments using Photoline instead of Photoshop, including worming portraits and iCloud icons. I haven't told the teacher anything about Photoline and he still thinks I did everything in Photoshop, even though saving Photoline files as a .PSD image somehow does not preserve all the information. Awesome, however I would hope that in the future, saving as a .PSD image would be like converting the file to a .PSD one without any loss of information.

Unfortunately, because now I have used Photoline so much, I have noticed that at times, it is not as easy to use as Photoshop. All the features are there yes,but if you are trying to create say a worming portrait, which involves creating custom brushes and using layer and clipping masks, you will find that it will take you a lot longer in Photoline. The manual does not tell you everything. For instance, it does not tell you how to add a custom brush (one that you made yourself) from the brush field into the brush list so that it can be edited using the brush editor. It can be done yes, but it took me a long time to figure it out.

It is also not clear how to use layer and clipping masks effectively in Photoline. The manual does not tell you that using the vector curve creation tool is in fact supposed to have the same function as using the pen tool in Photoshop. It is possible to use the vector curve creation tool and its associated Bezier curves to cut out parts of images just like the pen tool does in Photoshop but boy, it ain't easy!!! One thing I notice that is lacking in Photoline is the "Inverse Selection" so commonly used in Photoshop. If I create a "path" using the vector curve creation tool, how do you invert the selection? The manual does not tell you that if you hold down the "command" key on a Mac, and click on the vector layer, it in fact, selects the path (as it does in Photoshop). However, it is not easy to "invert the selection".

To give you an example of how hard it is, if I want to create a path to select a part of the image, and then duplicate that part of the image into a new layer on top of the background so that I can move that part of the image over the background (a common thing to do even in beginning Photoshop classes), I have to first
1). Use the vector path creation tool to draw the path (this creates a new layer)
2). Hold down "command" and click on new layer to select the path
3). Fill the shape inside the path with transparency by selecting "transparent" as the foreground colour and using the bucket fill tool.
4). select the background layer
5). create a new blank layer (this is important, if you do not do this it won't work)
5). with the background layer selected, copy and paste (command+c , then command+v) with the path still highlighted with marching ants
6). hide the new layer created with the vector path creation tool in step 1). above
7). delete the blank layer created in step 5).

It gets worse as more layers are added, and clipping masks are applied. It becomes almost impossible when custom brushes are used on additional layer and clipping masks to build a worming portrait, and Photoshop would then have to be used. Perhaps someone here can try to create a worming portrait using Photoline and they will understand what I mean.

Photoline is a good alternative to Photoshop for hobbyists, but I think there are still quite a few issues to be resolved to make it a serious contender. I certainly wouldn't rely on Photoline when working as a professional, without having a copy of Photoshop beside me. Also, works created using Photoline do not appear to be quite as professionally done as they would in Photoshop, appearing a bit "rough" and less sharp and glossy. It's got all the features (even though it can take ages to find out how to use some of them) and for educational purposes it might pass, but for professional use, I'd think twice.

[Lundberg02]

I had to look it up, and I saw Markus Mueller's work, and I still don't know what it is. But I know it's not attractive.

[greenmorpher]

Well, actually, bawe, "Invert Selection" is there -- at last in version 18.

You have run into one of the Huber's classic nomenclature traps. They argue that when you make a selection, you are creating a mask -- you are masking off everything outside the selection. So you haven't created a selection, you have created a mask. So what you need is "Invert Mask": Menu Bar > Tool > Mask > Invert Mask.

If you want to argue that this is a negative way of looking at things, I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, I have selected stuff. That is my focus. And that is what it should be called. A selection. And when I switch it around, I want to "Invert Selection". But the Hubers aren't going to change their nomenclature any time this side of the millennium, so we just need to learn the new term.

And why not? Because, I would argue, people coming to PL from all the other image apps which talk of selections and inverting selection would be more encouraged to stay with it if the UI offered some familiar nomenclature. (I noticed just the other day that "Flatten Image" has appeared in the Layers menu. Good.)

I do like you cheek doing the PS course in PL.

I question what you mean when you say PL is not up to "professional" use.

This is an argument I see all the time on the camera forums. "Oh, any camera with a sensor smaller than full frame is not up to professional use" -- as though professional use is the same for everyone and everything.

I remember THAT argument being leveled at 35mm film cameras back in the day by roll film users. 35mm rolled over roll film for most uses. Smaller sensors will do it to FF in turn today. A smartphone will do the job for a large proportion of newspaper pictures.

In fact, I would suggest that Photoline IS up to professional use by all but a quite small proportion of professionals. I use it professionally all the time (as I do my m43 camera and my underwater P&S FT4). Clearly, from what you are talking about, you are not talking about the kind of professional work I do.

What you are really saying is for some purposes, Photoshop outstrips PhotoLine. It is not unexpected that you might come across some of those purposes in a PS user course. In PS courses, they teach what PS does, NOT what it does NOT do. But it is also true that for some purposes, PhotoLine outstrips Photoshop. A while back a new user posted about this talking about activity of such stratospheric complexity that I had to stop reading because I was suffering from oxygen deprivation and I couldn't lay my hand on my copy of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He was saying that for such uses, PL left PS in the dust.

Further, you are being "time-ist". I was around and doing image stuff when PS was first introduced. I saw it grow. I abandoned it after PS 5.5 (PS 6 was a bit of a dog, then it was simply adding stuff I had no use for). At that time, I was told that PS 5, or 6, or 7, or whatever was a must for "professional" results (actually a number of other apps were contenders at the time, it was a close race). What PS could do then was not nearly what it does now -- but it was the "professional" tool. What that really meant was that it had got a lock on graphics education so every kid heading into graphics was going to be taught to use it.

Today you might look at PS then and call it amateur and pretty clumsy at that.

Best regards
Geoff

Geoffrey Heard
General Manager
Bushtrack Enterprises Ltd
http://www.bushtrackpng.com

[greenmorpher]

PS: What in heaven's name are "worming portraits"?

Cheers, geoff

[Martin Huber]

For instance, it does not tell you how to add a custom brush (one that you made yourself) from the brush field into the brush list so that it can be edited using the brush editor. It can be done yes, but it took me a long time to figure it out.

Chapter 3.3.1 tells you at least, that you can drag the content of a brush field, though it doesn't tell you exactly, that you can drag it to the brush list. Why do you have have to drag it to the brush list to edit the brush?

(...) if I want to create a path to select a part of the image, and then duplicate that part of the image into a new layer on top of the background so that I can move that part of the image over the background (a common thing to do even in beginning Photoshop classes), I have to first
1). Use the vector path creation tool to draw the path (this creates a new layer)
2). Hold down "command" and click on new layer to select the path
3). Fill the shape inside the path with transparency by selecting "transparent" as the foreground colour and using the bucket fill tool.
4). select the background layer
5). create a new blank layer (this is important, if you do not do this it won't work)
5). with the background layer selected, copy and paste (command+c , then command+v) with the path still highlighted with marching ants
6). hide the new layer created with the vector path creation tool in step 1). above
7). delete the blank layer created in step 5).

Instead you can of course:
1). Use the vector path creation tool to draw the path (this creates a new layer)
2). Use "Tool > Lasso > Convert Layer To Lasso"
3). Use copy and paste (command+c , then command+v).
This should be equivalent to your steps.

Martin

[ellhel]

To give you an example of how hard it is, if I want to create a path to select a part of the image, and then duplicate that part of the image into a new layer on top of the background so that I can

Hello,

it is as simple as Martin said.
Here is my way:
I've created my own toolbar.
So that works out in a few seconds

Regards
Helmut

[Ashcraaft]

f you want to argue that this is a negative way of looking at things, I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, I have selected stuff. That is my focus. And that is what it should be called. A selection. And when I switch it around, I want to "Invert Selection". But the Hubers aren't going to change their nomenclature any time this side of the millennium, so we just need to learn the new term.

[Herbert123]

@Bawe:

I've worked in Photoshop since version 3, and still teach it to (web dev) students. Over the past year I completely replaced Photoshop with Photoline, and although both are similar, there are some fundamental differences in how both apps approach image editing workflow - for example, although it seems at first glance that PL and PH share the same layer functionality, in actuality Photoline's layer stack improves on Photoshop's approach. On the other hand, Photoline misses smart objects, and has no need for clipping layers.

So, following a Photoshop tutorial to the letter will cause some headaches in Photoline - and vice versa with Photoline's layer features and attempting to translate those to Photoshop. The net effect may be over-complicated solutions to achieve simple things in either program - which is what happened to you, I feel.

To start a worming portrait in Photoline I would create a virtual instance of the original source layer, and apply vector masks to each virtual instance. Simple enough: 1) right-mouse click the source layer, and copy to a virtual instance. 2) Then draw the required vector shape, and right-mouse click the eye icon to convert to a mask, and 3) drag it on top of the virtual instance. Done.

Applying layer effects is easy now. Vector masks can also be extended/amended with other elements easily this way (something Photoshop has trouble with), and even virtually instanced again. If you strategize and plan ahead, the entire thing can be non-destructive, and the original source layers(s) can be quickly replaced with other portraits, saving you a tremendous amount of time. And the best thing is that your file will remain quite small in file size, since the same source layer is being re-used for all the elements.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is this: Photoshop is NOT Photoline, and Photoline is NOT Photoshop. Both are similar, but have some fundamentally different approaches, which means you should not try to translate the steps of a Photoshop tutorial directly to Photoline, because it will lead to some very inefficient workflows.

[Lundberg02]

Worming is something you do to dogs.

[greenmorpher]

Worming is something you do to dogs.

My mum did it to me when I was a little kid! But I don't think she bothered with a portrait of it all.

Cheers, geoff

[GM1968]

The choice is not only based on technical criteria.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... 0R20131125

And Photoline is good value for money...

I only know the C3 version of Photoshop but some actions are easier with Photoline.

I repeat myself but what I miss most in Photoline is :

For me, always the same request for PL : "real" adjustement layer

...
The usual adjustment layer is a grayscale layer.
The gray values have no effect on the filter function itself, they just apply different transparencies to the result, just like the layer mask.
There once was a beta with a variable blur as an adjustment layer, that came somehow close to a DOF. The gray values were treated differently and affected the radius of the filter, but that was really slow and was already gone in the next beta.

The return of a slow function opens great opportunities. This feature would be useful to many users of 3D software and also for made photos Tilt-Shift...

[Herbert123]

+1000

It would be awesome to have a real DOF Depth of Field) option for adjustment layers. I would also welcome a normal map live adjustment layer that would automatically convert a greyscale 8/16bpc to a normal map. Imagine drawing in the greyscale layer, and having it automatically converted to a normal map in real time (comparable to Ndo).

The choice is not only based on technical criteria.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... 0R20131125

And Photoline is good value for money...

I only know the C3 version of Photoshop but some actions are easier with Photoline.

I repeat myself but what I miss most in Photoline is :

For me, always the same request for PL : "real" adjustement layer

...
The usual adjustment layer is a grayscale layer.
The gray values have no effect on the filter function itself, they just apply different transparencies to the result, just like the layer mask.
There once was a beta with a variable blur as an adjustment layer, that came somehow close to a DOF. The gray values were treated differently and affected the radius of the filter, but that was really slow and was already gone in the next beta.

The return of a slow function opens great opportunities. This feature would be useful to many users of 3D software and also for made photos Tilt-Shift...

[greenmorpher]

f you want to argue that this is a negative way of looking at things, I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, I have selected stuff. That is my focus. And that is what it should be called. A selection. And when I switch it around, I want to "Invert Selection". But the Hubers aren't going to change their nomenclature any time this side of the millennium, so we just need to learn the new term.

I was doing some pix in v.18 yesterday when I suddenly remembered what came before "flatten". it was "reduce to background layer". And I thought that it was superior to "flatten"!!! (Quintuple LOL).

Oh no! Sorry Hubers, you changed the wrong term! Should have just changed the selection thing.

Cheers, geoff

[OldRadioGuy]

f you want to argue that this is a negative way of looking at things, I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, I have selected stuff. That is my focus. And that is what it should be called. A selection. And when I switch it around, I want to "Invert Selection". But the Hubers aren't going to change their nomenclature any time this side of the millennium, so we just need to learn the new term.

I was doing some pix in v.18 yesterday when I suddenly remembered what came before "flatten". it was "reduce to background layer". And I thought that it was superior to "flatten"!!! (Quintuple LOL).

Oh no! Sorry Hubers, you changed the wrong term! Should have just changed the selection thing.

Cheers, geoff

In my grandfather's generation here in the states, the mules pulling the plows wore blinders to keep them seeing only the row in front of them. Selections/Masks? Flatten/Reduce? Blinders, anyone?

Bob

[OldRadioGuy]

f you want to argue that this is a negative way of looking at things, I agree with you. As far as I am concerned, I have selected stuff. That is my focus. And that is what it should be called. A selection. And when I switch it around, I want to "Invert Selection". But the Hubers aren't going to change their nomenclature any time this side of the millennium, so we just need to learn the new term.

I was doing some pix in v.18 yesterday when I suddenly remembered what came before "flatten". it was "reduce to background layer". And I thought that it was superior to "flatten"!!! (Quintuple LOL).

Oh no! Sorry Hubers, you changed the wrong term! Should have just changed the selection thing.

Cheers, geoff

In my grandfather's generation here in the states, the mules pulling the plows wore blinders to keep them seeing only the row in front of them. Selections/Masks? Flatten/Reduce? Blinders, anyone?

Bob