PhotoLine and its competitors

[photoken]

I'm assuming that the next version of PL will soon be released, so I thought it might be useful to provide some general "selling point" comparisons between PL and its image editing competitors in the under $100 (USD) price range.

I monitor one of the Photoshop Elements user forums, and the "official" PaintShopPro user forum. Here are my impressions of what the users of those programs do with their software, and some of the issues they are having:

Photoshop Elements (PSE)

• These users are mostly casual photographers who are intimidated by "complex" software; and who only do the most basic, simple image editing.
• Even so, now that they've spent some money on a fancy digital camera they're upset and wondering why they can't use the PSE editing tools and layers on their 16-bit RAW images.
• Some users are also beginning to wonder why PSE doesn't have adjustment layers for some basic things like Curves and Sharpening.
• The lack of any vector drawing capability upsets those who want to do some fancy greeting cards, etc.

Paintshop Pro (PSP)

• These users fall into two basic categories:
  1. Digital scrapbook users. It seems to me that this is a very large user base.
  2. Advanced amateur photographers who want to do a fair amount of "tweaking" to their photos.
• For both categories of users, the general bugginess of Corel's software is becoming more and more of an issue. This is true even (and especially) for the newly released PSP X7 version.
• Both categories of users also complain extensively about the lack of response and support from Corel when bugs are found.
• For the (b) amateurs, there are some who want to have the advanced editing capabilities of Photoshop, but are put off by its high cost, even when "renting" the application through the Creative Cloud subscription.
• These (b) amateurs feel limited by: the small number of available adjustment layers (about 13), the lack of layer and group manipulation (aligning, centering, etc.), and the difficulties of working with individual colour channels (and a few users bemoan the lack of support for CMYK).
• PSP's problems integrating with other software and 64-bit peripherals is becoming more and more significant.
• In short, these (b) amateurs are really looking hard for a lower-cost alternative to Photoshop.
• For the (a) digital scrapbook users, they use PSP's "Picture Tube" (the "Stamp" tool in PhotoLine) a lot, but PSP's Picture Tube has far fewer controls than does the PL Stamp tool.
• These (a) users are upset that they cannot fit paragraph text within a user-defined shape, even if they spend money on third-party scripts.
• Both categories of users suffer from not having a real Gradient tool that works simply, directly and precisely in the main editing window.
• The lack of a Clipping Mask function is also affecting both categories of users.
• PSP's layer styles are crude, old-fashioned and severely limited. For some reason, both categories of users accept this as "normal".

It's not my intention here to create a feature comparison chart, or to list all the bugs and wish list items for PSE and PSP; but rather to use the benefit of my experience with those applications and their problems to illuminate some key areas where PL can be effective in increasing its market share and mind share.

Comments are definitely encouraged, especially if you've used Xara (which severely disappointed me when I tried it a couple of years ago).

Where, why, and how do you think PL can make significant inroads in the image editing market?

Edited:
Added point #11.
Added point #12.

[cimfine]

Nice comparison, thanks!
I know a few people using PSE for scrapbooking. The main drawback of PSE is that it does not scale images lossless. Every time you size an image in a layout you have to confirm the change which is a) an extra click and b) down samples the picture to the document resolution. When you decide later to increase the picture again quality is lost. The problem is that people are so used to this approach, that they don’t think there can be better ways.
Biggest problem in transition: The “project bin” in PSE and the layer concept are different - might be nice to make a tutorial showing how to do things in both programs.

[photoken]

cimfine,

I appreciate your response. You raise a very important point about "transitions" that is absolutely critical -- the conceptual differences between PSE (and PSP) and PL in certain areas definitely need tutorials to show that what someone is used to doing can still be accomplished, even though in a slightly different way.

[Juan]

Indeed, material is what is needed (tutorial, how´s to, etc)
I remember that I tried the demo many many times (for couple of years) PL without success, getting annoyed and frustrated because the workflow and the learning curve is/was different, until one day I sat and seeing the application with more open eyes (out from the PS box) and everything started to fit into place and understanding how the things are done in PL and finally I jump to PL´s boat and I will not change it for anything.
One thing that I put so much value when I decide to invest in a software is the direct contact with the developers and PL can´t be beaten in this field which is awesome, plus the constant betas that we get.

Cheers
Juan

[russellcottrell]

I agree with all the above. I made my own personal comparison chart with two Corel apps and was converted to PhotoLine. I love Adobe for all it has done for photography; but since they started their creative cloud marketing, they need competition. And they have it. I spent several PL sessions going through the basic tasks such as layer masks, color management, and so forth, and wrote everything down as a little reference manual. May put it online someday . . . .

—Russell
http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/

[mwenz]

...Comments are definitely encouraged, especially if you've used Xara (which severely disappointed me when I tried it a couple of years ago)...

In what way or direction would you desire comments regarding Xara...in my case, Xara Designer Pro?

You do know that PL and XDP start out from fundamentally different purposes even though there is overlap, don't you? XDP's image manipulation is limited, basic. PL's photo manipulation is full, extensive. By contrast, PL's vector capabilities, while "fuller" than XDP's image capabilities, is crude in comparison.

I use both applications for their respective strengths. Point of comparison...I will not hesitate to bring in an image I manipulated in PL into XDP. I will not ever take vector I made in XDP into PL. They are not competitors except in a very broad sense.

[photoken]

They are not competitors except in a very broad sense.

Thanks. That's exactly the information I was looking for -- not having looked at Xara for a couple of years, I was unsure of the feature overlap between the two programs.

[OldRadioGuy]

Ken, thanks for the thorough evaluation of two PL competitors. I generally agree with your conclusions.

Mwenz, I, too, use Xara Photo & Graphic Designer for situations where vector images are involved. It's not in the same league with PL for raster images, but Xara's vector work is superior. When I need to combine photos with vector graphics, the finishing part of the workflow is usually PL -> Xara.

Unfortunately, when photographers looking for a new photo editor come to PL's website, they get a bad impression -- inferior marketing and pages that fail to use innovations in website design. And then there's this PhotoLine Tutorial page http://pl32.com/pages/tuto.php:

1. PhotoLine Tips page -- http://pl32.com/tutorial/Tutor.htm Archaic tips that do little to grab the attention of a potential customer
2. Michaels Tutorials -- http://www.ecotec2000.de/Some old tutorials were once here with Michael's unfulfilled promise to do more, but now it's a link to EcoTecSA.
3. ehow Beginner Tutorials -- http://www.ehow.com/search.html?s=Photo ... rate&t=all. Again, very old tutorials, and there's information on how to access the registration number for Version 14 of PhotoLine.

Not a good impression for a potential customer.

Modernize the website. Get the advice of gifted photographers and graphic designers about using PL in their workflow. Use innovative video tutorials. Just a few of the steps that could be taken to convince customers of other products to move to PhotoLine. Unfortunately, a two-person shop does not have the resources to make those kinds of changes.

Bob

[greenmorpher]

I presume Xara is Windows only.

I wonder how it compares with Canvas 15 on Windows? Sure ACDSee sells Canvas as the technical illustration and publications specialist but I am here to tell you that it is the GREATEST TOTALLY INTEGRATED EVERYTHING PROGRAM around.

Yesterday I had an urgent order from a client for a brochure so I did what I always do -- unleashed the mighty Canvas X on my Mac, chuckled as ever about the copyright notice dated 2005 (they stopped supporting Canvas on Mac shortly after) and leaped into action.

True, I now do most of my image editing in PL but I continue to operate on X.6.8 because that allows me to run Canvas X. I have done 256 page books in it (two are still on sale through LSI and Amazon, check out "Type & Layout"), countless brochures and print advertisements, banners, signs, packaging, and quite a few websites (just save out the Canvas document as HTML, with a some limitations. See for example www.akulodge.com.pg. I recently switched to Sandvox for site building though to get more modern code, see www.bushtrackpng.com). Wonderful being able to work on the page and do all your image and vector graphics work and type there too. And, of course, I edited countless photographs in Canvas before switching to PL for a couple of modern tweaks.

I note that ACDSee is now selling Canvas 15 and ACDSee Pro as a package, but they are also saying that they have (at last) upgraded Canvas's image handling.

The things I see Xara boasting about being able to do look old hat to me from a Canvas perspective. Maybe Xara is faster or something.

ACDSee says they are going to bring out a new version of Canvas for Mac early next year. I am waiting to see it happen. It's going to be awful if it is really good and I have to upgrade my OS. The current Mac OS leaves me cold. LOL.

Cheers, geoff

[mwenz]

Geoff,

Yep, Windows OS only for Xara products.

When it comes to vector or bitmap applications, there really is nothing new under the sun. Most companies still are playing catch-up with each other or applications that existed once upon a time. But Xara is extremely quick. Its main claim to fame.

As for Mac, Serif are making a new Mac-only line of applications. The first, which is available as a free beta, is Affinity Designer:
https://affinity.serif.com/forum/

I think the price point is going to be 30 USD or thereabouts. Don't let the price fool you. I have tried it on a friend's Mac. It will be a quite nice application.

[greenmorpher]

Geoff,

Yep, Windows OS only for Xara products.

When it comes to vector or bitmap applications, there really is nothing new under the sun. Most companies still are playing catch-up with each other or applications that existed once upon a time. But Xara is extremely quick. Its main claim to fame.

As for Mac, Serif are making a new Mac-only line of applications. The first, which is available as a free beta, is Affinity Designer:
https://affinity.serif.com/forum/

I think the price point is going to be 30 USD or thereabouts. Don't let the price fool you. I have tried it on a friend's Mac. It will be a quite nice application.

Thanks for that interesting heads up, mwenz. I have previously noted the excellent Serif line for Windows and wished that it was available for Mac.

The thing is, though, I don't want a "line" of products, I want what Canvas offers -- an amazing, all singing, all dancing, totally integrated app with a DTP interface which allows you to do EVERYTHING in that window -- and to save all or selections out for every use.

But I will keep an eye on Serif too though. Thanks again.

Cheers, geoff

[Simon]

In what way or direction would you desire comments regarding Xara...in my case, Xara Designer Pro?

Xara is a consumer oriented product to make simply things with a simply (for such purposes) interface. It can not handle real life complex jobs. A few versions ago I got many files corrupted and I could not restore them using the tools provided by Xara, it was well known for the company.

Using Photoline, until now, I can do the same without plug-ins, additional software and with any computer, but with Xara, we had to expend in the pro version, plus some Alien Skin plug-ins, PhotoShop, the hardware to handle all and, at the end, Illustrator to repeat the projects.

The thing is, though, I don't want a "line" of products, I want what Canvas offers -- an amazing, all singing, all dancing, totally integrated app with a DTP interface which allows you to do EVERYTHING in that window -- and to save all or selections out for every use.

Definitively, Canvas is the best DTP ever, but ACD See does not know how to deal with it and it is expected its dead.

I tried it recently, I did not find a 64 bits version and its forum is almost inactive. Additionally, the GIS module makes the software heavy (it is there even when you do not buy the license).

These are the reasons why I am using PhotoLine, indeed, it has a primitive interface and there is no marketing around, but it is fast and good with vector, bitmaps and text.

[mwenz]

Xara is a consumer oriented product to make simply things with a simply (for such purposes) interface. It can not handle real life complex jobs. A few versions ago I got many files corrupted and I could not restore them using the tools provided by Xara, it was well known for the company...

A corrupted file is just that, corrupted. Same thing happens with Photoshop files (and its 3rd-party recovery tool hasn't been updated in eons). Same with ID and AI files. The number of posts in the Adobe forums concerning corrupt files for ID are staggering, AI far fewer, PS not uncommon.

I have never had a corrupted file from XDP. But then again, I have only had one in ID, several in PS and none in AI. Knock on wood. If corrupted XAR files are so common, I would expect the forums to be littered with messages about such.

If you needed Alien Skin plug-ins to do something in XDP, how in the world can you recreate the plug-in effects in PL? It sounds like you were more into manipulating images than drawing vector. I would never recommend an Xara product for such things...I don't even adjust image levels, contrast, etc., in XDP though it is quite capable of simple tasks. That's why I use PL for images.

[Simon]

how in the world can you recreate the plug-in effects in PL?

In PL go to Effets>Layer Style
-The shadow function in Xara is weird, it makes a new element attached to the object as a group, it is not easy to edit since the group implementation never has worked fine.
-Making a simple "Aqua/gel" style button was ridiculous in Xara (you may know the tutorial)
-Xara transparency applies only to the entire object, there can not be the border different to the rest.
I used AlienSkin for such things but PL makes them smoothly. You are right it is mixing vector with bitmaps, but, they are "live effects" which means they can be edited in "real time".
Regarding exporting and importing, the SVG exporter in PL makes a much comprehensive code in case you want to use it in other place, Xara gives you two options but both are not as clean. The PDF in PL is simpler, more accurate and incredibly faster than Xara, also the TIFF implementation, PL supports more versions (compressed/uncompressed), Xara frequently has problems with TIFF formats.
You can read the complains in TalkGraphics (Xara´s forum) but the company has never made anything to fix them.

[mwenz]

...-The shadow function in Xara is weird, it makes a new element attached to the object as a group, it is not easy to edit since the group implementation never has worked fine.

Funny, I don't seem to have an issue in my usage. While I like AI's implementation better...insofar as once it hits the Appearance panel anyway...I have no idea what trouble it is you have with it. But again, it is mostly comparing apples to oranges.

-Making a simple "Aqua/gel" style button was ridiculous in Xara (you may know the tutorial)

I have to admit, I don't make these types of effects but for the rare occasion. But it isn't difficult to do and once you have some, adding them to the gallery for reuse makes them easier next go-round. The reason I don't make such things often is that I work mostly in print. For the web assets I make on occasion, none of the web sites I have made assets for would consider such a treatment to an object. And besides, the included design gallery has many of them if I was so inclined.

The screen shot below is one such gel button from the included "art." It is dynamic in that it resizes according to the text entered. I didn't resize the one with your name on it, it resized itself.

capture-001974.png

-Xara transparency applies only to the entire object, there can not be the border different to the rest.

Yep, that's a complaint I have read before. It is such a small part of my work where I would need to treat them differently, it is easy to bust them apart into overlaying objects and do whatever to each part. It is a work-around, but it isn't something I do on a regular basis.

I used AlienSkin for such things but PL makes them smoothly. You are right it is mixing vector with bitmaps, but, they are "live effects" which means they can be edited in "real time".

While I have plug-ins for PL & PS, again, in the print work I do they are oh so rarely used.

Regarding exporting and importing, the SVG exporter in PL makes a much comprehensive code in case you want to use it in other place, Xara gives you two options but both are not as clean. The PDF in PL is simpler, more accurate and incredibly faster than Xara, also the TIFF implementation, PL supports more versions (compressed/uncompressed), Xara frequently has problems with TIFF formats.

I would argue the PDF from PL is not as good. Up until recently, transparency has been an issue. I don't know about the current beta, but the latest release still is not as good. I do a lot of print, and most often the art from XDP is output as PDF and placed in either ID or QXP. Neither of those applications like poor PDFs.

As regards SVG...again, not something I deal with much. I do know that the SVGs I have output form XDP are better files than those from AI. But that is all the experience I have, which isn't much and certainly not as a comparison of PL's export as I have never tried.

I think we each have different needs. I am glad that PL is better for you. It isn't for me. If I had to do much pure vector in it, it would drive me to drink.

Mike