I'll attest to that as well. Although I use PhotoShop for most things
these days the print/resample part of PWP just works like it should
without resorting to multiple up/down sampling sessions or special
plug-ins. I once asked Johathan Sachs (the author) if I should do
multiple step up/down resampling as is so often recommended by PhotoShop
users and his response was something to the effect that that wouldn't be
necessary if the software was written properly.
The other bit of PWP that is wonderful is the clone tool. It is light
years ahead of PhotoShop in that the source and destination are always
clearly identified and pixels are never sprayed outside of the indicated
brush radius as may happen with PhotoShop when using a soft brush.
There are also other cloning options which are not found in PhotoShop.
On the other hand, PWP does not have layers. Much of what can be done
with layers can also be done with PWP masks but it is more difficult and
not so intuitive. At least that's my conclusion and I used PWP long
before I had access to PhotoShop.
PWP has not been updated in a long, long, time. I think it's done and
that may explain the $29.95 price. And it's a bargain at that price
even if you have another editor. In a most wonderful world Jonathan
would sell out to Adobe and they would take the better parts of PWP and
implement them in PhotoShop.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> I use it, and have for three or so years. Like it a lot. Not an expert by
> any stretch, but I will say that the print/resample capability of PWP is
> worth the price of admission. I mess with my .ORF files (RAW), then convert
> to .TIF, and then continue to fiddle in PWP. When it comes time to print,
> PWP up- or downsamples appropriately, and truth to tell, I have to crop
> small and print large to see loss of quality.
>
> FWIW,
>
> --Bob
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|