Good photo editor?

[rubank]

Well, just for the hell of it, here´s a comparison of the output from PS6
and PP10


both set to produce the same file size, 62 Kb (medium 6, baseline optimized in PS6).

This obviously gives different results, they both have artifacts but not the same artifacts. It will be a matter of opinion which is best, I tend to favour the PP10 output but it´s a close call.

Btw, the uncompressed TIF is 957 Kb.

rubank

[UtwigMU]

Email me utwig1337ATyahooDOTcom for the CMYK profile.

[mutz]

...rich responses, thank you. Rubank, you got me. I couldn't say I preferred one over the other.

I think what is bothering me is resampling. Of course there is loss when you go down, but it's primarily how the pixels are handled whether it comes out good or not. Perhaps Corel 11 has some improvements. Hope so.

As for color management, in one of the news groups, Corel said start CorelDraw or PhotoPaint while holding F8, which resets the whole program to factory defaults, then totally disable color management. I did this, and not only are colors better, the whole program got snappy as hell. Just shows how many changes can accumulate, and how after a while I can't find my own ass with both hands!

[Greebe]

Typing with your nose again Aye?

[mutz]

...no, no, no! Nose with head up ass, use toes...

[rubank]

OK Mutz,

so now we´re talking resampling. What type of resampling and to what purpose?
I´m at a loss here, because you started out by discussing compression and now I wonder if you plan to resample to save file size? That´s certainly not a good idea, as far as I can see, unless you´re talking about downsampling 4-digit scans, e.g. for printing (but that´s not very close to e-mailable size anyway )

Can you clear things up?

rubank

[mutz]

...sorry if I was wandering and vague, been preoccupied with something else.

I started off considering another photo editor.

Some time ago I sent someone a jpeg that they couldn't open, then after they did some update or upgrade or the other, suddenly they could open it. Though jpeg is supposed to be a standard, I remember reading there were various versions and implementations.

I've also seen that some simple consumer, often bundled, photo editors sometimes turn out more sparkling jpegs than others. For example, though it may have nothing to do with it, Corel bought into Micrografx to get at some superior algorithms it has.

As you know, there are various options when saving a jpeg, and I am no longer sure what's best, so I should probably test more before I start asking around.

The photo out of my camera is perfect at 2272 x 1704 x72dpi, but that is a jpeg file of over 2 meg which is too big for some purposes. I generally reduce it in two ways, resampling the demensions and higher compression. So the point is, I don't know where I'm getting the most degradation, resampling or compression. And since it seems that different software does it different ways, which software is best? (that is to say without going into a lengthy analysis)

I'm grateful for your input, but you can leave it here if you like...

[rubank]

Mutz,
I think the simpler bundled photoapps often apply various filtering alongside compression to give more "sparkling" results.
You can always try "Auto equalize" in Corel or PS for comparison.

The strength of the professional app, aside good algorithms and extensive features, is that YOU are in control rather than the app.
This might however mean you have to do more work yourself for the desired output - in the end you will get better results.

As for your camera shots, resampling can be done i different ways. I would think that resampling to lesser format while maintaining the file size prior to compressing is the way to go.

Let´s say you resample to 1024x768@300dpi and then export it to JPEG at Optimal 4x4x4, compression 20, smoothing 0 you´ll get an output practically indistinguishable from the original at little more than 125 Kb (according to my quick test).

rubank

[UtwigMU]

Yes it's best to disabble colour management. I only use it in photoshop for image editing.

But converting image from one profile to another is a bitch. IMO it's better to discard profile and enforce profile.

AFAIK photoshop has better resampling.

[mutz]

...aaaahhh thank you. That looks like what I was thrashing around for.

[Electric Amish]

I use PhotoImpact 6.

amish

[rubank]

OK guys,
here´s how resampling looks, in PS6 and PP10 respectively.

The picture of my girlfriend is a 35mm Ektachrome original, enlarged on Cibachrome paper 18x24 cm, scanned at 300 dpi resulting in a TIFF file of 17,2 Mb. (Shown here as JPEG at 75 Kb).

After cropping I resampled to 150 dpi, resampled to 600 dpi, resampled to 300 dpi and finally resampling to 800%. The resulting filesize was 1,2 Mb before saving to JPEG.

You be the judge.

Girlfriend



PS6



and PP10



rubank

[thop]

at first sight PP10 seems much better because it isn't pixelated. but you see that PP10 just blurred/interpolated the pixels away which is questionable IMO.

now if resampling is the main problem than you might try s-spline (shortcut.nl), the only thing this app does is actually resampling. now it is specialized for upsampling but i guess it cant be bad at downsampling either. if someone can give me an easy to follow routine how to do a "benchmark" i will pit S-Spline vs. PS7.

[rubank]

Thop,

if you save those images to disk, put them up side by side and move away from your monitor until you don´t see the pixelation you´ll still see a difference.
Now, does this change your view on which is the better one?

rubank

[thop]

i see the difference now, the PS6 one is more "grainy" but again IMO this is only caused by the blur that PP10 seems to apply with every resampling. while PS6 may look a bit uglier this way i think there is more detail preserved. what do you think?