I'm posting a link to a two page PDF, the first page is an image as received from a professional photographer VIA my client, MAC Photoshop CC, as viewed in Photo-PAINT 2017 at 33%. The second is after a little love.
The issue is that the image creator couldn't see the issue and in Photo-PAINT it jumped out and bit you in the face. If the image was printed at 100 DPI on an inkjet some of the blinding white lines would have been over 1/10th of an inch.
Photo-PAINT 2017 has the best display for real image editing.
http://www.graphictechnology.com/train/
This is not just an Adobe problem it's an issue of atmosphere and work habits as much as a soft display from Photoshop. People tend to be lazy, clients many times are cheap, the capture conditions were certainly challenging, however I saw the image on the photographers system and when he opened up it in Photoshop it didn't look like it does when opened in Photo-PAINT. It's clearly easier to see these issues in Photo-PAINT.
Which clearly accented the problems, which were definitely chromatic aberration, either over exposure or over sharpening.
In any case clearly a lack of care by the file creator since the client has no issues paying for the corrections and out of 30 images there were 4 with problems just as serious.
Yes I do criticize Adobe, PhotoShop costs WAY too much, the user loses there access to their files if they stop paying and for professional level imagine editing Photo-PAINT has almost everything needed, clearly a better display.
This is the reality of viewing various art files in Photoshop vs Photo-Paint. Photo-Paint is nearly unusable, depending on the kind of art you're viewing, and certainly Photoshop shows how these pieces actually print. The last one with the taxis is halftone dots. As horrible as it looks here, the screen capture actually makes it look a lot better! Obviously, that's Photoshop on the right with the dark background.
KuttyJoe said:but the problem is that when viewed in Photo-Paint, they were so ugly that you couldn't really use CorelDraw to work on them. The truth is that these files printed just fine, not like the disastrous way that Photo-Paint was viewing them
Now take that art and without retouching print it full scale and at 300%, what Photo-PAINT is seeing is there and it may print and that's the issue today ink jet proofing will not show it at small scale.
Today a professionally prepared image must be ready to print at full scale, scaled down to 3 x 5 for press or be dropped into PhotoZoom and up-scaled to 500%.
This client has been through 5 photographers in 7 years and since they had me make an extra full scale print of this image I suspect it may soon be 6.
I saw the image on his system, he opened it and the issues were next to invisible, now of course he's one of these MAC, high def display, work in a bat cave guys so some of this is his own self inflicted wounds. I work in a 5,000 kelvin lighted environment with light blocking drapes, I've been with this client 27 years and I've seen the photographers come and go, such is life.
The reality is Adobe charges way too much for PS, they own your file access, and the application is not really geared for realistic reproduction in the architect/engineering field. Photo-PAINT is an extremely viable alternative. I couple it with PaintShop Pro X9 for a few extra tools and thumb my nose at an Adobe subscription.
David Milisock said:Now take that art and without retouching print it full scale and at 300%, what Photo-PAINT is seeing is there
That's the point. What Photo-Paint is showing on screen is not at all what the art looks like. It effectively makes it impossible to work with those files in Photo-Paint. Yes, they all print the same. It's the exact same file. It prints the same from any application. But, you still need to be able to work with it in your software. With Photo-Paint, you can't because it's viewing too poorly. That's the benefit of some Photoshop, and Illustrator's viewing methods. Sometimes you're looking at stuff like patterns, halftones, etc that look terrible on screen. It's good to be able to view it beautifully, and how it's going to print. Photo-Paint doesn't do that. LOL You see crud. Not that it will print crud, but it looks like crud on the screen. You can't work with it and edit it because what Photo-Paint is showing you is certainly not how it will print.
David Milisock said:The reality is Adobe charges way too much for PS, they own your file access
Yes, Photoshop is too expensive and yes I hate the whole rental model. But they no longer own your files. Affinity Designer and Photo are now doing an excellent job of faithfully opening Photoshop and Illustrator files. So if you decide to stop renting Adobe software, you can still open and edit your files in another software. That is the best part about these programs for me.
Meanwhile, we can see Corel doing all it can to eventually reach the rental model. Look at what they just did recently. The upgrade cycle has suddenly been changed from 2 years, to 1 year. The cost for the upgrade is $200.00. If you upgraded every 2 years, that's like $100.00 per year. But now, with the upgrade cycle of 1 year, you're paying $200.00 per year. The catch is that the cost of renting Corel software is exactly the same. Actually, it's 1 dollar cheaper. The obvious result of this is that consumers will begin to consider that maybe it makes more sense to just go ahead and rent the darn thing instead of buying it outright. Which of course is the reason for the new upgrade schedule.
I wonder though, will you feel the same way about Corel that you do about Adobe when Corel gets enough subscribers to comfortably make subscription the only way to get their software.
As for the cost of Adobe software I do find it to be expensive. But CorelDraw suite costs about $200 a year. Adobe Illustrator costs $240.00 a year. It's more expensive, but not a lot more expensive. And for a whole lot of people, Coreldraw is the only application they've ever bothered to install. Photo-Paint is not a "viable alternative". LOL I can't believe you can even say it. There is no viable alternative to Photoshop. People who buy CorelDraw have largely used Photoshop, not Photo-Paint. You would have a more valid point if indeed Photo-Paint were remotely as good as Photoshop. Then you'd be getting something like the equivalent of Illustrator and Photoshop for less than half the cost. But that's not the case. Photo-Paint is abandonware and we all know it. CorelDraw is usable, but not the same quality as Illustrator. So you're either paying more for higher quality products, or paying less for poorer quality products.
I would absolutely love to thumb my nose at Adobe. I've been trying to do that since 2007. But for some of the work I do, Adobe simply does it best. Like color separations. Look at the whole suite of products Advanced Artist has created for CorelDraw. Why? It's because CorelDraw is very weak for color separations. His products are actually a game changer for people who use CorelDraw in the screen printing industry. You harshly criticize him, but you actually should be praising him. I believe he is single-handedly bringing tons of people to CorelDraw. But of course, Adobe has it all built in, beautifully. Adobe processes are actually faster than AA's automated plugins. A lot faster.
As for Paint Shop Pro, I download it every couple of years to see if it's any better but it's the kind of junk that I uninstall after a few minutes. The performance, interface, etc are all terrible. We do different work though. Your needs are met by Corel which is great. But one day, you'll be renting it, and I think when that day comes you'll be making excuses for Corel while still criticing Adobe when they're doing the exact same thing.