Paint.net Now Available

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.getpaint.net/' target='_blank'>http://www.getpaint.net/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Paint.NET is free image and photo editing software for computers that run Windows. It features an intuitive and innovative user interface with support for layers, unlimited undo, special effects, and a wide variety of useful and powerful tools. An active and growing online community provides friendly help, tutorials, and plugins."</em></p><p><em><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1257725410.usr10.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></em></p><p>Here is another free photo editing software. &nbsp;It looks like it is a lot more fully featured than the "Paint" moniker would imply. &nbsp;If you've already given it a try, let us know what you think in the comments.</p>

[ptyork]

This things been a staple of mine for quite some time. Has all of what I'd use Photoshop for, including layers, all sorts of transforms and brushes, and really cool plug-ins (see e.g., http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/15590.aspx). In fact, it can even edit Photoshop files. This new version is a big step forward in terms of performance on Windows 7 and I really like the changes to the UI.

So with this, Picasa, and Canon's Digital Photo Pro (for RAW), I don't really see a need for Adobe stuff...so why do I still for some reason pine for CS4?!?!?

As an aside, why is it that image editors always seem to go nutso for massively wide and deep cascading menu structures?? I mean, this thing exposes everything in menus. Doesn't even have a preferences dialog. Photoshop and The Gimp are equally crazy. If ever there were apps that could benefit from Microsoft's ribbon UI, these are they...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Does it...

... support colour profiles?
... support PS Plugins for crucial ones like Noise Ninja?
... work in LAb colour?
... work in 16-bit depth?
... have a Liquify filter?
... have advanced healing brushes?
... do clean extractions?
... do colour range selection?
... do soft proofing on custom profiles?

Some of the things off the top of my head that I have used in PS.

[ptyork]

Does it...

... support colour profiles?
... support PS Plugins for crucial ones like Noise Ninja?
... work in LAb colour?
... work in 16-bit depth?
... have a Liquify filter?
... have advanced healing brushes?
... do clean extractions?
... do colour range selection?
... do soft proofing on custom profiles?

Some of the things off the top of my head that I have used in PS.

Funny, off the top of my head, I've used PS for none of that--basic touch-ups of photo blemishes and creation of cool signs, banners, and logos using layers and basic brushes is about the extent of what "I'd use photoshop for." Funny, I think I'm like most people...

There are plenty of custom plugins and brushes for Paint.net, including noise and healing. Hoity-toity color profiling, probably not. 16-bit images: nope. The other stuff you mentioned that I've no effing clue about? Who knows. Probably not.

Startup in < 2 seconds? Yep. Base memory footprint < 25 MB? Yep. Loads images in a snap? Yep. Applies transforms in the blink of an eye? Yep. Way more advanced editing tools than Picasa or Adobe Photoshop Elements? Yep. Incredibly full-featured and easy to use? Yep. Free? Yep.

If your office has cloth walls, blacklight, and a futon, I'd say Photoshop's the way to go. No doubt it is better, as it should be for that kind of money. For the rest, including even semi-pro photographers, I'd venture to say that this free tool is about all you'd ever need.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

You asked why you pined for CS4. I thought I'd help by stating what are the usually more advanced things that most image software cannot do.

If you feel a need to get defensive over software choices, then I'd prefer to not help. Have a good day.

[ptyork]

You asked why you pined for CS4. I thought I'd help by stating what are the usually more advanced things that most image software cannot do.

If you feel a need to get defensive over software choices, then I'd prefer to not help. Have a good day.

Sorry Lee. Thanks for your input. When I first read your post it sounded like you were slamming Paint.Net, but I do see now that it was intended to point out the parts of PS that are superior for certain users. I'm just having a snarky kind of day. Sometimes said snark comes out in these forums...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

No worries. Like I said, you wondered why you wanted CS...

It's ok to not go with the flow. Especially when the flow is $400 and the other way is free. Just make sure you don't miss out.

I'm thinking of downgrading my software as well. Not having access to education versions of PS anymore, I don't fancy paying the stupid sum Adobe wants. I'm perfectly fine with their corporate pricing, I just wish they had something for advanced hobbyists that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

PS. Mind, I've never paid much for lenses either. Maybe it's the cheapskate in me, hehe.

[jazboy01]

I was wondering there should be one software in windows too which gives the list of all update program. I know this is there in ubuntu/linux.. and in window its filehippo but i didn't find it more useful.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm thinking of downgrading my software as well. Not having access to education versions of PS anymore, I don't fancy paying the stupid sum Adobe wants. I'm perfectly fine with their corporate pricing, I just wish they had something for advanced hobbyists that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

What about Photoshop Elements then? It's not very expensive, and works quite well. It doesn't support actions, which I know some photographers rely on, but for everything else it's quite impressive.

PS. Mind, I've never paid much for lenses either. Maybe it's the cheapskate in me, hehe.

Never buy one of Nikon's 2.8 pro lenses then...because once you do, you can't go back to any other lens. :p

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

What about Photoshop Elements then? It's not very expensive, and works quite well. It doesn't support actions, which I know some photographers rely on, but for everything else it's quite impressive.

See, that's the thing. I use a lot of different tools from time to time. Actions also happen to be something I use as well. I've got a few stored up.

Never buy one of Nikon's 2.8 pro lenses then...because once you do, you can't go back to any other lens. :p

I have a Nikkor 80-200/2.8, and have used the 70-200/2.8, the 17-35/2.8, as well as a 300/2.8 and a 600/4. So yes, I know how they're like. No, I still don't fancy paying that much for them.

[Jason Dunn]

So yes, I know how they're like. No, I still don't fancy paying that much for them.

It's not that I like paying that much for the lens, but the difference between my 24-70 f/2.8 lens and any other lens I have is just shocking. I can immediately tell if I was using that lens or not in a given photo...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, I don't find the difference to be worth that much with my lenses. Ain't doing this professionally. For what it's worth though, I also tend to skip the gimmick lenses (big zooms, or just fancy stuff with AFS and VR), and go for lenses with reputed quality.

That said, my experience with a modern superzoom has been fairly pleasant, as long as you work within its limits.