How does Picasa2 compare?

[Camera101]

I am just wondering if I am missing out on anything by not using one of the adobe Photo editors. I like Picasa for its organizational abilities and easy interface but is there something I am missing out on, something big as far as features go?

[flippedgazelle]

I am just wondering if I am missing out on anything by not using one of the adobe Photo editors. I like Picasa for its organizational abilities and easy interface but is there something I am missing out on, something big as far as features go?

That is a totally apples to oranges comparison. Picasa is a wonderful image organizer and quick-n-dirty editor, but has less than 1% of the features available in Photoshop. Just Google Photoshop and you will see.

If you want higher-end editing features without the big cash outlay, try Photoshop Elements.

[Polytrope]

I am just wondering if I am missing out on anything by not using one of the adobe Photo editors. I like Picasa for its organizational abilities and easy interface but is there something I am missing out on, something big as far as features go?

There are many dimensions to managing your photos, but I think we can boil them down to four:

1. Managing the photos (that is, keeping track of them, applying tags or keywords and captions, etc., and being able to find images when you want them);

2. Editing the photos in ways that could be called general fixes (basic exposure correction, cropping, etc.)

3. Editing photos in ways that target more specific areas of the image (whitening Uncle Larry's teeth or removing the bunny ears that Billy held up behind his sister Susie's head just before you clicked the shutter).

4. Output, whether to print or to web - and notice that in either case, you could be talking about output to your own printer or web site, or to online services.

I could add other dimensions here (Raw conversion, archiving, etc.) but these seem to me the big areas that most of us are concerned with.

Picasa is fantastic at #1 (organizing) and pretty good at #4 (output, especially if you send your photos to one of the many photo services that Picasa can interface with, or if you share your photos using Picasa Web Albums).

Picasa does a satisfactory job at #2 (general image fixing or correction). If you really don't want to spend time tweaking your photos on the computer - and I sympathize if you don't! - then Picasa may be just right for you. The tools available in programs like Bibble (Pro or Lite), Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture, Capture One, allow you to fine tune your images in ways that Google just doesn't. But those programs aren't free and there's a learning curve for them, too.

As for #3 (pixel-level editing) Picasa doesn't do this at all. This is not a drawback for everybody, not even for pro photographers. Adobe Lightroom doesn't have any pixel-level editing tools, either, and it's aimed at precisely the users that Picasa is NOT aimed at - pros and serious hobbyists.

I really like Picasa. The fact that it can't do any pixel editing (#3 above) isn't a problem for me at all. I don't like using tools that have way more features than I need. That's why I don't like Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. But Picasa has two problems for the serious hobbyist. First, it's support for Raw format files is rudimentary. It recognizes and displays PEF files produced by my Pentax K100D, but it can't show the EXIF data, which is annoying. Second, the basic image correction tools, while great for casual users, don't give the user much control. For example, there's a simple "sharpen" command, and in my opinion, it tends to sharpen images a wee bit more than I'd like. These two problems with Picasa are the reasons I'm seriously considering moving to Lightroom. (I'm testing beta 4.1 right now.)

Still, Picasa is free, and it leaves your photos where they are on the hard disk rather than importing them into its own file/folder structure, which is a plus. I'd say, if you're happy with it now, stick with it until you become unhappy. In the meantime, I know that Google is working on Picasa and it's bound to get better.

Will

[Polytrope]

As for #3 (pixel-level editing) Picasa doesn't do this at all.

I should correct myself here on a minor point: Picasa does have a red-eye fix tool, which is a form of pixel-editing.

Will

[Camera101]

I'd say, if you're happy with it now, stick with it until you become unhappy. In the meantime, I know that Google is working on Picasa and it's bound to get better.

Will

Thanks that sounds like good advice. Picasa works for me but perhaps as I get a little more advanced I will get something with more features.
Also is Adobe supposed to make the best Photo editing software or are there better alternatives?

[GaryS]

"Best" is a hard term to define. I would suggest the Adobe is by far the most popular and well known. CS2 and Elements are definitely very good, but some others are very good too.

The advantage of Adobe is that there are tons of manuals, books, tutorials, help guidelines, plugins etc, etc, etc available online and in stores to help you. So to me, it is the best.

Photoshop Elements is the non-professional version of Photoshop CS2. It is reasonably priced, and very powerful.

[toriaj]

Another good option is Corel Paint Shop Pro (PSP.) Both Elements and PSP have free 30-day trials. I tried both, and liked PSP better. But they are very similar, and you would probably be satisfied with either one when/if you decide to get into #3 as described so fittingly above by Polytrope :D