Phototastic Collage Photoshop Review

[ebprince the computer nerd]

Ok, this photoshop is like the bare minimum, but it gets the job done I guess.

 

THE PROS

Super light-weight, and since that the thumbnails I make, it gets the job done pretty well. But, this photoshop editor kinda sucks. But I have no money, so I guess it’s fine

 

THE CONS

Ok, too many to be honest. There are ADS in the FREE version. They promote their “premium” version way too much. Half of the things that are crucial to photo editors, are paywalled, and it doesn’t have custom resolution/aspect ratio. Dude, this editor is worse than Picsart. PICSART.

 

CONCLUSION

I don’t know why I still use this. Hey, at least it’s free!

 

Phototastic Collage Review: 5.5/10. The lowest rating I’ve given something I’ve reviewed.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, ebprince the computer nerd said:

Ok, this photoshop is like the bare minimum, but it gets the job done I guess.

 

THE PROS

Super light-weight, and since that the thumbnails I make, it gets the job done pretty well. But, this photoshop editor kinda sucks. But I have no money, so I guess it’s fine

 

THE CONS

Ok, too many to be honest. There are ADS in the FREE version. They promote their “premium” version way too much. Half of the things that are crucial to photo editors, are paywalled, and it doesn’t have custom resolution/aspect ratio. Dude, this editor is worse than Picsart. PICSART.

 

CONCLUSION

I don’t know why I still use this. Hey, at least it’s free!

 

Phototastic Collage Review: 5.5/10. The lowest rating I’ve given something I’ve reviewed.

Sounds like it’s worthwhile learning the horrific UI Gimp is so famous for just to have something that does what you need it to do. I understand it’s artistically very similar.  It’s just the UI that is different, so you won’t get the learning curve, but you can probably arrange for that one

[ebprince the computer nerd]

UPDATE: I have now switched over to Canva and it has a lot of stock photos, which is kinda good. Still better than the other one because no ads.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, ebprince the computer nerd said:

UPDATE: I have now switched over to Canva and it has a lot of stock photos, which is kinda good. Still better than the other one because no ads.

Stock photos aren’t always free.  Sometimes they can be wildly expensive.  Use caution.  I’ve got a step sister who does photography that keeps getting her photos stolen by stock companies (she likes to take pictures of flowers) who then try to sell them on.   The legal wrangling is impressive and something no one wants to be involved in.  There are companies that sell stock photos and will move mountains to get them onto whatever platform.  If you mean freeware photos that’s a different thing, but even then you need to look at how a given group is acquiring photos.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Bombastinator

[ebprince the computer nerd]

47 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Stock photos aren’t always free.  Sometimes they can be wildly expensive.  Use caution.  I’ve got a step sister who does photography that keeps getting her photos stolen by stock companies (she likes to take pictures of flowers) who then try to sell them on.   The legal wrangling is impressive and something no one wants to be involved in.  There are companies that sell stock photos and will move mountains to get them onto whatever platform.  If you mean freeware photos that’s a different thing, but even then you need to look at how a given group is acquiring photos.

Yeah, there are people in the photos, so they might be stolen. I just use my own photos most of the time, but the stock photos they have are flowers, birthdays, people, beaches, etc. So yeah, not using those because I mean, I can get sued for using other peoples photos without permission right?

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, ebprince the computer nerd said:

Yeah, there are people in the photos, so they might be stolen. I just use my own photos most of the time, but the stock photos they have are flowers, birthdays, people, beaches, etc. So yeah, not using those because I mean, I can get sued for using other peoples photos without permission right?

Photos are sort of by definition copywrited by the photographer, though subjects of a photo can have their own copywrite as well which makes two different ones so they can get more complicated, but inanimate objects still have a copywrite associated with them.  A stock book company will buy those copywrites so usually they are the owners.  Unless they just lifted them without buying them which is what happened to my sister.   In some instances It comes down to how much you trust the company.  Do they actually hold the copywrite on a given photo? And are they charging for its use?  Frequently they do, though there are those that either carry only public domain photos or who hold the copywrite but have some sort of release with variable stipulations.