Digital Image Is Good, But Picasa Is Still Tops

Ars Technica has some surprising things to say about Microsoft's new Digital Image 2006.

I keep on being pleasantly surprised by new software from Microsoft. It's hard to shake their reputation as a peddler of kludgey contraptions, but programs like Digital Image 2006 are anything but. The design is clean and distilled. The program's adherence to folder structures and OS-maintained metadata means it plays nicely with other applications. Unless you decide upon trial that something about Digital Image doesn't fit your work style, there's not much about it not to recommend.

Anyone who's ever used ACDSee will agree with their assesment of the software.

It's hard not to be impressed by the sheer volume of features in ACDSee, but in practical use they just get in the way of each other. Users who liken learning new programs to solving a thorny puzzle will enjoy this one, but I'd advise most others to steer clear.

I believe the technical term is "creeping featuritis"

They say Photoshop Album has "weak touch-up tools," "unclear design," and is a "memory hog."

But when all is said and done, Google's free Picasa blows the competition away.

I admire the lean simplicity of Microsoft Digital Image, but Picasa's organizational system will be of more use to me over the long term. Its labeling system was easiest for me to deal with. I never felt like I had to conform to a particular conception of how photos should be organized when using it.

Picasa is a very strong tool. Its interface stays out of your way and makes it easy to sort through large collections of images. Not bad for a free download.

I've been using Picasa since Google bought it and it really does a fantastic job. For minor photo manipulation, it rivals Photoshop. In terms of organization, it's slick, intuitive interface has no equal. Gmail and Blogger integration, along with the Hello add-on, bring it into the Flickresque world of social image organization.