Snipping Tool Alternatives

Stigg said:

I'm very conservative when it comes to installing applications that have functionality similar to what is already available in Windows.
I know there are a number of third party screen capture applications that can do a better job than Snipping Tool can do, especially when it comes to annotations.

Do you use a third party screen capture application, or are you happy with Snipping Tool?
If you do use a third party screen capture application, which one do you prefer?

Click to expand...

It is more a question of timing.

A few years ago, the snipping tool was pretty basic, so 3rd party tools with more functionality became popular with many.

However, now snipping tool has been developed, and for many suits their needs.

I have other tools but tbh I find snipping tool is now quite adequate since you could snip videos and audio.

There will always be a few who use or continue to use 3rd party tools but I suspect they are in the minority now.

Snipping tool is a bit weak with only freeform annotation.
Why on earth do MS think we are arty farty types using electronic pens etc.

There are lots of us who want to annotate with shapes and type text. If I freeform, the end result looks like it has been done by a drunken spider.

Fortunately, it is easy enough to annotate using paint, but it would be great for paint's key tools to be a direct feature in Snipping Tool.

MS do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to creativity, thinking we all sit round a campfire singing "ging gang gooley".

Come on MS, most people want to be able to produce quality presentations - not just items that look like a five year old's output.

neves said:

If by Processing you mean... Enhancing/Denoising - then yes, you can put it like that.

.jpg is not a lossless format. But it's still a "digital" image format - which can be subjected to changes/enhancements. ....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. It may be of some use to others but being I'm, a semi-pro photographer using Photoshop for many years, I'm well familiar with the different imaging formats, color profiles, and image sizes, and how they can affect image quality.

neves said:

Not to mention you shot above image with a Nikon D850, which sure... it's a DSLR from 2017 - so a bit far from the latest and the greatest.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? And who said anything about anything being the latest and greatest???

Sorry, but your point here as has zero to do with the subject discussed. And whether the body is from 2017 or 2007 it still shoots images supported by today's photo-editing software, so....

Add for record, the D850 is still a relevant camera in 2024 and is still being produced and sold. And I got my D850 in 2020

neves said:

Furthermore, that image has enough light for a low ISO of 1000 to be used -

Click to expand...

1-sec @ f/13, ISO 1000, Tripod mount. RAW file processed in Adobe Lightroom, finishing edits in Adobe Photoshop - both subscription based... (in case you need to assert the editor(s) were old as well). Master file is tiff saved in Pro Photo. Posted image is jpeg saved in sRGB

neves said:

so the noise level should be quite minimal. Same image shot with a phone - you'd have a lot of internal cheating/enhancing - to get same level of noise.

Click to expand...

....but, isn't that the point of using good gear and proper editing techniques???

Regardless, the point of the image was not to show off editing prowess or camera tech, but to convey the point that it could be the way the image was shot or photo editing technique, not the photo-editor (Photoshop) itself resulting in a, in this case, grainy image.

Not trying to be rude just addressing your comments.

cereberus said:

There will always be a few who use or continue to use 3rd party tools but I suspect they are in the minority now.

Click to expand...

Ummmmm..., I don't think so!

cereberus said:

Come on MS, most people want to be able to produce quality presentations - not just items that look like a five year old's output.

Click to expand...

And that's why we use 3rd party tools!!!

This is the extent of what you can accomplish with Snipping Tool. Very basic.

Dru2 said:

What are you talking about? And who said anything about anything being the latest and greatest???

Sorry, but your point here as has zero to do with the subject discussed. And whether the body is from 2017 or 2007 it still shoots images supported by today's photo-editing software, so....

Add for record, the D850 is still a relevant camera in 2024 and is still being produced and sold. And I got my D850 in 2020

Click to expand...

You misunderstood that part, since the point i was making was more like - the other way around. I was the one who said - it's not the latest and the greatest - that being an obvious fact (7 years of advancements - translate to superior image stabilization, smarter & faster capturing capabilities). But STILL... upon release was a top tier camera (even priced quite high - among professional cameras - competing with mirrorless full-frame cameras) - which is still used by some professional to this days. And that's just it (my point) - was saying that... sure, can't compete with the greatest and the latest - but still capable of exceptional results, especially under good light conditions - while having a bigger sensor and using only 1000 ISO.

Dru2 said:

1-sec @ f/13, ISO 1000, Tripod mount. RAW file processed in Adobe Lightroom, finishing edits in Adobe Photoshop - both subscription based... (in case you need to assert the editor(s) were old as well). Master file is tiff saved in Pro Photo. Posted image is jpeg saved in sRGB

Click to expand...

Again, that was just my point. To many favorable conditions - for that to be possible. If you had a random photo from mainstream camera released back in 2014 - still capable of shooting in RAW (so you have some room to work with) - the limitations and noise would be so apparent - that the processing part would involve a lot of retouching (inserting fake details - to improve the image). And thus, the end result would be a bit far from a clean conversation. The image with the bird - and its conversation to .jpg and .webp was a clean conversation (since it didn't involve any enhancing - like noise reduction). If i did the same (converted/compressed the image & also enhance it) - then there wouldn't be any point in comparing .png vs .jpg vs .webp (or .tiff) - since it's not their compression/conversation algorithms - whom did the trick - but the extra enhancing tools. I mean, if that too was taken into account - then be it .jpg or .webp - with the help of enhancing tools - the final result would look better than the original.

Dru2 said:

....but, isn't that the point of using good gear and proper editing techniques???

Regardless, the point of the image was not to show off editing prowess or camera tech, but to convey the point that it could be the way the image was shot or photo editing technique, not the photo-editor (Photoshop) itself resulting in a, in this case, grainy image.

Not trying to be rude just addressing your comments.

Click to expand...

Sure, i'm not questioning that (what can be achieved with the help of gear or editing techniques). It's just that - using a "clean" conversation (derived from the source/original) - noise/artifacts are given for .jpg. No point in comparing that with an enhanced .jpg (where any noise is digitally removed). Since that's where your example - differed from our (or at least - it sure differ from mine). Where again, beats the purpose of a clean comparison between the capabilities of the format itself. Also, .jpeg is a bit of a not very nice format in this regard - yet, being so popular - even people who don't like it feel compelled to put up with it. I mean, even if you edit a image using .png and the result is exceptional. Uploading it on a social media platform - gets converted to a not very nice .jpg (probably using around 50% for quality - but that may also depend on image size, can't say for sure).

lol, no problem (you don't have to excuse yourself) - it's just a normal debate even if there's some misunderstandings (this to is normal sometimes - since it's not always that clear what people really mean) - it's not like you were aiming/trying to insult or anything like that. Cheers. :)

... then there's EaseUS Screenshot...

If creating beautiful screenshots fast is something you want, give Snipper a try. You can download it for free from Snipper: Create Beautiful Screenshots. In Seconds. Windows Screenshot Tool.

Below is a sample screenshot created using Snipper in 1 single click.



Disclaimer: Snipper is a free tool developed by me,