This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > October 2007 > Question from a potential Photoshop Newbie
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Question from a potential Photoshop Newbie
|
|
|
| I just bought my 1st digital SLR and intend to shoot in RAW so I am
interested in getting Photoshop for editing. My question is:
As a newcomer to Photoshop do I need the latest version of photoshop
or could I save some money by looking for an earlier version and get
results as good as I would with the latest version?
Thanks for any and all info you can provide.
Mort
| |
| Avery 2007-09-16, 10:14 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:17:44 -0000, Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just bought my 1st digital SLR and intend to shoot in RAW so I am
>interested in getting Photoshop for editing. My question is:
>
>As a newcomer to Photoshop do I need the latest version of photoshop
>or could I save some money by looking for an earlier version and get
>results as good as I would with the latest version?
>
>Thanks for any and all info you can provide.
>
>Mort
If you are going to shoot RAW you need to make sure the version of
Photoshop supports the cameras RAW format. If you have bought a new
DSLR you will probably need CS3. Check with Adobe to see which
version supports which cameras.
| |
|
| Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just bought my 1st digital SLR and intend to shoot in RAW so I am
> interested in getting Photoshop for editing. My question is:
>
> As a newcomer to Photoshop do I need the latest version of photoshop
> or could I save some money by looking for an earlier version and get
> results as good as I would with the latest version?
>
> Thanks for any and all info you can provide.
>
> Mort
CS3 comes with ARC which is a fine RAW converter and I like it more than
LightRoom which I bought before CS3 was released to public. LightRoom is a
fine RAW converter *but* it's too slow for my taste, and the adjusting works
little different than ARC which I have been using for around 2 years or so.
If it's possible to get an educational version which is same with regular
full version, education version costs $300 and hi-school or college student
can get the education price.
Photoshop is a lifetime learning, and DSLR won't be complete with good
post processing skill. So, I would suggest to get Photoshop and spend lot
of time practicing the same thing over and over and over til you master some
basic commands. Photoshop can be pretty expensive you you spend $300-600
but won't use, but it can be pretty cheap if you can use and especially get
lot of free answers, video tutorials from hundreds of thousands of users
around the world.
For many new digital camera owners RAW converter is about all they need,
because it's simple, very few commands to learn. And most people sing very
loudly about how powerful RAW is. But I would suggest DO NOT STOP at RAW
converter as it isn't as powerful as many people think, but you want to
spend your valuable time to learn PHOTOSHOP instead which is a very powerful
tool.
RAW converter (like LightRoom, ARC comes with Photoshop) you may be able
to learn and use within few weeks or months, but Photoshop may need year(s)
of practicing to be able to enjoy the beauty of it.
| |
|
| On Sep 16, 5:12 pm, Joe <j...@dontspam.com> wrote:
> Mort <morsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> CS3 comes with ARC which is a fine RAW converter and I like it more than
> LightRoom which I bought before CS3 was released to public. LightRoom is a
> fine RAW converter *but* it's too slow for my taste, and the adjusting works
> little different than ARC which I have been using for around 2 years or so.
>
> If it's possible to get an educational version which is same with regular
> full version, education version costs $300 and hi-school or college student
> can get the education price.
>
> Photoshop is a lifetime learning, and DSLR won't be complete with good
> post processing skill. So, I would suggest to get Photoshop and spend lot
> of time practicing the same thing over and over and over til you master some
> basic commands. Photoshop can be pretty expensive you you spend $300-600
> but won't use, but it can be pretty cheap if you can use and especially get
> lot of free answers, video tutorials from hundreds of thousands of users
> around the world.
>
> For many new digital camera owners RAW converter is about all they need,
> because it's simple, very few commands to learn. And most people sing very
> loudly about how powerful RAW is. But I would suggest DO NOT STOP at RAW
> converter as it isn't as powerful as many people think, but you want to
> spend your valuable time to learn PHOTOSHOP instead which is a very powerful
> tool.
>
> RAW converter (like LightRoom, ARC comes with Photoshop) you may be able
> to learn and use within few weeks or months, but Photoshop may need year(s)
> of practicing to be able to enjoy the beauty of it.
All that you say pretty much verifies what I've been told about
Photoshop. That it will have functions I'll never master or even use I
have been told.
I bought an Olympus E-510 and have already been shooting a bit in RAW
and playing with the Olympus Studio 2 program that came with the
package and it does handle RAW files. Have you any idea how that
program compares with Photoshop specifically as to RAW files?
Mort
| |
|
| Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> All that you say pretty much verifies what I've been told about
> Photoshop. That it will have functions I'll never master or even use I
> have been told.
>
> I bought an Olympus E-510 and have already been shooting a bit in RAW
> and playing with the Olympus Studio 2 program that came with the
> package and it does handle RAW files. Have you any idea how that
> program compares with Photoshop specifically as to RAW files?
>
> Mort
I don't have Olympus (I used to be Olympus user for many years but
switched back to Canon 4-5+ years ago). But I can tell you that
- Not all RAW converters are made equal. Some may even cause some damage to
some channel, creating more visible noise etc.. So, be careful with some
adjustment (some can be more aggressive or wrong calculation)
But most RAW converters usually have few basic adjusting tools, and they
are pretty much similar to each other (I mean the tools not the result and
interface)
- Photoshop itself doesn't do RAW directly, but the ARC comes with it
handles the RAW formats. And like I mention above, each RAW converter
may has few small advantage/disadvantage, but in general they arte
pretty much the same.
And when you know Photoshop well enough then you may know that none RAW
converter can compare to Photoshop. Yes, I have read quite afew authors of
some books, articles, videos etc. swearing RAW converter is better than
Photoshop (they are lying or don't know the difference), and very few saying
there is no comparison. Because they are 2 different beats and Photoshop
can do just about anything RAW converter can (except reading RAW directly)
and much more.
| |
| tacit 2007-09-18, 10:14 pm |
| In article <1189959464.958039.150750@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As a newcomer to Photoshop do I need the latest version of photoshop
> or could I save some money by looking for an earlier version and get
> results as good as I would with the latest version?
I would suggest you save a lot of money and get Photoshop Elements.
--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
| On Sep 18, 3:54 pm, tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1189959464.958039.150...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mort <morsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I would suggest you save a lot of money and get Photoshop Elements.
>
> --
> Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all athttp://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
I've been thinking of doing just that.
I notice another thread here that deals with monitor calibration and
would like to know what is the best monitor for working with RAW
files. Guess it would naturally be the best for anything.
Mort
| |
|
| Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:54 pm, tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I've been thinking of doing just that.
>
> I notice another thread here that deals with monitor calibration and
> would like to know what is the best monitor for working with RAW
> files. Guess it would naturally be the best for anything.
RAW is RAW there isn't any better/worse monitor to work with RAW or
nonRAW. And if you want one of the best monitors then make sure to have
$2000-$4000 ready then you can start talking about best monitor.
> Mort
| |
|
| On Sep 19, 1:45 am, Joe <j...@dontspam.com> wrote:
> Mort <morsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RAW is RAW there isn't any better/worse monitor to work with RAW or
> nonRAW. And if you want one of the best monitors then make sure to have
> $2000-$4000 ready then you can start talking about best monitor.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I meant by that is that I want to work with RAW files *because* I
want to achieve the best possible results from my photos. I use a very
old monitor with best resolution of 1024 x 768 and will need a better
monitor to be able to see the finest detail that photoshop and RAW can
provide. I'm looking at a Samsung 226BW. Any comments or suggestions
on monitor quality will be appreciated.
Mort
| |
|
|
"Mort" <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190207975.070750.182870@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> What I meant by that is that I want to work with RAW files *because* I
> want to achieve the best possible results from my photos. I use a very
> old monitor with best resolution of 1024 x 768 and will need a better
> monitor to be able to see the finest detail that photoshop and RAW can
> provide.
You won't see the finest detail on any monitor, but I'm pretty happy with
the Apple 30".
(Funny, but so many 'photographers' think that shooting RAW forgives all
photographer caused in-camera errors.)
| |
|
| Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:45 am, Joe <j...@dontspam.com> wrote:
>
> What I meant by that is that I want to work with RAW files *because* I
> want to achieve the best possible results from my photos. I use a very
> old monitor with best resolution of 1024 x 768 and will need a better
> monitor to be able to see the finest detail that photoshop and RAW can
> provide. I'm looking at a Samsung 226BW. Any comments or suggestions
> on monitor quality will be appreciated.
>
> Mort
LCD? sorry I work alot with portraiture headshot and often zoom in
200-300+% to work on skin-texture, and I never like LCD.
Little over a year ago when my 20" Sony acted on me, I went back/forth
some local stores to look at the Samsung 20-21" LCD was selling for around
$700-750 but I just don't like LCD display.
I then checked with NewEgg and was about to order a CRT has either .22 or
..23xxx (I don't know what the newer term but years ago it was DPI) for
around $250 + around $50 S/H. Then I found a local store had a 20" CRT
onsale for around $70 ($150 - $60 mail-in-rebate) so I thought I should give
it a try (I needed a working monitor real bad) at least for few days while
waiting for newer/better CRT monitor to arrive. But it turned out to be a
fine CRT monitor so I didn't order the one at Newsegg and still using it
now.
BTW, what you really need is a good calibrated monitor, else RAW or not
RAW doesn't make much difference. And if you have Photoshop then I would
suggest to spend more time with Photoshop because Photoshop is lot more
powerful than RAW converter, and Photoshop can do much more (if you know
how).
| |
|
|
> (Funny, but so many 'photographers' think that shooting RAW forgives all
> photographer caused in-camera errors.)
Did I say that?
Charlie
| |
|
| "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
> "Mort" <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1190207975.070750.182870@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> You won't see the finest detail on any monitor, but I'm pretty happy with
> the Apple 30".
>
> (Funny, but so many 'photographers' think that shooting RAW forgives all
> photographer caused in-camera errors.)
It's sad that few people wrote few articles about how great RAW is, then
many worshippers spread the dead wrong info around like gospel.
Yes, I do agree that RAW does have few advantages, but those are very
minimal they can be disadvatange comparing to Photoshop (at some degree
too). Yes, I read many say they replaced Photoshop with RAW converter, and
I can't image how well the know Photoshop and if they know the difference
between RAW converter and Photo Retoucher/Editor <bg>
| |
|
| Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Did I say that?
>
> Charlie
S/he said "many Photographers" *not* you "monitor researcher" <bg>. And
s/he is right about many RAW users who don't know Photoshop well enough
often think RAW converter is better and the only way.
Because RAW converter has much fewer command to learn and remember, when
Photoshop may have 300-500+ times more command to learn/remember, and
require more skill.
| |
|
|
"Joe" <joe@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:rq33f3l1jqcd5lfl65jjpphbv6i0hf1c78@4ax.com...
> Because RAW converter has much fewer command to learn and remember, when
> Photoshop may have 300-500+ times more command to learn/remember, and
> require more skill.
To clarify - I meant that people think they can make up camera and
photography errors in RAW (or Photoshop).
| |
|
| "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
> "Joe" <joe@dontspam.com> wrote in message
> news:rq33f3l1jqcd5lfl65jjpphbv6i0hf1c78@4ax.com...
>
>
> To clarify - I meant that people think they can make up camera and
> photography errors in RAW (or Photoshop).
Most RAW users say with RAW they can recover under/overexplosed. And to
me if it's little underexposed (I like little under than over) Photoshop
user can easily boost up the color with Photoshop (no need for recovery),
and if the image is too much under/overexposed then to me it isn't worth the
trouble.
I photograph for $$$ so I can't afford too much under/overexposed, and I
do pay pretty close attention to the histogram. Yes, I do use RAW converter
but all important photos (for client) must go through Photoshop.
| |
|
| On Sep 20, 1:21 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
> "Joe" <j...@dontspam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:rq33f3l1jqcd5lfl65jjpphbv6i0hf1c78@4ax.com...
>
>
> To clarify - I meant that people think they can make up camera and
> photography errors in RAW (or Photoshop).
Actually if I understand it correctly (and I may not) working with a
RAW file just allows me to have the maximum data available for the
parameters used, that any kind of file allows. It is my hope that
there is something there that a .jpg doesn't offer me to work with.
I'm absolutely new to RAW so I'll find out if there is an advantage.
Many of you already know.
Mort
| |
|
| Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:21 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
>
> Actually if I understand it correctly (and I may not) working with a
> RAW file just allows me to have the maximum data available for the
> parameters used, that any kind of file allows. It is my hope that
> there is something there that a .jpg doesn't offer me to work with.
>
> I'm absolutely new to RAW so I'll find out if there is an advantage.
> Many of you already know.
>
> Mort
You work with PROGRAM not whatever format. Yes, RAW does give you few
extra options, but Photoshop gives you hundreds of commands, and 1001+
different combinations depending of your skill.
- RAW is a minimal processed format (some reads wrong bible and think RAW is
unprocessed) so you have little extra data to work with (so it's nice and
it's an advanced). But RAW converter is very limited so it can only do so
much.
Besides RAW isn't universal format, and not all RAW converters are made
equal so some does better on this when other does better on that. Or some
adjustent of some RAW converter may cause some problem to the image. Or
Photoshop has been around for almost 2 decades (?) with lot of fine-tuning,
lot of improvement etc. when RAW is pretty new, and especially they are not
compatible with each other (which means it makes thing harder for developer
to codec).
- Other formats are processed format which means some DATA could be lost. So
it's important to know and trust whatever program you use to save the image.
IOW, RAW may be a fine format *but* RAW has to be SAVED (processed) to other
format, and RAW converter can mess up the processed image.
So, enjoy and use whatever you can, but don't expect magical from anything
but your skill.
| |
| Barry Pearson 2007-09-21, 6:14 am |
| On Sep 17, 5:18 pm, Joe <j...@dontspam.com> wrote:
[snip]
> But most RAW converters usually have few basic adjusting tools, and they
> are pretty much similar to each other (I mean the tools not the result and
> interface)
>
> - Photoshop itself doesn't do RAW directly, but the ARC comes with it
> handles the RAW formats. And like I mention above, each RAW converter
> may has few small advantage/disadvantage, but in general they arte
> pretty much the same.
>
> And when you know Photoshop well enough then you may know that none RAW
> converter can compare to Photoshop. Yes, I have read quite afew authors of
> some books, articles, videos etc. swearing RAW converter is better than
> Photoshop (they are lying or don't know the difference), and very few saying
> there is no comparison. Because they are 2 different beats and Photoshop
> can do just about anything RAW converter can (except reading RAW directly)
> and much more.
"Raw converters" (I'll comment below on why I put that in quotes) are
gradually encroaching on what Photoshop can do. This means that, year
by year, more photographers will be able to do all they want in the
raw converter, and of those who use Photoshop at all, many of them
will be able to use it for a lower proportion of their work.
I use a combination of Lightroom 1.2 and Photoshop CS3; I used ACR 4.0
and 4.1 until Lightroom 1.1 was released. Over the years since I
started to shoot raw with ACR 2.2 and Photoshop CS, not only has the
power of ACR steadily increased, but so have my skills. Initial global
changes that I would have left to Photoshop are often done in ACR/
Lightroom. Photoshop is for the "creative / artistic" stuff. (Ha! I
wish I really were creative / artistic!). Layers, layer masks, smart
filters, etc.
Apart from a vast array of global adjustments, ACR/Lightroom can now
do some local changes that might have needed Photoshop before: red-eye
reduction, simple clone/heal, crop/rotate, simple vignetting. Other
raw converters (for example LightZone or Capture NX) can do other
things. Adobe are asking people what sort of dodge/burn or selection/
masking features they would like in Lightroom, so this trend will
continue.
Why did I say "raw converter" (in quotes)? Because they are becoming
much more than raw converters. ACR and Lightroom can process JPEGs and
TIFFs, and probably so can some of the others. All the visible
controls in ACR and Lightroom actually apply to the image AFTER the
demosaicing - after the true raw conversion. True raw conversion is
becoming an optional feature within more comprehensive products that
people still think of as raw converters. Aperture and Lightroom (etc)
are also image organisers with databases.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
| |
| Tom Nelson 2007-09-23, 6:14 pm |
| In article <tacitr-1407FF.18542218092007@netnews.comcast.net>, tacit
<tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1189959464.958039.150750@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Mort <morshatz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would suggest you save a lot of money and get Photoshop Elements.
You should know that full Photoshop and PSE have very different
philosophies and customer bases. Full PS is aimed at creative
professionals who will learn it in depth and who are interested in its
many productivity-enhancing features. PSE is aimed at amateurs who are
more casual in their use of it and who value its many canned
hand-holding or automated features. Here are a couple of examples:
1. PSE expects that you will have your entire photo collection on your
hard drive. It forces you to save your photos in folders named with the
dates you shot them and expects you to search for them by date or by
the tags you give them. If you delete or rename a folder, Elements
gives you an error message and prompts you to re-find it. Elements
allows you to view photos with the shooting date as a caption, but will
not show the file name. For an experienced PS user, the experience of
using Elements is claustrophobic.
In contrast, full Photoshop expects you to have a fluid workflow in
which you add new folders of photos and archive others and remove them
from your hard drive. It makes no assumptions about the filenames and
makes it easy to rename folders and individual photos. You can attach
keywords to your photos and search for them, but PS assumes you will
use your own logic about the folder system you use (by job? by subject?
by date?) and to navigate that file structure to find the photos you
want. Full PS is set up to show large numbers of photos at a time.
2. Elements has a whole interface of templates to make various products
-- album pages, CD sleeves, greeting cards and the like. The designs
they chose for these products are sort of cute and bouncy: cartoon
bunnies, baby themes, lots of pastel colors. Some of the product
templates are actually items Adobe has for sale. You make the content
and Elements transmits it to Adobe's e-commerce site for printing.
In contrast, full Photoshop has few templates but lots of customization
features. Where Elements has a few canned drop shadow styles, PS has
Layer Styles which allow enormous choice of the look of shadows, glows,
textures and many more. The downside of all this choice is a steep
learning curve.
In answer to your original question, I don't think you need the latest
version of Photoshop, CS3. Instead, you should think about what you
want out of a graphics program, how much time you're willing to spend
with it (learning it and keeping current with it) and how much control
you want of the look of your images. If you want to go with full PS,
get CS2 (the older CS did not have the Bridge). If you prefer Elements,
you'll save a lot of money and have an easier time learning to use it.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography
| |
| tony cooper 2007-09-23, 6:14 pm |
| On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:51:50 -0500, Tom Nelson
<ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <tacitr-1407FF.18542218092007@netnews.comcast.net>, tacit
><tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
>
I agree with your premise, but there are some errors in what you've
said.
[color=darkred]
>You should know that full Photoshop and PSE have very different
>philosophies and customer bases. Full PS is aimed at creative
>professionals who will learn it in depth and who are interested in its
>many productivity-enhancing features. PSE is aimed at amateurs who are
>more casual in their use of it and who value its many canned
>hand-holding or automated features. Here are a couple of examples:
>
>1. PSE expects that you will have your entire photo collection on your
>hard drive.
That's not so. I have both Photoshop V7 and Elements 5.0 on my
computer. I normally use PS7, but I have E5.0 because my daughter
uses it and she occasionally asks me questions on how to do something.
I have a CD from her with images she took. I just opened an image
from that CD (without moving the image to my hard drive), edited it,
and did a SAVE AS to my computer. No problem.
> Elements
>allows you to view photos with the shooting date as a caption, but will
>not show the file name.
Just checked. I opened Organizer and then went to an image already in
Organizer. The screen shows the date and time the image was taken and
the name of the file as (name).jpg.
>In contrast, full Photoshop expects you to have a fluid workflow in
>which you add new folders of photos and archive others and remove them
>from your hard drive. It makes no assumptions about the filenames and
>makes it easy to rename folders and individual photos
In Elements, just click File>Rename and do it.
>You can attach
>keywords to your photos and search for them, but PS assumes you will
>use your own logic about the folder system you use (by job? by subject?
>by date?) and to navigate that file structure to find the photos you
>want. Full PS is set up to show large numbers of photos at a time.
I don't have experience at this because I don't use Elements except
when I doing something that I want to explain to my daughter. (I do
screenshots as I go along and email her the screenshots)
Elements doesn't have the File>Browse feature that Photoshop has.
However, I don't use this in PS. I use a viewer (FastStone) and tab
back and forth.
>In answer to your original question, I don't think you need the latest
>version of Photoshop, CS3. Instead, you should think about what you
>want out of a graphics program, how much time you're willing to spend
>with it (learning it and keeping current with it) and how much control
>you want of the look of your images. If you want to go with full PS,
>get CS2 (the older CS did not have the Bridge). If you prefer Elements,
>you'll save a lot of money and have an easier time learning to use it.
>
As a last point, there are usually courses on Elements around at the
Community Colleges or the county technical schools. I've signed up
for one next month that is a one day course on a Saturday with a cost
of $40. I just missed a three-day course for $75. When you consider
the average PS or E book is $30/$50, the course price is reasonable.
I've been using Photoshop for years (though not as a professional or
as someone employed in graphics), but thought a crash course in the
use of the Elements system of Organizer, Tags, Stacks, Collections,
etc would be helpful. I've never seen a local, inexpensive, Photoshop
course.
I don't intend to use Elements in place of Photoshop, but I do like
working with my daughter in her learning curve.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
| |
| tacit 2007-09-24, 10:14 pm |
| In article <230920071451504514%ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid>,
Tom Nelson <ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote:
> 1. PSE expects that you will have your entire photo collection on your
> hard drive. It forces you to save your photos in folders named with the
> dates you shot them and expects you to search for them by date or by
> the tags you give them. If you delete or rename a folder, Elements
> gives you an error message and prompts you to re-find it. Elements
> allows you to view photos with the shooting date as a caption, but will
> not show the file name. For an experienced PS user, the experience of
> using Elements is claustrophobic.
Elements allows a user to save any photo with any name inn any spot on
the hard disk; I'm nt quite sure where the information you've written
here comes from. Are you perhaps confusing Photoshop Elements with the
Photo Organizer front-end that comes with it?
--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
| On Sep 23, 12:51 pm, Tom Nelson <ludib...@xintegraonline.com.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <tacitr-1407FF.18542218092...@netnews.comcast.net>, tacit
>
> <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You should know that full Photoshop and PSE have very different
> philosophies and customer bases. Full PS is aimed at creative
> professionals who will learn it in depth and who are interested in its
> many productivity-enhancing features. PSE is aimed at amateurs who are
> more casual in their use of it and who value its many canned
> hand-holding or automated features. Here are a couple of examples:
>
> 1. PSE expects that you will have your entire photo collection on your
> hard drive. It forces you to save your photos in folders named with the
> dates you shot them and expects you to search for them by date or by
> the tags you give them. If you delete or rename a folder, Elements
> gives you an error message and prompts you to re-find it. Elements
> allows you to view photos with the shooting date as a caption, but will
> not show the file name. For an experienced PS user, the experience of
> using Elements is claustrophobic.
>
> In contrast, full Photoshop expects you to have a fluid workflow in
> which you add new folders of photos and archive others and remove them
> from your hard drive. It makes no assumptions about the filenames and
> makes it easy to rename folders and individual photos. You can attach
> keywords to your photos and search for them, but PS assumes you will
> use your own logic about the folder system you use (by job? by subject?
> by date?) and to navigate that file structure to find the photos you
> want. Full PS is set up to show large numbers of photos at a time.
>
> 2. Elements has a whole interface of templates to make various products
> -- album pages, CD sleeves, greeting cards and the like. The designs
> they chose for these products are sort of cute and bouncy: cartoon
> bunnies, baby themes, lots of pastel colors. Some of the product
> templates are actually items Adobe has for sale. You make the content
> and Elements transmits it to Adobe's e-commerce site for printing.
>
> In contrast, full Photoshop has few templates but lots of customization
> features. Where Elements has a few canned drop shadow styles, PS has
> Layer Styles which allow enormous choice of the look of shadows, glows,
> textures and many more. The downside of all this choice is a steep
> learning curve.
>
> In answer to your original question, I don't think you need the latest
> version of Photoshop, CS3. Instead, you should think about what you
> want out of a graphics program, how much time you're willing to spend
> with it (learning it and keeping current with it) and how much control
> you want of the look of your images. If you want to go with full PS,
> get CS2 (the older CS did not have the Bridge). If you prefer Elements,
> you'll save a lot of money and have an easier time learning to use it.
>
> Tom Nelson
> Tom Nelson Photography
Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. Your info is helpful. I'm
in a process of decidig what I'll do about Photoshop and at my age
(74) am wondering about taking on a program of this complexity. I'm
still pretty sharp and have the time so my well decide on the full
version.
Mort
| |
| Tom Nelson 2007-10-02, 6:14 pm |
| In article <tacitr-003558.18325124092007@netnews.comcast.net>, tacit
<tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <230920071451504514%ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid>,
> Tom Nelson <ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Elements allows a user to save any photo with any name inn any spot on
> the hard disk; I'm nt quite sure where the information you've written
> here comes from. Are you perhaps confusing Photoshop Elements with the
> Photo Organizer front-end that comes with it?
Yes, the way Adobe presents Elements is that it has three workspaces,
Organize, Editor and Compose (?). They are actually separate programs
that link together. Adobe expects user to use the Organizer workspace
to download, view and find photos, then edit them with Quick Edit or
Full Edit and do projects with Composer. Unless you bypass Elements'
cataloging system, you're stuck with their way of organizing. It's not
that you can't do it, but it's not easy and I'd bet most PSE users
don't take the trouble.
Tom
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|