Posted by Brian Monk on October 22, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Help!
My laptop got trashed, and now I have to decide whether to replace Adobe Photoshop CS2 (a version which a friend had let me borrow). I liked CS2, but the software is very expensive. I don't know whether to replace it with something less so, like Photoshop Elements or PhotoImpact. I will drop the cash, if I need to, especially if CS2 makes my life easier. I take probably 50-200 photos a week, if that helps. Can anyone give me some advice?
Thanks!
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on October 22, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Why don't you try Adobe lightroom? Download the beta 4.1 version, it's free and many people are starting to prefer this over Camera RAW in PS.
Posted by Mark Kraus on October 23, 2006 at 7:23 AM
You may want to look at Corel Paint Shop Pro XI. It will do a lot of what CS2 will do at a fraction of the cost. I have both and still use Paint Shop for a lot of my work.
MK
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 23, 2006 at 4:20 PM
Lightroom is a demo, not a full version, so although it is free now, it will not be permanently and the estimated price I've seen is $300. It is also not photoshop and there are functions that are needed that it cannot accomplish. I would say that in the future it will be a very valuable addition to the creative suite, but right now it is just part of the total workflow.
I think it depends to a certain extent what amount of manipulation you are doing with your photos. 50-200 shots a week with few being manipulated wouldn't require PS in my opinion. PS Elements has most of the functions that you will need in PS CS2. The newest, Elements 5 even has a curves function (though I was able to add this through an action to PSE 3 which I use). I think PSE4 and 5 have 16bit editing support (including healing brush, layers and such), where PSE3 is limited to levels, contrast, saturation types of adjustments and these couldn't be applied on a layer.
I have demoed CS2/Bridge in consideration of purchasing the product, and as such worked with it a fair amount and tried the functions that PSE is missing. I may still go that route as there are some masking functions that are easier to manage in CS2 than Elements, but I just don't see a ton of stuff there for the $600 difference. The other main function that I see as an advantage in CS2 is the ability to automate certain tasks and then use them in batch through Bridge or in CS2.
One thing that I like about Elements is that it creates a database of your images in the organizer. You can tag them with multiple tags and query the database by a tag(s) or the parent folder of a tag. Its a nice hierarchical structure that makes sense to a database user like myself. The database has built in backup functions which allow you to make incremental backup discs. You can also have multiple databases, which is nice.
Another item that is unique to Elements is the print interface through the organizer. My Epson R1800 has a feature that it connects to Elements in a way that you don't need to access the printer properties to changes things like paper types, sizes etc... You still have access to all the controls in the driver, but you don't always need to go there. Its a useful function, especially if you use the same paper on multiple print sizes.
There are a bunch of other products including Microsoft, Paint Shop Pro that come in far below the cost of photoshop CS2 yet include all the major functions. Most have a demo available online, so I would try before you bought (and work on a copy of your images, or save a backup first)
I use RSP for processing RAW photos, and then Photoshop Elements for removing dust, cropping, etc.
I have been wanting to try the FredMiranda Digital Velvia Vision but Elements doesn't support ATNs, and the VV doesn't work with Elements. I thought I could try Photoshop CS2, but the amount of money they are asking me for the software is many times more expensive than my computer!
I wonder how people can afford such a piece of software - just breaks your back completely.
On the other hand, I wonder how good a Digital Velvia is going to be. After all, playing with saturation is guaranteed to kill the levels, and cause posterization at some point. I am more favoured towards Velvia slide film on a film camera, atleast it is directly recording the scene on a digital emulsion, irrespective of the tonal range of the scene.
My only problem is that storing velvia slides in a fridge and paying about a dollar each time I press the shutter button, and purchashing a slide scanner ... just sounds equally insane to me To add to that is Marc Adamus' contention that he is able to print larger posters easily with the new 10-12MP digital cameras than velvia ... makes me think twice before switching from digital to film.
Ah well, I guess we are insane people with an insane passion
Discussion
4 repliesMy laptop got trashed, and now I have to decide whether to replace Adobe Photoshop CS2 (a version which a friend had let me borrow). I liked CS2, but the software is very expensive. I don't know whether to replace it with something less so, like Photoshop Elements or PhotoImpact. I will drop the cash, if I need to, especially if CS2 makes my life easier. I take probably 50-200 photos a week, if that helps. Can anyone give me some advice?
Thanks!
MK
I think it depends to a certain extent what amount of manipulation you are doing with your photos. 50-200 shots a week with few being manipulated wouldn't require PS in my opinion. PS Elements has most of the functions that you will need in PS CS2. The newest, Elements 5 even has a curves function (though I was able to add this through an action to PSE 3 which I use). I think PSE4 and 5 have 16bit editing support (including healing brush, layers and such), where PSE3 is limited to levels, contrast, saturation types of adjustments and these couldn't be applied on a layer.
I have demoed CS2/Bridge in consideration of purchasing the product, and as such worked with it a fair amount and tried the functions that PSE is missing. I may still go that route as there are some masking functions that are easier to manage in CS2 than Elements, but I just don't see a ton of stuff there for the $600 difference. The other main function that I see as an advantage in CS2 is the ability to automate certain tasks and then use them in batch through Bridge or in CS2.
One thing that I like about Elements is that it creates a database of your images in the organizer. You can tag them with multiple tags and query the database by a tag(s) or the parent folder of a tag. Its a nice hierarchical structure that makes sense to a database user like myself. The database has built in backup functions which allow you to make incremental backup discs. You can also have multiple databases, which is nice.
Another item that is unique to Elements is the print interface through the organizer. My Epson R1800 has a feature that it connects to Elements in a way that you don't need to access the printer properties to changes things like paper types, sizes etc... You still have access to all the controls in the driver, but you don't always need to go there. Its a useful function, especially if you use the same paper on multiple print sizes.
There are a bunch of other products including Microsoft, Paint Shop Pro that come in far below the cost of photoshop CS2 yet include all the major functions. Most have a demo available online, so I would try before you bought (and work on a copy of your images, or save a backup first)
I use RSP for processing RAW photos, and then Photoshop Elements for removing dust, cropping, etc.
I have been wanting to try the FredMiranda Digital Velvia Vision but Elements doesn't support ATNs, and the VV doesn't work with Elements. I thought I could try Photoshop CS2, but the amount of money they are asking me for the software is many times more expensive than my computer!
I wonder how people can afford such a piece of software - just breaks your back completely.
On the other hand, I wonder how good a Digital Velvia is going to be. After all, playing with saturation is guaranteed to kill the levels, and cause posterization at some point. I am more favoured towards Velvia slide film on a film camera, atleast it is directly recording the scene on a digital emulsion, irrespective of the tonal range of the scene.
My only problem is that storing velvia slides in a fridge and paying about a dollar each time I press the shutter button, and purchashing a slide scanner ... just sounds equally insane to me
Ah well, I guess we are insane people with an insane passion