Posted by Jamie Botdorf on March 30, 2007 at 8:25 AM
I'm operating on an old version of Photoshop and not quite ready to take the plunge to the full CS2 suite.
For basic editing of nature/outdoor photos, what would I be missing if I went with PS Elements? I'm trying to understand my tradeoffs - features vs. $.
Thanks for the help!
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 30, 2007 at 9:20 AM
I was running Elements 3 up to a few months ago, when a computer failure resulted in several purchases, CS2 being the cheap one.
For basic editing purposes, Elements 5 is great program. There is very little it can't do well, and in many cases, I still work with 3 instead of CS2 (mainly because for whatever reason, 3 runs a lot faster on my machine). If you are editing a couple of images a week, don't active market your work, and are happy with the results, the upgrade may not be worth it. It is a large chunk of change.
What I have found most useful are actions, especially when I am doing the exactly the same thing to dozens, or hundreds of photos. I recently finished a martial arts tournament shoot and wound up providing the organizer with 500+ images. To open every one, flatten, convert to 8 bit, and save as a large jpeg, and do it by hand, would have left me running and screaming down the street. An action, just to do the flatten, convert and save, made life a lot easier and quicker.
Other things I have found useful: curves is handier than levels, layer masks, 16 bit vs 8 bit (more applicable to older versions of Elements, such as v.3), batch process for converting from raw to psd files. There is more, but that is what I have used. Some of these are options in v.5 of Elements, but I haven't used that program.
In short, if you are not doing a lot of digital work, Elements is probably a much better value, but now that I have been using CS2 for the last 6 months, I wouldn't want to go back.
Not sure what Elements is missing, but based on what Dan said, it sounds like it does not have curves, layers masks and does not work in 16 bit. For my work, missing any one those would be a major loss. I use them all the time and consider them basic tools for basic photo editing. I would not give any of them up. I would rather stick with the old version of PS or if that was not workable, just get CS3.
Posted by Darrin Doss on March 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM
In most cases there are add-ins on PSE. I have PSE 5 and have added layer mask, curves, and several other actions that someone made for me in CS2. They work fine on PSE 5 you just have to use them through the special effects menu. I do however wish PSE 5 had more capability to work with 16 bit images.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 30, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I think Elements 5 has a limited curves - maybe only 8 bit, but someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong!
One more thing - every image I have ever sold, whether as a print or as rights, was edited on Elements 3. My CS2 work is just beginning to enter into my stock.
Posted by Arthur Lund on March 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I would recommend that you take a serious look at Adobe Lightroom. It is more powerful
than Adobe Elements, but a little less powerful than Adobe CS2, plus a lot of neat features
that neither of the others have.
Art L.
Posted by Arthur Lund on March 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I would recommend that you take a serious look at Adobe Lightroom. It is more powerful
than Adobe Elements, but a little less powerful than Adobe CS2, plus a lot of neat features
that neither of the others have.
Art L.
Posted by Arthur Lund on March 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I would recommend that you take a serious look at Adobe Lightroom. It is more powerful
than Adobe Elements, but a little less powerful than Adobe CS2, plus a lot of neat features
that neither of the others have.
Discussion
7 repliesFor basic editing of nature/outdoor photos, what would I be missing if I went with PS Elements? I'm trying to understand my tradeoffs - features vs. $.
Thanks for the help!
For basic editing purposes, Elements 5 is great program. There is very little it can't do well, and in many cases, I still work with 3 instead of CS2 (mainly because for whatever reason, 3 runs a lot faster on my machine). If you are editing a couple of images a week, don't active market your work, and are happy with the results, the upgrade may not be worth it. It is a large chunk of change.
What I have found most useful are actions, especially when I am doing the exactly the same thing to dozens, or hundreds of photos. I recently finished a martial arts tournament shoot and wound up providing the organizer with 500+ images. To open every one, flatten, convert to 8 bit, and save as a large jpeg, and do it by hand, would have left me running and screaming down the street. An action, just to do the flatten, convert and save, made life a lot easier and quicker.
Other things I have found useful: curves is handier than levels, layer masks, 16 bit vs 8 bit (more applicable to older versions of Elements, such as v.3), batch process for converting from raw to psd files. There is more, but that is what I have used. Some of these are options in v.5 of Elements, but I haven't used that program.
In short, if you are not doing a lot of digital work, Elements is probably a much better value, but now that I have been using CS2 for the last 6 months, I wouldn't want to go back.
One more thing - every image I have ever sold, whether as a print or as rights, was edited on Elements 3. My CS2 work is just beginning to enter into my stock.
than Adobe Elements, but a little less powerful than Adobe CS2, plus a lot of neat features
that neither of the others have.
Art L.
than Adobe Elements, but a little less powerful than Adobe CS2, plus a lot of neat features
that neither of the others have.
Art L.
than Adobe Elements, but a little less powerful than Adobe CS2, plus a lot of neat features
that neither of the others have.
Art L.