I've been spending a little time with Photoshop CS5 over the weekend, and I have to say I have no regrets about spending the $200 to upgrade.
I'm running the 64-bit version on my PC. I was using the 64-bit version of CS4 before this one.
I thought I'd share my sort of amateur photographer's point of view since all the videos on the web are pretty much done by Adobe evangelists and masters, and they are going to usually set themselves up so everything works just right, so I thought sharing my "real world" experience might be beneficial. I'm not a great writer, so please forgive me.
You can see some sample photos of some of the features I've used over on the Pacific Northwest NP Forum, but I thought I'd share some of my initial thoughts for anyone who is interested.
The HDR Pro is a MASSIVE improvement over HDR in previous versions, so much so that I can't put enough emphasis on that statement. If you've been thinking about spending money on separate HDR software, I would consider putting that money toward the CS5 upgrade instead.
The noise reduction and sharpening in ACR have gotten big improvements. I've used and experimented with a few different noise reduction products, and ACR stands up to them and does a much better job than most, if not all, in my opinion.
Puppet warp, while cool, still seems like a novelty to me. I've played around with a couple photos featuring my daughter (moving arms and legs, etc). I used it to adjust the pose of a hawk. It's not quite as simple and easy as the videos online make it out to be to get perfect movements, but it can do some pretty amazing movements if you want to spend the time on it. I have to admit, I started feeling a little unethical moving the bird around to get a better "action" pose. I'm not sure would feel comfortable using the tool in that way. I have an example posted at PNWNP forum of moving a flower.
Content aware fill (I'll call it CAF), is amazing. If you are filling large areas, it can be a little problematic as it looks to it's surroundings to create the new fill. The larger the area, the further it goes outside the selection to calculate the fill. This can cause some weird things to pop in to the selection, so smaller is better. The spot healing brush with CAF turned on is many times better than it was before and makes removing unwanted objects very, very easy and most of the time doesn't require any other cloning, but it is somewhat dependent on the complexity of the background and the colors and contrast of the image. The example at I put in the PNWNP forum included removing several branches.
The new Refine Edge is also quite an improvement. I was able to make some nice selections of things like hair and feathers, but you do get varying degrees of success depending on the contrast between what you are trying to select and the background. However, as with the other improved tools, you can do a lot more and spend a lot less time than you might have previously. Even if you can't get it perfectly with refine edge, it will get you very close to where you want to be and you can use other methods to finish your mask or whatever if necessary.
Mini-bridge, very handy. It's nice having it right in PS.
Many different little changes are also very welcome. Sometimes it's the little things that make me happy, such as a check box to keep a notification window from popping up again (i.e. the "maximize compatibility" message). Yes, I know there are areas some of these things can be shut off, but the check boxes to do it right when you get the message instead of hunting through the menu is very nice, and then you never have to worry about it again.
Oh, a word on painting. It's very good. It's not just a simple gimmick. It's advanced, but the learning curve seems to be pretty steep, at least for me. I've played around with a couple portraits of my daughter, and they look pretty good, but I'm sure they would look better with a little practice. A table and pen is essential. In my opinion, it pretty much eliminates the need for a 3rd party painting product.
So after my long winded post, it comes down to this:
Is it worth the upgrade: unequivocally, YES!
Between HDR and the ACR noise reduction, in my opinion, it's worth the price compared to buying an HDR program and a noise reduction program separately. If you've been interested in an advanced painting program, it also adds a great deal of value to it too.
Yes indeed, those are my first impressions as well. Very solid upgrade, and quite the evolution for some tools like HDR Pro, and the Refine edge tool. I'm very impressed so far, and have had great results on my images precessed in CS5.
One problem I've run into with CS5 (at least on a Mac) is that no third-party plug-ins run while PShop's in 64-bit mode. See some of Lloyd Chamber's test results and comments art http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html#OptimizingPhotoshopCS5.
Great thoughts Gentlemen on CS 5. I have also upgraded to CS 5 and was really interested in HDR improvements. Do you use Photomatix for HDR's? My question is the differance between them? I think HDR in photoshop has improved a bunch. I still have more experimenting to do but my thoughts are that HDR in CS 5 has improved to the level of Photomatix maybe? I do real estate photography and use photomatix alot and find it works good for that purpose. Just my 2 cents worth.
From what I've heard and read, CS5 HDR Pro produces less noise than Photomatrix, but I got that info from an Adobe evangelist, so take that with a grain of salt.
There are quite a few third party plug-ins that work with 64-bit on the PC side of things, which I assume is the case since 64-bit for the PC was available with CS4 and 3rd party vendors tried to meet some demands there. I'm sure it won't be too long for them to start appearing for the Mac too.
Thank you for the review I placed my order for CS5 last weekend and that and my new Win 7 64bit computer should be coming around the same time so I'll have a fresh start to see how everything goes but from everything you've said and what I've seen online it will be worth the upgrade.
I have been comparing CS5 HDPro to Photomatix for a couple of days and I don't think Photomatix has much to worry about for now. Their tonemapping still seems much more flexible to me, at both the natural and not-so-natural ends. CS5 does a far better job than it used to, but still has a way to go, IMHO
I have been comparing CS5 HDPro to Photomatix for a couple of days and I don't think Photomatix has much to worry about for now. Their tonemapping still seems much more flexible to me, at both the natural and not-so-natural ends. CS5 does a far better job than it used to, but still has a way to go, IMHO
I agree with the comments about HDR. I haven't done exhaustive tests (yet), but I'm still more pleased with results from Photomatix Pro than CS5's HDR Pro. And I'm always looking for a realistic look to my HDR processing, not the "unreal" looks many photographers seem to like.
That is correct about the MAC plugins, at least according to Adobe.
Since I do not have Photomatix, I don't have a basis of comparison, but I will champion Adobe's HDRPro. My testing under less than desirable light and wind have yielded excellent and relatively noise-free and ghost-free results. Most importantly to me, the results look like something I might actually see with my eyes. I am not a fan of non-real and grunge results that some photographers favor.
As cool as the new HDR updates are for CS5, they still can't compare to using various forms of masking (gradient, luminosity, contrast, etc...) and doing it manually. Try blending a high ISO foreground with a low ISO mid and background, with multiple exposures involved, moving clouds, moving foliage, moving water, and see what the software comes up with. ;]
I'm all for the new CS5, as the content aware filter was more than worth the upgrade. It makes spot removal and slight flare removal so much less of a pain than the previous versions. It's not perfect, but they are definitely headed in the right direction.
Discussion
11 repliesI'm running the 64-bit version on my PC. I was using the 64-bit version of CS4 before this one.
I thought I'd share my sort of amateur photographer's point of view since all the videos on the web are pretty much done by Adobe evangelists and masters, and they are going to usually set themselves up so everything works just right, so I thought sharing my "real world" experience might be beneficial. I'm not a great writer, so please forgive me.
You can see some sample photos of some of the features I've used over on the Pacific Northwest NP Forum, but I thought I'd share some of my initial thoughts for anyone who is interested.
The HDR Pro is a MASSIVE improvement over HDR in previous versions, so much so that I can't put enough emphasis on that statement. If you've been thinking about spending money on separate HDR software, I would consider putting that money toward the CS5 upgrade instead.
The noise reduction and sharpening in ACR have gotten big improvements. I've used and experimented with a few different noise reduction products, and ACR stands up to them and does a much better job than most, if not all, in my opinion.
Puppet warp, while cool, still seems like a novelty to me. I've played around with a couple photos featuring my daughter (moving arms and legs, etc). I used it to adjust the pose of a hawk. It's not quite as simple and easy as the videos online make it out to be to get perfect movements, but it can do some pretty amazing movements if you want to spend the time on it. I have to admit, I started feeling a little unethical moving the bird around to get a better "action" pose. I'm not sure would feel comfortable using the tool in that way. I have an example posted at PNWNP forum of moving a flower.
Content aware fill (I'll call it CAF), is amazing. If you are filling large areas, it can be a little problematic as it looks to it's surroundings to create the new fill. The larger the area, the further it goes outside the selection to calculate the fill. This can cause some weird things to pop in to the selection, so smaller is better. The spot healing brush with CAF turned on is many times better than it was before and makes removing unwanted objects very, very easy and most of the time doesn't require any other cloning, but it is somewhat dependent on the complexity of the background and the colors and contrast of the image. The example at I put in the PNWNP forum included removing several branches.
The new Refine Edge is also quite an improvement. I was able to make some nice selections of things like hair and feathers, but you do get varying degrees of success depending on the contrast between what you are trying to select and the background. However, as with the other improved tools, you can do a lot more and spend a lot less time than you might have previously. Even if you can't get it perfectly with refine edge, it will get you very close to where you want to be and you can use other methods to finish your mask or whatever if necessary.
Mini-bridge, very handy. It's nice having it right in PS.
Many different little changes are also very welcome. Sometimes it's the little things that make me happy, such as a check box to keep a notification window from popping up again (i.e. the "maximize compatibility" message). Yes, I know there are areas some of these things can be shut off, but the check boxes to do it right when you get the message instead of hunting through the menu is very nice, and then you never have to worry about it again.
Oh, a word on painting. It's very good. It's not just a simple gimmick. It's advanced, but the learning curve seems to be pretty steep, at least for me. I've played around with a couple portraits of my daughter, and they look pretty good, but I'm sure they would look better with a little practice. A table and pen is essential. In my opinion, it pretty much eliminates the need for a 3rd party painting product.
So after my long winded post, it comes down to this:
Is it worth the upgrade: unequivocally, YES!
Between HDR and the ACR noise reduction, in my opinion, it's worth the price compared to buying an HDR program and a noise reduction program separately. If you've been interested in an advanced painting program, it also adds a great deal of value to it too.
Cheers!
Dave
There are quite a few third party plug-ins that work with 64-bit on the PC side of things, which I assume is the case since 64-bit for the PC was available with CS4 and 3rd party vendors tried to meet some demands there. I'm sure it won't be too long for them to start appearing for the Mac too.
Since I do not have Photomatix, I don't have a basis of comparison, but I will champion Adobe's HDRPro. My testing under less than desirable light and wind have yielded excellent and relatively noise-free and ghost-free results. Most importantly to me, the results look like something I might actually see with my eyes. I am not a fan of non-real and grunge results that some photographers favor.
I'm all for the new CS5, as the content aware filter was more than worth the upgrade. It makes spot removal and slight flare removal so much less of a pain than the previous versions. It's not perfect, but they are definitely headed in the right direction.