As a Prosumer Do I Need PS/CS3 or PS Elements?

jhelms

I shoot with a D200 and so far have held off on shooting in raw and/or doing much post-processing at all. Prior to now I've really concentrated on getting the pics as correct as possible in-camera. Out of my 22k pictures uploaded on smugmug the extent of my post-processing with them has been using the free version of google's Picasa to do cropping and some minor contrast corrections (no joke, I'm almost embarrased to admit that).

I'm signed up for several photo classes at the local university this quarter and have gotten more serious in shooting varied subjects; more events, more portraits, and have helped with a few weddings recently as well.

So with all that said, I think I'm ready to start doing some actual post-processing to get my pics to 'pop' more.

I looked at Lightroom, Elements and the full blown CS3. It looks like I might find everything that I need in Elements, but then again I don't want to make that purchase and then realize that there's a ton of reasons that I should have bought CS3.

What do ya'll think? Thanks in advance...

mwgrice

jhelms wrote:

I shoot with a D200 and so far have held off on shooting in raw and/or doing much post-processing at all. Prior to now I've really concentrated on getting the pics as correct as possible in-camera. Out of my 22k pictures uploaded on smugmug the extent of my post-processing with them has been using the free version of google's Picasa to do cropping and some minor contrast corrections (no joke, I'm almost embarrased to admit that).

I'm signed up for several photo classes at the local university this quarter and have gotten more serious in shooting varied subjects; more events, more portraits, and have helped with a few weddings recently as well.

So with all that said, I think I'm ready to start doing some actual post-processing to get my pics to 'pop' more.

I looked at Lightroom, Elements and the full blown CS3. It looks like I might find everything that I need in Elements, but then again I don't want to make that purchase and then realize that there's a ton of reasons that I should have bought CS3.

What do ya'll think? Thanks in advance...

My advice is to download the 30-day trial:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?promoid=DJDUZ&product=photoshop

This is for Photoshop Extended, apparently they don't have one for vanilla Photoshop (or I couldn't find it). You'd almost certainly buy the ordinary version, if you bought it. There's also a trial for Elements:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_elements&loc=en_us&promoid=DJDVC

I'd also give some thought to Lightroom, which also has a 30-day trial:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom&promoid=DJDUX

The one caveat I have with Lightroom is that they've just released the 2.0 version, and some people (me included) have had nasty performance problems. Adobe should be able to fix it with the next release--it worked acceptably well for me during the beta.

If you have a Mac you could also take a look at Aperture. There's a trial for it somewhere, but I ought to get back to work...

Pupator

Picasa is great for global corrections - changes that affect the whole image. If you want something better, you can move to I2E Image Editor which does amazing global changes really, really quickly.

If you want to make spot changes (being able to edit/manipulate specific parts of a photo) you'll need to get something like PS CS3. I think Paint Shop Pro is a great product at a great price for most pro-sumers. The downside is that there aren't nearly as many webpages with tutorials for PSP as PS, but it is a tremendously powerful program that will teach you to use the same principles that you'd be using in Photoshop for far, far less money.

YMMV

Jet Jaguar

+1 on considering Paint Shop Pro. I have Paint Shop Pro at home and have used Photoshop at work. PSP is 95% of what Photoshop is for a tenth of the price. For just about any basic photo finishing/editing tasks, there isn't really anything PS can do that I can't duplicate in PSP. Both contain the same basic functionality for the most part, so the skills you learn in PSP can be readily transferred to Photoshop if you eventually go that route.

True, the main thing PS has over PSP (and just about everything else) is the huge user community. That means there are far more resources available to Photoshop users. However, many Photoshop plugins can be used in PSP, and you can often still follow examples and tutorials written for PS users. The techniques are usually the same but require some translation because things aren't always in the same place or labeled with the same names. That may or may not be acceptable depending on your situation. I'm merely a hobbyist so I usually don't mind, I feel there's value in learning new things. But if I were a working professional then time is money and I wouldn't want to be constantly reinventing the wheel.

jhelms

Good information so far!

I was also looking around for a chart that shows the differences between LR, Elements, and CS3 but wasn't able to pull one up.

Just trying to figure out why they have 3 different programs and how much of the stuff overlaps, etc.

Elaine

I've been an Elements user for about 3 years (since I got my first digital camera). I took an on-line class through a local community college to learn how to use it. I also have Lightroom but haven't figured it out yet. I just got CS3 (came today) and I'll be taking a class for it, too. One of the main reasons I felt the need to move up was so that I could take advantage of templates and actions. I have really gotten deeper into this photography thing than I expected. I've put off full-blown Photoshop for a good while, but I'm excited to have it now.

mwgrice

jhelms wrote:

Good information so far!

I was also looking around for a chart that shows the differences between LR, Elements, and CS3 but wasn't able to pull one up.

Just trying to figure out why they have 3 different programs and how much of the stuff overlaps, etc.

Well, that's why I recommend trying them out.:D

The one I'm least familiar with is Photoshop Elements, which I believe has just a subset of the features Photoshop has. You may or may not want the additional features. But they more or less cover the same space.

Lightroom is also intended as a cataloguing application. So you can use it to catalogue and search all your images. You can also use it to make mostly global corrections, although Lightroom 2 allows you to make some local corrections (and I haven't even tried that yet). Lightroom is particularly useful if you shoot RAW, in my opinion, but it's also useful for JPG's and TIFF's. I don't think I'm really doing it justice, though.

slpollett

I have both Paint Shop Pro v.11 and Photoshop CS3. I use Paint Shop Pro much more often because it is much more user-friendly, especially while learning. I've also found that once I figure out how to do something in PSP, it is 'fairly' easy to find it in CS3. PSP can do almost everything CS3 can do and it is so much cheaper.

Sherry

agilepawz

Have any of you tried GIMP? I was lamenting to a friend that I couldn't really afford Photoshop and he recommended GIMP. It's freeware and with the limited amount of work I've done, it seems just fine. http://www.gimp.org/

I can also second (or third ) Paint Shop Pro. They also have a demo that you can download. It is very easy to use, and one of the really cool things it does that photoshop doesn't is allow you to open a batch of photos along a toolbar on the bottom so you can just click from one to the next without going back to the menus. I liked that a lot!

Michele

Pupator

Gimp is powerful and has come a long way in terms of usability. Still, for the ~$50 that PSP can be had for, I far recommend it over GIMP (unless you're a FOSS only kind of person.)

colourbox

jhelms wrote:

I was also looking around for a chart that shows the differences between LR, Elements, and CS3 but wasn't able to pull one up.
Just trying to figure out why they have 3 different programs and how much of the stuff overlaps, etc.

It's a little like why a car company doesn't make just one car.
One way to look at it:

Photoshop - does anything you can think of, but because of that, finding and stringing together the 5 features you need to use today gets harder and harder with each version. Can edit individual pixels. Comes with Bridge for organizing and Camera Raw for raw conversions. You must coordinate all three to get anything done on a mass scale. Really intended for deep work on individual images.

Photoshop Elements - Does two things, leaves out esoteric Photoshop features to focus on what most people need for most images. Also presents Photoshop features in a friendlier way so that those 5 features are easier to find and use.

Lightroom - Focused on speed and efficiency with large numbers of photos, but that is only half of it. The other half is image quality because Lightroom contains the complete Camera Raw engine that Photoshop comes with. I have used Photoshop for many years but I am now a Lightroom addict because it is so much more efficient than Photoshop and yet more pro oriented than Elements. If I have to bring an image into Photoshop because I couldn't finish the corrections in Lightroom, I assume I should have done a better job taking the picture. The one exception to that is if I want to make a large print of something, I will probably take it to Photoshop for that nth degree of picky processing. But Lightroom 2.0 is a very nice piece of software.

A big factor was the shift to raw, where changes can be stored in metadata with the raw so that all your Lightroom (or Camera Raw) corrections can be stored just a few megabytes total per file. If you have to do the corrections using pixels in Photoshop and its layers, you're talking tens or hundreds of megabytes per file. For this I find Lightroom 2.0 local corrections to be a blessing that pays for itself, as the more corrections I can do at the raw stage the fewer hard drives I have to buy...

jhelms

colourbox wrote:

It's a little like why a car company doesn't make just one car.
One way to look at it:

Photoshop - does anything you can think of, but because of that, finding and stringing together the 5 features you need to use today gets harder and harder with each version. Can edit individual pixels. Comes with Bridge for organizing and Camera Raw for raw conversions. You must coordinate all three to get anything done on a mass scale. Really intended for deep work on individual images.

Photoshop Elements - Does two things, leaves out esoteric Photoshop features to focus on what most people need for most images. Also presents Photoshop features in a friendlier way so that those 5 features are easier to find and use.

Lightroom - Focused on speed and efficiency with large numbers of photos, but that is only half of it. The other half is image quality because Lightroom contains the complete Camera Raw engine that Photoshop comes with. I have used Photoshop for many years but I am now a Lightroom addict because it is so much more efficient than Photoshop and yet more pro oriented than Elements. If I have to bring an image into Photoshop because I couldn't finish the corrections in Lightroom, I assume I should have done a better job taking the picture. The one exception to that is if I want to make a large print of something, I will probably take it to Photoshop for that nth degree of picky processing. But Lightroom 2.0 is a very nice piece of software.

A big factor was the shift to raw, where changes can be stored in metadata with the raw so that all your Lightroom (or Camera Raw) corrections can be stored just a few megabytes total per file. If you have to do the corrections using pixels in Photoshop and its layers, you're talking tens or hundreds of megabytes per file. For this I find Lightroom 2.0 local corrections to be a blessing that pays for itself, as the more corrections I can do at the raw stage the fewer hard drives I have to buy...

If I decide to go the elements route does that mean I need another program for a raw conversion? I've also heard complaints that LR is slow?

DonRicklin

jhelms wrote:

If I decide to go the elements route does that mean I need another program for a raw conversion? I've also heard complaints that LR is slow?

The slowness is machine dependent and what else is on it.

You may have heard about a lot of bigs! Most of those will be fixed in a 'short' while. You might want to do a trial download on the weekend!

See for yourself. Trial the latest available, when you do!

Don

Elaine

jhelms wrote:

If I decide to go the elements route does that mean I need another program for a raw conversion? I've also heard complaints that LR is slow?

PSE has ACR (Adobe Camera RAW).

kini62

Never used CS3, can't or don't want to spend that much.

Been using PSE since version 3, I now use 5. I've tried version 6 and found it to be much slower than version 5 on my "dated" PC.

I've also tried PSP. IMO it's less intuitive (slightly) than PSE and the biggest drawback(s) to it are you need a seperate organizer (the one in PSE works pretty well) and Corel's RAW update is REALLY, REALLY SLOW.

When I downloaded the demo, some 6 months (or more) after the 40D was released, PSP STILL didn't support 40D RAW files. So if you have a relatively new camera expect to wait 6 months to a year to get RAW support with PSP.

With PSE, which uses ACR, you get RAW support faster than any other converter/editor, save for the factory supplied ones.

Gene

Pupator

kini62 wrote:

I've also tried PSP. IMO it's less intuitive (slightly) than PSE and the biggest drawback(s) to it are you need a seperate organizer (the one in PSE works pretty well) and Corel's RAW update is REALLY, REALLY SLOW.

PSP has had an organizer function in each of the last two versions.

speric

i'm kinda in the same situation. trying to decide between all these software options. i've downloaded LR, CS3 and started playing with PSE6. for me the problem is I don't really know what I'ld "need or not need". I have very little and limited experience with photoshop. I'll most likely go with LR+CSx/PSEx because of the batch processing, adding batch meta-data, etc. I found it easier to use then ACR/Bridge but I want something where I could do more single image processing that LR doesnt' seem to offer.

Here is a list of some of the differences I found between CS3 and PSE6.
Here's the link to the article. http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/f/elementscompare.htm

Here's the list.
Some of the features in Photoshop CS3 that are not included in Photoshop Elements 6 are:

• CMYK and LAB color modes
• More tools and features that work with high-bit (16-bit and 32-bit) images
• Combine multiple exposures to create high dynamic range (HDR) images
• Channels Palette
• Recording custom Actions (for batch processing)
• Adjustments: Color Balance, Match Color
• Layer Masks, Layer Comps, and Quick Mask mode
• Smart Objects, Smart Guides
• Lens Blur Filter
• Vanishing Point Tool
• Pen tool and paths palette
• Some adjustment layers (curves, color balance, selective color, channel mixer)
• Editing History Log
• Text on a path, advanced text formatting
• Advanced Layer Style manipulation
• Advanced Color Management
• Advanced Web features (rollovers, slicing)
• Customizable tool presets, keyboard shortcuts, and menus
• In the features and tools that are shared, the Photoshop version usually offers more advanced options for fine tuning and control.

To be honest i'm not even sure what some of these things mean to me. This makes me think PSE6/7 is a better fit. and with CS4 around the corner...

I'm planning to take a PSE class at the local junior college hoping to learn some better post processing skills and hopefully a better understanding of what i might "need". then perhaps i could make a better choice.

colourbox

jhelms wrote:

If I decide to go the elements route does that mean I need another program for a raw conversion? I've also heard complaints that LR is slow?

Sorry, I should have said that Elements includes Camera Raw too. But I hear that ACR in Elements doesn't have all the features of ACR in Photoshop, and you might also be missing some of the batch processing of raws. If you are just processing a few raw files at a time, Elements could be enough there. If you need to have a lot of control over big batches, you would want Photoshop/ACR/Bridge or Lightroom.

I have no major issues with Lightroom performance, but there are plenty of users complaining about that on forums. Not sure what the difference is. I am on a Mac Pro with mid-grade drives, RAM and video card. The local adjustment tools can be a little slow not enough to outweigh the benefits of being reversible and compact. It does seem like there are real performance issues out there, though.

mwgrice

agilepawz wrote:

Have any of you tried GIMP? I was lamenting to a friend that I couldn't really afford Photoshop and he recommended GIMP. It's freeware and with the limited amount of work I've done, it seems just fine. http://www.gimp.org/

I'm an old Linux guy, so I try the GIMP every now and then to see how it's coming along. Were I in looking for a photo editor (like jhelms is), I'd give it a try.

Having said that, I looked at it again a couple of months ago and I didn't think it met my needs. There are a number of features that I use in Photoshop that are either lacking or are still inferior.

I'd definitely like to see the GIMP get better, if for nothing else but to put some pressure on Adobe to lower some of its prices.

bandgeekndb

I actually have the luxury of having both CS3 Master Collection and Elements6 on my computer. Here are my conclusions:

In all my time working with photos, no matter what camera I used, I've never gone into Photoshop CS3 with a photo unless I was trying to use it in another graphic. My only use for Photoshop CS3 is to work with graphics for the web, logos, my custom watermark, etc.

Just about any post processing you want to do can be done in Elements6, including common tools like the clone tool, healing brush, etc. Moreover, Elements6 tries to guide you through the edits if you prefer, which is helpful as you learn the program and the tools it provides. I have not tried any complex tutorials, but the few I've seen for color correction, etc. can be done easily in Elements6 and I've had no need for Photoshop CS3.

DISCLAIMER: I haven't found the need to work with RAW yet, so I can't speak anything about those files and the engines used to process them.

If I get my hands on Lightroom 2, I certainly will see what it has to offer and give my 2 cents.

Also, just an FYI, I'm only a hobbyist for now, so I don't do a ton of post processing, etc. College students don't get much downtime (at least if you want a decent GPA )! I prefer the simpler workings of Elements6 for organization and Bridge CS3 just didn't appeal to me at all for organization. If you are doing shoots with thousands of photos, Elements6 probably is going to be a pain to work with.


Wow, that was probably more than 2 cents!
Hope it helps!
~Nick

DonRicklin

bandgeekndb wrote:

If I get my hands on Lightroom 2, I certainly will see what it has to offer and give my 2 cents.




Wow, that was probably more than 2 cents!
Hope it helps!
~Nick

Why not give Lightroom 2.1RC a try? You might be pleasantly surpised for RAW and your JPEGs. And you can use PE6 or PSCS3 with it!

Don

cmason

Agree with Don...give Lightroom a serious look. I have both CS3 and Lightroom. I use Lightroom 98% of the time, and use CS3 for editing I can not do in Lightroom, such as removing a distraction, applying lens blur, or masking to bring out elements or adjust exposure on the sky vs rest of image. So basically, I use these features:

• Combine multiple exposures to create high dynamic range (HDR) images
• Adjustments: Color Balance, Match Color
• Layer Masks, Layer Comps, and Quick Mask mode
• Lens Blur Filter
• Vanishing Point Tool
• Some adjustment layers (curves, color balance, selective color, channel mixer)

I will not get CS4 and sort of regret getting CS3. I don't use it much. But when I have needed it, it has saved at least two photos that were printed and given to friends as gifts so I am very pleased with how they turned out, all because of CS3. (removal of objects and background blur were done)

Perhaps I would use GIMP or fall back on my old windows version of CS2 (upgraded when I went Mac), rather than spend any more $$ on PS.

Ann McRae

Way back when I first got a digital camera, I tried the demos of both Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro. I found PSP to meet my needs at a great price point, and was a happy user of PSP for many years (2001 - 2007,PSP7 - XI). Last fall I got fed up with a crashing vista machine and bought a mac. I bought CS3, and have learned to use it over the year. I like it too. I did not buy LR right away. But I shoot lots of sports, and lots of images during a game, so this summer gave LR2 a trial. I love LR2, and am convinced that if I didn't own PSCS3 I wouldn't need to buy it now....well, except for the collages that I make for sports teams. Anyway, it is a really powerful program, and I think it capable of doing 90% or more of the editing that most of us do.

Bottom line, all of these programs have trials and you should take advantage of that to sort which is right for you.

jhelms

I just checked out the student pricing for all these, and plain CS4 isn't available on the student plan.

Here's the breakdown:

Regular price is $699 for cs4 and $999 for cs4 extended

Education price is $299 for cs4 extended, but you can't get regular cs4 (non-extended) through the education software site.

Additionally, LR2 is $99 through the education site and Elements 7.0 is $79,

I think $299 for cs4 ext is a great deal but i'd be wasting the 'extended' part of the software.

I'm leaning towards Elements7.0 since I'm pretty comfortable with my current workflow and sorting process for my files.