CS5 -- Anyone have it -- like it?

Dogdots

I'm looking at upgrading to CS5 and was wondering if it was worth it. I see they have some new editing tools from what I'm using in CS3.

Hopefully someone can answer this for me ... I saw that you can remove things from a photo so easy and then on pano's it will fill in what's missing around the edges of the photo. Are these 2 things as good as they look to be?

*** If in the wrong place -- please move me

marchyman

My wife went from CS3 to CS5. The Content Aware fill is amazing (and very easy to use). We are having some repairs done on the house and wondered what it might look like if a certain post was removed. We took a snapshot and about 5 minutes later were comparing before and virtual after images. Neat.

Her use is primarily for digital scrapbooking. She felt it a worthwhile upgrade from CS3.

Dogdots

marchyman wrote: »

My wife went from CS3 to CS5. The Content Aware fill is amazing (and very easy to use). We are having some repairs done on the house and wondered what it might look like if a certain post was removed. We took a snapshot and about 5 minutes later were comparing before and virtual after images. Neat.

Her use is primarily for digital scrapbooking. She felt it a worthwhile upgrade from CS3.

Thank you for responding

I've really been wondering about the Content Aware fill -- I'm glad to hear it's as easy as it looks in their demo video.

I just might have to bust the bank and get it

pathfinder

Content Aware fill is cool, but the really big news, that seems to be totally unappreciated, is how dramatically better the RAW engine is.. It has controls for specific OEM lens corrections, and noise control is lots, lots better - almost as good as NoiseWare.. Even scans from film that I did 5 or 10 years ago, look much better, with lesser grain when updated to 2010 standards in Lightroom or ACR.

So yes, I agree, that there is an awful lot to like in CS5/LR3 Raw engines.

Dogdots

pathfinder wrote: »

Content Aware fill is cool, but the really big news, that seems to be totally unappreciated, is how dramatically better the RAW engine is.. It has controls for specific OEM lens corrections, and noise control is lots, lots better - almost as good as NoiseWare.. Even scans from film that I did 5 or 10 years ago, look much better, with lesser grain when updated to 2010 standards in Lightroom or ACR.

So yes, I agree, that there is an awful lot to like in CS5/LR3 Raw engines.

Howdy Pathfinder

Never even thought about the RAW aspect...that's good to know. I was really hooked in with the content aware fill. How do the edges around where you did the content aware tool look afterwards. I watched the video on it and it looks like all you do is highlight it and then it's gone...poof. That's all that needed to be done. Granted there might be some more touch up, but if it's that easy...it would save me a world of time.

Oh...another question. My computer runs 32bits -- I heard this is a 64 bit software. Am I wrong...can I still run it?

Sounds like this is really something I "need"

pathfinder

You can run in in 32 bit, but if your hardware supports 64 bit, and you have more than 4-8 Gb ram, 64bit offers a larger workspace.

Like I said, content aware cloning is kind of cool, not perfect all the time, but pretty good. It removes wires from buildings much easier. But the improvements in the RAW engine produce much nicer files than Adobe's earlier Raw engines. This is the real deal for me.

AAABluestocking

Compared to CS4, it's better at noise reduction in ACR and for masking hair the Refine Edge>Edge Detection>Smart Radius is really cool. So if those are important to you, then yes it's worth the upgrade.

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

I'm looking at upgrading to CS5 and was wondering if it was worth it. I see they have some new editing tools from what I'm using in CS3.

Hopefully someone can answer this for me ... I saw that you can remove things from a photo so easy and then on pano's it will fill in what's missing around the edges of the photo. Are these 2 things as good as they look to be?

*** If in the wrong place -- please move me

Hi Mary,
You might want to look at this thread, where I gave my first impressions of CS5. Like you, I was running CS3. The upgrade was certainly worth it for me. It does require more computer horsepower than CS3, though, so you might want to install the 30 day trial to make sure your machine is up to it.

Regarding content-aware fill, it works surprisingly well sometimes and not so well other times. Mostly it is a matter of size and the complexity of the surroundings--the larger and more complex, the more likely it is to get it wrong. Naturally, the demos you see are carefully chosen to work well. Mostly, I use it to fill in the blank canvas edges that result from image rotation. It usually works well. I have only tried major surgery (removing an unwanted large object) a few times and I would say that it succeeds maybe half of the time.

Here's a real-world example in which I didn't especially expect it to succeed but it did. The goal was to remove the photographer in the frame.

Before:


I lassoed the guy and hit edit->fill (content-aware). No additional changes were made:


It's not exactly what I would have done manually, but I was impressed with the results, especially given how little time it took. Keep in mind is that when it fails, it still can be useful as a starting point for further work.

Hope this helps.

Dogdots

pathfinder wrote: »

You can run in in 32 bit, but if your hardware supports 64 bit, and you have more than 4-8 Gb ram, 64bit offers a larger workspace.

Like I said, content aware cloning is kind of cool, not perfect all the time, but pretty good. It removes wires from buildings much easier. But the improvements in the RAW engine produce much nicer files than Adobe's earlier Raw engines. This is the real deal for me.

I only have 3GB of Ram :cry Crap ... I just bought this computer about a 1-1/2 years ago too.

Thanks for letting me know I can run it still in 32 bit. That helps me out till I get a new computer.....someday....

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

Hi Mary,
You might want to look at this thread, where I gave my first impressions of CS5. Like you, I was running CS3. The upgrade was certainly worth it for me. It does require more computer horsepower than CS3, though, so you might want to install the 30 day trial to make sure your machine is up to it.

Regarding content-aware fill, it works surprisingly well sometimes and not so well other times. Mostly it is a matter of size and the complexity of the surroundings--the larger and more complex, the more likely it is to get it wrong. Naturally, the demos you see are carefully chosen to work well. Mostly, I use it to fill in the blank canvas edges that result from image rotation. It usually works well. I have only tried major surgery (removing an unwanted large object) a few times and I would say that it succeeds maybe half of the time.

Here's a real-world example in which I didn't especially expect it to succeed but it did. The goal was to remove the photographer in the frame.

Before:


I lassoed the guy and hit edit->fill (content-aware). No additional changes were made:


It's not exactly what I would have done manually, but I was impressed with the results, especially given how little time it took. Keep in mind is that when it fails, it still can be useful as a starting point for further work.

Hope this helps.

WOW ... that looks good to me and helped a lot. I can see where it pulled from when removing the guy with the camera. There is that section of branches on the bush that has sun hitting on them...easy for someone to fix tho.

Thanks for the link to the thread with your review. I did a search on here for something about CS5 and it came up empty I must of worded it wrong.

I'll download the trial version and try it out on my computer. If I have problems hopefully Santa will think I've been a good girl this year

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

I only have 3GB of Ram :cry Crap ... I just bought this computer about a 1-1/2 years ago too.

Thanks for letting me know I can run it still in 32 bit. That helps me out till I get a new computer.....someday....

My machine is also 3GB and as I said in the other thread, it is marginal but usable. The slowdown is most noticeable in ACR but the results are so much better than in CS3 that it's worth the (slight) wait. BTW, I did confirm that by using the mini-Bridge in CS5, it saves me about 200MB of memory compared to using PS and the full Bridge in CS3. When you're marginal, every little bit helps, so don't keep a bunch of other programs open while you're doing your processing.

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

WOW ... that looks good to me and helped a lot. I can see where it pulled from when removing the guy with the camera. There is that section of branches on the bush that has sun hitting on them...easy for someone to fix tho.

Right--I would have cloned the dark leaves from the other side instead. What really impressed me is what a good job it did on the feet, though. I think it is only obvious if you are looking for it--it's not at all impossible to have two bright patches there, and in this case I am not going to bother changing it.

pathfinder

Is there much advantage to using CS5 in 64bit mode if your computer only has 3gb ram? I thought the major advantage of the 64bit version of Photoshop was that you escaped the 2gb limit that PS would use/address, before moving data to the swap disc?

I don't think the 64bit version is inherently much faster than the 32bit version, until you begin swapping data to the swap disc, which the 64bit version does a lot less of if it has enough ram. Or am I simply misinformed?

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

My machine is also 3GB and as I said in the other thread, it is marginal but usable. The slowdown is most noticeable in ACR but the results are so much better than in CS3 that it's worth the (slight) wait. BTW, I did confirm that by using the mini-Bridge in CS5, it saves me about 200MB of memory compared to using PS and the full Bridge in CS3. When you're marginal, every little bit helps, so don't keep a bunch of other programs open while you're doing your processing.

What is the mini-Bridge?

I'll have to learn not to have other programs open when I'm editing. I usually do....

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

Right--I would have cloned the dark leaves from the other side instead. What really impressed me is what a good job it did on the feet, though. I think it is only obvious if you are looking for it--it's not at all impossible to have two bright patches there, and in this case I am not going to bother changing it.

I noticed how well it did on the feet also along with the rest of the bush behind the photographer. Really it does impress me at how well it works.

As for the light on the bush....I'm with you as I don't think anyone else would notice it.

Your photo brings many thoughts to my mind ... good one

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

What is the mini-Bridge?

I'll have to learn not to have other programs open when I'm editing. I usually do....

It's just a light-weight version of Bridge that runs inside of PS and lets you do directory browsing and maintenance. It's just a little nicer to use than the normal file open dialog in PS.

Dogdots

pathfinder wrote: »

Is there much advantage to using CS5 in 64bit mode if your computer only has 3gb ram? I thought the major advantage of the 64bit version of Photoshop was that you escaped the 2gb limit that PS would use/address, before moving data to the swap disc?

I don't think the 64bit version is inherently much faster than the 32bit version, until you begin swapping data to the swap disc, which the 64bit version does a lot less of if it has enough ram. Or am I simply misinformed?

So I can follow along as this interests me ... what is a swap disc?

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

It's just a light-weight version of Bridge that runs inside of PS and lets you do directory browsing and maintenance. It's just a little nicer to use than the normal file open dialog in PS.

Thanks

Richard

pathfinder wrote: »

Is there much advantage to using CS5 in 64bit mode if your computer only has 3gb ram? I thought the major advantage of the 64bit version of Photoshop was that you escaped the 2gb limit that PS would use/address, before moving data to the swap disc?

I don't think the 64bit version is inherently much faster than the 32bit version, until you begin swapping data to the swap disc, which the 64bit version does a lot less of if it has enough ram. Or am I simply misinformed?

I think you have it right. In theory, a 64-bit address space lets you operate on 8 bytes of data at a time, but in order to do that, you need 64-bit registers in the CPU/GPU and 64-bit data and address buses. And the program must be specifically compiled to take advantage of all that. My knowledge of PC hardware stops around the time of the 80386, so I have no idea of what current computers can do at the machine language level. But most modern multi-core CPUs have so many cycles available that the disk access time is the main processing bottleneck and everything else is secondary.

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

So I can follow along as this interests me ... what is a swap disc?

When Photoshop does not have enough real memory to do its work, it temporarily writes data to a hard disk, then reads it back into memory as needed. This process is called swapping and is much, much slower than dealing with RAM directly, which is why having lots of memory is the key to performance in Photoshop.

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

When Photoshop does not have enough real memory to do its work, it temporarily writes data to a hard disk, then reads it back into memory as needed. This process is called swapping and is much, much slower than dealing with RAM directly, which is why having lots of memory is the key to performance in Photoshop.

That's really interesting. I've learned new things today

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I'd think if your computer is doing that a lot it wouldn't be a good thing for it.

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

That's really interesting. I've learned new things today

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I'd think if your computer is doing that a lot it wouldn't be a good thing for it.

I don't think it does your computer any harm, but it does slow down your processing. BTW, it's easy to tell whether you are swapping. In the lower left status bar below the preview, set the readout to efficiency--anything less than 100% means that you are swapping. I wouldn't be too concerned unless you are below 100 a lot of the time. Similarly, if you are always at 100% that means that adding more memory is not going to make much of a difference, if any.

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

I don't think it does your computer any harm, but it does slow down your processing. BTW, it's easy to tell whether you are swapping. In the lower left status bar below the preview, set the readout to efficiency--anything less than 100% means that you are swapping. I wouldn't be too concerned unless you are below 100 a lot of the time. Similarly, if you are always at 100% that means that adding more memory is not going to make much of a difference, if any.

Where can I find the status bar below the preview? I really want to see what my computer does or is doing.

Richard

Dogdots wrote: »

Where can I find the status bar below the preview? I really want to see what my computer does or is doing.

Use the drop-down arrow to select what is displayed.

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

Use the drop-down arrow to select what is displayed.

Sorry for getting back to you so late -- been a busy day today. Thank you for showing me how to do it. I just set it and will watch it when I do some editing tomorrow.

I did try to download the trial version of CS5 this morning and it wouldn't download Will try again tomorrow.

kwcrow

pathfinder wrote: »

Is there much advantage to using CS5 in 64bit mode if your computer only has 3gb ram? I thought the major advantage of the 64bit version of Photoshop was that you escaped the 2gb limit that PS would use/address, before moving data to the swap disc?

I don't think the 64bit version is inherently much faster than the 32bit version, until you begin swapping data to the swap disc, which the 64bit version does a lot less of if it has enough ram. Or am I simply misinformed?

You are correct. No speed advantage between 32-bit and 64-bit with only 3GB of memory.

Osprey

32 vs 64
I have been using CS4, For some reason Nik sharpener will not work in 64 bit mode only in 32 bit mode. Any one know if Nik has a 64 bit compatible product ? Thanks

pathfinder

Mac or Windows?

marchyman

Osprey wrote: »

I have been using CS4, For some reason Nik sharpener will not work in 64 bit mode only in 32 bit mode. Any one know if Nik has a 64 bit compatible product ? Thanks

NIK says it works with "Adobe Photoshop® CS2 through CS5 in 32-bit (for 64-bit compatibility, please visit the FAQ section.)" The FAQ says "Currently, Viveza 2 for Windows is the only available 64-bit compatible application."

khpro

Is the LAB Color Book info still relevant with CS5?

Richard

khpro wrote: »

Is the LAB Color Book info still relevant with CS5?

Interesting question. There's a lot of stuff that's good to know in that book. I find that I am using Dan's techniques less often now than when I was using CS2, as I do most of my color adjustments in ACR. I still do sharpening on the L channel most of the time and I find it much easier to use the blend-if sliders for color based blending when I am in LAB mode. I also do all my color sampling measurements in LAB, as I find it easier understand and visualize than RGB. You don't need to be in LAB mode for this, but you do need to understand LAB numbers. Understanding all of the channels available in PS is helpful even if you don't use them very often.

I think there's a good deal of misunderstanding about this book and Dan's approach. What I liked about it when it first came out was that the emphasis was on getting the best results in the least amount of time. With the tools available then, LAB was quite efficient and RAW converters were quite primitive. LAB is still efficient, but nothing beats getting the result you want just by tweaking a slider.