Photoshop CS2: is it worth it?

mwgrice

I realize Photoshop is the gold standard and all, but is it really worth the money? Is CS2 five times better than Elements? (Let's ignore Photoshop Elements 4.0 for the time being).

My wife is seeing what sort of academic discount she can get. Otherwise, Elements is reasonably priced, and I've been playing with the gimp (which has the advantage of being free).

DavidTO

Photoshop is a lot cheaper with educational discounts.

And the answer to your question really depends on what you're going to do. There are things in PS that I couldn't live without that others would never miss. If you don't miss them, then they're not worth the extra money, right?

IMO Elements is cheap enough that you can use it until you outgrow it.

zigzag

I bought my DSLR in February. The shop sold me Nikon Capture to go with it, telling me I needed it, and that it would "organize" my pictures. Since I couldn't make heads or tails of most of the things in there, I finally bought Elements 3 in early August.

Two months, and I'm already to the point where I feel like I need to get CS2. I hate having to reload an image in raw and do all my work over again (IF I can remember what I did) when I want to change the white balance. And it feels to me like if you work in 8-bit and do something like "lighten shadows" that a huge amount of noise is added (could be wrong about this). Also, I do a lot of natural light and landscape shots, and I'm frustrated by my inability to deal with shots that have high contrast in them (sunsets). I know CS2 has some ways to deal with that. Could be partly that I just need to become a better photographer, but I'm looking for a short cut. Dunno. Finally, I'd like to participate in some of these LAB curves experiments I see folks doing on this site, and Elements is missing that...element. *COUGH* Sorry.

FWIW, Adobe will give you $100 off of CS2 if you have a valid Elements serial number. I may have found a different route that will be cheaper for me, though, which probably means I've wasted my money. Not the first or last time for that!

colourbox

zigzag wrote:

Two months, and I'm already to the point where I feel like I need to get CS2....And it feels to me like if you work in 8-bit and do something like "lighten shadows" that a huge amount of noise is added (could be wrong about this). Also, I do a lot of natural light and landscape shots, and I'm frustrated by my inability to deal with shots that have high contrast in them (sunsets).

If I'm not mistaken, you can spend more time in Elements 3 before you are out of options. I thought Elements 3 could convert RAW to 16-bit. Also, what you are probably seeing when you lighten shadows is either posterization (which could be an 8-bit artifact) or more likely, the noise that was always there and is being pulled up, since those edits shouldn't "add" noise. The coolest tool in CS2 for contrast control is Shadow/Highlight, but I thought Elements had that too. You do have to go easy on that tool, though. If you turn it up too much, the image will turn to mud and any noise already in the shadows will be more visible.

I'm a CS2 user but Elements is quite powerful especially if you switch the interface over to the more Photoshop-like option. CS2 is more powerful but you need to be at least a serious amateur to invest the time needed to really make good use of that money. Now, if the educational discount on CS2 is along the lines of just a couple hundred dollars, I'd consider that the bargain of the century.

zigzag

colourbox wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, you can spend more time in Elements 3 before you are out of options. I thought Elements 3 could convert RAW to 16-bit. Also, what you are probably seeing when you lighten shadows is either posterization (which could be an 8-bit artifact) or more likely, the noise that was always there and is being pulled up, since those edits shouldn't "add" noise. The coolest tool in CS2 for contrast control is Shadow/Highlight, but I thought Elements had that too. You do have to go easy on that tool, though. If you turn it up too much, the image will turn to mud and any noise already in the shadows will be more visible.

I'm a CS2 user but Elements is quite powerful especially if you switch the interface over to the more Photoshop-like option. CS2 is more powerful but you need to be at least a serious amateur to invest the time needed to really make good use of that money. Now, if the educational discount on CS2 is along the lines of just a couple hundred dollars, I'd consider that the bargain of the century.

I've been converting raw to 16 bit lately. But you have to plan your work very carefully. Once you dismiss the raw conversion box, you can't access those settings again. Then, you can do things like shadows/highlights (yep it's there) and sharpen (though there is a sharpen control in RAW too; not sure what the difference is there). But some tools like cloning etc. are only 8-bit. So if you use that tool, going back to tweak colors / shadows / white balance or whatever means you have to redo everything. I've noticed a big difference when working in 8-bit. Maybe experience would help me get beyond that, but there are other tools I'd like to have that I mentioned above.

I recognize the investment in time (and money) that CS2 represents. It is, for instance, the price of a new lens. I guess I've become a serious amateur, because for me it seems worth it.

Well, hope this helps you, mwgrice. You may very well have different needs than I, but I never gave CS2 more than a glance - at $600, I figured it was the version for business owners. It was probably true at the time that Elements was the right thing for me. I didn't think I wanted to do more than just take pictures, but now I'm seized with the desire to wring everything I can out of my photos. The question is whether that describes you too.

wholenewlight

mwgrice wrote:

I realize Photoshop is the gold standard and all, but is it really worth the money? QUOTE]

I used Elements 2, and then 3 for a couple of years. Great products. Then I ended up with an old version of PS 6x. And that gave me some additional tools (Curves, yea!). And I found myself going back and forth between the PS version 6 and PS Elements to get my shots edited.

Anyway, finally I bit the proverbial bullet and bought PS CS2. Wow, I love it! Elements is a great buy for the $$, but if you can, get the real deal. Especially if you can get an ed discount.

My thoughts . . .

ginger_55

I get my stuff.........................anonymously and for less money, etc. So it was worth it for me at 150.00. And if I had bought from Adobe from the beginning, I could have upgraded for that.

I have been very happy with it, and I am not a high tech user. It was worth it for me. You can get a trial version for a month for free. After that I would think you would want it. I like being able to edit better in the bridge, for instance. And I don't know half of the "ease of use" features yet. I was using CS before, so my only problem was that all the mags and books were now for CS2, but having used it, and subsequently bought it, I think it was worth it.

However, if one has to lay out 600.00 plus initially. That would have stopped me. I literally don't have that much money. And it is the price of a lens. I think that is highway robbery myself, don't know why it is so much. Please do not flame me, it is just a lot of money.

ginger

flyingpylon

The best way to get Photoshop (other than stealing it) is to buy an older version from someone on eBay (make sure it's an unregistered version and that they have lots of very positive feedback). You can get older versions for $130 or much less, depending on the version. Adobe will then let you purchase an upgrade for about $149 (or slightly less from other retailers).

So then it becomes about a $280 decision (or less).

I say get CS2 if there's any way you can. Not just for the tools, but mostly because it's what "everyone" is using (I don't mean that literally) and it will be much easier to get help, find tutorials, etc. In my experience, if you're going to use something outside of the mainstream you better be prepared to spend more time researching problems and adapting instructions from the more mainstream tool. Your time and patience has to be factored into the financial equation somewhere along the line.

DavidTO

flyingpylon wrote:

The best way to get Photoshop (other than stealing it) is to buy an older version from someone on eBay (make sure it's an unregistered version and that they have lots of very positive feedback). You can get older versions for $130 or much less, depending on the version. Adobe will then let you purchase an upgrade for about $149 (or slightly less from other retailers).

So then it becomes about a $280 decision (or less).

Actually, if you can swing an educational discount (basically someone in your household needs to be going to school), then you can get the same price much easier.

colourbox

ginger_55 wrote:

I think that is highway robbery myself, don't know why it is so much. Please do not flame me, it is just a lot of money.

I won't flame you, and it is a lot of money. But the full price of Photoshop is less than any other major piece in my bag except one, a $75 Canon 50mm f1.8. My dSLR body cost more than Photoshop, and I bought one of the cheapest bodies (Rebel XT). My main lens cost more. My film scanner cost more. My Epson 2200 printer cost more. Yet Photoshop, the second least expensive item on that list, is in use for more hours than any of those more expensive items, and has as much positive impact on the images. From that point of view, Photoshop has justified its cost versus the hardware, and if I were making a living off of photography then Photoshop would have paid for itself much faster.

As with any software, the challenge with Photoshop is the upgrades. It's harder to justify the cost when you fork over another $149 every couple of years. With most software, I try to skip every other upgrade unless that costs me more in time than money.

DavidTO

colourbox wrote:

I won't flame you, and it is a lot of money. But the full price of Photoshop is less than any other major piece in my bag except one, a $75 Canon 50mm f1.8. My dSLR body cost more than Photoshop, and I bought one of the cheapest bodies (Rebel XT). My main lens cost more. My film scanner cost more. Yet Photoshop, the second least expensive item on that list, is in use for more hours than any of those more expensive items, and has as much positive impact on the images. From that point of view, Photoshop has proven its value versus the hardware, and if I were making a living off of photography then Photoshop would have paid for itself much faster.

As with any software, the challenge with Photoshop is the upgrades. It's harder to justify the cost when you fork over another $149 every couple of years. With most software, I try to skip every other upgrade unless that costs me more in time than money.

Good point.

ginger_55

DavidTO wrote:

Good point.

If I couldn't get it for any other price, I would probably get it, if I were serious, part of a group like this, buying magazines and books, etc.

But I don't have to pay that, so I don't. Didn't. I did buy Elements years ago from Amazon, for a discount at the time. Then I copied PS 7, or something.

You can't do that anymore, as it has to be activated.

So, I paid 50.00 for a download, could get updates, etc, but I couldn't register. This time, I paid 150.00 for CS2, from the same people, but it was a CD as they no longer sell downloads. They provide support and upgrades. I cannot register it, there are drawbacks. They have been there, in business for years, but they could disappear, for one.

But I make those decisions. And, yes, I do think that CS2 is worth "it", whatever it is, as long as you can afford it at all. If one needs 600.00, does not have 600.00, has a medical emergency. Well put it this way, if it is a choice of saving one's teeth vs CS2, I admit it is a hard choice, but I think the teeth have to come first.:cry

If buying the CS2 means putting a sick dog to sleep, the choice becomes easier for me. I still cannot go with the CS2.

If those choices are not the problem, well, yes, I do think that CS2 is worth it. In life some things are often relative, maybe one does not have to make choices like this, but if one does................

If one just lost everything in Katrina, CS2 is probably not an issue.

But if one is sitting around doing photography on a PC, has the means, I think CS2, no matter where you get it, is top drawer. I do think there have been improvements. And depending on what you are upgrading from, the improvements can be major! Plus, as someone pointed out, it is easy now to get info on CS2. That is what is being written.

g

zigzag

flyingpylon wrote:

The best way to get Photoshop (other than stealing it) is to buy an older version from someone on eBay (make sure it's an unregistered version and that they have lots of very positive feedback). You can get older versions for $130 or much less, depending on the version. Adobe will then let you purchase an upgrade for about $149 (or slightly less from other retailers).

So then it becomes about a $280 decision (or less).

That's exactly what I was going to do. And I thought it was a novel idea. Hrmpf.

DavidTO

ginger_55 wrote:

So, I paid 50.00 for a download, could get updates, etc, but I couldn't register. This time, I paid 150.00 for CS2, from the same people, but it was a CD as they no longer sell downloads. They provide support and upgrades. I cannot register it, there are drawbacks. They have been there, in business for years, but they could disappear, for one.
g

If you can't register it, then you don't own it.

ginger_55

DavidTO wrote:

If you can't register it, then you don't own it.

I can certainly use it! I just can't use it as a trade in to Adobe.

g

DavidTO

ginger_55 wrote:

I can certainly use it! I just can't use it as a trade in to Adobe.

g

Because you don't own it.

It's bad karma, Ginger.

wholenewlight

DavidTO wrote:

Because you don't own it.
It's bad karma, Ginger.

I don't want to "pile on" and make this thread a discussion on stealing software but I do agree with you, DavidTO - my thoughts:

• Software can be very expensive, if you can afford the asking price and you feel it's worth having, buy it.
• If you can't afford it, keep saving and use an alternate legal solution (Elements), (Educational version if you are eligible)
• Other, less honest means of acquiring a piece of software, harm the company and you get harmed in the process (I like your Karma term). The web is full of ways to be dishonest with software buying. PS CS2 is a great product but it's not worth a person's character.

That's it . . . my little soapbox (but is not a specific attack on, or challenge to anyone - let your conscience guide you).

ginger_55

I guess it is not worth it, really pretty useless software, etc. I would never buy it, myself.

(now I know why things tank, when they do, will take off PC immediately.)
ginger

mwgrice

The educational discount looks pretty nice. Since at this time in my life I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it, I might as well get it. I've really enjoyed playing around with the gimp (and I'm beginning to find its limitations), and I suspect I would be unhappy with Elements.

colourbox

For a lot of shooters around here, my guess is that the dealmaker on Photoshop may not be Photoshop itself, but Bridge+Camera Raw. If you are pushing large RAW shoots through the computer, Bridge+Camera Raw's batch Actions support, ranking, labeling, and ability to copy/synchronize one raw's corrections to other selected raws saves a humungous amount of time. Even as a hobbyist I've had a few days when I shot 200+ raw images (thank god for 1GB cards) and it would have taken me days to sort it all out in Elements.