Options

Photoshop upgrade ...

RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
edited December 18, 2011 in Finishing School
I'm in process of trading my 5 year-old Dell XPS with Photoshop CS3 for something new, and am wrestling with waiting for CS6 rather than jumping into CS5. I've talked with Adobe, and although very quiet on predictions, persons there feel CS6 is no more than 3-4 months away, and typically CS3-CS5 (up to 3 generations) would be able to upgrade for only about $200. I've no specifics to lean on, but if CS3 has been great, and CS5 is 2 generations greater, than why not get the unknown latest and greatest in CS6? Any of you DG'rs out there have input that might sway me one way or the other?

Many thanks in advance ...
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.

Comments

  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    i recommend to wait for version6
    lots of improvements , looks better , feels better
    im no expert on PS , its just my opinion after using this test-version for some weeks
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    i recommend to wait for version6
    lots of improvements , looks better , feels better
    im no expert on PS , its just my opinion after using this test-version for some weeks
    Many thanks, huge assist. Adobe people wouldn't even commit to CS6 being on the way. anything that smooths the process will be gravy to me, so looks like I'll be holding off till CS6 arrives.
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    yeah , well .........
    its not that easy
    it seems [ ne_nau.gif ] that you cannot upgrade from v3 or v4 , only from v5
    so , i think , either upgrade twice , or pay for full , dont know whats better
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    C3 upgrade ...
    basflt wrote: »
    yeah , well .........
    its not that easy
    it seems [ ne_nau.gif ] that you cannot upgrade from v3 or v4 , only from v5
    so , i think , either upgrade twice , or pay for full , dont know whats better
    Oops, not what they told me at Adobe, but as said, they were kind of sketchy. I'll look back into this. Certainly not looking to go $400 when I thought I could go $200, and doubly certainly not looking to go even more for totally new. Thanks for the heads up ...
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
  • Options
    PeanoPeano Registered Users Posts: 268 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    yeah , well .........
    its not that easy
    it seems [ ne_nau.gif ] that you cannot upgrade from v3 or v4 , only from v5
    so , i think , either upgrade twice , or pay for full , dont know whats better

    Yes, I think that's the policy now. If you want CS6 at the upgrade price, you must have CS5.
    Peano
    RadiantPics
  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    Peano wrote: »
    Yes, I think that's the policy now. If you want CS6 at the upgrade price, you must have CS5.
    Mmmmm, that's not good. Either Adobe's getting greedy, or a lot of us have gotten lenient rides. Looks pretty definitive ...
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    there exist other editors
    Adobe may think they are the best , i dont
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    Can you get by with Lightroom? What are you doing in PS that you can't do in LR?
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • Options
    PeanoPeano Registered Users Posts: 268 Major grins
    edited November 27, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    Either Adobe's getting greedy, or a lot of us have gotten lenient rides.

    Or perhaps there's a third alternative.
    Peano
    RadiantPics
  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    Peano wrote: »
    Or perhaps there's a third alternative.
    I've considered Elements, will go back to that drawing board and consider again ...
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    Peano wrote: »
    Or perhaps there's a third alternative.

    like what ?

    i dont like paying hundreds of bucks each year , life is too expensive for that ATM
    for now and years to come , im happy with current version

    also
    there are more alternatives , like Corel
    http://photo-editing-software-review.toptenreviews.com/
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    PeanoPeano Registered Users Posts: 268 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    like what ?

    i dont like paying hundreds of bucks each year , life is too expensive for that ATM
    for now and years to come , im happy with current version

    I meant there may be other interpretations of the situation besides "Adobe is greedy" and "customers have been getting a lenient ride."

    We're in a global recession that is getting worse. Few businesses can continue with the same policies as in better economic times. Businesses the size of Adobe ($3+ billion in sales) don't just suddenly and arbitrarily decide to make a policy change like this. They do lots of market research to try to learn what will work.

    A lot of customers don't like the new policy because it will cost them more money. I understand that. But it's a bit childish to leap from one's own personal dissatisfaction to the gratuitous conclusion that Adobe is just being "greedy." They have to satisfy their customers, of course, but they also have to satisfy their stockholders. The picture is much larger and more complex than most of the gripers seem to realize.

    Many will be like you: happy to stay with the current version. Many others, like me, will be happy to upgrade with each new version that comes out (though it isn't each year as you suggest). I suspect that Adobe has done its homework and concluded from the evidence that, all things considered, they'll be better off financially under this new policy. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe this will prove to be another New Coke, which was a colossal blunder . Then again, maybe it will pay off for Adobe. Time will tell.
    Peano
    RadiantPics
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    ok , i see and your right


    but..................
    if you care to scroll a bit up ,
    you will see that " Adobe's getting greedy " is not a quote from me !!!???!!!
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    PeanoPeano Registered Users Posts: 268 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    if you care to scroll a bit up ,
    you will see that " Adobe's getting greedy " is not a quote from me !!!???!!!

    I didn't attribute that to you. I was quoting the other person who said that. (That's why I said "one's own" personal opinion rather than "your" opinion.)
    Peano
    RadiantPics
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    Peano wrote: »
    I didn't attribute that to you.
    http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1705435&postcount=10
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    PeanoPeano Registered Users Posts: 268 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1705435&postcount=10

    Sorry, it was RovingEyePhoto who mentioned greed. For some reason, when I click on quote/reply to his post, it puts your name at the top. I didn't catch that when I replied to him.
    Peano
    RadiantPics
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    :D it happens rolleyes1.gif
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    Dan7312Dan7312 Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    You can upgrade your CS3 to CS5 but Adobe has said you will not be able to upgrade CS3 to CS6. Adobe has said they will be offering a discount on the upgrade to CS5. There is some discussion of this change in policy here:

    http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=210269

    RovingEyePhoto wrote: »
    I'm in process of trading my 5 year-old Dell XPS with Photoshop CS3 for something new, and am wrestling with waiting for CS6 rather than jumping into CS5. I've talked with Adobe, and although very quiet on predictions, persons there feel CS6 is no more than 3-4 months away, and typically CS3-CS5 (up to 3 generations) would be able to upgrade for only about $200. I've no specifics to lean on, but if CS3 has been great, and CS5 is 2 generations greater, than why not get the unknown latest and greatest in CS6? Any of you DG'rs out there have input that might sway me one way or the other?

    Many thanks in advance ...
    Dan

    http://www.danalphotos.com

    http://www.pluralsight.com

    http://twitter.com/d114
  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2011
    Thanks to all for taking the tiem, pulled the trigger ...
    Dan7312 wrote: »
    You can upgrade your CS3 to CS5 but Adobe has said you will not be able to upgrade CS3 to CS6. Adobe has said they will be offering a discount on the upgrade to CS5. There is some discussion of this change in policy here:

    http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=210269
    Yep, policy was changed about a week ago according to Adobe staff talked to today. Caught a break, though, Black Friday seems to have carried over and allowed 30% discount on upgrade from CS3 to CS5, so I grabbed it. I'm confident CS5 will carry me for some time to come ...
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
  • Options
    JamesbjenkinsJamesbjenkins Registered Users Posts: 435 Major grins
    edited December 15, 2011
    CS5 paired with LR3 is my entire workflow. I am yet to come across anything I can't fix or adequately improve between the two. With the addition of content aware fill and a few of the other features, it would take something truly revolutionary for me to upgrade to CS6. Otherwise, I'll most likely run my CS5/LR3 combo into the ground and replace them both in a couple more generations...

    Just MHO.
    Website: www.captured-photos.com
    Proofing: clients.captured-photos.com
    Facebook: Like Me || Twitter: Follow Me
    Gear: Lots of Nikon bodies & glass, an office full of tools and toys
  • Options
    Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited December 15, 2011
    Jamesbjenkins wrote: »
    CS5 paired with LR3 is my entire workflow. I am yet to come across anything I can't fix or adequately improve between the two. With the addition of content aware fill and a few of the other features, it would take something truly revolutionary for me to upgrade to CS6. Otherwise, I'll most likely run my CS5/LR3 combo into the ground and replace them both in a couple more generations...

    Just MHO.

    That is my way of thinking also.thumb.gif

    i got an email from a close friend in the Czech Republic telling he just bought CS5 for $75USD...he paid for it in kournas of course....it came from Moscow and works perfectly , he even registered it.....damn Europeans...

    That is about what I paid for my hard copy of CS when I was in Prague back in 2003......
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited December 17, 2011
    Jamesbjenkins wrote: »
    CS5 paired with LR3 is my entire workflow. I am yet to come across anything I can't fix or adequately improve between the two. With the addition of content aware fill and a few of the other features, it would take something truly revolutionary for me to upgrade to CS6. Otherwise, I'll most likely run my CS5/LR3 combo into the ground and replace them both in a couple more generations...

    Just MHO.
    Probably a dumb question, if only because I've never taken the time to think beyond Bridge, but why the need for the LR accompaniment? I've always worked CS3 (to become CS5) right from Bridge, seems very adequate to my photo management needs. Maybe it's because of the very narrow genre I shoot, all in scheduled/well-defined segments, nothing random or unplanned, every shot a one-off, only occasional consistency in light/backlight/exposure, all more or less posed/grabbed on-the-fly, not constrained to print formats. Could be, of course, that I've just been too lazy in exploring better workflows. All comments appreciated ...
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited December 18, 2011
    RovingEyePhoto wrote: »
    Probably a dumb question, if only ...
    no , not a dumb question
    in fact you dont need LR , but its really handy

    in LR you dont need to save nor exit your photo to edit the next one , like it is with ACR
    all changes remain in the list , you can go back all the time , with all your photo's
    you only need to leave LR for editing ( copy / paste / mask and such ) , but for normal processing , it can do anything
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    RovingEyePhotoRovingEyePhoto Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
    edited December 18, 2011
    basflt wrote: »
    no , not a dumb question
    in fact you dont need LR , but its really handy

    in LR you dont need to save nor exit your photo to edit the next one , like it is with ACR
    all changes remain in the list , you can go back all the time , with all your photo's
    you only need to leave LR for editing ( copy / paste / mask and such ) , but for normal processing , it can do anything
    Many thanks. Considering the way I shoot and process, sounds like something I can hold on backburner till a specific new need pushes it forward.
    See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
Sign In or Register to comment.