Upgrade to CS3 - Opinions Wanted

I am currently using Lightroom and CS2 for my digital developing
chores. I shoot 95% in JPEG and do 95% of my adjustments in LR.
A close friend recently got CS3 (he was using Elements prior) and he
loves it.
From a photographers point of view, considering that I do most of my
adjustments currently in LR, is the upgrade worth it? I have read some
of the features and some sound very interesting. (Even played with the
trial for a few days.)
From what I have read elsewhere, many feel that if you are already
using LR for most adjustments, the upgrade is not worth the cost of
admisson.
Opinions?
Thanks, Steve

On Aug 9, 11:41 am, Steven Wandy wrote:
I am currently using Lightroom and CS2 for my digital developing
chores. I shoot 95% in JPEG and do 95% of my adjustments in LR.

Obviously, speed is paramount to you rather than quality so you'd be
better off sticking to what you have.

Steven Wandy wrote:
I am currently using Lightroom and CS2 for my digital developing
chores. I shoot 95% in JPEG and do 95% of my adjustments in LR.
A close friend recently got CS3 (he was using Elements prior) and he
loves it.
From a photographers point of view, considering that I do most of my
adjustments currently in LR, is the upgrade worth it? I have read some
of the features and some sound very interesting. (Even played with the
trial for a few days.)
From what I have read elsewhere, many feel that if you are already
using LR for most adjustments, the upgrade is not worth the cost of
admisson.
Opinions?
Thanks, Steve

Tried CS3 + Bridge for a few days and was impressed, but whether the extra
cost is worth it is entirely up to the individual. The Bridge is much
improved on the CS3 version, but a lot of people don't use it anyway.

Don't even think about it if you have less than a P4 and 520mb ram (or
more.)

Dennis.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:47:17 -0700, Annika1980
wrote:


Obviously, speed is paramount to you rather than quality so you'd be
better off sticking to what you have.


Why, because I don't see the major advantage of RAW? It has nothing
to do with "speed". I have found that JPEGs at high quality give me
what I need.

Steven wrote on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:41:43 -0400:

SW I am currently using Lightroom and CS2 for my digital
SW developing chores. I shoot 95% in JPEG and do 95% of my
SW adjustments in LR. A close friend recently got CS3 (he was
SW using Elements prior) and he loves it.
SW From a photographers point of view, considering that I do
SW most of my adjustments currently in LR, is the upgrade
SW worth it? I have read some of the features and some sound
SW very interesting. (Even played with the trial for a few
SW days.) From what I have read elsewhere, many feel that if
SW you are already using LR for most adjustments, the upgrade
SW is not worth the cost of admisson.
SW Opinions?
SW Thanks, Steve

For my own information, what is CS2 or CS3? I use Photoshop
Elements and Printshop but don't feel guilty about not knowing
what CS stands for.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
[]
For my own information, what is CS2 or CS3? I use Photoshop
Elements and Printshop but don't feel guilty about not knowing
what CS stands for.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Costly Software.

G

David

Steven Wandy wrote:
I have read some of the features and some sound very interesting.
(Even played with the trial for a few days.)

How did you like Quick Select and Refine Edge? Read about 'em he
http://www.photoshopuser.com/cs3/sk_features.html

Improved cloning & healing sound good, but for me the other features
all seem like fluff.

On a Mac, it appears CS3 is slightly faster than CS2 was:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/photoshop-cs3.ars/8
Other sites say startup time has been reduced 20-40% !!!

On Aug 11, 5:02 pm, Bill Tuthill wrote:

How did you like Quick Select and Refine Edge? Read about 'em hehttp://www.photoshopuser.com/cs3/sk_features.html

Improved cloning & healing sound good, but for me the other features
all seem like fluff.

I disagree. The new ACR 4.1 is almost worth the price alone, as well
as the new B&W conversion tool. Other great enhancements like Smart
Objects are just a bit above my pay grade, however.
Also, the Photomerge command is greatly improved and I'm now able to
make multiple-image panos fast and easy without even having to go to
PTGui. After you use CS3 for a while you'll feel cheated if you ever
have to go back to just plain CS or CS2.

On Aug 9, 1:19 pm, Steven Wandy wrote:
Obviously, speed is paramount to you rather than quality so you'd be
better off sticking to what you have.

Why, because I don't see the major advantage of RAW? It has nothing
to do with "speed". I have found that JPEGs at high quality give me
what I need.

If JPGs suit your needs then why bother with Lightroom or Photoshop at
all? Just shoot the JPGs in camera and be done with it.

Annika1980 wrote:

Improved cloning & healing sound good, but for me the other features
all seem like fluff.

I disagree. The new ACR 4.1 is almost worth the price alone...

I'm hoping to avoid the entire RAW fad by waiting until I can buy
a DSLR that supports JPEG 2000 or some other edit-ready format.
Of course I might be waiting until after I'm dead, but oh well.

Also, the Photomerge command is greatly improved and I'm now able to
make multiple-image panos fast and easy without even having to go to
PTGui.

Wow, agreed, that is a great feature that the Mac cultists who wrote
the op. cit. reviews apparently ignored.