Photoshop to fork into 2 programs

Barry Pearson wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:15 pm, TheDave© wrote:
[snip]
It's always been my theory that Elements was never really intended to
be a scaled-down workable version for users, though it does that for
many of course, but rather a "teaser" to entice more people to
eventually buy the full-blown version. IOW: good, but not quite good
enough... always something lacking.

Before "Elements" was "LE" (for Limited Edition). Is the similarity in
name a coincidence?

LE was a teaser, given away with scanners, etc. (It is how I got to
know Photoshop).

But I think Elements has become a credible product in its own right. I
know experienced photographers who feel it is good enough for them,
although perhaps they will add Lightroom as a raw conversion front-
end.


One difference is Elements is eligible for upgrades to the full-blown
version, LE was not.

D-Mac wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:24:11 +0000, TheDave© wrote:

William Graham wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
Adobe has clearly decided that Photoshop CS3 is just too much
program for one application and forked it into two different
applications. We can only wonder at this point how much extra the
"Extended" version is going to cost to keep abreast of
multi-media photography needs.

May be they are intent on controlling your workflow today -
tomorrow... ZE VORLD!


I'm in a quandary right now. I have and use Elements 4, and am
considering purchasing full-blown CS. CS2 is out now, but CS3 will
be out "soon", whatever that means, and I have held back a purchase
because of that. Now, if the OP's post is accurate, maybe I should
go ahead and buy CS2.

I keep getting the feeling there is no 'right' answer.
--------------

It seems pretty clear at the moment. If you are just doing
Photography, the basic Photoshop (even version 7) will be the state
of the art for some time to come.

If you shoot RAW all the time, Adobe Light Room is a definite 'bulk'
processing tool. I use it and it cuts my workload in half. It does
have some quirks in version 1.0 but it is a developing product. I
used to use RAw Shooter Pro until Adobe gave me a copy of Light-room
for being a loyal client.

Hate to break it to you, but Adobe gave *ALL* RSPro users a free copy of
Lightroom. -No loyalty required...only a registered copy of RSPro.
Lightroom is an excellent first version that will only get better.

I will probably buy CS3 extended when it's released because more and
more of my work involves DVDs with movie segments included in a
"wedding story" presentation.

Better bet:
ProShow Producer from www.photodex.com.
It has no equal when it comes to DVD shows using stills and video segments.
Workflow, ease of use, and output quality/options is really something to
see.


One thing I have noticed is that traditional photographers - those
coming from a film background to digital, tend to need PS a lot less
than those who started life with digital.

Programs like Light-room which is quite cheap in comparison to PS,
may be all they ever need. I could get by quite nicely with just this
program because I still rely on getting the shot in the camera, not
making a Photoshoped creation. I can process 500 shots in a day with
LR but using PS alone, I spend at least 2 days doing the same thing.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

TheDave© wrote:
William Graham wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
Adobe has clearly decided that Photoshop CS3 is just too much
program for one application and forked it into two different
applications. We can only wonder at this point how much extra the
"Extended" version is going to cost to keep abreast of multi-media
photography needs.

May be they are intent on controlling your workflow today -
tomorrow... ZE VORLD!

I think they are intent on making as much money as possible.....Most
software people try to upgrade their programs as often as possible to
keep their sales up....The problem is, (for the consumer) "Is the new
version enough different from the old to be worth the upgrade money?"
I have found that in many cases it isn't, but then in many cases, I
am not a sophisticated enough user to really be able to appreciate
the differences.

I'm in a quandary right now. I have and use Elements 4, and am
considering purchasing full-blown CS. CS2 is out now, but CS3 will be
out "soon", whatever that means, and I have held back a purchase
because of that. Now, if the OP's post is accurate, maybe I should go
ahead and buy CS2.

I keep getting the feeling there is no 'right' answer.

You're getting the "full" CS3. There are new aspects added to the extended
version, but most of that focus doesn't even apply to the high-level pros,
save for some VERY specialized uses. CS3 is certainly NOT a dumbed down
version of Photoshop. It stands on its own as a true upgrade (I've been
using the full Beta for a while now). If you're going to start with
Photoshop, you'd do well to go with the latest version.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
TheDave© wrote:
William Graham wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
Adobe has clearly decided that Photoshop CS3 is just too much
program for one application and forked it into two different
applications. We can only wonder at this point how much extra the
"Extended" version is going to cost to keep abreast of multi-media
photography needs.

May be they are intent on controlling your workflow today -
tomorrow... ZE VORLD!

I think they are intent on making as much money as possible.....Most
software people try to upgrade their programs as often as possible
to keep their sales up....The problem is, (for the consumer) "Is
the new version enough different from the old to be worth the
upgrade money?" I have found that in many cases it isn't, but then
in many cases, I am not a sophisticated enough user to really be
able to appreciate the differences.

I'm in a quandary right now. I have and use Elements 4, and am
considering purchasing full-blown CS. CS2 is out now, but CS3 will
be out "soon", whatever that means, and I have held back a purchase
because of that. Now, if the OP's post is accurate, maybe I should
go ahead and buy CS2.

I keep getting the feeling there is no 'right' answer.

You're getting the "full" CS3. There are new aspects added to the
extended version, but most of that focus doesn't even apply to the
high-level pros, save for some VERY specialized uses. CS3 is
certainly NOT a dumbed down version of Photoshop. It stands on its
own as a true upgrade (I've been using the full Beta for a while
now). If you're going to start with Photoshop, you'd do well to go
with the latest version.

That said...I do all of my printing from CS2 still. CS3 Beta has some
strange bugs that have prevented me from printing certain formats...so I can
play with new features with 3, but tend to revert back to 2. Whichever you
decide, you'll have more than enough power to do whatever you want. If you
shoot RAW, then perhaps a better move would be finding CS2 cheap, and adding
Lightroom...

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Mar 9, 7:22 pm, Peter Chant wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
LE was a teaser, given away with scanners, etc. (It is how I got to
know Photoshop).

But I think Elements has become a credible product in its own right. I
know experienced photographers who feel it is good enough for them,
although perhaps they will add Lightroom as a raw conversion front-
end.

Disagree with that. Got LE with my film scanner and Elements with flatbed.
Still use LE, don't use elements. Either curves or levels, or both and
IIRC 16 bit support is missing from Elements but is there in LE. Somewhat
fundamental features. Elements (to be fair newer) has some more impressive
advanced stuff like transforms for fixing perspective distortion but
crucial basic bits are missing.

Was that the latest Elements, or an earlier one? For example, I got
Elements 2.0 free, but the sold product is now at 5.0.

And, of course, it depends on whether it meets your personal
requirements! There is no doubt that it works as a product in its own
right for some people - I know many of those people. I stopped using
16-bit for digital camera images in full Photoshop just over a year
ago, after proving to myself that if I got things right in ACR, I
couldn't detect advantages of 16-bit working in an A3 print. (And if I
did, it was normally easy enough to re-convert at 16-bit). But I use
16-bit for scanned images, at least initially.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

On Mar 10, 10:53 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:
[snip]
You're getting the "full" CS3. There are new aspects added to the extended
version, but most of that focus doesn't even apply to the high-level pros,
save for some VERY specialized uses. CS3 is certainly NOT a dumbed down
version of Photoshop. It stands on its own as a true upgrade (I've been
using the full Beta for a while now).
[snip]

True, and that is the key fact. I asked John Nack, a senior manager in
Photoshop development, about this:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/03...o.html#c265244

quote
What matters to me is: "are any of the CS3 Beta features only in the
"Extended" version?

[Nope. --J.]

In other words, is there a risk of photographers who have used the
Beta version inadvertently finding themselves locked into the Extended
version, even though they would normally have no need for such a
package?

[That's not how we roll. :-) --J.]
/quote

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Barry Pearson wrote:

Was that the latest Elements, or an earlier one? For example, I got
Elements 2.0 free, but the sold product is now at 5.0.


Maybe 2.0, but I have not got the computer with it on near me at present.

And, of course, it depends on whether it meets your personal
requirements! There is no doubt that it works as a product in its own
right for some people - I know many of those people. I stopped using
16-bit for digital camera images in full Photoshop just over a year
ago, after proving to myself that if I got things right in ACR, I
couldn't detect advantages of 16-bit working in an A3 print. (And if I
did, it was normally easy enough to re-convert at 16-bit). But I use
16-bit for scanned images, at least initially.

Save for the phone I've not got a digital camera so I scan most things.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk