Photoshop CS versus PS 7

[new girl on the bloc]

Is there enough new and useful stuff on Photoshop CS to justify spending that much $$ on it vs. sticking with my PS7? What are the most important new features?

Thank you!

[scottbergerphoto]

Is there enough new and useful stuff on Photoshop CS to justify spending that much $$ on it vs. sticking with my PS7? What are the most important new features?

Thank you!
I'm a novice to Photoshop new girl. There is a comparison of the two in the most recent Shutterbug magazine. They seem to feel it's a worthwhile upgrade. If you like, I'll try to summarize it for you tonight when I get home.
Scott

[Kinger]

If I remember correctly, check adobe's site, there should be an upgrade for around $160

[new girl on the bloc]

Is there enough new and useful stuff on Photoshop CS to justify spending that much $$ on it vs. sticking with my PS7? What are the most important new features?

Thank you!
I'm a novice to Photoshop new girl. There is a comparison of the two in the most recent Shutterbug magazine. They seem to feel it's a worthwhile upgrade. If you like, I'll try to summarize it for you tonight when I get home.
Scott

Scott, this is a kind offer! I would love the info. Perhaps to save you the time I may be able to find it online?

[new girl on the bloc]

If I remember correctly, check adobe's site, there should be an upgrade for around $160

Oh, that would be fantastic! I'll check that out. Thanks!

[Yarin]

Download it on Kazaa :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Download it on Kazaa :D

First,. discussig piracy on the forum is a no no...

Second,. a number of the supposed software downloads available via peer to peer.. particualrly Adobe PSCS,.. are in fact some of the most insidious C: drive destroying virusses out there,.. you taking a great risk in doubleclicking a 132MB file you downloaded labeled Photoshop8.exe

Third.. it is one thing to partake in such behavior on your own.. but people come to this forum for sound, sensible advice. This is not sound advice.

[Yarin]

Download it on Kazaa :D

First,. discussig piracy on the forum is a no no...

Second,. a number of the supposed software downloads available via peer to peer.. particualrly Adobe PSCS,.. are in fact some of the most insidious C: drive destroying virusses out there,.. you taking a great risk in doubleclicking a 132MB file you downloaded labeled Photoshop8.exe

Third.. it is one thing to partake in such behavior on your own.. but people come to this forum for sound, sensible advice. This is not sound advice.

Oops..

[scottbergerphoto]

Is there enough new and useful stuff on Photoshop CS to justify spending that much $$ on it vs. sticking with my PS7? What are the most important new features?

Thank you!
I'm a novice to Photoshop new girl. There is a comparison of the two in the most recent Shutterbug magazine. They seem to feel it's a worthwhile upgrade. If you like, I'll try to summarize it for you tonight when I get home.
Scott

Scott, this is a kind offer! I would love the info. Perhaps to save you the time I may be able to find it online?
No problem Marie! I checked their web site. It only has last months issue.
Scott

[CoolToolGuy]

I presume you are talking Windows and not Mac. Keep in mind that you must be Windows XP or 2000 to run CS. Some of us are happy for the time being on Windows ME and not interested in upgrading the Operating System because Adobe says its time to do so. :roll: And that's how Jasc got at least one more customer for Paint Shop Pro 8 :)

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[BobbyC]

I think it's worth it. I'm able to do just about everything now in 16 bit mode which is nice. The new highlight/shadow tool is almost worth the upgrade in itself. Of course the Camera Raw II converter now does 10D files and has more controls, but I'm not real impressed with the results from it so far. They say the file browser is much better, but I find it waaay to slow for my use, even on my blazing new emachine, PS as a whole is still slow (nothing new here). A new Histogram palette lets you view the histogram at all times. Open documents are now listed at the bottom of the Window menu like they did pre v. 7. (Not a huge issue, but it was kind of annoying to have to go to Window>View). The new Lens Blur filter looks really cool but I haven't had time to play with it yet.

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head, hope it helps.

Bobby

[CyberDyneSystems]

...Keep in mind that you must be (using)Windows XP or 2000 to run CS. ...
Have Fun
Rick 8)

Very good point,. I allways forget about this caveat!

[Whaler]

Hey "New Girl" Go to the Adobe site. They allow you to download PSCS for a 30 day free trial. Then my dear, you can see for yourself. Dats what I'm gonna do, I'm a PS 6 kind of guy. I too question whether the upgrades are as earth shattering as the photo mags would have us beleive, and are they worth the $$$$$$ Make sense?

[w10d]

What are the most important new features?

Thank you!

These are the features I find most useful, in an approximate order. I've been using PS since 2.5 and I'd say this is the best upgrade since 3 (which introduced layers). I say that mostly because the first 3 features listed have completely changed my workflow. YMMV:

The improved Camera RAW converter.
The (greatly) improved file browser - really helps the editing and workflow.
16 bit support in more areas of PS, especially layers.
Live histogram display
Lens blur filter (DoF effect)
Highlight and Shadows - which is not just a simplified interface for beginners, but a really effective tool in it's own right.
Customizable keyboard shortcuts
Colour replacement tool
Filter gallery
(Also has a colour match feature which I STILL haven't had a proper look at!)

I may have missed some features, but I think most of the others are really for the Graphic/Web Designers out there.

[kafene]

I think it's worth it. I'm able to do just about everything now in 16 bit mode which is nice.
Bobby

I have both PS 7 and CS and I don't think most would mind sticking with 7. What I like about Photoshop 7 with the Adobe RAW plug-in is that there's a little button you can click that makes opening RAW images without having to go through the RAW image editing window. When I have 20 pictures and just want to open them, I don't want to have to sit in front of the computer and click "O.K." for each one. I just want to select and open and walk away.

Although you can somewhat work with 16 BIT, many of the editing features are not usable. Just a select few. Also, I don't know of any printing RIP that can handle 16 BIT images, just 8 BIT, so I don't see much point in having a 16 BIT image when most prepress workflows for printing and such can't use it.

kafene.

[drisley]

Personally, I think CS is worth it (well, no software is worth that much $$$, but relatively speaking).

I dont use the Raw Converter (I prefer C1 PRO), but the other features are great, especially the Shadow/Highlight Tool.

I find the browser to be fine. It's MUCH faster at browsing thumbnails of large tiff files than Windows XP explorer in thumbnail mode.

If I have a folder with 20 large tiff files, it takes forever for Windows XP explorer to generate the thumbnails, even on my Barton 2800+ system with 1GB Ram, and SATA harddrive.
With Adobe's browser, the thumbnails are generated almost instantly.

[scottbergerphoto]

Marie,
I looked at the Shutterbug review again and compared it to the Adobe site's description of the new features. They are both virtually the same.
I had been using PSE2 and was able to buy CS for $299, so for me it was a no brainer.
Regards,
Scott

[new girl on the bloc]

Thanks for all of your replies. I think that I will check out the trial version and look into the upgrade option if it seems worthy of that.

[new girl on the bloc]

Marie,
I looked at the Shutterbug review again and compared it to the Adobe site's description of the new features. They are both virtually the same.
I had been using PSE2 and was able to buy CS for $299, so for me it was a no brainer.
Regards,
Scott

Thanks Scott, though I am not "Marie" :) Did you purchase CS as an upgrade for that price?

[kraterz]

IMHO the last major upgrade for PS was 6.0, and I still use that. 7 has some cool features like the healing brush which I'd like to have, but I see no point in wasting money on PS-CS. And no thank you, I don't like product activation either.

Get the tryout download (150+MB) and see if you like it. I hated it. On my PC it runs at 1/4th the speed of PS-6.0. However it's supposed to be OK on Mac's.

[scottbergerphoto]

Marie,
I looked at the Shutterbug review again and compared it to the Adobe site's description of the new features. They are both virtually the same.
I had been using PSE2 and was able to buy CS for $299, so for me it was a no brainer.
Regards,
Scott

Thanks Scott, though I am not "Marie" :) Did you purchase CS as an upgrade for that price?
oops! :( Sorry New Girl. I got it for $299 as an upgrade to PSE2. I believe you can get is an an upgrade to a full Photoshop version for $169.
Scott

[BobbyC]

I have both PS 7 and CS and I don't think most would mind sticking with 7. What I like about Photoshop 7 with the Adobe RAW plug-in is that there's a little button you can click that makes opening RAW images without having to go through the RAW image editing window. When I have 20 pictures and just want to open them, I don't want to have to sit in front of the computer and click "O.K." for each one. I just want to select and open and walk away.

You don't have to do each one by itself, you can still batch process them if your okay with the subpar results of the converter. C1 or Breezebrowser do a much better job IMO.


Although you can somewhat work with 16 BIT, many of the editing features are not usable. Just a select few. Also, I don't know of any printing RIP that can handle 16 BIT images, just 8 BIT, so I don't see much point in having a 16 BIT image when most prepress workflows for printing and such can't use it.

?? You very obviously haven't used CS very much. Virtually every core editing feature is now available in 16 bit. Except for some 3rd party plug-ins I have, I have not had to change to 8 bit virtually at all since upgrading. As for RIP's, probably less than 1% of users even use them and if I used one (the only good ones out there are very expensive) for the money I'd spend, I'd find one that it up to todays capabilities. Even if you have a RIP that only supports 8 bit, you've still done all your editing in 16 bit until RIP time, so there's still an advantage. I would think someone that goes to the expense of using a RIP would see that advantage even more than most.

Cheers,
Bobby

[BobbyC]

Personally, I think CS is worth it (well, no software is worth that much $$$, but relatively speaking).

If I have a folder with 20 large tiff files, it takes forever for Windows XP explorer to generate the thumbnails, even on my Barton 2800+ system with 1GB Ram, and SATA harddrive.
With Adobe's browser, the thumbnails are generated almost instantly.

This is interesting, I have just the opposite on mine. I've been trying to figure out if something is wrong. I just got a Athalon 3200+, 512 ram. All my programs run much faster than my old computer, except PS CS, it runs about the same. My tiffs are 36mb 16 bit files and a folder of 20 would take about a minute or so to load the thumbnails. (Doesn't sound long, but usually I'm working with 50+ files at a time).

Any suggestions?

Thanks

[theoldmoose]

I echo the advice to go for 16-bit editing.

If you edit 8-bit files in 8-bit mode, you have essentially no overhead. It becomes all too easy to blow highlights, block shadows, or produce wierd color shifts (by blowing/blocking one or more individual color channels).

By going to 16-bit editing, you remove all those limitations. Even if you have to flatten and convert to 8-bit in the last stage(s) of your process, you've managed to hold on to a lot more information up to that point, that figured into your prior editing operations, without producing over/underflows in the mathematical computations.

Go to RAW, where the input image is typically 12-bits (in a 16-bit format), and you gain additional headroom in your original image. The worse thing would be to shoot RAW (12-bit), then edit in 8-bit. You're throwing away a lot of dynamic range and detail right out of the gate if you do that.

If you don't care about any of this, shoot JPEG, nail it right the 'first time' in the camera, and print directly from the camera. 8)

[ssim]

Virtually every core editing feature is now available in 16 bit. Except for some 3rd party plug-ins I have,
Cheers,
Bobby

Indulge my ignorance here Bobby but when I convert to 16bit there are an awful lot of my menu choices greyed out. When I open the same image in 8bit they are available. So say I want to go to Variations menu choice, I can in 8bit but not 16bit. I hvae tried to find the answer but just gave up frustrated.

I don't want to come off sounding like a fool but am I doing something wrong??

[BobbyC]

Sheldon,

You are correct, variations is still only available in 8 bit. I mostly use layers, curves, levels, color balance adjustments and a few 3rd party plug-ins, frankly, I've never even looked at variations as I usually adjust the color during RAW conversion. In PS 7, quite a few of the items in the adjustment menu would not work in 16 bit, as it is now, variations is the only one that still doesn't. Just to be clear, I did not say ALL of the items were now available in 16 bit. And yes, several of the filters still only work in 8 bit, but the only one I consider a core editing tool is the USM, and it works in 16 bit. Again this is just my humble opinion.

I think most people probably can't see the difference in 16 bit editing with the naked eye, but if you make several adjustments to the same file in 8 then do it in 16 (starting off with a 16 bit file, not converting an 8 bit to 16)and look at the histograms, you will see there is a difference in the data. Many more gaps in the 8 bit version. It's a peference thing, much as shooting RAW vs. JPG.

[w10d]

My tiffs are 36mb 16 bit files and a folder of 20 would take about a minute or so to load the thumbnails. (Doesn't sound long, but usually I'm working with 50+ files at a time).

Any suggestions?

Thanks

Most complaints about PS CS's speed come down to the way the file browser is being used (with the exception of the issue of the Healing Brush in 16 bit). Here are some suggestions:

FB prefs; turn off 'Allow Background Processing', 'Parse XMP metadata from non-image files' and 'Render Vector Files'. Turn off 'Enable High Quality Previews' and set custom thumbnail size to 256.

Let the file Browser finish getting all previews before continuing with any work.

Hold down Option when double clicking to open an image (closes the FB afterwards).

To produce large high quality thumbnails the FB must look at all the data in every image in a folder - if you have a folder full of 16 bit images this will be slow on any machine.

(FWIW, CS does complete some commands quicker than 7, and some filters now work faster - others however are slower. Adobe says this is because the quality has now been improved, at the cost of increased processing).

Hope that helps...

[BobbyC]

Thanks W10d! I'll try it tonight. You are right, there are some commands that do seem faster.

[typer77]

does anyone know if the upgrade from elements 2.0 to CS is the same price? thanks....

[scottbergerphoto]

does anyone know if the upgrade from elements 2.0 to CS is the same price? thanks....
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24106

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I love the new level option, which is really powerfull and I use that more now instead of curves.

Also some filters now run in 16bits mode.

Is it worth the money ?
Well it depends on what you do, I use mostly C1 for my day to day shooting, only the real keepers I work on in PS and after that I get better results than with PS 7.0.

However you have to decide for yourself, it's alot of money for a software package if Elements also does it for you.

Greetings,
Frank