PS, versions, Raw converters... confused...

All you post processing and software knowledgable people: Please, help me get this straight.

(I have studies the sticky threads, but I could not figure these things out).

1. Is PS Elements a "stripped" version of PS? How is it stripped? Or does it, instead, provide different functionality? Is it "good enough" for people like us?

2. Is the older versions of PS, like e.g. 5.5, faster than the newer versions mainly because the newer versions have more 16-bit support and hence require MORE memory?

3. I am confused about PS versioning numbers. When did it become PS CS, and CS. I believed that when "CS" was introduced, it was kinda equivalent to 8.0, and CS2 = 9.0. But then I have heard stuff like PS CS2 v8.0...

4. As I understand it, DPP and RSE provide the same basic functionality. Is that correct? Still, it seems that RSE is more popular here. What does it do better?

Thank you so much! This forum is amazing!

Enigma

1. Yes and no. It's really a different app,. it has many of the features of PS,. and one can do a lot with it. Unlike the old lite versions of Photoshiop.. "Elements" is a super bargain and a must have for anyone not looking to invest in PS. It is definitely "good enough" for most people,. and it will never be a waste.. even for somone who decides to upgrade to PSCS.

Fact 1: Elemnts uses many of the same tools and similar interface as PSCS. Learning Elelments will get you on your way to learning PSCS

Fact 2: Buying Elements,. and then upgrading to PSCS is less expensive than buying PSCS.

2. No... the 16bit support will only slow you down if you use it (ie: use 16 color files) Otherwise this would have no effect. However ,. if you do use 16 bit files,. they will as you suspect be double the file size.

3. It went PhotoShop 7 to PSCS. (ei: PSCS is photoshop 8,.. PSCS-2 is Photoshop 9)

4. DPP and RSE are only RAW converters.. they are VERY different from PSCS. It is safer to say that with PSCS' included RAW support,. Photoshop can finally do what you used to need a RAW converter for. But long before PS could do RAW,. it was still the full blown premier image editor of it's time.

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrgghh!

First, thanks for your reply! It really helped.

But, thanks to your reply, I realize I phrazed my question 4 rather ambigously...

Let me re-phrase it:

4. As I understand it, DPP and RSE provide the same basic functionality AS EACH OTHER (not as PS). Is that correct? Still, it seems that RSE is more popular here. What does it do better?

Hi,

RSE and DPP both convert raw images but they are quite different in workflow and both have their pro's and con's.

I've found that RSE is very fast and easy to use but has limited control over the tonal quality of the image - no curve editing is a pity. I've also found that RSE can give a very processed feel to images - it's built in noise reduction/sharpening tends to create banding and a slight oil paint effect, particularly on out of focus regions. RSE's strongest point is its white balance tool which is very accurate.

DPP works with Canon's picture styles as a starting point for processing images - which offers a choice of how the tonal data from the raw file is processed. It also has additional control over the tonal contrast as well as curves. It lacks any noise reduction and is generally slower to use.

As they are both free I would suggest using both. You will probably find that switching between the two helps depending on the kind of photo you are processing.