[GregK8]

Hi. I am considering moving from Bibble Pro + GIMP to Lightroom + Photoshop. Lightroom will do 80-90% of what I need from an image manipulation standpoint, but there are obviously times when a pixel editor is needed.

So I'm searching all over the place looking for some information on the differences between CS4 and Elements. I can find hardly any information on what the actual differences are between the two programs. Adobe doesn't provide any kind of comparison (that I can find) and anytime I see someone ask that question, the response is usually along the lines of "CS4 is for serious photographers and Elements is for amateurs" with no reference to anything specific.

Given that my pixel editing needs would be very light, I'm wondering if I can get away with Elements, but before I pass on CS4, I'd really love to know what I'd be missing.

Is anybody here familiar with specific differences or know of a detailed comparison?

[marcdsgn]

Greg, the full version of Photoshop supports multiple applications beyond photographic post-processing (ie: commercial design and press applications). It can do a hell of a lot more than what is required purely to edit and retouch photographic work. If you're not planning to move into other areas such as professional graphic design, image-manipulation and commercial press-preparation work, then I'd suggest you have no real need for the whole kit and caboodle.

I have no experience with Elements, but from what I read, it has taken all the strictly image-processing elements of Photoshop and offered it up as a separate application allowing photographers to access all the relevant tools of the Photoshop application.

Greg, the full version of Photoshop supports multiple applications beyond photographic post-processing (ie: commercial design and press applications). It can do a hell of a lot more than what is required purely to edit and retouch photographic work. If you're not planning to move into other areas such as professional graphic design, image-manipulation and commercial press-preparation work, then I'd suggest you have no real need for the whole kit and caboodle.

I have no experience with Elements, but from what I read, it has taken all the strictly image-processing elements of Photoshop and offered it up as a separate application allowing photographers to access all the relevant tools of the Photoshop application.

I don't know about that. When I attend the NAPP seminars there are many, many amateurs in attendance. I think it really depends on how serious you want to get. Also a lot of NAPP members aren't pros.

[xs400]

I have Lightroom, PS Elements 7, and CS4. I do all my processing with Lightroom and and PSE 7.

[GregK8]

Thanks for responding guys. Since I posted that I have been doing some more digging and there are references around (but nothing definitive from a reliable source) that PSE does not support 16-bit processing of images. Can anyone confirm that?

Getting 16-bit processing all the way through the pipeline is one reason for looking at making a change since GIMP can only partially do that and GEGL won't be fully integrated for some time yet.

[PePe]

It is true that many functions in the pixel editor of PSE do not support 16-bit processing. Some do, but not all. Initially, a couple of years ago, I was also concerned about this.

To me the real question is where you really need 16-bit processing?
By experience I would say that processing the picture in 16-bit format is definitely useful as strong adjustments in 8-bit format may sometimes lead to visible loss of shades - especially if the picture processing has involved several steps. Once the picture is completed, it is difficult to see the difference whether it has been saved in 8- or 16-bit format.

I shoot almost exclusively RAW. Elements uses exactly the same RAW converter (ACR) as CS4, and 99% of the commonly used corrections and adjustments can be made here. This is in 16-bit format using exactly the same tools as CS4. It is only after this when you may have to change to 8-bit processing depending on the tool you want to use.
Another funny thing is that as PSE uses much of the software written for the full-size version, there are quite a lot of hidden capabilities in it. Many functions are actually there, Adobe has just left out the controls for them. People have worked out smart ways to reactivate or by-pass such obstacles. For example Philip Andrews and Richard Lynch have published excellent literature about this. They both also have websites with further material. Being the little brother of CS4, PSE sometimes gets a bit overlooked, and people may not always fully realize the capabilities put into it.

I frequently sell my pictures to magazines requiring high-quality images, but have my main source of living elsewhere. I have found PSE to be a very capable package, and despite my initial fears I just haven´t felt the need to swith to the full-size version.
I do a lot of wildlife and nature photography. If you do a lot of picture manipulation, graphics, advertising etc you probably find extensive 16-bit support necessary.
For you there is a very easy way to find out whether PSE fullfils your expectations. You can get a 30-days free trial copy from Adobe´s download center.

[GregK8]

I ended up downloading the 30-day demos of both PSE8 ans CS4 to do a comparison side-by-side for myself. The very first thing I did in PSE was to load a 16-bit tiff I exported from Lightroom, and then tried to add a layer, at which time I was told you can't do that wit a 16-bit image.

Normally I'd agree that the difference between 16-bit and 8-bit is not noticeable, but i have been doing some macro work with very out of focus backgrounds, and I am finding that there is a lot of noticeable banding in the gradients of the background.

So then the next thing I notice is really a lot of stuff is moved around in the menus. For instance, the Image => Adjustments menu in CS4 is replaced by a separate Enhance menu in PSE.

So it would seem at first blush that PSE is really no better than the GIMP. Well, with ease of use enhancements focused toward the consumer, but I mean in a technical way. I'll keep playing with them both to see if I can discern the details of the differences.

[GregK8]

I shoot almost exclusively RAW. Elements uses exactly the same RAW converter (ACR) as CS4, and 99% of the commonly used corrections and adjustments can be made here. This is in 16-bit format using exactly the same tools as CS4. It is only after this when you may have to change to 8-bit processing depending on the tool you want to use.

I shoot almost exclusively in RAW also and I would do most (all) of my RAW processing in Lightroom if I went this way, and then use the pixel editor for things I can't do in Lightroom.

For the kinds of things I think I'd want to do outside of Lightroom, I have to think about whether they would benefit from 16-bit. My initial reaction is yes, but I have to give that some deeper thought.

[markdesmarais]

So it would seem at first blush that PSE is really no better than the GIMP. Well, with ease of use enhancements focused toward the consumer, but I mean in a technical way. I'll keep playing with them both to see if I can discern the details of the differences.

Adjustment layers are what brought me to PSE from gimp. Easy panos was a bonus.

The only thing I've seen in post processing tutorials that I would like is the ability to group layers into folders, and control their blending all at once.

But I'm not picky about 16bit (yet ;-)

[mysticcowboy]

Photomatix exports a 16 bit TIFF. I've edited those in both CS3 and Elements 7. Very occasionally I will get a tiny bit of banding when the images are changed to 8 bit mode. But that's really only visible at 100% zoom. No problem with 11x17 prints.

I've never had a problem with an image converted from RAW in ACR and edited in 8 bit mode from the beginning. There's another thread current in which the Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements is mentioned. I've been using that since Elements 3. It opens up a lot of the missing features from Photoshop and really makes Elements a solid program.

[FHPhotographer]

One aside is that even CS4 won't support the artistic, brush, sketch or texture filters in 16-bit, so you have to accept the (if any) IQ loss of going to 8-bit to access those filters. Don't know why it's so, and maybe a more experienced hand has an answer,
Brian