[jgredline]

There was a post here on the forums a few days ago (Post Processing section I think) from one of the people here who stated :

A photographer would NEVER need Photoshop CS3 Extended

This is because Extended is for animation purposes so nothing a Photographer would need. I guess that a web-developer might want/need thisd feature or an animator.

I've been looking at the Adobe store myself and I'm eighter forced to buy CS3 Premium (not standard) because I would like to have Dreamweaver aswell.

now I can choose to buy Dreamweaver CS3 and Photoshop CS3 seperatly (both are around $800 I think so it will be $1600 for both) or the Web Develop CS3 Premium (or whatever it's called) but this has Photoshop CS3 Extended which I don't need but also stuff like Flash which is kinda nice when building a website.

the Bundle is more then $2000 so way over my budget at the moment but it's a lot cheaper then buying the parts of the suite seperatly (but the advantage of that would be that you can upgrade 1 program in the future without needing to upgrade the entire suite).

Anyways, enough about my own doubt.

bottom line, If you don't need to do animation and stuff, but just for Photography Photoshop CS3 is all you need so no need to pay 200-300USD more for the extended version.

While I have not read this entire thread, this post stood out to me..
I recently upgraded (or so I thought) to cs3 extended from CS2 and atleast for me, it was a bad move. I really miss ''image ready'' that was a part of cs2 and I miss the ability to make transparencies in both gif and png. While these are possible to make in cs3 ext, it is allot of work and allot of time...Worse yet, when I tried to go back to cs2, it keeps defaulting back to cs3 and when I tried to remove cs3, cs2 no longer worked...I have visited other photoshop forums and it turns out, I am not alone. Plenty of upset people...When I called adobe, they tell me they are working on a patch to fix these things that should be ready in a ''few'' months...I ended up reformating my computer and will be going back to cs2.

[Cloudy Wizzard]

Well since I have no photoshop background I can't compair CS3 (trial) with CS2 or PSE5 (for example).

I know the trial is actually "Photoshop CS3 entended" but I never used any of the extended stuff.

I didn't even know about transparancies other then in PSD and I think PNG files.

[WMBP]

(I can't believe I'm the first ...) person to respond with LIGHTZONE by Lightcrafts.

Well, I've been on vacation and didn't see this thread until just now.

Lightzone is a very intuitive program, and easily does almost everything that my PS CS2 program could do.

I myself would not say, as Ian does, that LightZone can do everything (or even almost everything) that Photoshop can do. But that's not a knock against LightZone: LightZone isn't trying to be Photoshop, in fact, I think it's fair to say that it's trying to be an anti-Photoshop, not in the sense of being simple and doing very little (while PHotoshop is complex and does a lot) but rather in the sense of doing a lot but doing it in a manner very different from Photoshop's. Unlike Photoshop, LightZone doesn't use layers and doesn't edit pixels (aside from its excellent clone/heal and red-eye tools). Also unlike Photoshop, LightZone is devoted entirely to processing photos, so you won't launch LightZone to create a logo or paint a picture. Lightzone doesn't allow you to cut or copy and paste portions of one image into another image, so if you want to get a job as a cover artist for a grocery store tabloid -- you know, those papers that have photos of three-headed children or dogs with scales like a dragon -- then you want Photoshop, no question about it. But if you want to have a tremendous amount of power and control processing photos, then LightZone is an excellent tool. It allows you to apply your edits selectively in a variety of ways, some obvious (using selection tools to draw "regions") and some less obvious (applying edits only to a range of colors, for example).

I use LightZone now to edit/post-process most of my photos. I like working in it very much. It gives me a lot of power that I don't have in Adobe Lightroom, which I use now mainly to organize my photos, and it costs less and is both easier to use and (in my opinion, anyway) more enjoyable to use than Photoshop. Working in Photoshop, I feel like I'm responsible for every darn pixel and that I could spend days post-processing a single photo.

There are some downsides to LightZone. You have to buy the pro version to do any batch processing (i.e. to edit one photo and then apply those edits to others). While the standard version of LightZone is reasonably priced (and there's been a sale that lowered the price even further) the pro version is a bit pricey, compared to the prestige of the competition. It's a lousy digital asset management application, so you pretty much have to use something else for that purpose (I use Adobe Lightroom, which is terrific for this purpose). Since LightZone's market share is quite small compared to the Adobe products (Photoshop and Lightroom), using LightZone makes you a bit of a loner -- but then, you're a Pentax user, so you should be used to the feeling of being out there on your own without getting an inferiority complex. The main problem with LightZone is that it is sometimes fairly sluggish.

I continue to use Adobe Lightroom to manage my photos. I import photos in Lightroom, tag them there and make other modifications to the metadata; and I evaluate my photos in Lightroom, too, and make my picks about which ones to process. Then I edit individual photos in LightZone. The workflow is fairly straightforward and reasonably efficient.I much prefer LightZone's trademark zone mapping tool to Lightroom's tone curve. And LightZone has selective editing, which Lightroom does not.

LightZone is flawed but brilliant -- or if you feel less positively about it than I do, you might say it's brilliant but flawed. I myself can tolerate the flaws and focus on the brilliance.

That said, before I started using LightZone a couple of months ago, I was fairly content with using Adobe Lightroom for 98% of my post-processing. If I had to pick just one program and stick with it, it would be Lightroom, not LightZone. But having both gives me a very strong combination of tools.

Will

[marcdsgn]

Is the extended version generally speaking better? Or do you need it only for special purposes?

Short answer: A photographer has no need for any "extended" version of Photoshop.

Photoshop had reached the apex of its useful photo-editing add-ons way back in the late '90s. Improvements have been made, but not specifically for the purposes of photography.

At our inhouse studio, we work with CS, CS2 and CS3, and no single version holds an advantage over the other for photo-editing purposes. At my home studio, I work with CS and the "ancient" version 5.5, and can do everything I need to do.

The Adobe Creative Suite (which includes Photoshop) has evolved to suit the publishing industry, and hence "extended" or "premium" versions hold advantages to commercial workflows combining graphic design, layout and image-editing for printing and web publishing.

If you're not a printer, graphic designer, layout artist or web publisher, you won't need 75% of what a standard version of Photoshop has to offer. Let alone any extended version.

[ashisban]

I was using Adobe Elements 6. It is really a very versatile tool. But recently I purchased Lightroom and has become a fan of it. It is ideal for processing raw files in a batch and then converting to JPEGs. Not only it saves time but it is also very simple. I just wish I had the functionalities of layers in-built in Lightroom.....................

[UnknownVT]

I am one to start simple - to learn what one's needs are, then if necessary move on to the more sophisticated/complex versions - and Adobe have done that in their PS series -
so I would suggest starting with PhotoShop ELEMENTS -
not even the latest version 6.0 - but a (much) cheaper older version (any after 2.0 will be fine)
- eg: PS Elements 4.0 can be found for $17 as non-retail box OEM without the printed manual
(so buy PS Elements 4.0 for Dummies as the manual).

see the reviews at this really good website for photo editors - Designer-info.com: Photo home page
and specifically - Photoshop Elements 4 review

PhotoShop Elements usually is powerful enough for most photographers - however if one is power hungry and must have the power of full PhotoShop -
might just want to consider this -

buy Elements (er-yes, I did say that already) -

then buy the corresponding "The Hidden Power of PhotoShop Elements" book (with software CD) by Richard Lynch.

Read these reviews of the book -

The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements 2 by Richard Lynch -Book Review
"For folks looking for the full power of Photoshop without the high price, this book and the bonus Power Tools provided on the accompanying CD can help them achieve that with Photoshop Elements."

A Book Review: “The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements ...

I don't think the Hidden Power book for the latest PS Elements 6 is out yet - but if one buys Elements 4 for about $23 and the corresponding book for PSE4 - this has to be way lower than either of the two other options.... Plus there are just so many add-ons and actions available on-line for PSE free ro make it even more convenient and powerful.....

Just a thought.

[jbcampbell]

I am a professional using both Pentax (K10D) & Canon gear, I post process on a MacPro and I have tried just about all the major applications for dealing with RAW images, including:
> DXO
> PhaseOne - CaptureOne Pro
> Pentax & Canon software
> Aperture
> Lightroom
> Photoshop (Versions 3 to CS3)

And now my workflow starts in Lightroom for key-wording, cataloging, rating & basic post processing. Then I use Photoshop CS3 for any advanced post processing (cloning, layers, etc...) then back to Lightroom for printing.
Lightroom & PS CS3 work really well together.

---

Last edited by jbcampbell; 01-12-2008 at 09:53 AM.

[dddphoto]

Are you an entry-level photographer, a hobbyist or a Professional Photographer? What platform are you using, PC or MAC? What software are you using, and why? What Pentax DSLR are you using?

I have been shooting with Pentax since 1970 and consider myself an advanced ametuer. Currently I have a K10D and DA* 16-50. My home PC uses Vista Home Premium and my laptop PC use Windows XP SP2. My raw converter is DxO, but needs a bug fix to use DA* lens modules. My image processors are Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 and Photomatix (for HDR generation and tonemapping).

PSPX2 is an excellent program and can do everything I want at a very reasonable price. I have been using this program since it was a shareware download a long time ago. Perhaps I have become too comfortable with it to even think about replacing it with something else.

Other programs I use for digital imaging are IrfanView as my default browser and ProShow Gold for digital slide show creation. I have also loaded Pentax's raw viewer for Windows so I can see thumbnails of my pef files in the file explorer.

PSPX2, Photomatix, and Irfanview can all decode/demosaic Pentax pef raw files.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

[Grimlock]

I currently am using Elements 5 (saw nothing to upgrade to in 6) on my home PC. I try not to use it too much, mainly just to resize shots these days. Since I don't have a laptop, I carry a freeware program called FastStone that can run off of a thumbstick. I found it to be quite a capable little program and it can open RAW files as well. The only real limitation I noticed about it is that it can't do layers.

[benplaut]

I was a dedicated Corel Draw Suite user from version 6 till 11, but that wasn't for photography--I mainly worked on vectors.

Now, I've got no qualms with Lightroom. Organizationally, it is by far the best. 99% of my editing is done there, and I can always bridge over to Photoshop when needed. The results are usually satisfactory for the amount of time I put in--if I get one keeper per day, it's thrilling!

[UnknownVT]

Might want to check out -

Photo Editing Software Reviews, Best Photo Editing Software

at ConsumerSearch.com -
where they claim to be Reviewing the Reviews -
ie: take all reviews rate them -
then try to come to some concensus -
I think this is a pretty good overview approach.

The concensus top choice was Elements 6 -

but top freeware was the GIMP -
GIMP is very powerful -
some say as powerful as PhotoShop -
it is very well maintained as it is referee'd by many -
if PhotoShop like interface is wanted - there is GIMPshop -
but it is still based on version 2.2.8 -
whereas the latest Windows GIMP executable is based on 2.4.2.

[Canada_Rockies]

I was using Adobe Elements 6. It is really a very versatile tool. But recently I purchased Lightroom and has become a fan of it. It is ideal for processing raw files in a batch and then converting to JPEGs. Not only it saves time but it is also very simple. I just wish I had the functionalities of layers in-built in Lightroom.....................

Select Elements 6 as your Editor, since you already have it. You can use it by simply pressing [Ctrl - E] in LR. This gives you the layers ability but you only need it when you need layers.

[Lowell Goudge]

I am fairly new to digital, having just moved recently into the 21st century purchasing a K10D. I have had a point and shoot Fuji for a couple of years and I have used the Microsoft picture-it software that came on my Windows computer when I bought it and really didn't like it. I downloaded Picasa and really like it and have been using it almost exclusively on all my photos. I am shopping around for software that does more and am considering Corel or Photoshop Elements as a start but haven't decided. I also use Ubuntu Linux and have used Gimp some but I find it a little difficult work with. The Linux version of Picasa won't run on my other computer due to problems with the Via chipset and onboard graphics on it so i'm stuck with Gimp on that one. My question is, is the Corel X2 a better value than Adobe Elements? On paper it looks great but if anyone has used both and which will work better on an aging Windows XP machine with a 2.4G P4,512 meg memory, and onboard intel graphics? I'm getting by with what I have but after buying a new camera and putting a kid through college there isn't much left right now for computer upgrades and expensive software.

I run psp X2 on a 2.4GHz P4. It initially came with 256 Mb in 2003, but I upped that to 2 GB a while back. Older versions of PSP (up to V10) can run with as little as 256mB but note that the ability to work with RAW is severely limited or not possible at all. RAW needs a lot more memory for PSP X2

[bymy141]

Yvon, if you would do a book on Lightroom, you'd have my order.

PS is more for artwork, LR more for the photographer, a different kind of breed.
There will probably be a market for both.

Elements sucks.

- Bert

[WMBP]

Yvon, if you would do a book on Lightroom, you'd have my order.

Yeah, it's a cryin' shame there aren't any books on Adobe Lightroom. ;-)

PS is more for artwork, LR more for the photographer, a different kind of breed.
There will probably be a market for both.

More than a few photographers will argue with the implication that Photoshop is NOT for photographers, but I sort of agree with you. I myself much prefer LightZone (as I said earlier).

Elements sucks.

Tad strong. But I don't really disagree.


It's nice to have choices in the software world. People like different things. Some people have the will power to like what they bought regardless of its problems. (Some people on the other hand hate whatever they buy, no matter how good it is.) Some people like what they know. What it boils down to is, if you have the energy, download some demos and check 'em out. Everything has a free demo these days. Find what you like!

Will