Which version of Photohop?

[i_should_coco]

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'.

[catcando]

There is a copy of Elements 6 on Amazon for £20. It is the previous version, but I am sure it will do everything you need.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-System.../dp/B000VZEIOS

[i_should_coco]

7's available for only £40 or so...

[mosfet]

For general photography, Elements will do everything you need - and some.

[mac2006]

Best version? GIMP - it's free, very similar to photoshop and does for 99% of stuff I do. I'd urge you to give it a go before paying...nothing to lose if you don't like it.

i_should_coco wrote:

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'.

[i_should_coco]

mac2006 wrote:

Best version? GIMP - it's free, very similar to photoshop and does for 99% of stuff I do. I'd urge you to give it a go before paying...nothing to lose if you don't like it.

i_should_coco wrote:

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'.

Ah, yes. I tried that a while back and found it hard work. Will try again...

[Sumdumgi]

i_should_coco wrote:

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'.

I think Elements 6 is OK and has some good facilities. It is very buggy however and Adobe have not released any updates to resolve these. It can be slow to load and the Organiser and Editor both have a tendency on occasions to 'time-out' or crash. Elements 7 does not seem a significant upgrade at all for the casual user - in fact my favourite version which worked seamlessly was 3.

On balance it is a decent package though it can be quite irritaing at times. It is very memory hungry and a bit bloated as software goes though I still reckon it's pretty decent offering a fair proportion of Photoshop facilities for a fraction of the price. Despite it's failings it's still my editing program of choice.

Try Picasa which is free asit may be sufficient for you. Simpler than Gimp and quite nifty for nowt .

[Mr Cat]

I've got elements (not sure what version), CS2 and CS3 - but I just tend to use the DPP (software that came with my camera) as it does what I need it to do without grinding my laptop to a halt...

[rockmeister]

I use both elements and 2 and 3. I prefer the full photoshop, because I find the workflow more logical, but elements does do 80% of what photoshop does, but note it WONT read raw files from some cameras. JPEG's are fine. Enquire carefully before deciding I suggest.

[i_should_coco]

rockmeister wrote:

I use both elements and 2 and 3. I prefer the full photoshop, because I find the workflow more logical, but elements does do 80% of what photoshop does, but note it WONT read raw files from some cameras. JPEG's are fine. Enquire carefully before deciding I suggest.

JPEGs are the devil's work anyway - you can always process to TIFFs which are lossless...

[rockmeister]

It depends whose jpegs they are....those produced by the D300 for example are almost indistinguishable in quality from the raw files (that is to say, a straight blow up to A1 would reveal hardly any extra detail, and no difference at all in exposure or colour saturation) but the raw file contains some info that allows slightly finer image tuningin photoshop. This is especially true of highlight and shadow detail, but frankly, if you understand exposure, you can get one of these spot on at the time of pressing the shutter anyway.Raw files have more downsides than upsides for the amateur photographer IMO, esp those who use a motordrive a lot, or who are off on an assignement with lots to shoot.

Any cynicism can be dispelled by you shooting two identical piccies, one High quality JPEG and one raw and posting both here with no processing....dont say which is which and we'll run a blind test?

[i_should_coco]

rockmeister wrote:

It depends whose jpegs they are....those produced by the D300 for example are almost indistinguishable in quality from the raw files (that is to say, a straight blow up to A1 would reveal hardly any extra detail, and no difference at all in exposure or colour saturation) but the raw file contains some info that allows slightly finer image tuningin photoshop. This is especially true of highlight and shadow detail, but frankly, if you understand exposure, you can get one of these spot on at the time of pressing the shutter anyway.Raw files have more downsides than upsides for the amateur photographer IMO, esp those who use a motordrive a lot, or who are off on an assignement with lots to shoot.

Any cynicism can be dispelled by you shooting two identical piccies, one High quality JPEG and one raw and posting both here with no processing....dont say which is which and we'll run a blind test?

The problem with JPEGs is that they are lossy. If you edit one and save it, it loses data. Try it - open a JPEG and do 'save as' 20 times. It will degrade, even if you make no edits. For post-processing, you should use a lossless format like TIFF.

[hifiwigwam]

i_should_coco wrote:

7's available for only £40 or so...

I bought this recently and am only scratching the surface. It comes with Adobe Camera RAW, so you can process before saving in any lossy(or lossless) format. Bear in mind, you can always upgrade if you are really really addicted/clever/keen.

From your photo's I assumed you already had photo shop?

[i_should_coco]

HiFiWigWam wrote:

i_should_coco wrote:

7's available for only £40 or so...

I bought this recently and am only scratching the surface. It comes with Adobe Camera RAW, so you can process before saving in any lossy(or lossless) format. Bear in mind, you can always upgrade if you are really really addicted/clever/keen.

From your photo's I assumed you already had photo shop?

Ah, the camera RAW bit is good to know.

The only thing I've used so far is DPP to sharpen and correct exposure/white balance. (I don't shoot JPEG any more after discovering how nicer results I can get in RAW).

What I would like is better workflow as I find DPP clumsy for doing lots of images at once, especially if they all need something slightly different and more flexibility for shadow/highlight recovery.

I think I shall download the trial and compare to GIMP.

[rockmeister]

i_should_coco wrote:

rockmeister wrote:

It depends whose jpegs they are....those produced by the D300 for example are almost indistinguishable in quality from the raw files (that is to say, a straight blow up to A1 would reveal hardly any extra detail, and no difference at all in exposure or colour saturation) but the raw file contains some info that allows slightly finer image tuningÂ*in photoshop. This is especially true of highlight and shadow detail, but frankly, if you understand exposure, you can get one of these spot on at the time of pressing the shutter anyway.Â*Raw files have more downsides than upsides for the amateur photographer IMO, esp those who use a motordrive a lot, or who are off on an assignement with lots to shoot.

Any cynicism can be dispelled by you shooting two identical piccies, one High quality JPEG and one raw and posting both here with no processing....dont say which is which and we'll run a blind test?

The problem with JPEGs is that they are lossy. If you edit one and save it, it loses data. Try it - open a JPEG and do 'save as' 20 times. It will degrade, even if you make no edits. For post-processing, you should use a lossless format like TIFF.

bored then are we...do you often sit around idly opening and closing files to see if they degrade?
Anyway, the point of photoshop is that you dont save files as jpeg's, you save your workflow as a photoshop file which isn't lossy and export it to your designer/printer as a TIFF or PICT or straight PS file. Workflow is all carried out in ps format.
No loss, more pics. faster processing.

[i_should_coco]

That was my point - why would I start with JPEG? Conversion to JPEG should be at the end of the workflow. JPEGs are the MP3s of the photo world.

[ADPully]

Im finding my trial of adobe lightroom pretty good for workflow.

[purplepleaser]

I use DPP for Raw to Jpeg resizing, then Elements 6 for tweaking usually dust, crap bits then a tad of USM.

[i_should_coco]

That's pretty much what I want to do except DPP for RAW -> TIFF, then USM, and any fixup in photoshop. I also want to give Camera RAW a try.

Does Elements take any noise reduction plugins?

[rockmeister]

i_should_coco wrote:

That was my point - why would I start with JPEG? Conversion to JPEG should be at the end of the workflow. JPEGs are the MP3s of the photo world.

we could round this circle for ever...you start with jpegs because there are more of them on your camera, you can shoot faster with them and because you can't tell the difference! Nor can I.(Once on computer, there's no pre processing to be done either).

Nor can anyone else who isn't producing pro studio work, or enlarging their images to poster size.

Its a bit like megapixels....it aint the quantity of them, it's how they're processed that matters, which is how the D40 for example produces pics as nice as a (maybe) 8mp sensor with just 6...or maybe, more fittingly, like amplifier watts.... something a soldery old loon like you should appreciate well.