Topic: Photoshop CS3 - what does it seem to offer... (Read 15460 times)

MatthewCromer · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2006, 03:11:33 pm »

Quote

and sharper than the ACR versions.

I'm referring to the old ACR vs RSP.

I haven't used the new ACR, not wanting to disrupt the workflow on my PS computer right now. . .

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2006, 07:37:19 pm »

Quote

I'm referring to the old ACR vs RSP.

I haven't used the new ACR, not wanting to disrupt the workflow on my PS computer right now. . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The "new" ACR is as now sharp and detailed as RSP IMO... In fact, I am back to using it as my standard converter, though it maintained the same ACR UI. FWIW, the updated sharpening and detail conversion parameters appear to be used in LightRoom too.

Cheers,

mcbroomf · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:53:44 am »

You can also bring tiff and jpegs into the ACR window for adjustment (if you have old scanned images for example) so that the vibrance and other features are available. I only had a chance to play for a day as I can't get phone activation, but I think this may well mean I need to re-look at a number of my old MF and LF files.

Mike

to-mas · « **Reply #23 on:** December 21, 2006, 01:27:48 pm »

anybody have experience on similar PC than I have?
AMD 2500+ barton, 1GB RAM, windows XP
As i try it but it was really slow.ACR4 adjustments wasn't realltime and so on.
I dont have this problem with CS2.
I am wondering if it is not due RAM and scratch disk settings or I just have so outofdate PC.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2006, 01:45:49 pm »

I'm not an expert on PC configuration, but I use one and have had some experience with a 4 year old one that had 1.5 GB RAM and new one that can access 3GB RAM out of the 4 GB installed. Firstly, be sure that your scratch disk is on a separate physical hard drive from your C drive, otherwise they compete with eachother and slows everything down. Secondly, you may be RAM-limited. I found my former PC would not work Lightroom properly, and many of the new ACR features are similar to Lightroom. I don't know if the code is the same, but it may be reasonable to infer that ACR4 is quite RAM intensive. I think it safe to say that 1GB RAM is just not adequate for efficient performance of recent PSCS versions. If you can increase the RAM this is usually the first recommendation the gurus make for improving performance. If that doesn't help much, it means there are other constraints that may point to a computer up-grade. I crossed that bridge last month and I'm glad I did. It's like night and day.

Gary Ferguson · « **Reply #25 on:** December 21, 2006, 04:30:34 pm »

When working on a black and white image CS2 uses a hard to spot grey cursor. Any change in CS3, or any workaround recommendations?

to-mas · « **Reply #26 on:** December 22, 2006, 09:06:03 am »

Quote

I'm not an expert on PC configuration, but I use one and have had some experience with a 4 year old one that had 1.5 GB RAM and new one that can access 3GB RAM out of the 4 GB installed. Firstly, be sure that your scratch disk is on a separate physical hard drive from your C drive, otherwise they compete with eachother and slows everything down. Secondly, you may be RAM-limited. I found my former PC would not work Lightroom properly, and many of the new ACR features are similar to Lightroom. I don't know if the code is the same, but it may be reasonable to infer that ACR4 is quite RAM intensive. I think it safe to say that 1GB RAM is just not adequate for efficient performance of recent PSCS versions. If you can increase the RAM this is usually the first recommendation the gurus make for improving performance. If that doesn't help much, it means there are other constraints that may point to a computer up-grade. I crossed that bridge last month and I'm glad I did. It's like night and day.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I will need to try different scratch disk settings, now I have it little strange. I installed CS3 and set up scratch disk to my second drive as I running low on first one.

AD RAM
I remember that huuge change when I ad 512 to my first 512 mb ram so I know what you talking about. But so far I found I am more limitated with CPU than with ram. Most of my photos I just correct in ACR and than play some action in batch. Mostly when I am zooming in acr (CS2) my CPU is burning to 100perc to show me 1:1 zoom.
Thats why in the spring (or later) I will need to think if its not worth to buy complete new PC and leave this to my girlfriend.

Anyway, thank you for help

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2006, 09:14:21 am »

You are welcome. I would tentatively suggest it sounds as if you do need a new PC to better handle these new resource-intensive application versions - as for what is suitable for your girlfriend to use - no advice!

ARD · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2006, 05:52:02 am »

I've had a look at the new release, but will stick with CS2 9.

I can't see the point in spending more cash on another upgrade of a program, when I have only probably used 10% of this ones capabilities.

I think Photoshop already reached it's pinnacle, and now Adobe are just trying to justify another release with new features that are not needed by the majority.

Raw shooter · « **Reply #29 on:** December 23, 2006, 09:03:07 am »

Quote

anybody have experience on similar PC than I have?
AMD 2500+ barton, 1GB RAM, windows XP
As i try it but it was really slow.ACR4 adjustments wasn't realltime and so on.
I dont have this problem with CS2.
I am wondering if it is not due RAM and scratch disk settings or I just have so outofdate PC.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On my 2 GB, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 HHD's (one for scratch only) PC - the ACR4 is very slow. Actually falling behind my adjustments. I was correcting JPG's - just to check out this new feature. Eventually PS3 Beta crashed - as I kept steaming full speed thrrough ACR4.
My guess is this is not a hardware problem, just beta code - not ready for prime time as of yet. I still love the ACR4. I use only ACR3.x for all my raw work and look forward the the advanced imaging tools in ACR4. Adobe could still add a real sharpening tool , such as a true Unsharp Mask - exactly like the Photoshop tools. I really don't understand a 1-100 slider for sharpening. Seems underdeveloped?

CS3 beta does have a Macromedia look to the user interface (workspace). I guess that will take some time to seem better.

Overall, CS3 seems to be just better for fine art photographers. The stable final code will add the promised speed (hopefully!) and make this upgrade a major step forward.

I do hope Adobe refines Bridge a bit more. Actually with Bridge, less is more. My wishlist for Bridge is just simple, stable and speedy.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #30 on:** December 23, 2006, 09:21:26 am »

My experience is not the same. My computer is a Dell 690 Precision Workstation with a 3 GHZ Xeon 5160 Dual Core processor and 4 GB RAM (of which only 3 are accessible on a 32 bit Windows XP system). I'm using ACR4 routinely now and I find the response is seemless.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #31 on:** December 23, 2006, 09:30:07 am »

Quote

I've had a look at the new release, but will stick with CS2 9.

I can't see the point in spending more cash on another upgrade of a program, when I have only probably used 10% of this ones capabilities.

I think Photoshop already reached it's pinnacle, and now Adobe are just trying to justify another release with new features that are not needed by the majority.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, each to his/her own of course about an up-grade decision, but to go from there imputing wasteful motives to Adobe is a bit off the wall if I may suggest. On what authority are you assessing what the "majority" "needs"? Who is this "majority" and how do you define what they "need"? Don't you think Adobe does market research to find out what users would like to have, their own developers included? I think they will be out of the up-grade business the day this "majority" you have in mind stops buying their up-grades, but we're into the 9th version now and that shows no sign of happening any time soon. The reason is that there enough people amongst this "majority", me included, who may not use a high percentage of the program's capabilities, but still find the new stuff they develop useful enough to justify the up-grade. And frankly, when you think about it, more often than not what you "need" gets defined by the people who respond to these "needs" before you even knew they existed. That is what marketing has been all about for centuries. It was best enunciated back in the 1700s by the French philosopher-economist Jean-Baptiste Say with his famous theoretical proposition that "Supply creates its own demand". But back where I started - if you personally don't "need" any of these innovations - of course, as the ING Man says in the TV ads "Save Your Money".

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #32 on:** December 23, 2006, 11:21:59 am »

Quote

The reason is that there enough people amongst this "majority", me included, who may not use a high percentage of the program's capabilities, but still find the new stuff they develop useful enough to justify the up-grade. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said Mark. Using myself as an example, the new photomerge capabilities are so much improved, that IMO it makes the price of the upgrade worth it by itself. (Yet, I do consider myslef somewhat of a power user of other PS tools ) If one considers just the cost of some of the 1st class software dedicated to stitching, you actually get the entire CS3 package for LESS than one of those single-function software products...

Cheers,

islandbuck · « **Reply #33 on:** December 27, 2006, 10:25:00 am »

I left out a major feature that absolutely needs to be part of Photoshop (ACR). Custom camera profiles. This is one I really don't understand. How many white papers have we seen from Adobe regarding the industry standard color management chain in ones workflow. Well in this respect Adobe has the initial link missing. I'm getting perfect color out of ACR now because I went through the extremely tedious and time consuming process of manual calibration (a la Bruce Faser). This process can become so subjective considering all factors and the Fors script has never worked for me. It's rather ludicrous I believe. Why the reluctance by Adobe. The calibration tab needs to stay it's wonderful but they need to make it relative to the camera profile that one selects.

To those who say that camera profiling is useless well I respectfully disagree. I have two basic calibrations one for daylight/overcast and one for the studio. My color is dead on neutral always. Of course we can start with semantics and ...what is neutral? ect.. But then we are adults here aren't we?. I think the folks on Madison Ave. know what neutral is.

If you want to get creative with color neutral is a much better starting point, period. None of the standard camera profiles included with any of the raw converters on the market these days are neutral and in a sense artistically interpretive. That's cool. Product distinction via a look is important in marketing. I have no problem with that. But, the profiles out of the box in ACR get the the prize for the weirdest interpretations in my not so humble opinion. ACRs saving grace is the calibration tab I guess. It's ironic because other that this ACR is the finest converter on the market today.

djgarcia · « **Reply #34 on:** January 01, 2007, 03:05:16 pm »

I also have made CS3 my normal working software, mostly because of ACR 4. OTOH, I am using an 8GB / dual Xeon 5140 system under x64, so it may not qualify as a typical installation. I do find CS3 seems to make better use of my available resources. Just for ACR 4 this will be a must-do upgrade for me.

As far as RS vs. ACR, I found RS a bit less natural-looking than ACR, but that could be just me. It felt like it was applying the PS Shadow / Highlight kind of processing. The new ACR fill / recovery functions look more organic and natural to me. Obviously all these observations are highly subjective.

Dinarius · « **Reply #35 on:** February 17, 2007, 06:04:22 am »

Just read through this thread for the first time. As far as I'm concerned, the H/S palette in ACR4 is reason enough to upgrade. There is an excellent introduction to the changes in ACR4 here>

http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/acr4.htm

...which those who haven't yet downloaded the beta might like to read.

The writer's comment (in the paragraph headed 'The H Tab') that......

"....the HSL/Grayscale tab hides one of the most useful photographic innovations since the introduction of the RAW file! This tab allows us complete control over the color in our photographs."

......is not an understatement. There will be many occasions now when I will use CS3 simply for the Healing Brush and the Clone Stamp tool! ;-)

Allowing total pre-conversion, non-destructive colour correction is just fantastic. Add in the additional two channels in H/S (now eight to CS2/CS3/Lightroom's six) coupled with the nine point colour sampler and ACR4 is simply a must have for any colour geek.

I LOVE it!

D.

ps....Islandbuck, I too have never found Fors of any use. A one size fits all approach is just not on. I too use the Fraser method. But, unlike you, I correct every time I shoot in studio. Used to take me about 20 minutes between ACR3 and CS2 (the inadequate H/S in ACR3 meant that I had to finish the job in CS2). I then ran an Action to apply the results to all the other images. Now, in ACR4, I can do everything. Takes about 10 minutes. Wonderful!

In my opinion, default camera profiles are a waste of time. You will never, ever, capture a Gretag CC exactly the same way twice, even in studio. Much better to correct the capture of the CC each time, IMHO. That takes all the variables of different lighting (softboxes warmer than reflectors etc...) surroundings and casts from products etc..into account. Just my tuppence worth.

D.

Tom.D.Arch · « **Reply #36 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:32:23 am »

Given that I haven't found straightforward questions to either of these questions, I'm guessing that the answers will be 'no'. But here goes:

Has Adobe (or the more accurate end of the rumor mill) been any more clear than 'Q1 or Q2 of '07' for a release of CS3?
If you buy PS CS2 now, do you get a free full upgrade to PS CS3?

Considering that I'm still using PS CS, I'm anxious to upgrade! (I'm looking forward to HDR for architectural shots to get interior and exterior lighting without endless masking and the improved merge will be helpful, along with the obvious CS2 features!)

Johnny V · « **Reply #37 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:26:15 am »

Quote

.....
Has Adobe (or the more accurate end of the rumor mill) been any more clear than 'Q1 or Q2 of '07' for a release of CS3?
If you buy PS CS2 now, do you get a free full upgrade to PS CS3?

Considering that I'm still using PS CS, I'm anxious to upgrade! (I'm looking forward to HDR for architectural shots to get interior and exterior lighting without endless masking and the improved merge will be helpful, along with the obvious CS2 features!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not more specific on the release...other than the 2nd Q of 2007. So take your pick...April, May or June!

You have to bite the bullet and wait as you will only qualify for a free upgrade if CS2 was purchased within 30 Days of the CS3 release.

Been using the Beta CS3 and Adobe Camera Raw is fantastic with interior architectural shots. With Highlight Recovery and Fill Light sliders HDR is not even needed.

Author Topic: Photoshop CS3 - what does it seem to offer... (Read 15460 times)