Honestly - do I need PS?

[rlh1138]

So I've been using PSE and Paint Shop Pro for some years. Between the two of  them I've got levels, curves, layers, RAW and 16 bit (limited yes), and all the other normal stuff.  It sometimes takes some juggling, (only PSP has curves), back and forth.  OTOH, I'm just a hobbyist, serious about it, doing it 20+ years, but it's not how I make a living - just want to be the best I can be. etc.  Now PS has sent me an offer to get CS2 for $299.  A good deal I guess, but still a bit of money to me.  So I'd like to hear from someone who has used the programs I mention and actually knows what they can do, and who has moved to PS and has an opinion.  Frankly, the only times I miss having PS is in reading the many interesting techniques and tips I'd like to try that are written for PS and use LAB, or one of the other things I don't have , or I simply can't figure out how to do in PSE.  OR, a plugin I'd like to try that only works with PS.  Or sometimes it seems PS has much more sophisticated color mgt.   So.... informed opinions please.  Will $299 help me be a better printer?

[wolfnowl]

Michael's opinion is that he does 95% of his work now in Lightroom.  It's $100 cheaper, but YMMV.

Mike.

[Paul Sumi]

Will $299 help me be a better printer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It depends, going to the full PhotoShop CS2 (CS3 is coming out later this year) MAY give you getter results.  It certainly has more sophisticated tools than PS Elements or PSP.  Wolfnow's suggestion for Lightroom is another option.

However, you don't say whether you shoot RAW, or if you calibrate your monitor with a software/hardware solution.   If you don't, either or both of these may be of greater benefit to your images than PhotoShop.

Also, if printing specifically is an issue, QImage is a great PC printing utility.

Best,

Paul

[Jonathan Wienke]

I'd say get it; PS is the 800-pound gorilla of image processing/editing for good reason. Working with the other programs is in many cases like trying to run a marathon with a leg cast; it can be done, but is much more hassle.

[francois]

So I've been using PSE and Paint Shop Pro for some years. Between the two of  them I've got levels, curves, layers, RAW and 16 bit (limited yes), and all the other normal stuff.  It sometimes takes some juggling, (only PSP has curves), back and forth.  OTOH, I'm just a hobbyist, serious about it, doing it 20+ years, but it's not how I make a living - just want to be the best I can be. etc.  Now PS has sent me an offer to get CS2 for $299.  A good deal I guess, but still a bit of money to me.  So I'd like to hear from someone who has used the programs I mention and actually knows what they can do, and who has moved to PS and has an opinion.  Frankly, the only times I miss having PS is in reading the many interesting techniques and tips I'd like to try that are written for PS and use LAB, or one of the other things I don't have , or I simply can't figure out how to do in PSE.  OR, a plugin I'd like to try that only works with PS.  Or sometimes it seems PS has much more sophisticated color mgt.   So.... informed opinions please.  Will $299 help me be a better printer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would also get it. I don't know for how long your offer will be valid but how about downloading the trial version of Photoshop CS 2 and give it a run? Later this month, Lightroom will also be available as a trial version (around Feb. 20). Photoshop CS 3 is almost around the corner, this is also a point to consider as it will support newer types of RAW files and support for these new files probably won't be added in Photoshop CS 2 once CS 3 is out.

[bobrobert x]

As well as the cost of the program a couple ( at least ) of good books would add to your outlay

Bobrobert

[Dale_Cotton]

I own Paintshop Pro 6 and used it as my sole editor for about a year before I went through the same debate you are. When I visit my father for a week every year, I use his PSP9, which I find to be a delightful program. However, by the end of the week I'm chomping at the proverbial bit to get back to full PS.

Yes, there are editing tasks that I consider essential that I can't do in PSE or PSP and especially not in Lightroom, since it doesn't provide local editing. Almost more importantly - esp. since you ask "Will $299 help me be a better printer?" - is the support PS provides for colour management, including soft-proofing and printing via printer profiles. (I believe PSP has the ability to work with monitor profiles, which is also critical but only half the battle. In my experience soft-proofing is more critical if you're working with matte finish art papers than if you're working with photo papers.)

$299 is the cost of one decent lens, and if you regress it to pre-digital-era dollars, would have got you only a so-so enlarger for your darkroom. Yet what you're getting for $299 is not a so-so product, but arguably the very best editing and printing tool available. That said, I'm not sold that CS2 is that compelling an upgrade to CS(1), which I feel represents a really sweet balance between feature bloat and hardware footprint. If Adobe were to continue the metaphor and offer CS for $199, I think they'd have a gold mine. ;)

[plugsnpixels]

If you can swing it, go for Photoshop! If you spring for the CS2 offer, how does that affect your purchase price for CS3? Something to consider. Maybe waiting a bit will be better.

Also, Photoshop is a creative tool, not just a workflow machine. Lightroom would be considered more of a workflow tool, if I understand it correctly.

Shoot, get 'em all!

[John Camp]

I will tell you from personal experience that photoshop is not an easy program to learn, especially if you don't have a deep interest in computers. There's just so much to it, and if you don't use it on a daily basis, so much to forget. Go and look at a Photoshop training book, and then understand that this 500 or 600-page book just outlines what's *in* the program, and that mastering any of it takes a lot of time. Photoshop IMHO is for those digital-age people who, 20 years ago, would have had an equivalent in a professional printer -- somebody who might not enjoy the actual photogaphy as much as the darkroom work.

If you're mostly a photographer, the stuff you have, plus Lightroom, would probably do everything you need.

If you find that you have an interest in compositing, then you'll need PS; if you have an interest in special effects, or if you're an architectural photographer, you'll probably need it. And if you like computers, and messing around with images, there are aspects of PS that are simply fun to play with -- You can make 60s-style acid-rock posters for your kids.  

For myself, I finally have decided that life is too short. I have PS2, and probably won't upgrade for a few years, because I only use about 1/1000 of the program that I have. I plan to shift my main effort to Lightroom.

JC

[plugsnpixels]

Good points, JC. But it is true that after repeating the relevant steps in Photoshop enough times they become second nature (like driving, which is complicated when you're first learning). Master your personal workflow, then slowly expand into new areas.

Using Actions is a great way to learn--expand the steps and see what is going on. For instance, I changed the way I use Unsharp mask by noting the different settings the author used in an action.

As for not necessarily needing to upgrade, on one hand you are correct--we don't use most of what is in any version. On the other hand, if you fall too far behind, you eventually run into file compatibility problems, not to mention lack of new training materials for the older verison. And if one uses Photoshop in the workplace, their skills are in danger of becoming outdated if they don't keep up.

If Lightroom fits the bill for you, that's great! Master it, and be productive.

[WaltZ]

First, I would recommend you download the 30 day trial and use those 30 days to hit all the PS tutorials you can.  Russell Brown's are very good.

I've been using PSP X for a few years and have generally been pleased with it, but I can see that I'm hitting up against some of its limitations.  Corel seems to be gearing the product to a lower-end user, so I don't expect those limitations to be addressed any time soon.

I've used PS for a couple of weeks now and will definitely be making the switch.  It's a much more highly refined tool.  Yes, PSP has levels, curves, etc, but they've been implemented so much better in PS.  I've gone back to some of the best images I was able to produce in PSP, and reworked them in PS.  The level of control and immediacy of feedback made a huge difference in the results I was able to achieve.

There's a reason PhotoShop has such a huge following.  It's a great tool, and it has a tremendous wealth of training available online.  I wish I could say the same for PSP.

[rlh1138]

Well, thanks to all for the thoughtful replies.  I do use RAW by the way, since I got my Sony R1 about 6 mo. ago.  I think I'm leaning toward buying, but will follow the advice about the free trial, and just plan on spending a bunch of evenings in a row with it.  (My sale offer expires in about 2 weeks)  I'm thinking the more sophisticated color management, along with the better implementation of curves, etc. will help me achieve 'better'  (more satisfying to me) prints.  Thanks again to all who replied, this forum - and the entire web site - is such a great resouce.


Ray

[redwoodtwig]

Well, thanks to all for the thoughtful replies.  I do use RAW by the way, since I got my Sony R1 about 6 mo. ago.  I think I'm leaning toward buying, but will follow the advice about the free trial, and just plan on spending a bunch of evenings in a row with it.  (My sale offer expires in about 2 weeks)  I'm thinking the more sophisticated color management, along with the better implementation of curves, etc. will help me achieve 'better'  (more satisfying to me) prints.  Thanks again to all who replied, this forum - and the entire web site - is such a great resouce.
Ray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would be very interested to hear what you ended up doing -- partly because I also use  a Sony R1 and PSP X.  I recently came across Helicon, and I'm finding it a really good tool for "developing" the R1's Raw files.  Much more subtle handling of things that PSP gets a bit heavy handed with, like exposure and color control, noise control, sharpening and similar stuff.

I particularly want to know if CS2 or 3 is more responsive than PSP on a given machine.  I've been running into situations where PSP becomes really unresponsive, while the copy of CS2 I have access to at work seems to fly all the time -- but it is on a more powerful machine.

The factor that's making me lean heavily toward photoshop is a book called "Skin" where the author describes how to use the CMYK information about a pixel or group of pixels to get better skin tones.  That information is simply not available in PSP that I can find anywhere.

Thanks,
Brandon

[Alaska]

A little while back in 2006 I was a fan of PSP.  It is cheap compared to PS CS2 or CS3.  However I found out that when in Rome do as the Romans do.  In this case, if you want to play with the big boys you must use the same tools.  

It all comes down to how much help you can find on the net for either program.  PSP is rather limited.  PS CS2/3 has a great wealth of information available.  Or just look in your local bookstore.  The same will be true.  Lots of PS books - little on PSP.

Jim

[Natasa Stojsic]

I belive on the long run everything will be easier for you if you buy Photoshop CS2.

[button]

I was in nearly the same boat until March of this year, when I finally bit the bullet and got CS3.  I will say this: if you don't want to get into this program and don't like the idea of spending a fair amount of time learning it, don't bother.  It's just too intimidating to use on a superficial, casual basis.  If, however, you really want to get into the meat of the program, this software will open the door to a world of possibilities that you won't believe.  Simply learning how to use masks to "paint" in local contrast, color, etc has more than doubled my creative options.

John

[kkopchynski]

rlh1138,

I may have joined too late for this, but if not I would urge you to have a look at Picture Window Pro.  You can try free for a month. It has the main features for photographers of Photoshop for about $90.  It does anything mentioned in this thread so far.  I found this when I, like you, wanted to move beyond Paint Shop Pro.  Unlike the direction taken by Corel with PSP, PWP is made by photographers for photographers.  I have PSP X, bought XI, then got a refund after I saw how dumbed down it was.

But as people point out, the community and information for Photoshop is abundant.  There is good info for PWP at its web site and others linked to it, but you would be taking the "road less travelled"  and you would need to be comfortable with that.  For example, it does not use layers.  That is more a way of organizing than a technique - and one that I missed at first.  But I am comfortable with saving new versions of files and have re-organized.   As someone mentioned earlier, it is a matter of hitting a workflow that is good for you. This will take time to learn in any software.   And will you have to re-learn when they make a new version?  I have seen this with past Adobe products.  I have not seen a major version change in PWP, so I can't say they are any better or worse.

If this is not too late I hope it gives food for thought.

Kevin

[rgs]

I'm not saying anything new, I just want to add to the chorus here. I worked with both Photoshop Elements and Photoshop LE for several years. I couldn't understand why I needed Photoshop until I downloaded a demo. I could *never* go back!

RGS
www.myrsphoto.com