I haven't spent much time with cs6 as we've been to busy to look at any slightly different interfaces.
though CS 4 and 5 extended will grade footage and you don't need to break them into single tiff sequences (unless your retouching each frame on an action).
You can import the footage as a smart object (see google) and adjust each piece of footage with adjustment layers. You can;t just use photoshop controls, on the frame you are parked at but without using adjustment layers as you'll only work on that one frame, (with the exception of sharpening).
You also to be aware of the ouput settings as there are multiple places on export to place the settings; i.e. codec, file size etc. etc.
One trick is to add a 50% grey layer and set to overlay. This will cover the whole clip and you can use it for localized color, let's say you have a white background with some yellow tint in a corner.
You can use this grey layer and change color, let's say cyan or blue to neutralize the yellow tint and then erase everything but the corner area. This works fast, unless you have a subject crossing over the re tinted area.
Anyway . .
The only downside to grading in photoshop is once finished with a clip the rendering is slow on almost any machine and it's not easy (though possible) to compare the previous and succeeding clip so you have continuity.
If your running a MAC desktop try to read all the specs for all of these programs and find the best and fasted video card you can afford. For PC, the options are infinite, including laptops.
Honestly, if your going to be grading 30 or 40 clips per video, or just a lot of clips, your better served going to a dedicated program like Di-Vinici, Speed Grade or even the ancient Apple Color.
P.S. Interestingly, with as many still photographers adding motion to their repretioire you'd think there would be a grading solution like lightroom, C-1 or Photoshop that worked as seamlessly without adding limitations and options on functionality.
Most still photographers can work photoshop, lightroom or even C-1 in their sleep, but they set down to use Di-Vinci and their head goes blank.
Really the best option, if you can afford it, is to develop a relationship with a good colorist. You can take frames from each sequence, color the single frames in photoshop to use for a guide, visit your favorite colorists with the instructions, match that. (obviously there are more instructions than that, but you get the idea.).
The biggest downside in motion whether your doing behind the scenes, or full blown videos with effects, is the do it yourself syndrome. You CAN do it, anybody can do anything they like and though I admire that attitude, if your a photographer/director/image creator, you'll spend so much time in post, even if your good and fast, when you really should be creating, shooting and getting out new work.
It's a fine balancing act and we've seen it with stills. With the first Canon 1ds for still photography, I use to laugh at the workflow. I was zoned in on the in camera jpegs so they looked good, would do a quick edit and drop them in a gallery, burn the gallery and put them online for the clients. For a three day shoot we could do this in a day or at most 18 hours.
It was a laugher and fun and much faster than the labs. In fact in most cities around the world I knew restaurant and club owners that would let me set on the balcony, drink espresso and use their wi-fi to upload. Big Fun.
Then with stills, everything became raw, the file sizes huge and all of a sudden each day's still shoot took three days to get the images edited, processed, corrected and galleries up on line. So from a ratio of 3 to 1 we went to 1 to 3.
That's the way I feel about motion. Unless you are just shipping raw clips, you'll be many many post days for every shoot day.
If I could, I wouldn't even touch a cam or a keyboard but only direct. I'd got my fav colorist, editor, sound tech and give instructions to them etc...but to be there I (we, for the most part) have to pass by the D.I.Y syndrome first and build a good work from there. I don't really see another option (unless the crew accepts to be unpayed as I saw in some cine prods nowdays).
Also, I think to do it ourselves for a while has its advantage because having been into the "fire" (post-prod etc...) I think that when it's time to outsource we know more what all the process really means and can comunicate much better with colorists and editors.
But it's true that to do something good, there are serious limitations in a D.I.Y config, and the time consumed is such that we can easily end with no life. And here we are: if software manufacturers would pay a little more attention to provide an intuitive and powerfull all-in-one tool, we probably could divide the time spent today in post by 2 and have time to fuck, go to the gym and take some chinese lenguage clases.
A LR or C1 of motion, why not? but then we will want a PS of motion because a LR is in the end too limited.
What really pisses me of with the Adobe's suite, but that's just me, is that it's in the end the same soup as always: 50.000 separated softwares with one zillion plug-ins...okay, with dynamic links or inteligent object but in the end, zillion interfaces and as much learning curves.
Have you ever tried to learn bloody After Effects? It's one of the messiest and less intuitive software I've ever seen. Avid, a non intuitive tool indeed, is a sweet joke compared to the AE mess.
Then on some: layers, on others, nodes, and I even have one Autodesk app wich is a combination of both !!...(so you have to master the both techniques to use it properly). No thanks! Where is this striking brunette I saw today at the pub? And the magic word I hear all the time with AE users is: plug-in. So not only is enough to have to deal with different softwares, but above as they are uncomplete we have to chase third-party little apps.
Why bloody RCX doesn't have advanced editing capabilities? That would be the end of the hassles. But all is cutted into peices. A little bit of this here, the complement there, and the complement of the complement over there. And to go from here to there and over there we need XML, EDLs, AAFs and his grandmother.
And then the Speedgrade, or Color apps...when it's not having to leave the editor to grade, we end with those very practical pop-up windows we never know where to place. Instead of the grading being fully part of the app and when we grade the interface would automatically switch to an adapted config, no: export, links dynamics and not dynamics, re-link and it's not called PP anymore but Speedgrade, or super-color, or Da-Vinci...tomorrow Dali or Velazquez.
Now we're going to be on heaven very soon with Raw video, when it will democratized. We'll have to add raw developpers in the suites. And a free ticket for one more gadget. Will it be integrated into the NLE? of course not. Nooo... Hability to set the (raw) source settings? Naaa...dream on. And wait the 4K, when it will be a must requierement, we're going to rock in post prod.
One word that I'd like to eradicate from the motion post jargon is this: suite. Because suite means fragmentation. I'd like to see union and simplification.
I think the wild west was a masonic master plan compared to the motion post. It couldn't be more messy and chaotic. It's not really the wild west but the stone age.