Photoshop vs. Elements

Tattoo wrote on 12/3/2006, 1:56 PM

Wondering whether I should get Photoshop CS2 while I still qualify for the academic price (~$300) or whether PS Elements 5 would more than suit my purposes. Is there any advantage to using the full PS versus the Elements version for use in Vegas 7 & DVD 4? Is the full PS very difficult to use, as the Miss will be using it, too? I'm currently using PSP 8 and thinking it's time to update a little. I've read the other thread on PS alternatives ... just wondering the practical differences between the big & little Adobe brothers.

Brian

Comments

fldave wrote on 12/3/2006, 2:03 PM

The biggest thing I miss is the enhanced batch processing funtions. Elements lets you convert entire directories of files to other formats and sizes, but no effects can be processed. Granted, I am using Elements 2.0, and haven't used Photoshop in years, so not sure how extensive the batch effects processing is in the newer versions.

monoparadox wrote on 12/3/2006, 2:08 PM

I just upgraded elements 3 to 5. I have a hard time imagining the full blown product could add much more for photo/video work. I especially like the selection wizard. Making masks is a breeze.

Coursedesign wrote on 12/3/2006, 3:19 PM

The masking is much better in Elements currently.

I suspect you'll always be able to buy a full CS2,3,4 etc. on eBay for about $300.

Hulk wrote on 12/3/2006, 3:32 PM

I agree with the poster regarding the batch functions. I'm currently using Elements version 3 and there is some limited FX processing for batches but not enough to really be useful. I'm looking to upgrade to 5 and hopefully It'll be better in that regard.

I try to "pre-process" before I snap the shutter making sure lighting, ISO, f-stop, and other exposure settings are right. I don't get the thrill out of tweaking in Photoshop that I used to. Now my goal is to take pictures that require as little post-processing as possible. Elements does the job for me.

- Mark

douglas_clark wrote on 12/4/2006, 1:38 AM

I have both PSE3 and PS CS2. Still using PSE3 for the family photo database and quick fixes, but fire up PS for more creative stuff. PS CS2 has presets for video formats, non-square pixels, etc. which PSE3 does not have. I don't know about PSE5.

Douglas

Avene wrote on 12/7/2006, 4:46 PM

I now have Photoshop Elements 5. I used to use version 1, and the new version does so much more. I've had a play with CS2, and it didn't really offer much more, considering the work I do. Definitely not worth the extra money. For print work maybe.

Check out www.hiddenelements.com - I've been reading the book, and the author says there isn't really any difference between elements and Photoshop CS2. He uses both the same way, but developed his methods using Elements, which are apparently more productive than how he used to do things in Photoshop. The book comes with a bunch of plugins for Elements that will provide you with extra functionality such as channels editing.

For batch processing, I'm not sure. Haven't got into that yet.. Although Cinepaint maybe a good program for that, but I think it may only run on Linux.

MEP wrote on 12/7/2006, 8:42 PM

Does Elements allow you to create Alpha channels and separate them?

Tattoo wrote on 12/8/2006, 7:09 AM

Sounds like a lot of votes for Elements. Strange that Adobe enables & disables different features of Elements with each version. Thanks for the point to that book/website - looks good. Hopefully he'll come out with an Elements 5 version soon.

Brian

DGates wrote on 12/8/2006, 12:55 PM

I'm still using my measly Elements 2. I've entertained the idea of going to the full version of Photoshop, but never have. I'm currently also fiddling with the trial version of CS2. It's pretty spiffy, but not worth $600 imho.

What I like about PE2 is that it's the same GUI as the full version of Photoshop. So when I do play around in CS2 (trial version), there's really no learning curve. But the newer versions of Elements are not the same GUI, and if you upgraded to CS2, you'd have to learn your way around all over again.

fldave wrote on 12/8/2006, 6:20 PM

I also use Elements 2, it does most of what I need.

However, on my dual PIII machine, it is the largest resource hog on that machine. It insists on updating the software every time I launch it. It takes about one full minute to normally launch the program. On the occasion that it applies updates, it has taken up to five minutes to start the program. And I don't have a large number of fonts, as that can bog down many programs.

Horrible end user experience. Are all Adobe programs like that? I know that Adobe Reader is almost as bad on that machine.

(I know, upgrading that old workhorse to a dual core AMD soon)

DGates wrote on 12/8/2006, 8:35 PM

That's funny, Dave. I had a similar experience with PE2 on my older PC's. It took forever for the program to open, to save the project and to print.

But switching to the Core 2 Duo pretty much changed everthing. It opens quick, saves quick and prints immediately. Granted, my older PC's are 3 and 4 years old, so that was a factor as well.

fldave wrote on 12/8/2006, 8:59 PM

That's funny also, DGates! If I had a Core 2 Duo, I doubt anything would be slow!

Seriously, Elements ran fine at first about 2-3 years ago, I think their launch/update process is way bloated, it seems to have to re-evaluate every update since the program was released, which seems like every day.

Now, it is unmanageable. I hate to have to launch Elements these days. I usually launch it before dinner...