PSE10 or CS5?
View Single Post
14-06-12, 02:55 PM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Originally Posted by
Geoff I saw this vid and assume its the direct content aware editing tools thats missing rather then content aware local adjustments. Either way what I read was miss leading.
If your file is open and set to 16bit then just about everything other then "effects" should be 16bit. I nearly always work in 8bit thought as like you say whats the point currently.
Jonny The curve tool in LR3 I thought was excellent and very easy to use so I ega to see how its improved but from what you say I doubt its worth it.
OP - What Jonny says about using PE9 to its limits is a good point, it will not be long til you have out grown PE10
Ah, so there's a lot more to CS's own 'Content Aware' editing than is shown in that video? Fair enough. I, too, think I need to go for CS, for other reasons......
As a long-time user of PS Elements (albeit only as far as version 6, because nothing later offered worthwhile improvements - or simply didn't run on my XP machine) I've always been a champion for it. As President of a photo club I've always been 'tapped' for advice on all things photographic and up until now I've recommended PS Elements to all people new to the world of photo editing, saying, "Unless you're a graphic artist or you need the other parts of the 'Creative Suite', PS Elements can suit the needs of 90% of photographers".
Unfortunately, putting the pros and cons of PSE10's tools aside (though I think they're sufficient for a vast majority of users - apart from the 16-bit thing), the major deficiency for a serious photographer is the deliberate reduction of capability of its Adobe Camera Raw.
When you think about it, it would be simpler and cheaper for Adobe to have just one stream of ACR on the go - the full CS one - rather than make two standards of the same software. It didn't used to be different, and Elements was therefore only slightly lagging behind CS. But the Elements version has stood still for two or three years now and the full version has at least trebled in capability. It's obviously just a marketing ploy to create a bigger divide between the two products - and to get the serious photographers who use Elements to notice the difference - so more people will be tempted to buy full CS eventually.
I know a lot of people use versions of CS that have 'fallen off the back of a lorry'...... but if you only counted half of its users as paid-up, registered owners........ what would have been the income to Adobe? A Billion dollars? More?
Last edited by GeoffWessex; 14-06-12 at
View Forum Profile
Send a private message to GeoffWessex
Find all posts by GeoffWessex