PSE10 or CS5?

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by JonnyM

CS5 without a doubt. I used CS4 till it stopped working and reluctantly purchased PE10 as that was all I could afford. Evidently a backward step as I knew it would be, just for starters there's no Curves adjustment layers; no 16bit mode; Convert to Black and White is very limited; no Channel Mixer; no 'Soft-Proofing'; ACR is lacking and so on.

Okay you get what you pay for but I wasn't fully aware of how much I'd miss some of the things i've listed, but I was just getting used to CS4. If you've never used CS4/5 then you may not want or need some of its capabilities. If you've exhausted PE9 then I doubt it'll take long for you to do the same with PE10. For me though I'm saving frantically for an upgrade.

I did look at Lightroom's latest version but correct me if I'm wrong but it can't run on XP.

In theory, it can run on XP...... in practice, most computers that still run XP are just too under-powered by the processor and can't use the extra RAM that Win7 (and Vista) can use. (I think XP just can't use much more than 3Gb). So while LR3 can 'operate' on XP - you can't say it 'runs'...... crawls, perhaps, but not run!

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by LaPistola

Geoff it wasn't he liquidiser I was referring to it was the transform warp. According to Adobe when I looked content aware editing wasn't available in PE. I looked about a month ago to see if PE was worth adding to my arsenal of software pondering whether the PE UI would speed things up. I never bothered.

JonnyM just looked and Adobe say LR3 will work on XP with SP3 installed. LR4 will not.

The link I gave above shows a video of Content-Aware healing - I don't know if it's a cut-down version of what CS5 gives, but it's definitely there (from PSE9).

I'll take your word about Puppet Warp - I've no idea what that is.

Otherwise, I'll stick with my problem about the ACR in PSE being severely cut down - disabled, even - in comparison with its big brother. Then there's the very limited capabilities with 16-bit images.

So, a question for CS5 users........... how much 16-bit editing can be done?
Everything except a few older filters? Layers?

(There's a school of thought that says that 16-bit editing is irrelevant if a print is the final goal....... because even the newest printers still only work in 8-bit....... makes you wonder, really - we can usually get 12 to 14-bit Raw images and we want to make the best of them, so a 16-bit Tiff will give best quality - but it seems pointless unless only using very high quality - and very expensive - commercial printing).

[JonnyM]

Yes there are workarounds to 16bit files in PE10 but it's a bit of a pain. Likewise is running a program that 'crawls' when I'm used to running, or jogging atleast. LR3 runs on XP, LR4 doesn't.

LaPistola, I think the differences are marginal but they are: the cost (as I'm not upgrading); 'Soft-Proofing' which I've needed quite a lot recently, PE10 does not have this tool; and, apparently, better controls for exposure(Highlights/Shadows/Whites/blacks} and better Tone Curve control.

What this means to a person who already uses LR3 I don't know.

Going back to the OP if you can afford CS5 I believe that's the best option and not the Teacher or Student options either, unless you are one of course. It will give you plenty of tools to use later on if you need or want to but PE10 will not, it will restrict you. As I said earlier, if you've exhausted PE9 it won't take long to do the same with 10.

[LaPistola]

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

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by LaPistola

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?

[LaPistola]

Oh yes CS5 has some amazing content aware power.

A billion only needs 1 million users to have paid £100 each so yes I would say more. I have been using PS since it was Macromedia MX I have normally upgraded after 6 months of a new one becoming available. God knows how much its cost.