PHOTOSHOP

dragonfly designs 56 · #1 2010-03-21, 7:38am

OK, I want to get this, is there a certain version that is better than others? This is the best photo software, right, and what everyone here uses? I currently have vista, and would use this for things like adding logos, making my own backgrounds, etc. I have a good camera, but do alot of other things with my photos.

Mike Jordan · #2 2010-03-21, 8:47am

It depends on what you have in your computer. I have CS2 because when I bought it it was the highest version that would run on Windows 2000. CS3 and CS4 needed XP or higher. Now that I'm running on XP I've not had any reason to upgrade. Also, like most programs, the more disk space and ram you have the better they run, which each version needing more and more of each. You should have at least 2 gigs of ram but if you have 4 gigs it will take advantage of it for scratch files as well as letting you run other programs when you run Photoshop, no matter what version you run.

Other than that, it just depends on what features you are looking for.

Mike

ukiacat · #3 2010-03-21, 11:20am

I have a very old version of Photoshop that I use (Photoshop 6). For all my bead photos I use a very small range of the program. Just so you know, many people here use Photoshop Elements. It's a small version of Photoshop which seems to do most anything you need if what you want to do is edit photos for online sales or even for magazine ads.

The Photoshop CS programs run somewhere around $600. The Photoshop Elements program are much less than that. I think they're about $100 but Costco and other places sell them for less.

You might want to post a question about Photoshop Elements in the Bathroom, where it will be seen by more people more quickly if you want feedback.

MerryFool · #4 2010-03-21, 1:45pm

I do everything on Photoshop CS2...(I think before that I had Photoshop7?) and I'm on the Microsoft XP os.
...from resizing pics and watermarking them to creating ART directly on the computer using my Wacom Intuos tablet.

Here are a couple examples of what I've done with mine:
Photo Manipulation, Art directly Created, Resizing and Watermarking Bead pics

Feel free to ask me if you have any questions once you decide on which version to get.
Here's a link from Adobe about Photoshop's anniversary! 20 Years of Adobe Photoshop

debkauz · #5 2010-03-21, 7:10pm

I have CS3 and Elements 7 both on my computer. I find that I use elements and not CS. Personally, I think that you should be doing most of your work with your camera/set-up. Editing programs are there to assist but don't make up for bad photography. Spend your time and money on learning to use your camera and not on an editing program.

redbearmountain · #6 2010-11-26, 12:47pm

I agree with debkauz get your manual out and learn your camera. Thats what I did and it really helped me. Now I do very little editing! Gimp is a free program and it's just about the same as photoshop and photoshop elements! Another secret is the lighting, it's all about good lighting and it doesn't have to be expensive. Those two things helped the most with my pictures! Niya

InsaneIrish · #7 2011-04-25, 11:57am

Photoshop is the Graphic Industry standard program. To be honest, it may be more powerful than you really need. However, if Photoshop is what you are really wanting, then buy the full version of CS3 or newer(CS4 or CS5). The reason is that CS3 and newer versions support RAW photos.

In your higher end DSLR cameras (canon, nikon) there is a photo setting called RAW. RAW has the MOST manipulative aspects. It makes the pictures much larger in file size, but, you have drastically great manipulation control in photoshop.

Cosmo · #8 2011-04-25, 12:45pm

Any version of Photoshop will do what you need it to do. I buy every new version of software when it comes out because I have to, and honestly I can't see any real difference. There are little things that make life easier, but the core functions have been the same from version 5 when I first started to CS5 which I use now.

Mango · #9 2011-04-25, 3:58pm

InsaneIrish has it right on. CS3 and up and you will be fine. RAW support is an especially important feature that will give you the highest image quality.

Mike Jordan · #10 2011-04-25, 4:46pm

If you don't have XP, Vista or Windows 7, you can't run CS3 though. A while back when I was going to upgrade from CS1 to CS3 I saw that and at the time I was still running Windows 2000 on my work computer so just updated to CS2. It does everything I need right now. I have always used other tools that I feel work better to convert my raw images to 16 bit tif, so it's not a problem not having it in CS2. And I saved money just getting CS2 rather than going to CS3 as well. And just like Windows, each upgrade comes with more blot and features to eat up memory and slow down your computer, so staying back a version or two also has it's advantages if you don't need all the latest automated ad ons.

Mike

Cosmo · #11 2011-04-26, 5:59am

Raw format is fine if you need it. 99% of the people out there don't need it though. You can do most everything you'll ever need to do in .psd format.

InsaneIrish · #12 2011-04-26, 6:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Raw format is fine if you need it. 99% of the people out there don't need it though. You can do most everything you'll ever need to do in .psd format.

I'm going to disagree with this. Only because I believe this advice should be more focused at your average avid photographer and NOT at THIS type of photographer.

Most people here are looking for tips and tricks to make macro photographs of their brilliantly colored and detailed beads look better.

RAW format gives you the most information to work with while putting all the major photo manipulation sliders on one screen. Yes, you can do most, or at least simulate most of the features of RAW with other tools in CS. But, many don't have the same precision and they are not as easy to use.

Don't forget CS3 is dated by 2 earlier versions. So, you should be able to pick up a copy fairly cheap. And honestly you will probably find copies of CS3 easier than CS2 or earlier now anyway.

Cosmo · #13 2011-04-26, 6:38am

You're welcome to disagree. But, the majority of people (especially the people that don't own Photoshop in the first place) will be overwhelmed by working in RAW format. Think about the majority of editing you do to photos. Contrast, levels, saturaiton, etc. All can be done from .psd format.

Now, I'm not talking about what a professional photographer would be doing (because, let's be honest, if someone is a professional, they aren't on here asking for advice), I'm talking about what your average person in their living room is doing. They are wanting to take pictures to post online. I'd bet that the majority of them will never be printed to film or plate. And even if they are, they don't need the RAW format. I have been in the graphic design business for 22 years, and since the advent of digital photography, I'd say probably 99.5% of the photos I've been sent have been plain old RGB .jpg files.

I'll say it again... RAW is fine. You just don't need it for most of what you will do to photos.

InsaneIrish · #14 2011-04-26, 7:21am

I guess I see it differently. I see using RAW as being EASIER. Most of the manipulation options are all on one screen in slider form. From color correction, exposure, fill, vibrance, saturation, et al.

For digital photgraphy, most cheaper digital cameras only shoot in .jpg. But, the more expensive DSLRs will shoot in tif or RAW. If someone has the DSLR that will shoot in RAW, why not use it? The wide spread use of Digital Cameras have very much blurred the lines between "professional" and "amateur" Photographers.

Cosmo · #15 2011-04-26, 7:24am

RAW may be easier to people that use it all the time. But, consider the OP here. She has never even used Photoshop. Or if she has, I'm betting she hasn't used it much. So to ask her to 1) learn a new piece of software and 2) learn to work with an unfamiliar file format (and one that her camera may not even use) is a lot to ask, especially for pictures bound for the internet.

Mike Jordan · #16 2011-04-27, 4:05pm

I've been shooting in raw since about 2003 when I went digital. My whole work flow is geared towards shooting in raw and I almost never take my camera out of raw+jpeg mode. After about 100,000 raw images (and 4 terabytes) I've taken over the years, I know the benifits as well as the down side to shooting raw. With that said, I agree with Cosmo. Most non-professionals and even a lot of professional photographers wouldn't know what to do with a raw image if their lives depended on it. A lot of software today will process raw images automatically with very little input from the user, which is how a lot of people use it. Shoot, even I, who know how to get every bit of image information out of a raw image will use the automated process a lot of times because it saves me time. But just because the auto processing programs are available, does not mean the average person knows how to use raw or even why you should use it and when.

If a person has control of their exposure, light and color balance, they can shoot in small size jpeg and get brilliant images that work just fine for the web. I wouldn't recommend shooting in small jpeg, but if you shoot in high jpeg, make sure your color balance is set and get your exposure correct (or at least pretty close) you can copy the images from your camera to your computer, add a little contrast, a little sharpening, crop, size, upload to your web site and you are done.

I do agree that you need some kind of white balance calibration target though. White paper will work, sorta, but with the chemicals and bleach that most paper has in it, cameras don't see it quite the nice bright white that our eyes do. A white cotton tee shirt, white coffee filter (un-used) and a few other white objects will work better than paper. In a pinch, black works also or something that is close to 18% gray... if you know what percentage the gray is of course. I have a number of things I've collected over the years. I even got one black/gray/white card out of a Kodak lighting book that worked good.

Besides advising people to learn their cameras inside and out, the other advice I can give that will help with exposure is to learn how to use the histogram in your camera. I can set my exposure in my camera using flash, sunlight, incandescent or some other form of light with just my histogram on my camera. It's not as quick as using a flash meter or light meter, but I can make adjustments on the fly by just looking at the histogram on an image. If the histogram is too much to the left (under exposed) I open up the shutter a bit. If it's too much to the right (over exposed) I close down the fstop a bit. Once you learn what it's telling you, you will wonder how you ever got along with out it. The same histogram information works in photo editing programs as well to tell you how well you did with your exposure. You don't want to have to adjust the exposure outside of the camera any more than you have to because when you do, you affect the quality of the picture. The closer the image is to perfect out of the camera, the better it is.

Mike

Conrad Hoffman · #17 2011-04-27, 9:34pm

Mike has shot way more images than I have but I do a bit of commercial work and agree with everything he says. If you white balance properly and use your histogram for exposure, a good jpg is all most people ever need. I compared with RAW for a while and concluded it just didn't buy me anything if I did my part of the job correctly.

Photoshop is certainly the industry standard, but I find Paint Shop Pro does everything I could possibly want, and for way less money. GIMP is reasonably powerful, but I could never get comfortable with the user interface. There are others like Irfanview that can do a lot, but not quite as much as I sometimes need.