Photoshop Elements/Premiere Elements

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Babula, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Eric Babula

    Eric Babula Guest

    I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
    for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.

    What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
    At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
    than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?
    Or, conversely, what features does regular PS have that PS Elements
    doesn't. Is it THAT much better, that I should spend $600 for it? Why
    would I use one of these programs over the other?

    Are these two pieces of software worth getting, for a hundred bucks? I
    just looked at the Adobe website, and ran thru the little video clips,
    and they both seem like very cool tools. But, I know there's a lot of
    marketing behind those videos, so I don't necessarily trust that they're
    as easy to use and powerful as the videos claim.

    I'd like to hear from those of you who have experience with PS Elements
    and Primiere Elements, vs regular Photoshop.

    TIA,
     
    Eric Babula, Jul 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hey, there are things in Elements 3 which are not in Photoshop CS2. I read a
    review of CS2 and while it kicked Elements but he kept referring to cool
    things that were in Elements 3.
     
    Dave R knows who, Jul 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Babula

    Bill Funk Guest

    I still use PSP and PS Elephants 2

    I've tried Premiere Elements (I got it for free as a giveaway at a
    conference); it will only recognize video it's imported. Any video you
    already have will not be compatible.
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 7, 2005
    #3
  4. How is that spell checker working? :)
     
    Dave R knows who, Jul 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Eric Babula

    Ron Hunter Guest

    PSE3 has a photo organizer, which makes keeping track of your pictures
    easy, and a couple of features that aren't in PhotoShop CS, but if you
    need the 'hard core' editing features, then PSE probably isn't for you.
    IF your needs are less stringent, then you might find PSE3 a great
    value. I certainly do.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 7, 2005
    #5
  6. PSP is far more a competitor to PS. In fact Adobe was forced to integrate
    features into PS such as .gif and .jpg optimizers, vector shapes, vector
    drawing abilities, and an image browser because so many PhotoShop 4, 5, 6, 7
    customers were complaining that PSP (since forever I think) had all of them
    and more.

    Elements 3 doesn't even come close to PSP 9 in terms of advanced features
    like curves, adjustment layers, vector drawing, and a slew of options to
    enhance workflow including scripting and recording. PSP 9 is by far the best
    value [both price wise and ease of use wise] on the market for web graphics
    work, and is still an exceptional value for home and small business usage
    and printing. For highend illustration and editing going to printing [for
    glossy mags, posters, and areas where precision color is needed] CorelDraw
    12 will do, or Photoshop in combination with Illustrator are still best.
    Let's face it though, nearly one of those professionals is ever seen in
    public newsgroups, they're too busy making big bucks to bother. The rest of
    us are getting pleasing results using PSP and printing at home, plus going
    to a good print lab for those special print projects that need more than a
    home equipment look.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Eric Babula

    PanHandler Guest

    'Elephants' would have passed a spell-checker; it's spelled correctly.
     
    PanHandler, Jul 7, 2005
    #7
  8. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I've read that PS Elements 2 (which
    I'm using, haven't tried 3) has about 85% of the features of PhotoShop 7 in
    it. Whatever the case, I think it's got more than enough features for the
    average user, although I'd like it better if it had a curves feature as
    well.
     
    Paul Fedorenko, Jul 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Eric Babula

    Don Stauffer Guest

    One of these hard core features that the full PS has is an unmatched
    ability in doing pre-press work such as color seperation negatives.
    This work is needed if your work will be reproduced on a printing press
    (not a computer printer).

    Most amateur and occasional photographers will never need these
    features, but if you are regularly submitting photos to be done on
    printing press, as with magazines or newspapers, PS does the best job.

    However, for occasional shots sent to a magazine, the mag's staff can do
    a pretty decent job on a file you send them.
     
    Don Stauffer, Jul 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Eric Babula

    Bill Funk Guest

    Just fine.
    Did I spell "and" wrong? :)
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 7, 2005
    #10
  11. << Snipped bits out >>

    PS Elements makes a lot of sense for the person who may carry his or her
    profession, hobby, avocation, vocation, whatever, to the next level. The
    learning curve alone makes Elements the right choice, as the transition
    to PS CS is all the easier. Not everyone, of course, will want to move
    past the basics.

    And PSP is Windows only.
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Elements exists because of the pressure PSP was placing on PS and declining
    sales (don't forget the pirating of PS is huge), ask anyone in the know at
    Adobe. Adobe shot itself in the foot though becausue if it places too many
    advanced features in Elements than its PS users will get upset, and new
    potential customers will see no sense in wasting $600+ another $400 for
    illustration software). . Thus the reason for important features like Curves
    missing from Elements....but they are in PSP, as are Adjustment Layers,
    Levels, Black and White points, and the unbeatable Background Eraser. Corel
    PSP has it all, at a very low price with no concerns of putting too much in
    PSP. PSP can only get better and the price has always been more than fair,
    and support excellent. Adobe and support is like a circus elephant without
    peanuts...not nice at all.

    Since the difference between PSP 7 and PSP 8/9 is night and day I'd suggest
    your few day trial of the version you're not sure of means very little. Try
    again with PSP 9.

    Your other points are moot since your argument is based on misinformation.
    It is a shame you gave up so quickly on PSP, but frankly a real professional
    uses all tools available to them in combination. More professionals have PSP
    installed on their machines all the time because there are things PSP can do
    easier/faster than PS, and even some features that PS just doesn't have that
    are super handy and effective to graphics design. The same holds true for
    press work, PS has things PSP doesn't, yet...

    It makes sense to have both, but Elements a competitor to PSP? Not even
    close. Adobe will have to add more features from PS and that's not going to
    happen any time soon.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Both points are fair enough arguments against PSP in the past, and lesser so
    now. Both arguments are based on low percentages since the 'masses' far out
    number those who will go pro and actually 'purchase' (not pirate) PS, and
    work on Mac. Last stats I saw about a year ago indicated that Macs hold only
    16% of the market and declining. In fact I read a while back that several of
    the larger image editing (including 3d animation) companies in light of
    increased competition from what used to be peons, were placing Mac
    development on the back burning for new software (whole new product not
    updates like version 8 to 9 of existing software), and existing Mac software
    versions were being developed last [after Windows version] if and as time
    and money permits. Heck in a few years all the big companies will be falling
    to knew printer technology is my guess (althoug one company has foresight
    and is already developing 'in device' image editing software. The next 5
    years will prove interesting for new technology and trends I think.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Oh sorry, forgot to say why your points are moot. PSP has never (as far back
    as I can recall) had problems opening 16-bit images, images with embedded
    profiles, or aRGB because PSP has always just stripped the image's gamut
    prior to displaying it. In PSP you work in sRGB (most frequently used color
    space in modern day...backed my most equipment available). Why your images
    didn't open probably had a lot more to do with your save configuration in
    PS, or the known issue of PS (up to version 7 that I know of) improperly
    recording the image data at time of saving. Most people who only use PS
    would never notice, but the weakness becomes evident PS saved images are
    used in non-Adobe software. Some have argued this is done on purpose to
    discourage the use of other software to maintain company loyality.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 8, 2005
    #14
  15. To quote from a review "Finally, while PSP can read and save Raw file
    formats, it does not support 16-bit channels."

    Right, but your claim was that PSP would not open 16-bit TIFF images or
    images with embedded profiles, all of which is not the case. It opens them
    fine, always has as far back as I can remember. Yes it is 24-bit color
    depth, 8-bit channels. That doesn't stop it from opening 16-bit though.
    I understood exactly what you wrote, you may however miswrote what you
    meant. It is clear you indicated PSP could NOT OPEN 16-bit tiff files. I
    Turns out the big strike is simply operator error and not a big strike at
    all. PSP stripes out all embedded profiles and displays the image using the
    sRGB gamut. Which embedding the starter images contains makes no difference
    as far as I know, but then again I've hardly tried every single possible
    profile embedding option out there for every possible hardware device.
    If we wanted to get picky you may notice that PSP does not have built in
    conversions from one color space to another so therefore PSP does not
    convert the open image to sRGB or 16-bit to 8-bit. That doesn't actually
    happen until you save the file in PSP. The image just exists initially, but
    really isn't any bit-depth.

    You may also want to read up on aRGB cause you're sure to find it ain't what
    it used to be with the onslaught technology now available to the masses.
    sRGB has taken the limelight for the very large majority of users and
    manufacturers of hardware.
    Right ... and you don't see the problem with that?

    Not at all for me and most likely the masses of digital photographers. I
    have little if any use for 16-bit. PSP does a great job correcting my photos
    (though mine require little assistance as 90% of the time I'm spot on
    getting the right settings in camera for the shot. For the 10% needing
    correction I do those during RAW conversion to save time. Out of all the
    image editing programs that offer 16-bit (and there are many including
    GIMP!) few users indicate using it, and those ewho claim they do seem to
    know very little about why and how they use it. Again I can't tell you the
    amount of times I've heard someone brag about PS's 16-bit and how valuable
    the feature is, yet they have no idea that that so valuable feature was all
    messed up in PS CS, and that previous to PS 7 16-bit functionality was very
    limited. CorelDraw offered far more in the way of 16-bit. Adobe is only now
    catching up.


    I hate to break the reviewer's bubble, but there isn't a flock of digital
    camera manufacturer's jumping on the aRGB bandwagon. In fact I believe there
    are new standards just touching the surface that is about to take over as
    industry standard, though I've not researched this new color space yet so
    I'll say no more. In terms of aRGB my understanding is that fewer and fewer
    people are using/recommending the use of it.

    PSP does monitor and printer calibration perfectly fine as long as you have
    custom or generic profiles. Anyone serious about color profiling isn't going
    to depend on software and eye spotting to create their profiles anyway (not
    even PS. Plus AdobeGamma is the biggest joke if there ever was one for a so
    called 'professional's software. After years of using it in the highly
    priced PS Adobe has finally stopped recommending its use, and now offers
    better options.) Most who are serious about color matching and profiling
    will use hardware specific to calibration, color profiling.
    90% if not more of the digital camera owners out there have equipment that
    is only able to capture and print in sRGB color space. PSP is spot on for
    all of them. PS is simply overkill that they don't understand anyway.
    The images were correctly displayed as sRGB images which 90% of the
    equipment supports. Very few poeple in newsgroups have invested the
    thousands of dollars a printer supporting the aRGB gamut would cost them,
    nor do they own monitors that support that color space. That may change some
    day but in the past it has only been professionals who made those large
    investments because they knew they would get their dollars back. The average
    user will be printing in sRGB and capturing in sRGB whether they toy with
    aRGB or not.

    Elements 3 that still doesn't have the highend photo editing features you
    mean? Curves missing should pretty much tell you it is a toy at best.
    I've not had this problem, nor has not being able to open 16-bit images been
    raised as an issue in the forums over the years. Lots of people have
    requested 16-bit support, but when asked why they wanted it and how they
    would use it, few were able to justify adding it. Now that Corel owns PSP
    who knows what will happen though as Corel is much further a head in
    developing software specific to the print industry than Jasc was. Also PSP
    was developed as a web image editor. The rest was just throw in, and Adobe
    did some serious scattering trying to catch up to PSP in the web area. (at
    one time PS didn't even have image slicing, image mapping, and gif and jpeg
    optimizers. Users actually had to purchase separate product, and later Adobe
    threw in Streamline to shut the users up.) PS and Elements still don't have
    full vector drawing support and likely never will since it would cut into
    their Illustrator sales.
    The error is still on your end because nobody else has problems opening
    16-bit tiffs in PSP. It is not necessary to even have PS on your system.
    Like why develop software whose major selling feature supports what the
    minority user? Of course PSP focuses on the usage of the masses, it would be
    business suicide not to do so.

    More people use RAW than you think, else there would not be the mass
    onslaught of RAW Converters appearing on the market. I think the REAL Point
    and shoot fans (meaning bargin basement as close to throw away digital
    camera as you get) don't use RAW for shots they want for keepers to print.
    dSLR sales are down, down, down, far below what all the big names expected,
    but even those who have a dSLR still need to invest top dollar in a printer
    to support aRGB and in a monitor that supports the same. I really don't hear
    that many people complaining about sRGB being used in PSP and in fact
    outside the serious professional print industry it really isn't an issue. To
    each their own though, and like you've indicated you need the high price
    spread. I don't. With the fortune I save not having to upgrade PSP and
    Illustrator I simply buy more camera goodies.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 9, 2005
    #15
  16. How has sRGB changed? Did someone enlarge the color space? PS handles
    sRGB just fine, but doesn't force users into it.

    Because it is the default choice of the "masses", does that give it some
    imprimateur?
    Not everyone who frequents this NG is part of your masses. Many of us
    think for ourselves, see the advantage of 16 bit processing, but may not
    need it at times. Many of us are learning, and if we don't have well
    balanced color management now, we hope to in the future.
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Public newsgroups like this one are not filled with professional designers
    or photographers whose output is their living. Again most of the masses who
    hang in public newsgroups are everyday Joes, and whether they think for
    themselves or not, do photography as an interest as opposed to a career. The
    masses have no use for 16-bit because their home equipment doesn't support
    anything but sRGB gamut anyway. The main point remains though, PSP is far
    more a competitor to PS than it is to Elements 3 which in my opinion PSP
    tramples all over even though it uses sRGB only and has CMYK color
    separation on at time of saving.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 9, 2005
    #17
  18. This newsgroup?? This one? I'd not care to characterize it, and
    certainly not as you have done.

    I am not one to say PSP is a piece of garbage; it isn't from all I have
    read, but it's a dead end for those who do need to eventually go onto
    the full Photoshop. Its platform limitations are a drawback as well, but
    there'll be a number of the masses who would never change or dream of
    changing OSes.

    BTW, have you had more than a passing relationship with PSP- ie,
    employee or contractor of any sorts?

    Have a good day.
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 10, 2005
    #18
  19. If you haven't characterized this group you would have no opinion on my
    assessment one way or the other. Since you seem so against my assessment
    based on years of observation/reading I can only conclude the obvious which
    is you have done more characterizing of this group than you care to admit.

    Also, nothing I said was negative. I simply indicated results of
    observations over the years of reading here, and that is that not many if
    any professional photographers (as in making their living from their photo
    work) do not hang around this group. I didn't see anyone rushing to tell me
    I was wrong in my observations. If you feel there is something sinester
    about a group composed of hobby and amateur photographers then it is you
    that needs to deal with whatever struggle that fact causes for you.
    Yes, I do contract work for several software and hardware companies which
    has anything to do with anything we are discussing.
    I always manage to, hope you do too.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Eric Babula

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Actually, there are a lot of professional photographers here. Often
    their condescending comments, and their 'better than you' attitudes, and
    their 'know it all' posts make the group less useful than it would be
    without them. Perhaps you have missed the lengthy discussions about
    wedding photography, and the highly technical discussions about light,
    lenses, and battery life. Unfortunately, I haven't.

    Sometimes I wish there were a group that allowed ONLY non-professionals,
    but then there is the exception to the rule who actually contributes
    useful information without the 'attitude' and make the group more useful.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.