PW pro VS Photoshop VS Photoshop Elements

Ok,

 

I've got the Epson 4870 which can scan at 48 bits up to 4800 dpi (I

can't imagine I'll ever use anything higher than 3200, top

resolution if like other recent Epsons, is more like half the

spec). Currently I'm using Elements 2 (PSE), which comes bundled

with the scanner. Of course PSE can't handle 48 bit. Full

Photoshop is just to pricey for this home shooter. I've used the

trial version of PW a few times. It's a little weird, but usable.

One thing that bothers me though is that you seem to be working on

the native image with your adjustments (I may be saying this wrong)

while with PSE you use layers which don't change the base image.

It's my understanding that using layers is the better way to do

things.

 

So the question is, does that ablility to use 48 bit out weigh the

inability to use layers? Is the there a workaround in PW, maybe

even saving two images, one un adjusted, one adjusted? Has anyone

compared prints adjusted in full PS to PW and seen any difference in

output? Any one have a copy of full PS they can sell for $100? 8*)

(just kidding)

 

Sorry for all the recent questions, you're all going to rue the day

I decided to get serious with my images!

 

Jeff

Jeff:

 

This isn't the way Picture Window works.

 

Before I go any farther, I just want to praise PW one more time, it's the greatest image editing package out there and has a unique way of working.

 

When you give a command in PW, it performs it on a copy of the image and does nothing to the image you start with. You must save the new image in the old one's place in order to loose it. This allows a careful history to be kept.

 

Layers are the way of working in PhotoShop, not a technique independent of it. Unless you're doing pre-press, PW will be fine.

Unless you might want to change your mind about a shadow a few days after you edited a

picture, PW is fine...

 

I've used PW during abot a year, thinking PS was overpriced, overkill. Yeah, right. With PW,

changing your mind means redoing the whole thing.

I think the way PW works is you combine two images together into a new image instead of having them on layers ineracting. What you loose is the dynamic updating of layers, which although useful, might be a bit less useful for photography than graphics arts applications. The workflow of PW is organized around a digital darkroom metaphor rather than a photo-compositer like photoshop is. For most tasks that involve the manipulation of images themselve PW has much more advanced implementations than I have seen in Photoshop, one of the most impressive being the exceptional histogram functionality and it's perfect blending with the curves functions. In a worst case scenario you could simply use Paint Shop Pro for the more complex compositions, sure you'd be stuck with sRGB and 24-bit color but that really isn't as bad for some things as people make it out to be. Once you've done the major color and contrast manipulation in 48-bit, 24-bit isn't all that bad.

<I've used PW during abot a year, thinking PS was overpriced, overkill. Yeah, right. With PW, changing your mind means redoing the whole thing.>

 

Not if you hold on to your 'intermediate' images in PW - yes this takes up a lot of HD space - about the same as an un-flattened PS file, with all the layers intact.

 

When using PW, keep these TIFF files -

 

1. Original scan/ RAW file

 

2. Spotted and cleaned file

 

3. Your preferred crop

 

4. Color balanced/ corrected

 

5. Levels/ curves corrected

 

6. any other manipulations

 

7. Your final image

 

Burn all this onto a CD in a folder for the particular image - you can then go back to any stage and make further corrections anytime. You can probably get 6-10 'image in progress' folders on a 650Mb CD

 

PW also has the advantage of personal support from the author - when was the last time you had an email to Adobe answered authoritatively and in detail within two hours ?

 

PW Pro software for PHOTOGRAPHERS + instant support - $89.00

CD & excellent white papers + comprehensive manual - $10.00

2-3 day (vs. rest-of-your-life!)learning curve - PRICELESS

 

Hope this helps

<I>does that ablility to use 48 bit out weigh the inability to use layers?</i> I know it's expensive, but with Photoshop CS you can have your cake and eat it too - sort of - at least it now supports using layers with 16 bit images. When I bought my Epson 2450 ages ago, it came with PS Elements and an upgrade to the full version of PS 7 (at the time) for around $250 bucks. CS has some other useful features too, not the least of which is the new file browser and RAW converter. Best wishes . . .

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE: LIGHTZONE from Light Crafts, Inc.

 

I would suggest you take a look at Lightzone. After beta testing Adobe's Lightroom I skipped it and an upgrade to Photoshop CS3 in favor of Lightzone after I finally went digital with the Pentax K10. The main advantage to Lightzone is that it works like a digital metaphor for the wet dark room. Lightzone is currently priced at $250 for the full version (with the image file manager). Lightzone like Adobe's Lightroom and Mac's Aperture work with "sidecar" files for all the edits so your original image is never touched...only a few kilobytes are needed for extensive edits. I am also finding the raw conversion in the latest version of Lightzone to be excellent.

 

All that said I also use PW PRO as a back up to Lightzone for the instances when I need perspective correction or need to use masking techniques.

 

The combination of the PW PRO plus Lightzone is about half the price of CS3 and ultimately more flexible that Photoshop, for me at least.

 

David