PSE 3 Shortcomings

[arnold_theisen1]

I just purchased Photoshop Elements Version 3 because if its touted

ability to handle raw files and 16 bit images. Much to my chagrin

after I opened one of my D70 raw files and tried to work on it in 16

bit mode I discovered that most of the editing tools don't work on

16 bit files. Specifically, the following tools won't work on 16 bit

images: Magic Wand, Selection Brush, Type Tool, Cookie Cutter, Red

Eye Removal, Spot Healing Brush, Clone Stamp Tool, Pencil Tool,

Eraser Tool, Brush Tool, Paint Bucket, Gradient Tool, Custom Shape

Tool, Sponge Tool.

 

When you try to use one of these tools on a 16 bit image you just

get a message that you shold consider converting it to 8 bits.

 

Needless to say, If I had known this before making the purchase I

would have saved my money, but none of these limitations are easy to

find out about in any of the literature I checked, including the

info on Adobe's web site.

 

Perhaps you can benefit from my experience.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I can't look it up right now but I believe that the info on Adobe's site says that the 16-bit support does not extend to every feature. I'm pretty sure you're right, though, in saying that Adobe does not publicize which features do and do not work in 16-bit mode.</p>

 

<p>Some of the 16-bit omissions bother me more than others. I rarely get red-eye, but if I do, I don't really care that I can't remove it in 16-bit depth. Red eye removal doesn't need that many bits to work properly. It would be nice to have the magic wand, clone, and healing tools work in 16 bits. I don't use the gradient tool, but it's a very obvious place where 16-bit support would be useful.</p>

 

<p>Another thing that doesn't work at 16 bits: Layers. Doesn't bother me much but I know that is a big one for many people whose Photoshop skills far exceed mine.</p>

 

<p>It's up to you how you want to work, but I can work around most of these issues. The most important things to do with as great a bit depth as possible are adjustments to things like levels, contrast, and saturation. All of these work at 16 bits. Some of the filters don't work at 16 bits, but many of the ones I use do. Once that stuff is done, you don't lose all that much by dropping down to 8 bits. If you're going to post it on the Web, it's going to be at 8 bits anyway. Some printing labs may accept 16-bit input; some do not (there was a thread here a couple of weeks ago which mentioned one lab which now only accepts JPEGs, which are 8-bit images). If you print it on your inkjet, can you really tell a difference between 16- and 8-bit images? I've never done a back-to-back test, but I doubt that I could look at a bunch of photos, some of which were printed at 8 bits and some at 16, and tell which were which.</p>

[aardvarko]

the point of 16-bit color is to allow you to do Curves and other tonal adjustments with the full range, and compress the values you want into an 8-bit range without posterization. do your tonal adjustments first, then convert to 8-bit. there is no practical benefit to working in 16-bit color for the majority of operations

[john_houghton]

It's also worth noting that the RAW plugin is less capable than the CS version. It doesn't have the very useful options for correcting chromatic aberration and vignetting.

 

John

[edward_h]

That sure is a sneak way of making money: impose artificial limits and then make those who want those extra (standard) features pay an extreme premium.

[janusz_mrozek]

Regarding Edward's comment, what is so sneaky about it? It certainly was clear to me when I was shopping, ultimately buying PSE3. As far as I am concerned, I am able to get much of PS CS power for well under $100. I can even get some more of that power by getting Hidden Power for a few more $$.

 

Similar product combinations are done all the time. Canon dRebel vs 10D. Any number of digicam lineups. Printers... So its not a sneaky way of making money, it is a well understood way of making money. I for one value having the option of the less expensive, less fully featured alternative - it makes things affordable! I could never justify the $$ on PS CS.

 

One way to interpret this is that Adobe is gouging for PS, another that they are offering up an inexpensive subset of PS for those of us who are less serious about our photography (and getting more sales and profits for themselves). What is your argument that the price of PS is too high (as opposed to higher than you would like to pay, which is a different concept altogether)?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'm with Janusz. I can't justify the enormous price of the full version of PS. If PSE3 didn't exist, I'd still be stuck with PS LE 4.0 (which came with my film scanner several years ago). I'd have no 16-bit support for any tools, for any filters, for saturation, for contrast, for highlights/shadows; only Levels works at 16 bits in that version. I'd have no noise reduction filter. I'd have no healing brush. I'd have no support for printing multiple pictures per page. And so on.</p>

 

<p>Obviously, if Adobe is going to sell one package for several times the price of the other, something's going to be missing from the cheaper package. It would be nice if they provided a laundry list of what's different but perhaps they figured that would unnecessarily scare off people who might not need all that stuff.</p>

[arnold_theisen1]

My intent was certainly not to start any kind of flaming contest, but simply to advise readers of my experience. I would be the first to admit that PSE is a great product at a reasonable price. I started with version 1, then 2, and now 3. However, my intended objecive in getting version three was to have an all-in-one package that would allow me to convert raw images, edit them in 16 bit and then archive them in 16 bit TIFF format. Especially frustrating to me is the fact that I can't use the speck removal or clone tools in 16 bit. I've already got one spot on my low-pass filter that will have to be removed from every shot until such time as I can get the filter cleaned. I can still work around the problem by converting from raw to TIFF in PSE 3 and them moving into Picture Window Pro for the 16 bit editing and speck removal. Knowing what I know now I would have opted for Nikon Capture (which I don't have) to do the conversion and PW Pro (which I do have) for editing because I already have PSE 2 to handle any 8 bit editing needs. I also like to print with the contact sheet and picture package features of PSE2. As it is, I'm now looking at a more complicated work flow.

 

The moral of this story: Caveat Emptor.

[aardvarko]

but don't you see? once you've done tonal conversion, there is NO difference in print or screen quality between an 8-bit and a 16-bit file. the file is sent to the printer driver as 8-bit data, regardless! it is pointless to do cloning in 16-bit.

[arnold_theisen1]

Thanks Chris. That makes the issue less of a concern than I thought. I've never seen a reference that identifies which edit functions will distort the histogram and which won't.