Elements 3.0 vs Photoshop CS2

[larry_allen1]

Hi folks, I'm trying to decide between Elements and CS2, I've

searched everything I can and it looks like the main differences are

that Elements doesn't do curves and doesn't handle CMYK printing.

So, I would like to have curves but am not sure I really need it.

Two, do any of the commonly used printers Epson R1800, 2200, 2400

need CMYK? This would help me make a decision, as you know CS2 is a

bit more money.

 

Thanks

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Take a look at this site. I bought the hidden Power of Photoshop Elements book. I now have curves in Elements! Works great and I don't feel like I'm missing much by buying Elements.

 

http://www.hiddenelements.com/downloads.html

 

Robert

[jbq]

For me, curves is the killer. CMYK isn't needed to print on desktop printers.

[steven_clark]

Most printers use RGB input instead of CMYK. Really there's very little point in direct CMYK output unless you're making seperations.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Elements has limited 16-bit support. Some of the tools work on 16-bit images, and some don't; ditto for filters. Layers don't work on 16-bit images.</p>

 

<p>Elements has very limited support of colourspaces. You can edit in Adobe RGB or sRGB. When printing, you can tell it the colourspace of your target device and it will do the right thing. But that's about it. You can't, for instance, convert a file from one colourspace to another, so if you have an Adobe RGB file and you want to send it to a lab that doesn't handle Adobe RGB (and most consumer-oriented labs don't), you're stuck. There is a trick that supposedly works (open a second document in the destination colourspace, make it the same size as the first, paste the first into the second as a second layer, then delete the first layer); I haven't tried that and it seems awfully cumbersome. There's no soft proofing.</p>

 

<p>That sounds very negative, I suppose, but it really shouldn't be a problem for a lot of hobbyists. I really wish it handled colourspaces properly so I could use my DSLR's Adobe RGB support, but I can live with sRGB since, for the most part, that's what the output devices available to me can handle. It does enough stuff at 16-bit depth that I don't really mind having to convert down to 8 bits for some stuff; I convert down to 8 bits when I'm finished editing anyway, and as long as I've fixed up things like levels, contrast, and saturation at 16 bits, I can deal with it. There's no way I'm going to spend all that extra money on CS2.</p>

 

<p>You can download trial versions of CS2 and Elements from Adobe's Web site, so if you have a good Internet connection, you can give both a try and see if CS2 offers enough useful (to you) stuff to be worth the extra pile of money.</p>

[Greg M]

Curves (the lack of) originally was my main complaint about Elements 3.0, but now I also use Layer Masks so much with CS, and Layer Masks are not available in any version of Elements. Today (to me at least), the lack of Layer Masks is as big an omission as Curves.

 

My girlfriend owns Elements 3.0. I have tried it on her computer and did not particularly care for how it took control of the whole process when I tried downloading some images. Tried creating subfolders and putting the files somewhere other than where I wanted them to go. I guess for someone new to the whole process it is a good thing, but I'd rather just do it myself.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You really should look at the Hidden Powers for Photoshop Elements 3 book. it adds in Layer Masks, Curves, ad a lot of other tools.

 

Robert

[jbq]

Robert: I had a look at the page you mentioned and there didn't seem to be anything close to curves (and when I see a page that pretends to simulate infrared photography from an RGB picture I tend to not trust anything else on that page). I have PSCS anyway (and I do not have PSE3) so it's not super-relevant for me.

[larry_allen1]

Thanks for all the good information and timely responses.

 

Larry

[eric_perlberg]

Something you really should consider is that Elements doesn't support soft-proofing and doesn't allow convert to profile.

 

This presents 2 major problems:

1) Soft-proofing is an essential tool in a colour managed workflow. If you're buying a top printer, you need a fully managed colour workflow or you're likely to waste time and money and get very frustrated. Soft-proofing essentially allows you to see what your print is going to look like before you print out. Without it, you don't know the real affects of using curves and levels, etc (and by the way, you need to hardware profile your monitor). No point in buying a sports car with a windshield/windscreen painted black so you can't see out or in this case, no point in buying a good printer if you don't support it with the right tools. This in ability to soft-proof alone makes Elements fatally flawed except for Walmart/ASDA level work.

 

2) Convert to profile is essential for preparing files for the web (and has other uses). Although you can still use "Save for Web" to compress your files for the web, it will compress them using the colour space they're in (or maybe strips all colour space info, I can't remember). If for example you're working your images in Adobe RGB, your web images will too often look substantally different and less good if they aren't first "converted to sRGB" using convert to profile and then using Save for Web. If you plan to put up images anywhere on the web, this is another fatal flaw.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>Although you can still use "Save for Web" to compress your files for the web, it will compress them using the colour space they're in (or maybe strips all colour space info, I can't remember)</cite>

 

<p>SFW strips off the colourspace info (there's no EXIF tag or embedded profile to suggest what colourspace was used), and as you noted, it does <em>not</em> convert to sRGB, which is the de facto standard colourspace for the Web. So the colours you see in the resulting file will <em>not</em> match the colours in the original.</p>

[tom_swanson]

Actions actions actions actions actions actions! Elements 3 does not support actions. Once you've used actions you never want to be without. (Convert to srgb, resize for my web page, pop up smart sharpen, pop up save dialog. Whee! One click and away I go.)

 

Hiden Elements 3 is not as useful as it was under elements and elements 2. But it still helps.

 

Smart Sharpen and HDR are very cool

 

Every tutorial on post processing assumes full photoshop. You can break your brain sometimes trying to figure out how to translate to elements. (Eaiser with elements 2 than elements 3.)

 

All that said you can still do everything with elements 3. (Not HDR or smart sharpen.)

[richard_lynch]

I realize I'm about a year late, but no one invited me to the discussion.

 

Larry said:

 

> I've searched everything I can and it looks like the main differences

> are that Elements doesn't do curves and doesn't handle CMYK printing.

 

Not everything. using Hidden Power you can make CMYK files with Elements and use

curves (elements 1, 2, and 3) or substitute Gradient Maps (elements 4)

 

Tom S. Said:

 

>Actions actions actions actions actions actions! Elements 3 does not support actions.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole of the functionality in elements is built

on referenced actions. All of Hidden Power is actions. You just would have great difficulty

creating them in Elements (notice, I am not saying it is impossible).

 

> Hiden Elements 3 is not as useful as it was under elements

> and elements 2. But it still helps.

 

I beg to differ. 60 tools come with the elements 3 book rather than 40 for elements 2,

techniques are enhanced, and there is a white paper on the website (http://

hiddenelements.com) telling how to install actions. The book for Elements 4 has 100 tools

and the organizations and techniques are stronger still.

 

> Every tutorial on post processing assumes full photoshop.

> You can break your brain sometimes trying to figure out

> how to translate to elements. (Eaiser with elements 2 than

> elements 3.)

 

My Hidden Power books have nothing to do with Photoshop and are all advanced

techniques for ELEMENTS users. It could be that many tutorials on the web will be

Photoshop based because it has been around longer. HOWEVER, if you have the right tools

(which I provide with the book), you should be able to approach any tutorial for

photoshop. if you get bogged down in having to use the specific tool mentioned, then you

will get stuck. if you are ok with substituting (for example, gradient maps are a different

way of accomplishing exactly what curves can), you can get through. it is a matter of

looking at what you want to accomplish, rather than looking at the tools. i can do anything

I do in Photoshop for image correction using Elements--in fact I changed my image

correction techniques based on how I use elements, and improved what I do in both

programs.

 

Eric said:

> Something you really should consider is that Elements doesn't

> support soft-proofing and doesn't allow convert to profile.

 

You can convert with the right techniques...I spell them out in my books. You don't need

soft proofing with the right workflow (use sRGB, not Adobe RGB).

 

> If you're buying a top printer, you need a fully managed colour

> workflow or you're likely to waste time and money and get very

> frustrated.

 

For beginners I have found the exact opposite to be true. Color management is not

something you should just adopt without thinking, as it is likely to lead to more problems

rather than less. Adobe RGB workflow is for those who are comfortable correcting color

that they can't really see on screen. sRGB is safer, potentially more intuitive, and less

prone to problems when a profile is dropped (as can happen when you send files to a

service). What you really need to do is establish a workflow where you calibrate, create an

accurate profile, learn how to correct images and balance color, and make intelligent

choices when testing files prior to making final prints.

 

> Soft-proofing essentially allows you to see what your print

> is going to look like before you print out. Without it, you don't

> know the real affects of using curves and levels, etc

 

While soft-proofing has its place, I don't think that is true that you can't visualize the

results you will get without it. RGB on screen will always be slightly different than the

printed result in CMYK, but good practice will make up for that almost entirely. Color is so

much more sophisitcated than it was several years ago when these ideas were more true.

it used to be that you had to convert to CMYK, now that can even lead to trouble as many

services assume RGB--and you get a double conversion. The best way to approach it is set

up a tested workflow...

 

See this online course:

 

http://www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/RIC01.asp

 

> no point in buying a good printer if you don't support it with

> the right tools.

 

True, but why buy a printer when you can print at a service and use machines that cost

close to the price of a house that no one can afford to use at home? I don't even use a

home printer.

 

> Convert to profile is essential for preparing files for the web

 

true, if you use an AdobeRGB workflow. There are few times I think Adobe RGB makes a

difference that would not be had using good correction techniques. Mostly I use an sRGB

workflow and images look equally correct in print and on the web. here, nor there, you can

make the conversion if you know the right techniques.

 

The 'flaws' are not in the program, but in the mindset of approaching the program.

Photoshop is a specialized tool that some people need. beginners don't need to adapt

Photoshop technique to Elements, they need to embrace and use good Elements technique

which may have nothing to do with how you do it in Photoshop.