Photoshop Elements vs CS, the full version

[doc_w]

OK, a lot of people have commented and emailed that Photoshop is the

way to go. I still think I don't need the full Monte, hence my

earlier question about alternatives to Photoshop. Here is what I do.

Perhaps someone can tell me what I am doing wrong.

 

I have an Epson 4870 scanner, Epson R800 printer, a PC with XP, and a

Sony Trinitron monitor. Right now, I have Elements 2. I scan MF

(6x7) and 4x5 on an Epson 4870. I use the ICE feature to get rid of

dust. Sometimes, there is extra crap that I remove with the cloning

tool. Sometimes, I tweak the colour, and play with conrast and

brightness. That's it, that's all. For example, I don't remove power

lines because I don't shoot power lines. I don't put Aunt Maude's

head on Uncle Harry's body.

 

My scans look GREAT on the screen which I calibrated with the Adobe

Gamma software (not a colorimiter). My PRINTS look like CRAP. I

don't want exhibition quality, just half-decent prints, but I have no

clue how to get one with Elements 2. It is just too wierd and makes

no sense to me. Too many parameters.

 

Help.

[jtk]

Photoshop CS won't help your basic print quality. Consider it only after you've gotten beautiful prints with your current setup. I think its main advantage for SOME of us is that it can be used in a similar manner to a color enlarger...

 

Nobody needs more than the Adobe Gamma software to get beautiful color prints, especially not special profiles or extra devices.

 

I suggest you go back to the *most* basic Epson instructions and use them robotically...at least until you get good prints. If those basics don't get you there, you're missing a recommended step in the workflow. IMO

[dickhilker]

As suggested, follow Epson's suggested settings until you get a good print, then tweak your monitor's controls visually until it looks like the print. Simple, but effective enough for your purposes.

 

I agree that until Elements doesn't/can't do what you want to do, it will serve you very well and doesn't require learning a lot of things you'll never need.

[paul -]

Are you using Epson paper and ink, along with the appropriate matching settings in the Print dialogue window? Using paper and ink matched to the printer and printer settings, and using a hardware-calibrated monitor (I use a Spyder device, being one of the many who find Adobe Gamma to be useless), my prints are usually spot-on to what I see on the monitor.

[jmichaelc]

Are you profiling your photos to match your printer?

[steve_dawson1]

If your print output doesn't match what you see on your screen (reasonably, at least), then your problem is more fundamental than PS vs Elements. Sounds like a calibration or profiling problem.

 

I would start by going back to basics. Do you know your printer to be capable of quality output? The R800 is a very good model by all accounts, but if you've never seen a decent print from your particular example maybe you have a printer problem of some sort.

 

Then try re-doing the Adobe Gamma, or better still borrowing a proper device like the Eye One. Make sure you are using the correct Epson inks and paper, and are using the correct profile. As you say, too many parameters. you need to start eliminating them one by one.

 

You don't say what form of CRAP you are getting (color cast? Too dark? Too light? You send image of Aunt Maude to printer and get a picture of Uncle Harry out?). Tell us the specific problem, and what your print settings are, and probably someone here can help.

[bda]

I had been missing the capability of creating masks on any kind of layer in PE2, until I learned about this easy workaround: Let's say you want to selectively blurr areas of a picture. Duplicate the bacground layer. Between the two layers, insert a levels layer. Do not modify the levels. Its here only so you can use its mask. Apply a gaussian blur to the top layer. Group it with the layer below - i.e. the adjustment layer. Now you can paint into the mask and select where you want to remove the blur. You could get the same result whithout a mask, but it easier to make changes to a mask than to a whole picture.

[rj__]

I recently started a project in which I have to scan medium and large format negatives and transparencies and print the digital files on a continuous tone printer. Here are the four most useful things that I did, in order:

 

First, I read Andrew Rodney's new book Color Management for Photographers: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0240806492/qid=1126121236/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-3409061-7966233?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 There's a table of contents, and a good part of chapter one, on his website: www.digitaldog.net

 

Secondly, I bought the software and hardware necessary to calibrate my monitor.

 

Thirdly, I sat beside one of the guys at the lab I'm working with while he took four of my images, scanned them on a Creo flatbed, worked on them in Photoshop and, after we played around with two or three proofs of each image, printed them. In the process, I gained a whole lot of respect for Photoshop as a programme, and for the people who know how to use it to its full potential.

 

Fourthly, I bought two Photoshop books, Scott Kelby's The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers (a good introductory text) and Deke McClelland's Photoshop CS2 Bible (which lives up to its name). It's going to take time to learn Photoshop, but I have no doubt whatsover that it will be time well spent.

[virginia_sustarsic]

Don, I just posted a message about several photoshop elements 2 books I have for sale, let me know if you are interested. Virginia

[kevinking]

The problem I had with Elements was the inability to select profiles when printing. I finally got an old version 6 of PS and just by selecting the correct profiles (ADOBE 1998 - Epson specific IIC) my prints were much improved. Profiles are your problem. There are a few books that explain it but failed to work for me and the Epson 2200. I still do my editing in elements and print with the full version.

Kev...