CS3

[wedding-photography-denver]

I have downloaded the beta and am currently testing it. It was released earlier

today by Adobe labs.

 

Looks like it will be good if they can address the bugs.

 

Are any of you using an Intel Mac that care to comment on using if for your

processing?

[matt_k1]

3GHz Mac Pro with 2GB of RAM

<p>

just downloaded the CS3 beta tonight and started trying it out.

<p>

I'm not usually easily impressed, but this universal binary version just FLIES !

<P>

I'm guessing Apple is going to see a bump in Mac Pro sales soon with a bunch of G5's

hitting the used market.

<P>

With CS2, a dual G5 felt a bit faster than the Mac Pro which was a little dissapointing. But

now there's no comparison in terms of speed. Things that would take a few seconds are

now almost instant. Also files open much quicker, whch is a little surprising since I

thought a lot of that was disk activity.<p>

I also think I kind of like the subtle look and interface changes. ACR has also incorporated

a lot of LightRoom functionality. I actually hope to not really use Bridge/ACR much and

just use LightRoom when it officially comes out in a couple months.

[j_c38]

The RAW converter is awesome. So many tweaks. Basically its taken their new light room and made it their RAW converter. Overall some nice tweaks to the layout.

 

This is one version I would pay the $150.00 for a single version upgrade. The RAW converter is well worth the upgrade.

 

Once again, Adobe as shown why they are king of the post processing software!

[steve_bingham]

Beta indeed! Here are a few problems with Bridge running a PC (Core2 Duo E7800, Asus P5W DH Delux, 4 gigs, Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT)

 

With this same system PS CS2 runs great - has since day one. I assume there is a web site somewhere to send this stuff to. I know CS3 really makes the Mac fly, but there is not that much difference on my machine. And yes, a Beta version is a Beta version. I understand that. Over at the Adobe forums I tried to find forum dedicated to CS3 bugs. Not up yet, only a generic CS3 site. So I post and wait.

 

Bridge, as usual, seems to be the problem. Among other things, it is a royal pain to convert all my old raw files to thumbnails. Seems it wants you to select them first. Then I found out that I could only select a few at a time (I was doing 8) rather than the entire folder. Yikes. I am sure there MUST be a better way.

 

Partial layer problems. This one offers NO explanation.

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71729415.jpg

 

Another totally weird selection.

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71729488.jpg

 

Same here.

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71729711.jpg

 

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71729796.jpg

 

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71729855.jpg

 

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71729939.jpg

 

Or it won?t even make a thumbnail or an image. But it will OPEN!

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71730007.jpg

 

Or sometimes it never even converts the small thumbnail. Like this blurry example.

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71730007.jpg

 

Or omits an entire layer. Like this.

http://www.pbase.com/steve963/image/71730097.jpg

[hugh_croft]

Why is Lightoom a separate prog. from PS?

[Brad_]

<I>Why is Lightoom a separate prog. from PS?</I><P>

 

More revenue for Adobe.

[Uhooru]

On Intel iMac it opens much quicker,probably because OSX doesn't need to open the Rosetta layer first. Everything is snappy, unfortunately, I can't get my other brand plug-ins to work their probably not Universal. Its those other plug-ins that take the most time in CS2 so Its difficult to compare speed differences, except to say the filters and adjustment really fly.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Why is Lightoom a separate prog. from PS?</I><P>Because it is built very differently.

[Uhooru]

There's a great selection tool that is bundled with the magic wand,that makes selecting/masking so incredibly faster and easier than ever before, I will buy this just for that alone and the time it saves, truly amazing. I'm just hoping that it won't cost me too much to update the plugins I rely on.

[Brad_]

>> Why is Lightoom a separate prog. from PS?

 

>>>Because it is built very differently.

 

I don't understand that answer. If desired, it could be built so that a photographer does

not have to drop into ps for things that are missing in Lightroom.

 

 

Lightroom gives you frontend (asset management, RAW conversion, etc.), middle

(exposure, curves, cropping, toning, sharpening, etc), and backend (printing, slideshow,

web display) tools.

 

There's no reason why what's missing in the middle, such as layers,

filters, etc., could not be inlcuded yielding a single integrated program. Other than than

the benefit of customers needing to purchase two programs.