Need for Photoshop?

[ericf1]

I have read several posts on the the learning curve and whether one "needs"

Photoshop. In a recent post, Mr. Atkins suggested that only about 5% of

photographers actually NEED photoshop. Given my respect for Bob's opinion,

and that of others that post frequently here, I thought I would get some feed

back on whether I am evaluating the purchase correctly. (At this point my

photography remains a hobby, with only the occassional paid portrait sitting.)

 

 

I currently use LR and love it, and so far it meets most, but not all of my

needs. Occassionally I need to retouch portraits and make localized

enhancements/adjustments to images.

 

I also use Photoshop Elements 5.0 which allows me to make the adjustments

mentioned above, but it has very limited capabilities in working with 16 bit

files.

 

I use a Canon 5d shooting in RAW 99% of the time. Based on what I have read,

by only using 8bit files I am giving-up some quality and the ability to make

corrections to the image before degradation begins to show. How much am I

really giving up, and how noticible will the difference be assuming the final

output is a 13x19 print.

 

I can take advantage of Education Pricing so I am looking at a $289 question,

not $649. I'm sure if I were to try hard enough I could find something on

which to spend the $$$$.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Eric

[KenPapai]

I graduated to fulltime Photoshop from a fulltime user of Paint Shop Pro. I had dabbled with PS since way back with version 4 but it wasn't until PS CS2 (ver. 9) two years ago that I 100% converted over to editing with PS. Part of that was due to the stupid change made to PSP with its version X release. Now I view PSP as a mere toy (it really is) as compared to PS for real, adult, professional work with the best pro support group (Internet/Web/videos/books) out there bar none.

[pico]

Photoshop is most useful for pre-press work and manipulation. If you haven't the need for

either, then Adobe Elements will suffice.

[ericf1]

Pico,

 

So if I am reading your response correctly, if my primary output is going to be a print, via Epson 2400, or from a lab (i.e. mpix) than there is no real benefit to working with a 16bit file in PS over an 8 bit file in Elements?

 

I don't anticipate the need for conversion to CMYK for commercial printing any time soon.

 

Thanks!

 

Eric

[will king]

You'll get a lot of Photoshop haters on this site but the fact remains; Photoshop is, bar none, the best photoediting software on the market. The possibilities are endless. While PS Elements is a really good tool, it still does not have enough features for me. Most importantly, it does not have channels like PS does. If you can get PS for less than $300, get it.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...if you can get PS for less than $300, get it....".....without a doubt!

 

I am not rich, by any means. I spend months figuring out the best compromise between quality and cost. Suffice it to say then, that I own a mix of Canon and Sigma lenses. I made the jump years ago from the lesser Photoshop editting software to Photoshop Full version.......and will NEVER go back!

 

I too shoot 99% of the time in RAW.....although that is changing recently due to the recent advancement in higher end P&S small digitals, and the need to shoot high volumes of pics for certain events.......anyhow, there is always something that RAW can't quite do........and PS is the only way to do it. Is there a real dif between editting in 8 bit and 16 bit........I have never done a side by side comparison.......but, the more information you have (ie 16 bit) the better it is......IMHO.....you have finer resolution, you have more variations of color. The tonal gradations seem to be more gradual in converted black and white images....although, again, I never did a side by side...............I don't pixel peep......just kinda go by what over a long period of playing around seems to impress me the most.

 

And, last but not least. You (you as in all of us) spend $1,000's of dollars on cams and lenses......some, every year......and then you balk at $600 that will last you for years. I really just don't get this.

[saltcod]

I'll be first to admit that Photoshop is THE most bloated software on the market. Having said that - I use it for the web and for print and would say that there's not a menu that I haven't used in the last month. There's lots of filters I've never used, but aside from that I use at least 80% of the features regularly.

It has at the same time lots of competition and no competition.

[mikep]

need? no

 

will it be the best software you ever came acoss and don't know how you ever survived without it? yes

[bobatkins]

Photoshop may be the best photo editor, bar none, but a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 may be the best car on the planet and I'm not buying one of those either. Granted PhotoShop is $650 and the Bugatti is $1,450,000, but the principle is similar! I'm not even forking out Ferrari F430 which in comparison is an absolute bargain at around $175,000.

 

I'd still say that 95% of all photographers don't need full PhotoShop. There are professionals who do, who shoot in RAW all the time, do editing at 16-bits and who are preparing images for commercial publication using multiple layer masks and special effects, but most professionals could probably do without it too.

 

However it's only $600 or so (plus around $175 every year or so for the update), so it's unlikely to bankrupt anyone (unlike the Buggati), so go for it if you think you absolutely need it.

 

If you are not doing huge changes during editing, 16-bits won't really give you much improvement or 8-bits. For small (normal) amounts of color, contrast, saturation and tone correction you just don't need 16 bits. That goes triple if you're shooting RAW since you'll be doing 95% of your major image transformations and adjustments during the RAW conversion process and you'll only be doing minor touchups on the resulting image. RAW works at the full bit depth of your image data (which is actually 12 bits for most cameras, not 16 bits), so you don't need 16-bit post conversion editing. Maybe if you are scanning film that needs a lot of correction and you have a scanner that delivers high quality, high dynamic range, 16-bit output files then 16-bit editing would be something to look for.

[r dyer]

Even in photoshop a good few of the filters or settings only work in 8bit any way. So it

depends on what your wanting to do, you mite have to convert to 8bit any way.

[jim_doty]

<p><i>"How much am I really giving up, and how noticible will the difference be assuming the final output is a 13x19 print."</i></p>

<p>For a lot of files, maybe most files, you won't notice much difference in a 13x19 print. However for some files (especially if you do major shifts with levels, hue/saturation, and/or channel mixer), 16 bit vs 8 bit is the difference between clean, smooth images vs banding and other digital gremlins.</p>

 

<p>If you are shooting RAW files with a 5D, it seems like a small step to me to pop for $289 for the full version of Photoshop.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[godfrey]

I now use Lightroom to process most of my work.

 

But when I need to make a detailed or selective edit beyond what Lightroom can do, the only

application that has the muscle to do what I want is Photoshop.

 

Godfrey

[wigwam jones]

I use The GIMP, cost; zero.

 

However, I run Linux and my options are therefore limited. I realize that The GIMP is not the most powerful editing tool out there, but it does everything I need it to do. The GIMP is also available for Windows as a free download too.

[godfrey]

The GIMP is also available for Mac OS X free of charge. AS it should be since it does not

support 16bit@channel editing or color management.

 

G

[nolan_ross]

I had PSE4 and was happy with that. I then came across CS2 for an excellent price and bought it. Now that I have it I wonder why it cost so much. I wouldn't bother with CS2/CS3 unless you have a specific reason or need that would require such an investment.

[bobatkins]

"For a lot of files, maybe most files, you won't notice much difference in a 13x19 print. However for some files (especially if you do major shifts with levels, hue/saturation, and/or channel mixer), 16 bit vs 8 bit is the difference between clean, smooth images vs banding and other digital gremlins.

 

If you are shooting RAW files with a 5D, it seems like a small step to me to pop for $289 for the full version of Photoshop."

 

That's true, but as I said above somewhere, if you are shooting in RAW, you should be doing all those major shifts (saturation, contrast, "exposure", sharpness, levels, curves, color correction etc.) via the RAW converter, not in Photoshop. Once you've done your major tweaking during the RAW conversion process, minor "touchup" tweaks can be done in 8-bit mode with no appreciable image degradation.

[godfrey]

Personally, I prefer to keep my workflow in 16bit@channel quantization from end to end as

much as possible.

 

G

[ericf1]

Gentlemen,

 

As always your thoughtful input is greatly appreciated. I will likely go the CS2/3 route in large part because of the significant support and learning tools available for CS2. During the 30 day trial I found that it was easier to perform certain tasks in CS2 than the work arounds that are necessary to accomplish the same thing in PSE.

 

In addition, because it is still a hobby, I don't have to justify expense the same way I would if it were a business :-)

 

Thanks again!

 

Eric

[jacob_brown]

"The GIMP is also available for Mac OS X free of charge."

 

And it has been recently recompiled and usable as an OS X native app, without requiring the clumsiness of running with X11.

 

http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2007-March/017587.html

[patricklavoie]

Bob_It is the first time i ear someone suggest sharpening in RAW development instead of in CS2? I think myself you have better control, more precise way of doing it in CS2, with or without a external plugin + the ability of using mask to enhanced only part of the image. I am curious about why you suggest it should be done in RAW. thanks.

[afs760bf]

It's too bad Corel took PSP downhill instead of continuing to improve. I was pretty happy with PSP8 (from JASC), but PSPX is disappointing. It will do RAW, though.

[phil_marion]

One's need for Photoshop cannot truly be determined by someone else. It really depends on the photographer's skill level, commitment to the craft/hobby, ability and desire to learn a difficult learning curve as well as personal finances. If photography IS your passion, if it truly pleases you to create the best possible images, you will dedicate the time to learn a new program and plunking $300 down for this isn't a problem - then get Photoshop. I suspect that if you forked out that much cash for a 5D, then this is they type of person you are buy it.

Photoshop isn't for casual photogs who just take snapshots, people on a budget or those who get annoyed at cumbersome programs with non-intuitive interfaces (initially). For these people there are cheaper and easier to use programs.

But I doubt you'd have bought the 5D if you were one who just liked to take snaps.

[corey_gardner1]

One side benefit for me as an amateur using Photoshop is that virtually every tutorial in books on photography are written for Photoshop so the backend support and learning is enormous. You can also buy or download actions off the web which increase productivity and helps you learn from others. Just some thoughts.

[ericf1]

Phil -

 

I agree with what you said an individuals needs not being determined by another. I was hoping to get(and did) a better technical understanding of what the impact be of having or not having photoshop. (i.e. implications of only being able to work with 8 bit files...)

 

Because of all of the support that Corey mentioned, I actually found it easier to move along the learning curve is PS2 compared to PSE. I know there are some out there that hate time in front of the monitor, but it doesn't bother me, and I like learning the new skills.

 

My PS2 is on the way as I can get the free upgrade to PS3 since I purchased after the announcement.