Software questions for a Mac

[kerry_grim]

My son has recently purchased a Canon XTi and he is currently using the

supplied Canon software and an older version of Paint Shop Pro. I will also

purchase a digital camera but before I do that I am considering going back to

Mac as my Windoze 2000 computer (spelled that way on purpose) is getting dated.

 

I am currently considering buying him a Mac laptop, either MacBook or MacBook

Pro. Naturally we prefer the Pro but do have to consider costs. In addition, I

would purchase a 20" Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel) that he could hook

up to for working with photos, and eventually I would also purchase a MacBook

or MacBook Pro and we could share the monitor.

 

My main questions are regarding software. Naturally, the smartest thing to do

is use the supplied Canon software and see if this does what my son and I want.

However we are curious of the differences between Photoshop Elements and

Photoshop CS3. We are not professionals and do not intend on selling

photographs but do want good editing software and take great pride in obtaining

the best possible photographs.

 

What are the major differences between Photoshop Elements and Photoshop CS3?

Is CS3 overkill for the prosumer? We do not mind the leaning curve.

Could CS3 legally be placed on two laptops from the same household? Maybe more

fair to ask Adobe. If we could do this, I could live with the fairly expensive

cost of the software.

Should we also consider Apple Aperture although reading the forum, there seems

to be a high hardware requirement?

 

All comments regarding the software as well as computer choice are greatly

appreciated.

 

And please...this is not a which is better...Mac or PC, so I do not want to

start a debate on that.

[marc_rochkind]

I think the Adobe license allows it to be put on two computers, but not for use by two different people. (Not sure... that's my recollection.)

 

You should consider Lightroom. It doesn't do the pixel-by-pixel processing of Photoshop, but is a much more useful all-around app for image processing. Much cheaper, as well. You could then add Elements to the mix if you needed some pixel processing.

 

I wouldn't use Aperture because of its history of supporting new cameras very late or not at all. Someday you may get a new camera.

 

--Marc

[pico]

In my humble opinion, CS3 is overkill if you aren't doing pro work. Its particular features that are not in Elements concern pre-press work and some other features you will not miss. Besides, if you do eventually go to CS3, you can bite the bullet then or upgrade. Elements is so reasonably priced. The Canon software is "kinda neat": it is aimed to please for some easy projects. It serves to attract new photographers to the technology.

 

You are not allowed to have two copies of one license running simultaneously, but people do it because Adobe does allow activating on two machines so that people can do their day job, then do more work at home on a separate machine. But it ain't legal to run two at once. (Consider it like a book. One user/reader at a time.) The only other misunderstood EULA concerns the educational version which cannot legally be resold - the license cannot be transfered.

 

My wife is a pre-press professional, magazine layout, design and word editor. We got her a MacBook Pro for home. She is very happy with it for the work she does outside of the day job. I strongly recommend the "glossy" screen. It is not really glossy, but it is bright edge-to-edge.

 

Well, that's my two-bits worth. You are a very generous Dad!

[robert_brake1]

You've managed to hit all the quandaries!

 

I don't know about Canon but I removed my Nikon software within hours of installing it.

It, along with iPhoto, was fighting something terrible with my newly installed PSCS2 at the

same time as I was in the learning curve from PC to Mac. I have heard from many sources

that Nikon's own raw converter is excellant and I may give it another chance as I have

another Nikon with an unused trial. Point being Raw conversion from the camera

manufacturer might have advantages.

 

I don't know about "family" licensing from Adobe. As I understand it, a laptop is seen as

an extension of a desktop and is allowed. I'm also interested in feedback on this point as I

will be adding a desktop most likely when Leapord is introduced and my laptop will

become strictly a travel machine.

 

Which brings us to computer choice. PSCS3 has a lot of new functions, the chief among

them is "smart filters" or the ability to layer an adjustable filter such as "sharpening" or

"blurring" or even a combination of the two in different masked out layers and have the

ability to return to a layer later and make an adjustment that will then be reflected and

adjusted for, up through subsequent layers. Pretty powerful trick but demanding lots of

computing power. I can get this sort of thing to work on my G4 laptop with 1.25G of RAM

but extremely slowly. I think you'll want all the processor you can get to take advantage of

all that PSCS3 can do.

 

Then there is the learning curve for PSCS3. It is high and will become a project unto itself

but with great payoff. I went with PSCS2 when I started digital as Aperture and Lightroom

had not been released yet and the Elements 2 I was familiar with was nowhere near the

program I wanted. When I first started I thought it was way overkill. That thought still

resides a bit in the back of my mind but I am now very comfortable with it and have been

using the Beta of PSCS3 exclusilvely since it was released, minor bugs and all. Adobe

managed to hit (with CS3) right where I was going as an amateur photographer--fantastic

b&w support, the "smart filters" and the "stacks" or grouping ability in Bridge. I will of

course, buy the upgrade without any hesitation as that is the path I am now on and still

will not use 80% of PS's capabilities.

 

Which brings us to Lightroom and for me the biggest quandary. For me (I played with

Lightroom all through its Beta period) Lightroom would be a perfect program as it does

most of what I'd like except the ability to "Softproof." and that is what sets it apart from

PS.

 

When I started digital I thought I would be content having my images in digital form and

sending out what I wanted printed. (with film I had my own b&w darkroom and color was

sent out) That was the real turning point. I was not very happy with any of the color

processing I had done and b&w was a complete disaster. So down the path of inkjet

printing I went. I've finally gotten there with dedicated b&w and color printers and that

took printer/monitor profiling and the ability to softproof. My gut feeling says Adobe left

softproofing out of Lightroom to keep it in the realm of PS as that is a make/break point

for controlling your prints. Essentially that is what I'm willing to pay the extra 400 bucks

for. If Lightroom had softproofing I'd recommend it in a flash. There may still be another

program out there that combined with Lightroom could give you that capability. That

would give you everything I think you need. The smart filters are great and time saving

but that alone to me is not worth the extra 400 bucks over Lightroom.

[godfrey]

I would also recommend basing RAW conversion, image processing and photo

management around Lightroom to begin with, and adding Photoshop Elements or other

image processing software (Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, GraphicConverter, etc) for

additional

detail touch ups.

 

Lightroom and Photoshop licenses allow installation on two systems per license, with the

proviso that only one will be active at any given time. It's meant to provide a single user

the ability to have the software active on a pair of machines, not to provide two users

access with a single license.

 

Personally, I prefer the matte screens (I also prefer matte finished prints...!) but they're all

good. ;-)

 

Godfrey

[godfrey]

Robert,

 

While the ability to soft proof is useful, I found that once I had developed a consistent

calibration and printing workflow, I stopped doing it entirely. What I see on screen is

rendered out to the printer with very high fidelity to the degree that I find doing

softproofing irrelevant. This changes when I change papers and have to do a calibration

test, but then I just work in Photoshop and get that done. Once I'm back in Lightroom with

the output calibration finalized, I don't need it anymore.

 

Soft proofing remains particularly useful when I'm going to send things out for volume

printing, however. Then I do my basic setup and adjustments in Lightroom and export into

Photoshop CS2 for finish editing and soft proofing, send the work out from there.

 

Godfrey

[robert_brake1]

Godfrey, I think you're probably right especially if one stayed with a few papers and was

willing to spend some time getting familiar with those papers within Lightroom. I went down

the softproofiing sideline when I took on a large restoration/archiving project spanning 100

years. I found myself using almost a dozen papers trying to stay truthful to the tone and

texture of the original prints, everything from Albumin papers to modern lusters. That got

me hooked on the influence of the paper on the final printed image, although I have to say

I'm now working back to a small handful of papers. But in my case I've already made the

investment in profiling equipment and other resources so I have the luxury of playing with

papers at will. How valuable that is to someone else is debatable.

[godfrey]

:-)

 

That's the sort of project the *demands* softproofing if you want to do a good job. Yes,

for that Photoshop is essential.

 

I standardize on two-three papers, max, and have developed my calibration and workflow

specifically for them. Only when they go out of production/new stuff that looks interesting

comes up do I need to revamp things.

 

Godfrey

[kerry_grim]

Thank you all. These are great responses and excellent advice. I looked at Lightroom on the Abobe website and that looks like a product I will strongly consider in the furture as my son and myself ease into digital. No sense in starting with Photoshop as I could consider that at a later date if needed. Thanks again.

[beckyh]

I use iPhoto for my initial download off of my camera. I shoot almost entirely in RAW,

because it allows so much more fine tuning of the image. iPhoto drops the original,

untouched images into a folder and then does its own automatic jpg conversion. This is

great for quick pictures of the kids that I want to email to Grandma, and it is a very quick way

to preview what I've got. If I want to work on them, I simply open the original file in

Photoshop. I realize that this doesn't answer your "which Photoshop" question, but I wanted

you to know that iPhoto can be a valuable tool as well. It also has some basic editting tools.

You might want to play with it before you decide what other software to purchase.