PS2 to PS3 upgrade worthwhile for PC users?

[robert_ades1]

I don't do really sophisticated manipulation in Photoshop. Most of my work is

either done in Camera Raw or DxO (which has the BEST B&W converter WITH GRAIN

that I've seen). I also make extensive use of Bridge. Photoshop is for

finishing up images before printing, that the other programs can't resolve.

 

PS3 is a $200 upgrade, and as far as I can tell, there are a few nice additions,

including a newer interface and changes to Camera Raw. However, reading Adobe's

website, it appears that the greatest benefits are for Mac users using Intel

processors. But for us PC people, the benefits appear more marginal. I would

almost rather use that $200 toward getting a better (i.e., larger) LCD monitor.

 

One thing that does bother my about CS2 is that my the help menus get corrupted

(happened twice so far). The other bothersome points are that Bridge doesn't

offer a backup utility, and the Import from Camera function is a little sloppy.

 

If there are vast improvements in Bridge, or the core Raw converter, then the

$200 would be worthwhile. If the money principally gets you a nicer interface

and a few minor additions then I might stay put.

 

Inputs and comments would be appreciated.

 

Robert Ades

[denisgermain]

What???? Features are the SAME on both...

This new version is faster on both systems if you use an Intel Dual Core... that's all!

 

Yes it is worth it - but don't buy a software upgrade for a new interface!

[adw]

Im an intel mac user and it simply FLIIES on my macbook pro, so very worth it for me. However I agree with you and think this time round you might be better off upgrading to a colour-accurate 20 inchish monitor.

[William Kahn]

On my PC/Windows XP, CS3 starts up and loads images much faster than CS2 did. Bridge is greatly improved, and there are several new features, like "Black and White" in Image>Adjustments, that are really excellent. Worth it? Oh, yeah! The only problem I had was getting prints to center on the paper with my Epson 2200 printer. I understand Adobe is working on that, and their workaround is OK in the meantime.....

[lheusinkveld]

I upgraded to PS3, and I have to say I am underwhelmed. Bridge is definitely a lot better, and faster, and I might consider the upgrade is worth it for that alone. The new ACR I am not so sure about. I was looking forward to the additional adjustments available, but I am so far unimpressed, waiting for a book on CS3 by Kelby to see if I am getting it right. I am sure there are other improvements that make it worthwhile, but so far I have not found them. Certainly there is not the dramatic difference I got when I upgraded from CS to CS2.

 

The issue with the Epson 2200 printing off-center is most annoying, and I would appreciate knowing just what the workaround is William?

[michael_bradtke]

I am using Cs3 on a XP pro

CS3 is faster, Bridge works better and the new ACR is way better then with CS2.

 

Look to see if you can download it as a demo. Find out for your self if it works better on your machine.

[William Kahn]

Louise, First check the "center" option in the CS3 print dialogue. When you go to the Epson Printer Preference dialogue, click on the "Page Layout" tab. There, instead of checking "centered", check "Minimize Margins". You'll get a warning banner about possible degrading of print quality at the bottom edge, but that doesn't appear to be a problem. Not exactly intuitive, but it works. If you select "Print Preview", the preview window will show that the ##$%^& offset has been corrected - or not, if it's still there.

 

Now, I have to find a solution to use with my 1280, which doesn't have a "Minimize Margins" option.....

[michael_mcblane]

Save your money. Mine crashes. Is not faster. Wait till they get it ready for prime time. Even the Adobe gurus/promoters/employees? say that you have to be a fool to trust new adobe software when it first comes out.

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17054

 

 

Michael

[William Kahn]

Right. Except this isn't new software, but an upgrade to existing software. Except for the aforementioned printing glitch, it works fine here.....

[kelly_flanigan1]

With ancient photoshop one didnt even have versions for the IBM PC folks; or layers; or even curves, or browsing, or support above 8 bits. To say <i>this isn't new software, but an upgrade to existing software</i> is like saying windows 1.0 is like Vista. Photoshop is a 17 year old program. Some of us spent 700 bucks for 16 megs of ram just to do pro work; a buddy spent 1000 bucks for 16 megs of ram.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is no rule that one has to buy each new version; just get what you need. Here with digttal cameras with raw; Cs2 and Cs3 are used. Here I usually get each new version but it might be bought for just a few boxes. The older versions are never deleted; often its quicker in the heat of battle to use an older version; then one can dabble with the new stuff on the new version when one has the time. The browser "bridge" here in CS3 is nice.

[robert_ades1]

Some posters above mentioned a problem centering images on the Epson 2200. Does this also impact the 2400?

[William Kahn]

It wouldn't surprise me. I had the problem with two Epsons. I even ran a "what the hell" test with a cheap Lexmark printer, and got the same result It appears to be a communication glitch between CS3 and the printer drivers.

[William Kahn]

"...like saying windows 1.0 is like Vista."<BR>

<BR>

Apples and oranges. Photoshop is end-user software designed to work within an operating system. Windows <i>is</i> an operating system.

[steve_bingham]

After doing pretty extensive testing using DriverHeaven Photoshop Test action on both CS2 and CS3 I see no difference in speed. None! It does load slightly faster, however. I use the new Core2 Duo x6800 cpu and 4 gigs of ram.

 

On the other hand, ACR 4.0 as offered in Bridge 2.0 offers a lot of easily to understand adjustments - with preview! A real bonus.

 

There are some new features in CS3 that the beginning user will probably never use. The most interesting is the Image/Adjust/Black and White which gives you an automatic channel mixer with 6 "channels" and tint. It also includes 10 presets - including Infrared. This gives you a LOT of options when converting color to black and white. Far, far superior to the old channel mixer.

[cfimages]

I can't use CS3 as it constantly freezes on my PC. Not sure why, but it just doesn't work. Fortunately I hadn't paid for it and was just playing around with the trial version. The beta version worked fine, but for some reason the final release doesn't.

 

That being said, I also have Lightroom and find that 95% of my work is done in that. I only really use Photoshop CS2 for sharpening and a little local contrast enhancement. So for me, CS3, even if it did work on my PC would probably be unnecessary - although I loved the updated photomerge feature when I played around with the beta.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Photoshop is end-user software designed to work within an operating system,<b>(s)</b>. On a Mac their are several lockouts that wont allow one to use an older version of Photoshop on the latest OS variants. With a g5 and 10x one cannot use Photoshop 6; Jobs locks it out. With windows CS3 requires XP; and is locked out of windows 2000 and below. With Photoshop 3 and 4; there are hangups and lockouts if one has too much memory. Thus photoshop is not designed to work within all windows versions; or Mac versions. If you upgrade your Mac with photoshop 6 to 10x it wont run. If you add too much ram and have a nice working older version of photoshop 3 or 4; they stop working; with the message not enough ram to load. Over the 17 years that Photoshop has been around there have been major changes; in no way in hell is if the same program. One could,nt even use it on a pc when it first came out; one had to use a mac. The first PC I used photoshop on was a 386; one booted into DOS. One sent messages via xmodem in terminal in a dos session. One loaded up Photoshop with over a dozen floppies. Folks with a Mac were using Photoshop before there was a version for the PC. Thus Photoshop was not designed from the start to even work on windows. Primative Windows just came out when Photoshop was introduced; it took several year to make a variant that would work on a PC. Even with early Photoshop 2.5 on a PC one still had problems because ones computer with a 486 or pentium could not always cache above 64 megs. <BR><BR>Photoshop is designed for two different classses of computers; Mac and the PC. One could not even use Photoshop on a PC until version 2.5 came out. Before that it was a Mac only program. With Windows 3.11 and Win95/98/SE most boxes only really utilize 512 megs of ram for photoshop; even if 768 or 1 gig is installed. With NT from 1993 one had a bugger of a OS to configure without the blue screen of death; but one could use above 512megs if one could afford the ram. One ancient dream machine from 10 years ago had NT and 1 gig of ram; with a patch for dual processors. Photoshop 4 brought support for multiple processors. The average Joe six pack never used NT, but went along the road of win95, win98, win98se. Some folks went the win2000 (NT route); many went from Win98/SE/ME directy to XP.

[William Kahn]

My only point was that you can't fairly equate software upgrades, which do not impact on the operating system, to OS upgrades, which frequently do impact software. Of course, now we have a case of major software upgrade (PS CS3) meets major Windows upgrade (Vista). Kind of like King Kong vs. Godzilla. Take cover!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have not seen CS3 to be any faster with dual core; than on the same box with CS2 . Multiple cpu support was added with Photoshop 4; about when NT 3.51 and Nt 4 were a dream users OS. CS3's faster with bridge and less troublesome than cs2; whether on a dual, single or multi cpu box. CS3 has more features; thats why its a newer version. Here I have been using dual CPU's since photoshop 4; thats about 10 years; and have used Photoshop on a pc since version 2.5. Before that I used amac with older photoshop; and Photostyler on a pc. Here I have several dual core PC's and about siz dual cpu machines all with photoshop; and many single core boxes too. I have one dual core G5 Mac that has now been used yet with CS3; it has only cs2 now. Maybe Denis's comment about dual core was for a Mac using a dual core?

[howard_owen]

According to those who should know (Jeff Schewe for one) ACR 4.1 is a great improvement. I haven't tried it myself but you can take the trial for a spin and see what you think. Just be aware that ACR 4.0 comes with the trial and you will have to also download the ACR 4.1 update to get all the new toys.

[howard_owen]

Addendum to above post: Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that the CS3 trial comes with *any* version of ACR. FYI, 4.1 was the latest release just a few days ago.