 Michelle Ross |
Which Photoshop? If I were to get Adobe Photoshop, which one do I just HAVE to have? All I want to be able to do is edit photos ... no video stuff or anything. Most likely, I would just use it for touch-ups, color enhancement, and putting color in black and white photos ... can anyone help? Thanks.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
PS 5.5 - you probably could find a good deal on Ebay ... Just make sure that it's a full version with product key and license.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mikki Cowles |
Now, if you are going pro, and have extensive amounts of money to spend and time to invest, go for the PS 5.5. However, if you are a hobbyist to advanced amateur, I believe PS's newest little brother would make a fine investment. Elements 3.0 is an excellent choice for the price, and I haven't found anything that I can't do with it that I have wanted to. No, I don't work for them, but I would definitely be a good spokesman for an advertisement. If you would like to know any specifics, you're welcome to email me. :o)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kip T. Berger |
Personally, my opinion, you should look at the other photo programs available. Depending on what you are trying to do with your photos, the time you wish to learn, and how accustomed you are to basic "tools"; you may wish to time-trial some. Though Adobe Photoshop is the leader, the other programs are gaining - due to cost, ability to compete with Photoshop for function, plug-ins, effects, etc. I own multiple photo programs, including Photoshop 7, but they each have their usefulness. You need to determine what you plan on doing, the time you wish to learn, and the cost you wish to invest. Almost all competing programs will allow Adobe type plug-ins, and have their own useful "effects". So if basic editing, any of the available programs will probably suffice.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jon Chappell |
Paint Shop Pro is a good alternative, sporting many (not all though) of PS's professional features and best of all, is only a fraction of the cost. Over here, it's £80 (about $150) whereas Photoshop is £700 (about $1200). They're now on Paint Shop Pro 8 (a beta version of 9 is available I believe), but I've used Paint Shop Pro 7 and Photoshop 7 for a couple of years now. Some people say that PSP is easier to use, but I think they're about the same.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
For what she asked about, how about photoshop 1?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Greg McCroskery Contact Greg McCroskery Greg McCroskery's Gallery |
Michelle, I have to agree with Mikki. I shoot professionally and do just fine with Photoshop Elements 2. While I realize that the full blown version of PS offers much more flexibility, it also costs way more than Elements. I manage to do all of the photo post processing, touch up, and manipulation I need with excellent results. I may upgrade to PS Elements 3 soon because it offers the 'Healing Brush' and a few other upgrade features, but I'm not in a hurry to do that. I would start with PS Elements and later upgrade to the full version of PS if you see the need -- based on your inquiry, I doubt you will need to any time soon. God Bless,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michelle Ross |
Thank you all for your suggestions! I have ArcSoft PhotoImpression already and can do the color enhancements, smudge, clone and stuff with it . . . however I find that when I do any manipulation and then need to upload or whatever that sometimes it won't let me print the sizes that I want or need. The PI doesn't have some of the features that I want/need like the magic lasso, etc but there is an upgrade to it that does have this. Right now what I "think" I want/need most from a program is the ability to erase the background(cluttered), be able to change someone's shirt color, take the face from one pic and put in another, and/or color hue/saturation adjustments. All of your information is very helpful! Thanks again!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Scott Pedersen |
Go with Paint Shop Pro. Photoshop is too expensive for starters. Why do you want to have an really old version of it when you can go with a newer version of Paintshop Pro. Paintshop Pro will do almost eveything that photoshop will do anyhow and at consideralby less cost.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Of course, taking a good image in the first place never hurts!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michelle Ross |
Well I intend to take good pictures. ..but every once in awhile a photo is good with the exception of a minor flaw such as glare. .. by using the clone tool sometimes it can be fixed and really not altering the actual "photo" but not ruining it either!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
But - the very fact that you're asking about Photoshop, or any imaging program, forces me to draw the conclusion that you'll not work nearly as hard toget the proper picture. Oh, I use elements Version 1.0, so I'm guilty. However, no imaging program can salvage a less than great quality image! Thou dost protest too much!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michelle Ross |
All I simply was inquiring about was situations that might be out of some control . . for instance if a family photo is taken and one member insist on wearing a red shirt while all the others want to wear blue I would like to simply be able to go in and change the shirt to blue to blend rather than clash . . . I prefer to have printed the "actual" photo that I take. I'm by far from a pro and have a long ways to go and will openly admit that . . . I feel I do work hard but I do make mistakes . . . and sometimes some very "simple" editing can enhance the photo . . . I'm not really talking about adding elements to a photo that aren't of original composition. I can also not help certain situations(acne, blemishes) and if I can help my client like their closeup photos then I'd like to be able to do that! I don't think that makes me not work "as hard" to capture the correct image. . . I always thought this was a great place to ask questions and can really do without negative criticism. . . Photography is a matter of interpretation so to imply that my images are not great to begin with is simply your interpretation vs. mine whether hard work was put forth or not!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Michelle- I think you've taken my comments the wrong way. My point is, with regard to any given picture, that one's anticipation that it will be corrected via an imaging program reflects the fact that all efforts to produce a winner "the first time," and on the recording medium [film or memory card,] will be secondary. More important, however, is the fact that a poor image cannot be corrected via an imaging program. If it's not sharp [enough] or is poorly composed, there's little to be achieved. [Note, cropping, for example, may not be practical even if one is trying to correct a problem by going to the vertical format.] In my work, albeit advance amateur, I seek to "blow the socks off a viewer" with the slide or 4X6 print. If I can do that, if I can get 16 decent images on a 36-exposure roll of film, I judge my effort as successful. Then, if I choose to enlarge the picture [after scanning into my computer], I'm afforded the opportunity to creatively use an imaging program IF ITS NEEDED. But, hopefully, other than use of the Unsharp Mask, no further adjustment will be required. And, that's my goal. While it may be "beside the point," I was reading one of the Q&A exchanges about Wedding Photography and use of digital cameras. One of the "speakers referred to his taking up to 1,000 images at a wedding; then, he lamented about the time he needed to manipulate the pictures to get some worthwhile proofs to present to the bride and groom. While this may be way beyond what you're seeking to do, the amount of time one has to spend working an imaging program, even though the results may be intriguing, doesn't equate to the thrill of getting it right and onto the film/card the first time.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Greg McCroskery Contact Greg McCroskery Greg McCroskery's Gallery |
John, I think I understand your point -- but I think your point is wrong. Just because a photographer anticipates using editing software to enhance a photograph, doesn't mean that the photographer either isn't primarily concerned, or in fact didn't 'get it right the first time'. Did Ansel Adams enhance his images to obtain a final print -- yes! Was his consideration of getting it right the first time 'secondary' -- I don't think so. I am a professional photographer and have been involved in print competitions for about 18 years. In all that time, I doubt that I've ever seen a competitive competition print that hasn't undergone extensive enhancement (burning & dodging, negative retouching, artwork, etc.) Image enhancement is a photographic fact of life, and actually tends to make the photographer more critical in their original capture efforts. Very few digital capture photographers fire away with the attitude that, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop." Enchancement takes time, talent, and effort -- most photographers want to minimize that effort. I applaud your concern for photographic excellence, but I think you're reading too much into Michelle's original question. God Bless,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dwayne Barbee |
I would suggest as a starter to try demo versions of several different programs. When you have tried each one pick the one that you like the most. I personally use PS CS for the digital darkroom and Extensis Portfolio 7 for archiving. Photoshop Elements 2.0 is also good and alot less expensive.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Greg - My experience is just the opposite from yours. Professionals try to take fewer photos; in fact, one professional wedding photographer, I know well, tries to complete a wedding with a maximum of four 36-exposure rolls. He shoots for the best image all the time. The photgrapher I described shooting 1000 images, and my friends and colleagues shoot many, many images with their digitals. This is a great thing about digital cameras, but I still maintain, you want the best on the recording medium. But, merely shooting lots of images won't guarantee anything world saking. And, few digital users, I know, really take the time to compose and snap a carefully crafted image. No one can argue that Ansel Adams had many great photos. But, looking at his book, The Making of 40 Great Photographs, I became convinced that he, too, cheated. That is, he sandwiched negatives to achieve his result. Not "Cricket," from an original on-the-negative viewpoint - even though the results were amazing. I remain a purist. I still want "great" on the film/media card. I remain very concerned that imaging programs sometimes provide false hopes, "means" and rewards for somewhat less-than-average images.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dwayne Barbee |
Well, I never thought of it as Ansel Adams was cheating when he created his photo's. I always assumed it was his having creative vision. I guess if you are a purist you would not use colored filters, or graduated filters, or polarizing filters....these things enhance a photograph. Then again using film that produces super saturated colors is also cheating according to your philosophy. Just my 2 cents worth.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||