Which Photoshop and how to buy?

[dsymes]

Although my first version of Photoshop for Windows was Version 2.5, which I faithfully upgraded through Version 5.5, I will confess to having been away from image processing for a little over a decade. I'm expect to do mostly B&W scanned from film, but will probably do some color, both scanned and direct digital files as well.

My question is whether V5.5, the first implementation of color profiles, is adequate for B&W work, and if it is more sensible (as I suspect) to get a more current version of PS for Windows, which one?

Finally, since I find that Adobe doesn't want to give me a cheap upgrade from V5.5 (imagine!), how reliable (i.e., legal, recognized by Adobe for upgrades) are so-called "full versions" of, for instance, CS4 on eBay, which seem to sell for between $200-$300?

Thank you all for your advice in advance,

dsymes

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Have a good look at Photoshop Elements. It's been substantially upgraded from earlier versions and now only misses out on a few of the more exotic professional-oriented tweaks that the full version offers. And it's relatively inexpensive. Unless you're going professional it's likely that it will do more than you need and the full version is just wasted money and disk space.

 

[Mcary]

Depending on how you edit your files, both digital and scans and the amount of dust on your B&W scans you might want to download a 30 day trail version of LR 3.0

 

[oftheherd]

Dsymes - check post 25 in this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97717 for both another plug of LR3 and of a way to use GIMP that seems to work well.

 

[ZeissFan]

You probably should go for Creative Suite 5 Master Version for a cool $2,599.

The full version of Lightroom looks like a bargain at $299. And Elements might do the job for $99.

The thing with Adobe software is that the upgrades come fast and furious, and so you'll always be digging into your pocket for the latest.

By the way, Acrobat X runs like a pig. I've noticed that each version has gotten slower and slower. For most of us, we simply view PDFs, and now the program is nearly unusable.

That's always been my one complaint about Adobe programs. The startup time is borderline ridiculous.

 

[bigeye]

x3 on ~$100 PSE, LR3 and Aperture - They handle tweak and crop well.

The functionality of the full blown package is more of of graphics artist collaborative workflow system. Depends on your needs, of course.

 

[degruyl]

While I do use several features of Photoshop (I have CS4), most of my image editing is done in lightroom 3. Particularly: crop, flip, rotate, spot for dust, adjust exposure / fill / black / contrast, gradients, and (most importantly) filing. The color balance in lightroom is kind of primitive, but if you are doing B&W, that doesn't matter.

What I use photoshop for: selecting areas based on luminosity (for masks) for adjustment layers, high pass sharpening, making digital negatives with custom curves for alt process work. Mostly this means that I use photoshop for filters and layers, which are not really present in lightroom.

 

[Bob Michaels]

<snip> My question is whether V5.5, the first implementation of color profiles, is adequate for B&W work, and if it is more sensible (as I suspect) to get a more current version of PS for Windows, which one? <snip>

V5.5 only does layers in 8 bit, not 16, which I believe is a major disadvantage. Otherwise, it does just about everything the current versions do although the effects of many functions have been improved.

 

[Steve M.]

More is certainly better, but only if you need it. I've been using Ver 7, which is probably similar to your Ver 5.5, for maybe 7 years now. Like you, I've used it for B&W film scans, and only occasionally for color or digital. It's has much more capabilities than I'll ever use. I have no need for layers or anything like that. Most people that shoot B&W film don't need to do extensive image manipulations because they usually get the shot pretty right from the beginning, which is one of the reasons we shoot B&W film, other than we just love B&W. Tons of exposure latitude and dynamic range, and it's a very forgiving medium. I use the clone tool a lot for dust, as well as levels, sharpening and curves. Not much else to do other than crop. W/ the occasional color and digital that I shoot(mostly a little travel stuff, and shots of gear to sell) it has everything I require. If you're like me, you probably have more image editing program than you need already.

 

[degruyl]

More is certainly better, but only if you need it. I've been using Ver 7, which is probably similar to your Ver 5.5, for maybe 7 years now. Like you, I've used it for B&W film scans, and only occasionally for color or digital. It's has much more capabilities than I'll ever use. I have no need for layers or anything like that. Most people that shoot B&W film don't need to do extensive image manipulations because they usually get the shot pretty right from the beginning, which is one of the reasons we shoot B&W film, other than we just love B&W. Tons of exposure latitude and dynamic range, and it's a very forgiving medium. I use the clone tool a lot for dust, as well as levels, sharpening and curves. Not much else to do other than crop. W/ the occasional color and digital that I shoot(mostly a little travel stuff, and shots of gear to sell) it has everything I require. If you're like me, you probably have more image editing program than you need already.

I don't actually disagree with the substance of this, but I have to point out that "usually get the shot pretty right from the beginning" and liking B&W for its "Tons of exposure latitude and dynamic range" are mutually exclusive.

 

[venchka]

Lightroom 3. It may be all you need.
Black & white film is still the easiest, quickest, best (in my opinion) way to get black & white photos regardless of how they are printed.

 

[Thardy]

The only Photoshop that I've bought has been Elements. From what I've read, you can most things with it along with some layer work. I also have LR3 and together they suit me (when I need the extra power of PSE)


A lady I work with just upgraded to full PS and she says it's a whole different ballgame from Elements.

 

[Bob Michaels]

The only Photoshop that I've bought has been Elements. <snip> I also have LR3 ........... <snip>

I hope this is a typo or inadvertent wording.

 

[DanOnRoute66]

Have a good look at Photoshop Elements. It's been substantially upgraded from earlier versions and now only misses out on a few of the more exotic professional-oriented tweaks that the full version offers. And it's relatively inexpensive. Unless you're going professional it's likely that it will do more than you need and the full version is just wasted money and disk space.

Ditto on Elements. Let everyone else spend the big bucks on the latest full version. I still use 3.0 and it does everything I need. The disk came with a scanner I bought a few years ago.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I'd look at lightroom and acdsee pro first.

 

[LKeithR]

I'd look at lightroom and acdsee pro first.

Another vote for ACDSee--highly under-rated in my view and well worth a look...

 

[Bob Michaels]

I was hoping for suggestions about where to purchase PS.
dsymes

I suggest B&H for Adobe products. They are legit & reliable and about the cheapest of that category. I find it is not worth it to try to save another 2-3% by dealing with someone who is an unknown. Adobe sells direct but at list price.

I just bought Lightroom from B&H. I am not giving up on Photoshop as I have 10 years experience, but have to see what everyone is raving about LR.

 

[dsymes]

Thanks for your suggestion Bob. Makes sense. I will probably go that route when I'm ready to order.

 

[porktaco]

cs5. content aware fill. "it's a witch"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI

 

[porktaco]

btw, i love lightroom. i never even use photoshop these days. if you're a content-aware fill kind of person, yeah you need PS. for people who just want to recreate a darkroom, lightroom is pretty darned good.