Elements or Photoshop CS2?

[seastarr2]

I have been taking pictures for about a year now and may finally be ready to start editing them. I have been reseaching and seaching the boards now for information about Photoshop and PS Elements. For starting out it seems that Elements is the way to go, also because of the cost. Is this correct? Is there anything that Elements is missing that I would need? Thanks

 

[bluesbro1982]

If you plan on sticking with the basics and are not comfortable with computers in general, go with elements.

If you plan on having a skillset and learning the art of photo retouching / editing, go with CS2.

CS2 will be able to do more work than elements and save a few more images from the trash can, but the corresponding time needed to fix stuff is where you decide if the trade is worth it.

Adobe also offers a 30-day CS2 fully-functional tryout version. I wuld highly recommend checking that out as well as some photoshop tutorial pages to see what is possible.

good luck.

 

[Doc Harry]

Elements can do a lot and will keep you happy - for a while. If you are computer savvy at all, you will quickly outgrow Elements and yearn for the enhanced capabilities of CS2.

If all you are going to do is crop, resize and save, then Elements should be fine. But then again, so should any other generic photo editing program that comes packaged with most digital cameras and printers. You don't need Elements for that.

But if you plan to do color corrections, editing, retouching and other more sophisticated processing, then Elements is limiting and frustrating. CS2 functions such as the healing tool and action macros are essential for more advanced photo editing in my opinion. You can manage similar functions in Elements if you're creative and have a lot of spare time on your hands. But I grew tired of taking 10 minutes to do something in Elements that takes only 2 or 3 seconds in CS2.

 

[dbh]

Dave's (me) rule #1:

If it takes you longer than 2-3 minutes to PS a shot, you need to be taking better pictures .


Dave

 

[ianw2]

Elements has expanded remarkably with v.5.0. It is also available at a fraction of the cost of CS.

The learning curve is huge with either product, although, in my opinion, not nearly as frustrating with Elements as CS.

The argument has been tossed around that money should not be the deciding factor. If that's the case, I would highly recommend Elements for those of us who have never worked with photo editing software before. Get books, tutorials and study Bob Arlens superb articles. Then, AFTER you do manage to outgrow Elements, move up to CS. You'll have learned the basics and concepts without all the fuss of the full blown program.

Incidentally, both are available for 30-day demo downloads at Adobe.com.

Me, I've just started in U/W photography after being certified this past August. I'm quite happy with the results I get from Elements.

Oh, BTW:
PS CS2.....$650 list price
PSE..........$ 90 list price

 

[mike_s]

so is PS CS2 worth the extra $600 bucks?

 

[justleesa]

PSE3 already had the healing tool, masks and you were able to process your pictures via adjustment layers. PSE5 now even offers curve adjustments. I think you can get pretty far with PSE5 for starters. I used elements for about 3 years and am now working with PSCS2, but I am now doing a lot lot more than just processing. Don't forget Adobes Lightroom - which is focused on Photos, less on graphics.

As suggested, DL the trail versions and play around.

so is PS CS2 worth the extra $600 bucks?

If you use the stuff that makes the price difference, then I would say it does. If not, not.

 

[Doc Harry]

Dave's rule #1:

If it takes you longer than 2-3 minutes to PS a shot, you need to be taking better pictures .

Easy for you to say! Some of us need more help!

 

[bluesbro1982]

Dave's (me) rule #1:

If it takes you longer than 2-3 minutes to PS a shot, you need to be taking better pictures .


Dave

That all depends on what you are shooting and what output you are looking at. If I am shooting anything that is going to a for-real print magazine or advertising spread, I'll spend a good 30-45 minutes on a shot (Especially if I'm shooting models and the editor wants that "china doll" look which I happen to hate...)

But, for most pure digital / web stuff, I agree wholeheartedly that the point of PS is to fix small stuff, not to make up for bad shooting technique.

 

[morayp]

I've got PSE4 and am quite happy with its cost/features. It all depends on how deep you want to get. If your'e not REAL serious, PSE5 would be a good choice. If you do outgrow it you're not out too much $.