Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photoshop Elements

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 23, 2005 3:06:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My son has Photoshop Elements versions 1 and 2 (each came with a
different camera purchase). Would someone please explain the
differences between these versions?
It would help in deciding which one to use (and no, the later version
isn't necessarily the better version).
Thanks for your help.

More about : photoshop elements

Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:10:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I never had version one but I have version 2 and like it. In fact,
today I just bought the upgtade to version 3 because it has some photo
album tools that are nice .

Art
February 23, 2005 5:12:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James,
Thanks for the info.
Could you please expand on this a bit? Particularly, how does the
philosophy differ? Also, what quick fixing tools were added since v.1?
Thanks.

James Silverton wrote:
> Fyimo wrote:
> > I never had version one but I have version 2 and like it. In fact,
> > today I just bought the upgtade to version 3 because it has some
> > photo
> > album tools that are nice .
> >
> > Art
>
> I've liked version 1 since I got it with my camera last year but
> versions 2 and 3 have some rather useful quick fixing tools and a
> rather different philosophy of use so I bought version 3 with a
> rebate. I never had 2 but I believe the major changes in 3 are
> organizational tools which I *do not* like. Version 3 also takes
about
> twice as long to load as version 1 but I suppose version 2 might
also.
>
>
> --
> James V. Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland, USA
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:01:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:
> I never had version one but I have version 2 and like it. In fact,
> today I just bought the upgtade to version 3 because it has some
> photo
> album tools that are nice .
>
> Art

I've liked version 1 since I got it with my camera last year but
versions 2 and 3 have some rather useful quick fixing tools and a
rather different philosophy of use so I bought version 3 with a
rebate. I never had 2 but I believe the major changes in 3 are
organizational tools which I *do not* like. Version 3 also takes about
twice as long to load as version 1 but I suppose version 2 might also.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

les@eudoramail.com wrote:
> My son has Photoshop Elements versions 1 and 2 (each came with a
> different camera purchase). Would someone please explain the
> differences between these versions?
> It would help in deciding which one to use (and no, the later version
> isn't necessarily the better version).
> Thanks for your help.
>

It is, in this case, and PSE 3 is even better.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:17:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:
> Fyimo wrote:
>
>> I never had version one but I have version 2 and like it. In fact,
>> today I just bought the upgtade to version 3 because it has some photo
>> album tools that are nice .
>>
>> Art
>
>
> I've liked version 1 since I got it with my camera last year but
> versions 2 and 3 have some rather useful quick fixing tools and a rather
> different philosophy of use so I bought version 3 with a rebate. I never
> had 2 but I believe the major changes in 3 are organizational tools
> which I *do not* like. Version 3 also takes about twice as long to load
> as version 1 but I suppose version 2 might also.
>
>
As programs gain feature, they usually DO take longer to load. I have
mixed feelings about the 'organizer' in PSE3, but you don't HAVE to ever
see it if you don't want to use it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

les@eudoramail.com wrote:
> James,
> Thanks for the info.
> Could you please expand on this a bit? Particularly, how does the
> philosophy differ? Also, what quick fixing tools were added since v.1?
> Thanks.
>

>
>
For more specific information, and help from experts, you might go here:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@249.rJNgaKbU...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:00:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>> Fyimo wrote:
>>
>>> I never had version one but I have version 2 and like it. In fact,
>>> today I just bought the upgtade to version 3 because it has some
>>> photo album tools that are nice .
>>>
>>> Art
>>
>>
>> I've liked version 1 since I got it with my camera last year but
>> versions 2 and 3 have some rather useful quick fixing tools and a
>> rather different philosophy of use so I bought version 3 with a
>> rebate. I never had 2 but I believe the major changes in 3 are
>> organizational tools which I *do not* like. Version 3 also takes
>> about twice as long to load as version 1 but I suppose version 2
>> might also.
> As programs gain feature, they usually DO take longer to load. I
> have
> mixed feelings about the 'organizer' in PSE3, but you don't HAVE to
> ever see it if you don't want to use it.

Thanks, I am aware that I don't need to use the organizing features
and I suspect that I won't. As I said, I never had Elements 2 but,
AFAIK, I have all of its editing features in version 3. I've never
been very enthusiastic about blind automation but the "Quick Fix"
often does a very satisfactory job and I like the "healing brush" and
"selection brush" which I believe are also in Elements 2. Overall, I
do agree that it is worthwhile upgrading from Elements 1 and, since I
decided to get it early, I was able to buy Elements 3 for $50 with
rebates. Strangely enough, at that time, the best price I could find
for Elements 2 was more than I eventually paid for the later version.

I still have not brought myself to remove Elements 1 but I suspect
that may be because I am familiar with it not because of its loading
speed. I wonder if increasing my memory from 256 MB would be helpful?
I don't intend to upgrade from my 1.5 GHz cpu in the near future.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:39:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> Fyimo wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never had version one but I have version 2 and like it. In fact,
>>>> today I just bought the upgtade to version 3 because it has some
>>>> photo album tools that are nice .
>>>>
>>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've liked version 1 since I got it with my camera last year but
>>> versions 2 and 3 have some rather useful quick fixing tools and a
>>> rather different philosophy of use so I bought version 3 with a
>>> rebate. I never had 2 but I believe the major changes in 3 are
>>> organizational tools which I *do not* like. Version 3 also takes
>>> about twice as long to load as version 1 but I suppose version 2
>>> might also.
>>
>> As programs gain feature, they usually DO take longer to load. I have
>> mixed feelings about the 'organizer' in PSE3, but you don't HAVE to
>> ever see it if you don't want to use it.
>
>
> Thanks, I am aware that I don't need to use the organizing features and
> I suspect that I won't. As I said, I never had Elements 2 but, AFAIK, I
> have all of its editing features in version 3. I've never been very
> enthusiastic about blind automation but the "Quick Fix" often does a
> very satisfactory job and I like the "healing brush" and "selection
> brush" which I believe are also in Elements 2. Overall, I do agree that
> it is worthwhile upgrading from Elements 1 and, since I decided to get
> it early, I was able to buy Elements 3 for $50 with rebates. Strangely
> enough, at that time, the best price I could find for Elements 2 was
> more than I eventually paid for the later version.

The 'healing brush' is NOT in PSE2, and is one of the reasons I bought
the new program. Another is the ability to make individual images from
scans of multiple pictures.

>
> I still have not brought myself to remove Elements 1 but I suspect that
> may be because I am familiar with it not because of its loading speed. I
> wonder if increasing my memory from 256 MB would be helpful? I don't
> intend to upgrade from my 1.5 GHz cpu in the near future.
>
>

Yes, more memory is the cheapest thing you can add for increased
performance from any computer. I also have retained the old (PSE2)
version on my HD, but haven't loaded it since installing PSE3. Note
that if you uninstall an older version after installing PSE3, you MAY
have to reinstall PSE3 as the Adobe Gamma program gets uninstalled.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
February 24, 2005 1:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

since you already have both - could you not read the manuals or perhaps load
them both up and have a look at them.

preference is a personal thing. i personally like photoshop cs, and as such
would choose elements 2 or 3 if i had to work without pscs

Rich

www.digitalmood.co.uk


<les@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1109189196.706917.31740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> My son has Photoshop Elements versions 1 and 2 (each came with a
> different camera purchase). Would someone please explain the
> differences between these versions?
> It would help in deciding which one to use (and no, the later version
> isn't necessarily the better version).
> Thanks for your help.
>
February 24, 2005 2:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

One of the best additions in v3 over v2 is the shadows/hilight
adjustment tool. Not as fully featured as in Photoshop CS but for
home use is a real benefit.


>
>
><les@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>news:1109189196.706917.31740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> My son has Photoshop Elements versions 1 and 2 (each came with a
>> different camera purchase). Would someone please explain the
>> differences between these versions?
>> It would help in deciding which one to use (and no, the later version
>> isn't necessarily the better version).
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>

Peter
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:23:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich <me@here.com> wrote:
> since you already have both - could you not read the manuals or perhaps load
> them both up and have a look at them.
>
> preference is a personal thing. i personally like photoshop cs, and as such
> would choose elements 2 or 3 if i had to work without pscs
>

I've had Elements 2 and Elements 3.

Elements 2 is a very good basic photo manipulation package - *most* of
the underlying power of "real" Photoshop in a form mortals can use
easily.

Elements 3 adds a lot of sophistication in the area of image management,
and picks up a new (less Windows-like, more Mac-ish) interface and a few
more features from the bigger products in the range. For some people the
addition of the healing brush is probably sufficient to justify 3 on its
own. Elements 3 also makes a better stab at Quick Fixing images
than 2, but there's still no real substitute for going in and doing it
by hand!

Elements 3 is also considerably slower to start up than Elements 2; I
used to have Elements 2 as my default application for JPG and GIF under
Windows, now I just use Irfanview by default to view and open things
explicitly in Elements 3 for editing.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:23:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete Fenelon wrote:
> Rich <me@here.com> wrote:
>
>>since you already have both - could you not read the manuals or perhaps load
>>them both up and have a look at them.
>>
>>preference is a personal thing. i personally like photoshop cs, and as such
>>would choose elements 2 or 3 if i had to work without pscs
>>
>
>
> I've had Elements 2 and Elements 3.
>
> Elements 2 is a very good basic photo manipulation package - *most* of
> the underlying power of "real" Photoshop in a form mortals can use
> easily.
>
> Elements 3 adds a lot of sophistication in the area of image management,
> and picks up a new (less Windows-like, more Mac-ish) interface and a few
> more features from the bigger products in the range. For some people the
> addition of the healing brush is probably sufficient to justify 3 on its
> own. Elements 3 also makes a better stab at Quick Fixing images
> than 2, but there's still no real substitute for going in and doing it
> by hand!
>
> Elements 3 is also considerably slower to start up than Elements 2; I
> used to have Elements 2 as my default application for JPG and GIF under
> Windows, now I just use Irfanview by default to view and open things
> explicitly in Elements 3 for editing.
>
> pete
> --
> pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."


PSE3 is a lousy program for viewing pictures. It takes too long to
load, and doesn't have as much flexibility as Irfanview, or VJpegger.
Either of these last two can be fit on a floppy disk for easy
portability. PSE3 is a great editor with 90% of the editing ability of
PS CS for 1/10 the price. It has the best 'autofix' feature of any
program I have seen, but even it sometimes doesn't make a picture better.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:26:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> PSE3 is a lousy program for viewing pictures. It takes too long to
> load, and doesn't have as much flexibility as Irfanview, or VJpegger.
> Either of these last two can be fit on a floppy disk for easy
> portability. PSE3 is a great editor with 90% of the editing ability of
> PS CS for 1/10 the price. It has the best 'autofix' feature of any
> program I have seen, but even it sometimes doesn't make a picture better.

Exactly - pretty much restated my case! If you're not willing to put any
effort in and just want to automatically fix images, PSE3 will do a far
better job than PSE2. But if you're prepared to learn the subtleties,
PSE3 approaches the power of "real" Photoshop -- the main thing you lose
out on is flexibility of output, but if you're using Elements the odds
are you're generating stuff for either screen or inkjet output anyway
rather than doing professional "camera-ready" pre-press stuff.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
!