Elements 2 vs 3

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

Hi,

I've got Adobe Elements 2 and Adobe Photo Album 1. Is there any reason I
should get Adobe Elements 3, which includes an "Organizer" (Photo Album 2)?

As one poster said of Adobe Acrobat, it's bloatware, and I tend to agree,
and wonder if their digital imaging software has become bloated, too.

Sincerely,
Bruce
7 answers Last reply
More about elements
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Jeff/Bruce wrote:
    > I've got Adobe Elements 2 and Adobe Photo Album 1. Is there any reason I
    > should get Adobe Elements 3, which includes an "Organizer" (Photo Album 2)?
    >
    > As one poster said of Adobe Acrobat, it's bloatware, and I tend to agree,
    > and wonder if their digital imaging software has become bloated, too.

    Did you know that your From: address says "Jeff" but the
    message is signed "Bruce"?

    PSE3 includes the ability to process raw files, but if you
    don't need it I doubt there's any pressing reason to
    upgrade. Best advice is to download the 30-day tryout
    version and see for yourself.

    --
    Regards

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

    Jeff wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I've got Adobe Elements 2 and Adobe Photo Album 1. Is there any reason I
    > should get Adobe Elements 3, which includes an "Organizer" (Photo Album 2)?
    >
    > As one poster said of Adobe Acrobat, it's bloatware, and I tend to agree,
    > and wonder if their digital imaging software has become bloated, too.


    I hate acrobat but I'd trust Adobe to upgrade photoshop meaningfully.
    Acrobat is useful, it's just hellishly slow compared to regular web
    pages but nobody has anything better, it's just that plain html is
    better suited & getting consistent printability is difficult. But
    Photoshop is really the cream of the crop in photo editing. If you have
    a slower computer, it's possible the upgrade will drag but if you are
    serious I wouldn't hesitate to trust the latest PS release.


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > nobody has anything better

    My PDF's start life as DVI's, which is much better. I do a lot of math
    papers. LaTeX -> DVI -> PDF. The standard fonts you get under the PDF
    umbrella are nice, but that's about all I can say for it. I consider
    PDF a by-product, not the publishing target.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Jeff wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I've got Adobe Elements 2 and Adobe Photo Album 1. Is there any
    >> reason I should get Adobe Elements 3, which includes an "Organizer"
    >> (Photo Album 2)?
    >>
    >> As one poster said of Adobe Acrobat, it's bloatware, and I tend to
    >> agree, and wonder if their digital imaging software has become
    >> bloated, too.
    >
    >
    >
    > I hate acrobat but I'd trust Adobe to upgrade photoshop meaningfully.
    > Acrobat is useful, it's just hellishly slow compared to regular web
    > pages but nobody has anything better, it's just that plain html is
    > better suited & getting consistent printability is difficult. But
    > Photoshop is really the cream of the crop in photo editing. If you have
    > a slower computer, it's possible the upgrade will drag but if you are
    > serious I wouldn't hesitate to trust the latest PS release.
    >
    >
    I have PSE 2 and PSE3. I run PSE3 on my AMD 2200+ processor, and on my
    1.4ghz laptop. Both perform quite well. The added features of PSE3
    have increased its utility to the point where I haven't loaded PSE2
    since installing PSE3. PSE3 has the Organizer, which, once learned,
    makes it easy to maintain, and find, photos in a large collection.
    Users who deal with RAW format files complain that adding large numbers
    of RAW format pictures to the Organizer is a slow process, and that
    scrolling can be slow if one updates the thumbnails each time. Since I
    use only JPEG and .TIFF files, I have not seen this.
    The editor has been improved with a 'healing brush', which is very nice,
    and separate and straighten, which will split pictures scanned together
    into separate images. There is also a nice autofix, and a quickfix that
    mean novice users don't have to deal with the full complexity of the
    editor for most simple editing jobs. The full edit capability with
    layers, and its depth, is readily available when needed for the more
    difficult editing jobs.

    PSE3 has a few warts, such as the RAW handling, and some users have seen
    some catalog corruption problems, and some problems with inaccessible
    images, and the 'reconnect' function doesn't seem to work for everyone.


    I have found it to be a powerful, and useful tool, especially given that
    it can be found on sale for about $55(USD).


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
    > since installing PSE3. PSE3 has the Organizer, which, once learned,
    > makes it easy to maintain, and find, photos in a large collection.

    I actually don't like the Organizer much - I have my own system for
    organising images which the Organizer can deal with, but I find myself
    working faster by just dragging and dropping files from windows explorer
    onto PSE3 for editing. Then again I'm kind of a command line sort of
    guy.

    > The editor has been improved with a 'healing brush', which is very nice,

    Worth the upgrade price alone, particularly if you're using Elements to
    deal with scans of old prints.

    > and separate and straighten, which will split pictures scanned together
    > into separate images.

    An incredible labour-saver - it's saved me the purchase price of
    Elements3 several times over.

    > There is also a nice autofix,

    Certainly better than Elements 2's attempts at auto-fixing. For casual
    use on good crisp images it's certainly good enough to go straight to
    web or inknet prints from Elements 3's auto-fix, but if you're prepared
    to put the effort in, you have great control.

    > I have found it to be a powerful, and useful tool, especially given that
    > it can be found on sale for about $55(USD).

    Agreed, I find it much more powerful than Elements 2, although it's
    rather slower for some things.

    pete
    --
    pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves 'what will become of Evil Gazebo?'"
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
    >
    > I hate acrobat but I'd trust Adobe to upgrade photoshop meaningfully.
    > Acrobat is useful, it's just hellishly slow compared to regular web
    > pages but nobody has anything better, it's just that plain html is
    > better suited & getting consistent printability is difficult. But
    > Photoshop is really the cream of the crop in photo editing. If you have
    > a slower computer, it's possible the upgrade will drag but if you are
    > serious I wouldn't hesitate to trust the latest PS release.
    >

    Photoshop load times on any computer is slow ... it is a hog and they
    need to work on this [but they never will]. I have a Athlon XP 3200+
    with 1GB PC3200 and a Pentium 4ht 3.02GHz with 1GB RIMM1066 and it still
    loads slow. It is fast enough once loaded with one exception, the
    loading of raw files. This is still a slow process. Overall, I am
    finding that using Photoshop for the digital darkroom when working from
    RAW files seems to be quite a chore.

    The Photoshop Elements 3 organizer, while an improvement over the lack
    of an organizer, is still quite rudimentary. It is a pain to export
    images for print and to be forced to put them in the root catalog. Now,
    when I delete the exported JPEG files, I am left with orphan links in my
    catalog that I must manually clean up. A real pain as I didn't want
    them there in the first place.

    So, has anybody used the Microsoft Imaging Suite that they are selling
    at Costco among other places?

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
    Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    > Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
    >
    >>I hate acrobat but I'd trust Adobe to upgrade photoshop meaningfully.
    >>Acrobat is useful, it's just hellishly slow compared to regular web
    >>pages but nobody has anything better, it's just that plain html is
    >>better suited & getting consistent printability is difficult. But
    >>Photoshop is really the cream of the crop in photo editing. If you have
    >>a slower computer, it's possible the upgrade will drag but if you are
    >>serious I wouldn't hesitate to trust the latest PS release.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Photoshop load times on any computer is slow ... it is a hog and they
    > need to work on this [but they never will]. I have a Athlon XP 3200+
    > with 1GB PC3200 and a Pentium 4ht 3.02GHz with 1GB RIMM1066 and it still
    > loads slow. It is fast enough once loaded with one exception, the
    > loading of raw files. This is still a slow process. Overall, I am
    > finding that using Photoshop for the digital darkroom when working from
    > RAW files seems to be quite a chore.
    >
    > The Photoshop Elements 3 organizer, while an improvement over the lack
    > of an organizer, is still quite rudimentary. It is a pain to export
    > images for print and to be forced to put them in the root catalog. Now,
    > when I delete the exported JPEG files, I am left with orphan links in my
    > catalog that I must manually clean up. A real pain as I didn't want
    > them there in the first place.
    >
    > So, has anybody used the Microsoft Imaging Suite that they are selling
    > at Costco among other places?
    >
    If you export, you can choose the path. Choose one NOT monitored for
    new pictures by PSE3 and you will avoid that problem.


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Adobe Cameras Product