Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photoshop Elements/Premiere Elements

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:39:23 AM

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

I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.

What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?
Or, conversely, what features does regular PS have that PS Elements
doesn't. Is it THAT much better, that I should spend $600 for it? Why
would I use one of these programs over the other?

Are these two pieces of software worth getting, for a hundred bucks? I
just looked at the Adobe website, and ran thru the little video clips,
and they both seem like very cool tools. But, I know there's a lot of
marketing behind those videos, so I don't necessarily trust that they're
as easy to use and powerful as the videos claim.

I'd like to hear from those of you who have experience with PS Elements
and Primiere Elements, vs regular Photoshop.

TIA,

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:39:24 AM

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

Try here:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/f/elementsco...

You might also want to check out Paint Shop Pro before you buy, as well
as a few other alternatives.

Kitt



Eric Babula wrote:
> I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
> for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.
>
> What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
> At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
> than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?
> Or, conversely, what features does regular PS have that PS Elements
> doesn't. Is it THAT much better, that I should spend $600 for it? Why
> would I use one of these programs over the other?
>
> Are these two pieces of software worth getting, for a hundred bucks? I
> just looked at the Adobe website, and ran thru the little video clips,
> and they both seem like very cool tools. But, I know there's a lot of
> marketing behind those videos, so I don't necessarily trust that they're
> as easy to use and powerful as the videos claim.
>
> I'd like to hear from those of you who have experience with PS Elements
> and Primiere Elements, vs regular Photoshop.
>
> TIA,
>
> --
> Eric Babula
> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:39:24 AM

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

> Eric Babula writes ...
>
>What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular
>Photoshop? ... I'd like to hear from those of you who have
>experience with PS Elements and Primiere Elements, vs regular
>Photoshop.

I don't use Premier, but I've been a Photoshop user for 7 years and
passed the "Adobe Certified Expert" exam and recently I've been using
Elements 3 so I could teach a friend in Holland (who has this program
and no digital experience) how to do the basics. Basically there's
little doubt you're better off with Elements 3 right now since it's
aimed at hobbyists and does a good job for the money, while Photoshop
is aimed at professionals who need the advanced features and feel it's
a bargain at $600.

The link Kitt provided lists the differences (I would add a couple of
other things that are either missing or that I can't find yet in E 3
like better support in ImageReady for web design and no Guides, but
it's a good article) ... as a Photoshop user I would feel limited
dropping down to E 3 (I miss LAB mode, Actions, Curves, advanced
Shadow/Highlight tool and a lot more) but for a new user at the
hobbyist level there's no doubt Elements will do what you need for the
right price.

>I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit
>City, for $99.99US. Is this a good deal?

You can get Photoshop Elements 3 for about $60 on sale (or with a
rebate) at many places and it's also bundled as a freebie with a fairly
large number of devices (I got mine free with a new Wacom tablet, my
friend got his free with a scanner purchase, for example). $100 for
both programs sounds about right, but only if you *really* need
Premier.

Bill
Related resources
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:39:24 AM

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

On 06 Jul 2005 21:39:23 GMT, Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.com> wrote:

>I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
>for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.
>
>What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
>At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
>than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?
>Or, conversely, what features does regular PS have that PS Elements
>doesn't. Is it THAT much better, that I should spend $600 for it? Why
>would I use one of these programs over the other?
>
>Are these two pieces of software worth getting, for a hundred bucks? I
>just looked at the Adobe website, and ran thru the little video clips,
>and they both seem like very cool tools. But, I know there's a lot of
>marketing behind those videos, so I don't necessarily trust that they're
>as easy to use and powerful as the videos claim.
>
>I'd like to hear from those of you who have experience with PS Elements
>and Primiere Elements, vs regular Photoshop.
>
>TIA,

I still use PSP and PS Elephants 2

I've tried Premiere Elements (I got it for free as a giveaway at a
conference); it will only recognize video it's imported. Any video you
already have will not be compatible.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:39:24 AM

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

How deeply is Eric involved with still photography (Photoshop Elements
3) and video photography (Premiere Elements)?

I've discovered that still images titillate me, but I have neither
talent nor interest in making video (moving pictures). Two horses for
different courses. I obviously have little I can say about Adobe
"Premiere Elements."

Bill H's post says a good deal about consumer-grade "Elements 3" (and
its competitor "Paint Shop Pro") versus industrial-strength "Photoshop
CS2."

If Eric needs to ask a newsgroup whether he will be served better by
either "Elements 3" or "Photoshop CS2," then I suggest that he first
learn the utility of the less expensive ($60 at discount - $100 full
price) software.

Adobe does offer an upgrade path (about US$400) to get from "Elements"
to "Photoshop," so what money he spends on the introduction isn't
totally lost.

I suspect that many users of Photoshop CS2 reasonably expect to make
money with their skills.

I do chuckle over Bill F's simile of "PS Elephants 2," for I have
several friends who prefer "Paint Shop Pro."
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:39:24 AM

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

Eric Babula wrote:
> I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
> for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.

Be aware that Adobe Premiere and Premiere Elements REQUIRE
Windows XP.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:27:22 AM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
news:Xns968BA9E1DAF3ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.231...
> I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
> for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.
>
> What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
> At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
> than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?
> Or, conversely, what features does regular PS have that PS Elements
> doesn't. Is it THAT much better, that I should spend $600 for it? Why
> would I use one of these programs over the other?

Hey, there are things in Elements 3 which are not in Photoshop CS2. I read a
review of CS2 and while it kicked Elements but he kept referring to cool
things that were in Elements 3.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:27:23 AM

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

Dave R knows who wrote:
> "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns968BA9E1DAF3ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.231...
>
>>I'm looking at these two pieces of software in an ad from Circuit City,
>>for $99.99US. Is this a good deal? The ad says it's a savings of $50.
>>
>>What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
>>At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
>>than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?
>>Or, conversely, what features does regular PS have that PS Elements
>>doesn't. Is it THAT much better, that I should spend $600 for it? Why
>>would I use one of these programs over the other?
>
>
> Hey, there are things in Elements 3 which are not in Photoshop CS2. I read a
> review of CS2 and while it kicked Elements but he kept referring to cool
> things that were in Elements 3.
>
>
>
PSE3 has a photo organizer, which makes keeping track of your pictures
easy, and a couple of features that aren't in PhotoShop CS, but if you
need the 'hard core' editing features, then PSE probably isn't for you.
IF your needs are less stringent, then you might find PSE3 a great
value. I certainly do.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:32:26 AM

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

I've used both Photoshop and Photoshop Elements - plenty. And I don't
see much difference between the two of them for 99% of all use - least
of all enough to justify the price difference.

Browse this gun show for FREE! Shop the
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:58:20 AM

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

"camera critter" <thcaadoc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120697731.135900.9960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill H's post says a good deal about consumer-grade "Elements 3" (and
> its competitor "Paint Shop Pro") versus industrial-strength "Photoshop
> CS2."
>
<some good stuff snipped>
>
> I do chuckle over Bill F's simile of "PS Elephants 2," for I have
> several friends who prefer "Paint Shop Pro."
>

PSP is far more a competitor to PS. In fact Adobe was forced to integrate
features into PS such as .gif and .jpg optimizers, vector shapes, vector
drawing abilities, and an image browser because so many PhotoShop 4, 5, 6, 7
customers were complaining that PSP (since forever I think) had all of them
and more.

Elements 3 doesn't even come close to PSP 9 in terms of advanced features
like curves, adjustment layers, vector drawing, and a slew of options to
enhance workflow including scripting and recording. PSP 9 is by far the best
value [both price wise and ease of use wise] on the market for web graphics
work, and is still an exceptional value for home and small business usage
and printing. For highend illustration and editing going to printing [for
glossy mags, posters, and areas where precision color is needed] CorelDraw
12 will do, or Photoshop in combination with Illustrator are still best.
Let's face it though, nearly one of those professionals is ever seen in
public newsgroups, they're too busy making big bucks to bother. The rest of
us are getting pleasing results using PSP and printing at home, plus going
to a good print lab for those special print projects that need more than a
home equipment look.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:24:48 AM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
news:Xns968BA9E1DAF3ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.231...

> What's the difference between Photoshop Elements and regular Photoshop?
> At this price, I'm assuming regular Photoshop can do a whole lot more
> than PS Elements. But, what, exactly do I not get, if I buy PS Elements?

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I've read that PS Elements 2 (which
I'm using, haven't tried 3) has about 85% of the features of PhotoShop 7 in
it. Whatever the case, I think it's got more than enough features for the
average user, although I'd like it better if it had a curves feature as
well.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:39:42 AM

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:nhpoc1pls8f5hqlpnni65jp4o4ldsi4uel@4ax.com...

> I still use PSP and PS Elephants 2

How is that spell checker working? :-)
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:39:43 AM

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

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:2ZZye.3307$p%3.20911@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
> news:nhpoc1pls8f5hqlpnni65jp4o4ldsi4uel@4ax.com...
>
>> I still use PSP and PS Elephants 2
>
> How is that spell checker working? :-)
'Elephants' would have passed a spell-checker; it's spelled correctly.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:09:49 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> PSE3 has a photo organizer, which makes keeping track of your pictures
> easy, and a couple of features that aren't in PhotoShop CS, but if you
> need the 'hard core' editing features, then PSE probably isn't for you.
> IF your needs are less stringent, then you might find PSE3 a great
> value. I certainly do.
>
>
One of these hard core features that the full PS has is an unmatched
ability in doing pre-press work such as color seperation negatives.
This work is needed if your work will be reproduced on a printing press
(not a computer printer).

Most amateur and occasional photographers will never need these
features, but if you are regularly submitting photos to be done on
printing press, as with magazines or newspapers, PS does the best job.

However, for occasional shots sent to a magazine, the mag's staff can do
a pretty decent job on a file you send them.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:42:45 PM

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

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:39:42 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:nhpoc1pls8f5hqlpnni65jp4o4ldsi4uel@4ax.com...
>
>> I still use PSP and PS Elephants 2
>
>How is that spell checker working? :-)
>
Just fine.
Did I spell "and" wrong? :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:43:42 PM

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

>Linda Nieuwenstein writes ...
>
>PSP is far more a competitor to PS.

I only used PSP for a few days before deleting it (free 30 day trial
with a new computer) but based on what I experienced I'd say PSP isn't
as good as Elements 3 and is definitely not a threat to Photoshop,
given the features I require. This was with either PSP 7 or 8 so dunno
if it's still true but here is what I saw when I tried to use it ...

1) Opened PSP and tried to open one of my film scan tiffs ... wouldn't
open. Why not? Hmm, turns out the PSP version I tried won't open 16
bit files (will PSP 9? dunno). This means none of my film scans or
RAW conversions can even be read by this program ... hmm, big strike
one. Elements 3 will open 16 bit files and do most operations on them.

2) So I opened a *real* image editor (Photoshop) and converted a
couple of files to 8 bits/channel just for PSP ... PSP then choked on
my Ektaspace working space tag (what I use for Velvia film scans since
it has a wide gamut matching slide film). OK, I figure I'll have to
change the tag from Ektaspace to AdobeRGB so again I opened the *real*
image editor and did the conversion ... and darned if PSP wouldn't
recognize AdobeRGB either (Elements 3 does) ... in fact the only
working space it seemed to recognize was sRGB, a limited gamut space
for web images and uncalibrated monitors. Pretty unimpressive ... I
saved a file and it stripped the profile I had when I opened it, so PSP
is actually destructive to images opened with other working spaces if
you save them.

After a few minutes of trying various operations (which PSP does quite
nicely, as do the other basic programs) I decided to delete it from my
system. Again, I don't know if PSP 9 is better behaved but so long as
there is no CMYK support, no 16 bit support and incredibly weak ICM
color management support the program is not good enough for most
serious photographers printing large prints, I feel, and it's a sick
joke to even try to compare it to Photoshop.

Bill
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 4:04:16 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>>
> PSP is far more a competitor to PS. In fact Adobe was forced to integrate...

<< Snipped bits out >>

PS Elements makes a lot of sense for the person who may carry his or her
profession, hobby, avocation, vocation, whatever, to the next level. The
learning curve alone makes Elements the right choice, as the transition
to PS CS is all the easier. Not everyone, of course, will want to move
past the basics.

And PSP is Windows only.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:47:17 PM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120761822.824831.320110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Linda Nieuwenstein writes ...
>>
>>PSP is far more a competitor to PS.
>
> I only used PSP for a few days before deleting it (free 30 day trial
> with a new computer) but based on what I experienced I'd say PSP isn't
> as good as Elements 3 and is definitely not a threat to Photoshop,
> given the features I require. This was with either PSP 7 or 8 so dunno
> if it's still true but here is what I saw when I tried to use it ...
>

Elements exists because of the pressure PSP was placing on PS and declining
sales (don't forget the pirating of PS is huge), ask anyone in the know at
Adobe. Adobe shot itself in the foot though becausue if it places too many
advanced features in Elements than its PS users will get upset, and new
potential customers will see no sense in wasting $600+ another $400 for
illustration software). . Thus the reason for important features like Curves
missing from Elements....but they are in PSP, as are Adjustment Layers,
Levels, Black and White points, and the unbeatable Background Eraser. Corel
PSP has it all, at a very low price with no concerns of putting too much in
PSP. PSP can only get better and the price has always been more than fair,
and support excellent. Adobe and support is like a circus elephant without
peanuts...not nice at all.

Since the difference between PSP 7 and PSP 8/9 is night and day I'd suggest
your few day trial of the version you're not sure of means very little. Try
again with PSP 9.

Your other points are moot since your argument is based on misinformation.
It is a shame you gave up so quickly on PSP, but frankly a real professional
uses all tools available to them in combination. More professionals have PSP
installed on their machines all the time because there are things PSP can do
easier/faster than PS, and even some features that PS just doesn't have that
are super handy and effective to graphics design. The same holds true for
press work, PS has things PSP doesn't, yet...

It makes sense to have both, but Elements a competitor to PSP? Not even
close. Adobe will have to add more features from PS and that's not going to
happen any time soon.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:57:06 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z9-dnTUfQt8s4VDfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> PS Elements makes a lot of sense for the person who may carry his or her
> profession, hobby, avocation, vocation, whatever, to the next level. The
> learning curve alone makes Elements the right choice, as the transition to
> PS CS is all the easier. Not everyone, of course, will want to move past
> the basics.
>
> And PSP is Windows only.
>

Both points are fair enough arguments against PSP in the past, and lesser so
now. Both arguments are based on low percentages since the 'masses' far out
number those who will go pro and actually 'purchase' (not pirate) PS, and
work on Mac. Last stats I saw about a year ago indicated that Macs hold only
16% of the market and declining. In fact I read a while back that several of
the larger image editing (including 3d animation) companies in light of
increased competition from what used to be peons, were placing Mac
development on the back burning for new software (whole new product not
updates like version 8 to 9 of existing software), and existing Mac software
versions were being developed last [after Windows version] if and as time
and money permits. Heck in a few years all the big companies will be falling
to knew printer technology is my guess (althoug one company has foresight
and is already developing 'in device' image editing software. The next 5
years will prove interesting for new technology and trends I think.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:07:09 PM

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

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
news:__yze.15$U11.47@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I only used PSP for a few days before deleting it (free 30 day trial
>> with a new computer) but based on what I experienced I'd say PSP isn't
>> as good as Elements 3 and is definitely not a threat to Photoshop,
>> given the features I require. This was with either PSP 7 or 8 so dunno
>> if it's still true but here is what I saw when I tried to use it ...
>>
>
> Your other points are moot since your argument is based on misinformation.
Oh sorry, forgot to say why your points are moot. PSP has never (as far back
as I can recall) had problems opening 16-bit images, images with embedded
profiles, or aRGB because PSP has always just stripped the image's gamut
prior to displaying it. In PSP you work in sRGB (most frequently used color
space in modern day...backed my most equipment available). Why your images
didn't open probably had a lot more to do with your save configuration in
PS, or the known issue of PS (up to version 7 that I know of) improperly
recording the image data at time of saving. Most people who only use PS
would never notice, but the weakness becomes evident PS saved images are
used in non-Adobe software. Some have argued this is done on purpose to
discourage the use of other software to maintain company loyality.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:14:13 PM

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

>Linda Nieuwenstein writes ...
>
>Oh sorry, forgot to say why your points are moot. PSP has never (as far
>back as I can recall) had problems opening 16-bit images

To quote from a review "Finally, while PSP can read and save Raw file
formats, it does not support 16-bit channels." This one is from
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/PSP/PSP.HTM and every other review
I could find said the same thing. This is for Rev 8, I'm sure I saw
the same thing with the version I used, whether it was 7 or 8.

>PSP has never (as far back as I can recall) had problems opening ...
> images with embedded profiles, or aRGB

You misunderstood what I meant when I wrote "PSP then choked on my
Ektaspace working space tag" ... the file opened but the profile info
was stripped out. I assumed PSP just didn't understand ("choked on") a
not-very-common advanced working space like Ektaspace so I dumbed the
file down to AdobeRGB, which every color managed program seems to
understand but PSP "wouldn't recognize AdobeRGB either". The files
opened (once converted to 8 bit/channel mode) but with the color tags
ignored and stripped out when re-written. This is bad. Fatal if
you're working in a color managed workflow.

>PSP has never (as far back as I can recall) had problems opening ... images
>with embedded profiles, or aRGB because PSP has always just stripped the
>image's gamut prior to displaying it.

Right ... and you don't see the problem with that?

Here's what another reviewer has to say about PSP's sorry color
management policies ...
http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0104sb_jasc/
(quote)
Color Management
This is the area where Paint Shop Pro 8 clearly fails to live up to
professional standards. After extensive testing, it is quite clear that
the only RGB images that Paint Shop Pro 8 correctly supports are image
files in the limited sRGB color space. This is a large Achilles’ heel
for many advanced users, and will become a larger problem as more and
more digital camera vendors are supporting alternative RGB color spaces
such as Adobe RGB 1998.

While it is clear that sRGB images are properly displayed and printed
as far as color accuracy, images I tested in a variety of other color
spaces such as Kodak ProPhoto, Colormatch, and Adobe RGB 1998 were all
incorrectly displayed and printed as sRGB images. It is also poor color
management behavior that Paint Shop Pro 8 strips the embedded ICC
profile in each file so that if they were embedded in the file to begin
with, you can be sure that they won’t be embedded when saved out of the
application. (end quote)

The key phrase (since you are obviously a "true believer" and may have
missed it) is "images I tested in a variety of other color spaces such
as Kodak ProPhoto, Colormatch, and Adobe RGB 1998 were all incorrectly
displayed and printed as sRGB images".

Totally unacceptable. Elements 3 doesn't have this problem.

>Why your images didn't open probably had a lot more to do with your
>save configuration in PS

The 16 bit images that didn't open were fresh scans from a Nikon film
scanner, no LZW compression, no layers, just vanilla tiff format, yet
PSP couldn't recognize them. PS had nothing to do with generating
them.

>but the weakness becomes evident PS saved images are
>used in non-Adobe software.

The irony here is that opening them in Photoshop and converting to 8
bit and saving as tiffs was the ONLY way I could get PSP to see them,
so it's not Adobe's fault :)  Talking about "moot points" ...

>In PSP you work in sRGB (most frequently used color
>space in modern day)

It's the most common working space simply because the majority of
amateurs shooting consumer grade digi-cams use it as their default,
just as they shoot jpegs instead of tiffs or RAW. Forcing all users of
PSP to default to it is a good indication of their target market.
Certainly anyone with a good dSLR or who is scanning film and printing
on high end inkjets or laser printers like the Chromira and LightJet
are better off with wider gamut spaces. PSP cuts those people off
while Elements 3 allows them to work in these wider spaces.

Bill
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 12:56:46 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120860853.034229.178400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I assumed PSP just didn't understand ("choked on") a
>>not-very-common advanced working space like Ektaspace so I dumbed the
>>file down to AdobeRGB, which every color managed program seems to
>>understand but PSP "wouldn't recognize AdobeRGB either". The files
>>opened (once converted to 8 bit/channel mode) but with the color tags
>>ignored and stripped out when re-written. This is bad. Fatal if
>>you're working in a color managed workflow.
>
>
> If we wanted to get picky you may notice that PSP does not have built in
> conversions from one color space to another so therefore PSP does not
> convert the open image to sRGB or 16-bit to 8-bit. That doesn't actually
> happen until you save the file in PSP. The image just exists initially, but
> really isn't any bit-depth.
>
> You may also want to read up on aRGB cause you're sure to find it ain't what
> it used to be with the onslaught technology now available to the masses.
> sRGB has taken the limelight for the very large majority of users and
> manufacturers of hardware.
>
How has sRGB changed? Did someone enlarge the color space? PS handles
sRGB just fine, but doesn't force users into it.

Because it is the default choice of the "masses", does that give it some
imprimateur?

>>PSP has never (as far back as I can recall) had problems opening ... images
>>with embedded profiles, or aRGB because PSP has always just stripped the
>>image's gamut prior to displaying it.
>
>
> Right ... and you don't see the problem with that?
>
> Not at all for me and most likely the masses of digital photographers. I
> have little if any use for 16-bit.

Not everyone who frequents this NG is part of your masses. Many of us
think for ourselves, see the advantage of 16 bit processing, but may not
need it at times. Many of us are learning, and if we don't have well
balanced color management now, we hope to in the future.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:54:59 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9K6dnXzoOdCd1lLfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>>
>> Not at all for me and most likely the masses of digital photographers. I
>> have little if any use for 16-bit.
>
> Not everyone who frequents this NG is part of your masses. Many of us
> think for ourselves, see the advantage of 16 bit processing, but may not
> need it at times. Many of us are learning, and if we don't have well
> balanced color management now, we hope to in the future.
>
> --
>
> John McWilliams
>

Public newsgroups like this one are not filled with professional designers
or photographers whose output is their living. Again most of the masses who
hang in public newsgroups are everyday Joes, and whether they think for
themselves or not, do photography as an interest as opposed to a career. The
masses have no use for 16-bit because their home equipment doesn't support
anything but sRGB gamut anyway. The main point remains though, PSP is far
more a competitor to PS than it is to Elements 3 which in my opinion PSP
tramples all over even though it uses sRGB only and has CMYK color
separation on at time of saving.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:13:20 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:9K6dnXzoOdCd1lLfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
>>Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>>
>>>Not at all for me and most likely the masses of digital photographers. I
>>>have little if any use for 16-bit.
>>
>>Not everyone who frequents this NG is part of your masses. Many of us
>>think for ourselves, see the advantage of 16 bit processing, but may not
>>need it at times. Many of us are learning, and if we don't have well
>>balanced color management now, we hope to in the future.
>>
>
> Public newsgroups like this one are not filled with professional designers
> or photographers whose output is their living. Again most of the masses who
> hang in public newsgroups are everyday Joes, and whether they think for
> themselves or not, do photography as an interest as opposed to a career. The
> masses have no use for 16-bit because their home equipment doesn't support
> anything but sRGB gamut anyway. The main point remains though, PSP is far
> more a competitor to PS than it is to Elements 3 which in my opinion PSP
> tramples all over even though it uses sRGB only and has CMYK color
> separation on at time of saving.
>

This newsgroup?? This one? I'd not care to characterize it, and
certainly not as you have done.

I am not one to say PSP is a piece of garbage; it isn't from all I have
read, but it's a dead end for those who do need to eventually go onto
the full Photoshop. Its platform limitations are a drawback as well, but
there'll be a number of the masses who would never change or dream of
changing OSes.

BTW, have you had more than a passing relationship with PSP- ie,
employee or contractor of any sorts?

Have a good day.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:12:43 AM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YOydnUe8nL681EzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>
> This newsgroup?? This one? I'd not care to characterize it, and certainly
> not as you have done.
>

If you haven't characterized this group you would have no opinion on my
assessment one way or the other. Since you seem so against my assessment
based on years of observation/reading I can only conclude the obvious which
is you have done more characterizing of this group than you care to admit.

Also, nothing I said was negative. I simply indicated results of
observations over the years of reading here, and that is that not many if
any professional photographers (as in making their living from their photo
work) do not hang around this group. I didn't see anyone rushing to tell me
I was wrong in my observations. If you feel there is something sinester
about a group composed of hobby and amateur photographers then it is you
that needs to deal with whatever struggle that fact causes for you.

> I am not one to say PSP is a piece of garbage; it isn't from all I have
> read, but it's a dead end for those who do need to eventually go onto the
> full Photoshop. Its platform limitations are a drawback as well, but
> there'll be a number of the masses who would never change or dream of
> changing OSes.
>
> BTW, have you had more than a passing relationship with PSP- ie, employee
> or contractor of any sorts?
>

Yes, I do contract work for several software and hardware companies which
has anything to do with anything we are discussing.

> Have a good day.
>

I always manage to, hope you do too.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 7:57:46 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YOydnUe8nL681EzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>> This newsgroup?? This one? I'd not care to characterize it, and certainly
>> not as you have done.
>>
>
> If you haven't characterized this group you would have no opinion on my
> assessment one way or the other. Since you seem so against my assessment
> based on years of observation/reading I can only conclude the obvious which
> is you have done more characterizing of this group than you care to admit.
>
> Also, nothing I said was negative. I simply indicated results of
> observations over the years of reading here, and that is that not many if
> any professional photographers (as in making their living from their photo
> work) do not hang around this group. I didn't see anyone rushing to tell me
> I was wrong in my observations. If you feel there is something sinester
> about a group composed of hobby and amateur photographers then it is you
> that needs to deal with whatever struggle that fact causes for you.
>
>> I am not one to say PSP is a piece of garbage; it isn't from all I have
>> read, but it's a dead end for those who do need to eventually go onto the
>> full Photoshop. Its platform limitations are a drawback as well, but
>> there'll be a number of the masses who would never change or dream of
>> changing OSes.
>>
>> BTW, have you had more than a passing relationship with PSP- ie, employee
>> or contractor of any sorts?
>>
>
> Yes, I do contract work for several software and hardware companies which
> has anything to do with anything we are discussing.
>
>> Have a good day.
>>
>
> I always manage to, hope you do too.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
>
Actually, there are a lot of professional photographers here. Often
their condescending comments, and their 'better than you' attitudes, and
their 'know it all' posts make the group less useful than it would be
without them. Perhaps you have missed the lengthy discussions about
wedding photography, and the highly technical discussions about light,
lenses, and battery life. Unfortunately, I haven't.

Sometimes I wish there were a group that allowed ONLY non-professionals,
but then there is the exception to the rule who actually contributes
useful information without the 'attitude' and make the group more useful.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 6:31:29 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YOydnUe8nL681EzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>
>>This newsgroup?? This one? I'd not care to characterize it, and certainly
>>not as you have done.
>
> Also, nothing I said was negative.

That'd be up to each reader to decide, no? Not many here contemplate
themselves as part of the great unwashed masses. Yes, I inserted the
word "unwashed".

I simply indicated results of
> observations over the years of reading here, and that is that not many if
> any professional photographers (as in making their living from their photo
> work) do not hang around this group. I didn't see anyone rushing to tell me
> I was wrong in my observations.

Perhaps others aren't as keen to rush in as you have been.

If you feel there is something sinester
> about a group composed of hobby and amateur photographers then it is you
> that needs to deal with whatever struggle that fact causes for you.

Sinister that the group is composed of any combo of the above together
with Pro photogs in any proportions? No.


>>BTW, have you had more than a passing relationship with PSP- ie, employee
>>or contractor of any sorts?
>>
> Yes, I do contract work for several software and hardware companies which
> has anything to do with anything we are discussing.
>
Did you mean "nothing" for "anything"? IAE, would you kindly name said
companies?

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:21:38 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:fUKBe.5633$1Y1.362@fe02.lga...
> Actually, there are a lot of professional photographers here. Often their
> condescending comments, and their 'better than you' attitudes, and their
> 'know it all' posts make the group less useful than it would be without
> them. Perhaps you have missed the lengthy discussions about wedding
> photography, and the highly technical discussions about light, lenses, and
> battery life. Unfortunately, I haven't.
>

hahahaha, Ron, you crack me up with your definition of the pros here ;-) I
have seen a number of 'better than thou' type threads, but frankly I tend to
be more interested in the posts by those folks who have a history of talking
about what they know from experience, and who refer the thread to someone
else when they realize the topic has gone beyond their level of experience.
You actually fit that catagory well. I've seen you offer solid info based on
your experience (not just something you've read) plus I've seen you back off
when a topic expanded past your current experience level. There are many
here who over time have proven quite dependable in this regard.

> Sometimes I wish there were a group that allowed ONLY non-professionals,
> but then there is the exception to the rule who actually contributes
> useful information without the 'attitude' and make the group more useful.
>

Sometimes I wish there was a group that non-professionals acted like
non-professionals, and were proud to be serious hobby photographers :-)
Unlike you I find the problems come in when people who don't really know
what they are talking about try to bluff everyone into believing they are
professionals. Those are the worst offenders for passing on faulty
information by talking about things they've only read about, and didn't
really understand since they don't work in the industry as they pretend to
work in. They knock those who are more honest in presenting their experience
without even realizing their info isn't up to par. For the most part, over
the years most everyone here has been honest about their level of experience
and pull out when a topic goes beyond their current level of experience, or
smartly go into question mode with those who do know.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:30:52 AM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_aOdnb2qhM-vtkXfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> That'd be up to each reader to decide, no? Not many here contemplate
> themselves as part of the great unwashed masses. Yes, I inserted the word
> "unwashed".
>

Yes you did add 'unwashed' and I have no idea what context you are using it
in in this thread.

>
> Perhaps others aren't as keen to rush in as you have been.
>

Errrr, since I was in this thread before you, 'perhaps others aren't as keen
to rush in as YOU have been.' lol.


> Did you mean "nothing" for "anything"? IAE, would you kindly name said
> companies?
>

Yes I did mean nothing to do with anything, and I still mean my contractor's
client list has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Considering your
experience with stalkers in newsgroups I'm surprised you would ask anyone to
share personal information which could open them to the same.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:30:53 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>Did you mean "nothing" for "anything"? IAE, would you kindly name said
>>companies?
>>
> Yes I did mean nothing to do with anything, and I still mean my contractor's
> client list has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Considering your
> experience with stalkers in newsgroups I'm surprised you would ask anyone to
> share personal information which could open them to the same.

Personal experience with stalkers! Interesting. Just what would that be
besides someone(s) posting persoanl info?

IAE, you are simply being evasive. Have you not worked for Jasc? Have
you been shunned by Adobe?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:48:20 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ssednWejkZCqx33fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
> Personal experience with stalkers! Interesting. Just what would that be
> besides someone(s) posting persoanl info?
>
> IAE, you are simply being evasive. Have you not worked for Jasc? Have you
> been shunned by Adobe?
>
Oh please play your games with someone else. You know darn well what I mean
by your experience with stalking in newsgroups.

Pry all you like, it won't work. I don't trust you one little bit.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:48:21 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ssednWejkZCqx33fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
>>Personal experience with stalkers! Interesting. Just what would that be
>>besides someone(s) posting persoanl info?
>>
>>IAE, you are simply being evasive. Have you not worked for Jasc? Have you
>>been shunned by Adobe?
>>
> Oh please play your games with someone else.

Not a game: I asked you a direct question.

You know darn well what I mean
> by your experience with stalking in newsgroups.

Do you not have the chutzpah to say clearly and plainly what you mean?
>
jpmc
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:29:36 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tIKdnXA-gIpOoXzfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> Not a game: I asked you a direct question.
>
...and I gave you direct answers. I can't control that you can't read for
comprehension. Once again my personal information is none of your business
especially since I don't trust you. Never have trusted you, never will. Now
stop being such a Sally.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:26:17 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tIKdnXA-gIpOoXzfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>
>>Not a game: I asked you a direct question.
>>
>
> ..and I gave you direct answers.

Bull. Evasive. Non-responsive.

jpm
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:39:56 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:26:17 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

>> ..and I gave you direct answers.
>
> Bull. Evasive. Non-responsive.

You made your point long ago for anyone that cares. Will the
weeks be stretched into months, and for what purpose?
!