Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do We Really NEED The Latest Version Of PhotoShop?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
September 29, 2005 1:37:46 AM

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

I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
modest requirements.

Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions of
PS still going strong?
September 29, 2005 1:37:47 AM

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

Per Jeremy:
>Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions of
>PS still going strong?

I'm still on 6.0.... and am another that doesn't use (or understand) it very
deeply. I probably use less than 10% of it's functionality.
--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:37:47 AM

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

>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing.
> ... Are most people upgrading every year

5.5 is pretty old ... here are the main things you are missing, off the
top of my head ...

* color management was totally revamped with rev 6 and is much better
now than with 5.5. In particular, if you're printing much the soft
proofing feature introduced in V 6 will pay for the upgrade in fewer
wasted prints, I feel.

* 16 bit/channel support is much better, including layers and
adjustment layer support. You may not need 16 b/c often but when you
do you'll appreciate the later versions.

* text tool is greatly changed, for the better.

* shadow/highlight tool added in CS is very handy for improving image
shadow detail quickly and worth the upgrade to most of us.

* built in RAW support.

The list goes on and on ... basically to some people these are
worth-while additions and to others they are not (I haven't upgraded to
CS2 for example because I didn't think the changes would be useful to
me). If you're satisfied with 5.5 then there's no reason to change,
but there's no doubt the later versions have plenty of useful features
for digital photography.

Bill
Related resources
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 3:06:20 AM

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

Jeremy wrote:
> I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
> do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have
> similarly modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old
> versions of PS still going strong?

I'm sticking with CS for the foreseeable future...
CS2 has a few tweaks, but none that compel me to upgrade.
For RAW, there are other fine conversion programs.
Though I have Capture One, I'm using a **free** RAW conversion program right
now called Raw Shooter Essentials.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 3:40:38 AM

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

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K2E_e.12834$L15.3123@trndny01...
>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
>do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
>modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
> of PS still going strong?
>
Heck, I'm still using Paintshop Pro 5. I do wish for better histagram
control though.
John
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 4:03:31 AM

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

I have 5.5 at work and use CS at home, I only use a fraction of the
functionality but those that I do use are much better and easier to use in
CS, I also use DCE Tools. My daughter has PhotoShop Elements 2.0 on her
laptop and that is pretty good and probably enough for most people.

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K2E_e.12834$L15.3123@trndny01...
>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
>do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
>modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
> of PS still going strong?
>
September 29, 2005 4:27:52 AM

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

"(PeteCresswell)" <a@b.c.invalid.USA> wrote in message
news:49kmj1lcb86p91oiaelfgcimdp3m6152gc@4ax.com...
> Per Jeremy:
>>Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
>>of
>>PS still going strong?
>
> I'm still on 6.0.... and am another that doesn't use (or understand) it
> very
> deeply. I probably use less than 10% of it's functionality.
> --
> PeteCresswell

I came to PS from PSP, and I am just now getting into it.

Amazon has new and used books on the older PS versions that are dirt-cheap.
I just ordered 6 of them and the total for all 6 was less than the "new"
price on even a single one.

One of the books was that huge "Photoshop 5 Bible," and it cost $8.00 brand
new! Anyone looking for software books ought to take a look at Amazon's
used booksellers section. I don't know when Amazon linked up with used and
closeout book dealers, but the prices they're charging on some of this stuff
is really low, and there really is no pressing need to buy a pristine copy
of a book that will probably fall out of use when you upgrade in a year or
two.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 6:01:05 AM

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

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

>Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions of
>PS still going strong?

I'm still using PS 6. I was in the habit of upgrading every *second*
major version, but I got behind.

Dave
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 6:18:37 AM

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

Jeremy wrote:
> I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
> do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
> modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions of
> PS still going strong?
>
>
I think it all depends on how experienced you are in digital imaging,
how many hours/week you actually use PS and how much time you are
willing to invest in mastering the new features offered by each new version.
I use V5.0, V7.0 and CS.
I learned on V5.0 about 5 years ago, so I am pretty comfortable with it.
I got V7.0 mainly to get the healing brush and the Extract feature.
Healing Brush sounded like a BIG advance over the clone tool, which I
use a lot. But I did not find it as useful as I had hoped. I still use
the clone tool more often than the healing brush. Also, the Extract
feature did not work as easily or as well as I had hoped either.
I upgraded to CS because several friends who are more expert than I,
thought it was a Killer Ap. That's where the rub comes in. For THEM, it
probably was a great advance, but they work at PS several hours/day
every day. I was just getting used to V7.0 and I did not want to invest
the time in learning how to master the new esoteric features in CS that
I would probably rarely use.
Bottom Line:
I continue to use what I am most comfortable with, i.e., V5.0
Occasionally I'll switch over to V7.0 and very rarely find the need for
using CS. Others may have very different experiences depending on their
needs and expertise.
Bob Williams
September 29, 2005 6:34:04 AM

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

I'm working from version 6 but mostly because there is little reason to
upgrade until I upgrade the computer. Once I've got the speed for doing more
with 16 bit images I'll go for the latest version.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:WRF_e.334107$5N3.182627@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:K2E_e.12834$L15.3123@trndny01...
> >I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing.
Don't
> >do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
> >modest requirements.
> >
> > Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
> > of PS still going strong?
> >
> Heck, I'm still using Paintshop Pro 5. I do wish for better histagram
> control though.
> John
>
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 6:37:24 AM

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

In a word if you are using 5.5, apart from financial constraints prohibiting
upgrades, I suggest you may not understand the uses of Photoshop.
For most users Elements is indeed adequate, even for sophisticated image
processing. However if you need to use complex sublayers Elements does not
support this. Elements 2 or 3 are more capable than PS 5.5.
As a steady upgrader since 5.5 I would say that sophisticated users of
scanned film originals are not missing much by stopping at PS7. There is
adequate RAW functionality in PS7 IF your camera's raw format is covered.
CS adds some very worthwhile filters, but there are third party plugins that
perform similarly. Of course the cumulative price of plugins likely exceeds
the cost of upgrading to CS. There are some other functional tweaks, like
the way filters can be previewed, that are not indispensable.
CS2 adds the Bridge program, not indispensable, and some additional filters
like warp and vanishing point that are useful but not indispensable. The
smart sharpen filter may or may not work better than other methods of
sharpening for printing or less well than some expensive plugins, like the
Nik program. Smart Objects, Adobe's version of object linking and embedding
(the holy grail for Microsoft Office programmers 10 years ago) is
indispensable for those who need to create high quality composite images and
should have been in Photoshop many versions ago, particularly the Windows
versions.
I use and like CS2 but it is less stable than prior versions and in the real
world, despite what Adobe prints on the box, requires more hardware
horespower. I recently had to upgrade from an Athlon XP3200/1gb RAM (not a
slow system by any measure) to a dual core Athlon 64/1gb RAM and the
performance difference with large 48bit files is substantial.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 8:54:58 AM

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

Jeremy wrote:
> I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
> do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
> modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions of
> PS still going strong?
>
>
Those with more modest needs would do well to consider the much cheaper
PhotoShop Elements line.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 12:20:01 PM

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

> Gianni Rondinini writes ...
>
>i would change the question to: do we really *need* photoshop?
>paint shop pro is far cheaper and release 9 works really well.

Paint Shop Pro 9 doesn't support 16 bit files. The color management is
really poor with support only for sRGB. If you open a file tagged in
another wider gamut color space like AdobeRGB the tag is ignored and
the colors aren't translated, so the colors are always off. It's a
program for beginners using sRGB, nothing at all like Photoshop.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:09:00 PM

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

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
>do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
>modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
> of PS still going strong?

I'm still on 7.0.

With anything digital, version-to-version upgrades are pretty minor, but if
you skip a version or two (or more!), upgrading gets a lot more interesting.
It sounds to me that the 'smart sharpening' and noise reduction functions in
the latest version are worth the upgrade price.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:09:01 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote in part:

>
> I'm still on 7.0.
>

Another vote here for version 7 (7.04 actually). For things that later
versions of PSP or PSE do - such as good perspective correction - I
BRING OUT THE GIMP!!!111```!!

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
The Carl Spackler of the Von Braun Astronomical Society, www.vbas.org.
September 29, 2005 1:09:01 PM

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

2005-09-29, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
>>do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
>>modest requirements.
>>
>> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
>> of PS still going strong?
>
> I'm still on 7.0.

Where I work we are still at 7 - the decision has been made not to upgrade
because of the activation. For the same reason we run win2k pro instead of
win XP...

-peter
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:09:01 PM

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

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote in part:
>
> >
> > I'm still on 7.0.
> >
>
> Another vote here for version 7 (7.04 actually). For things that later
> versions of PSP or PSE do - such as good perspective correction - I
> BRING OUT THE GIMP!!!111```!!
>

I really like Gimp. It's even better on linux. I tried it on the latest
fedora gnome and it was fantastic.



> --
> It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
> The Carl Spackler of the Von Braun Astronomical Society, www.vbas.org.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:56:54 PM

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:37:46 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
>do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
>modest requirements.

i would change the question to: do we really *need* photoshop?
paint shop pro is far cheaper and release 9 works really well.
yes, i did need the version 9 i just bought because of some bugs in
the older releases.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:56:55 PM

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

Gianni Rondinini wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:37:46 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing.
>> Don't do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have
>> similarly modest requirements.
>
> i would change the question to: do we really *need* photoshop?

I just don't get the need for the "we" part of statements like this.

Why is it that everyone feels compelled to make statements regarding what
everyone needs other than their OWN SELF.

You guys really should consider taking care of your own business...and
letting others decide what is best for them. Pronouncements on behalf of
others are neither helpful nor necessary.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:56:56 PM

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

Mark² wrote in part:

> You guys really should consider taking care of your own business...and
> letting others decide what is best for them. Pronouncements on behalf of
> others are neither helpful nor necessary.
>

I have considered your sentiments, and I decided that it would be a
disservice to humanity to keep my opinions to myself. The guilt from
delaying even this respomse for the 20 seconds or so needed to
spellcheck was almost too much to bear.

You're welcome!

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
The Julio Franco of rsfc.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 1:56:57 PM

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

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> Mark² wrote in part:
>
>> You guys really should consider taking care of your own
>> business...and letting others decide what is best for them.
>> Pronouncements on behalf of others are neither helpful nor necessary.
>>
>
> I have considered your sentiments, and I decided that it would be a
> disservice to humanity to keep my opinions to myself. The guilt from
> delaying even this respomse for the 20 seconds or so needed to
> spellcheck was almost too much to bear.
>
> You're welcome!
>
> Corry

Opinions are great. Spew away!
I just find it fascinating how people tend to declare things.
September 29, 2005 4:23:54 PM

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

Heck! I still use a stone tablet, chisel and mallet.If it was good enough
for Moses to do the Ten Commandments why would I need more?

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K2E_e.12834$L15.3123@trndny01...
>I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
>do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
>modest requirements.
>
> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions
> of PS still going strong?
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 4:28:24 PM

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

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

> I have 5.5, and I use it to tweak my digital images before printing. Don't
> do much more than that. I suspect that a lot of people have similarly
> modest requirements.

I ran 5.5 myself, until CS finally enticed me to upgrade (I couldn't
resist the 16-bit adjustment layers and the RAW processing). It turns
out that I also find the healing brush very valuable.

> Are most people upgrading every year, or are there a lot of old versions of
> PS still going strong?

I think I've mostly run old versions if you add it all up.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 4:29:33 PM

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

Unclaimed Mysteries <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> writes:

> David J. Littleboy wrote in part:
>
> > I'm still on 7.0.
> >
>
> Another vote here for version 7 (7.04 actually). For things that later
> versions of PSP or PSE do - such as good perspective correction - I
> BRING OUT THE GIMP!!!111```!!

For perspective correction, my absolute favorite is the "warp" tool in
Picture Window Pro from Digital Light and Color.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 6:18:23 PM

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

The message <ErI_e.1056$Y_5.221@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
from "bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> contains these words:

> In a word if you are using 5.5, apart from financial constraints
> prohibiting
> upgrades, I suggest you may not understand the uses of Photoshop.
> For most users Elements is indeed adequate, even for sophisticated image
> processing. However if you need to use complex sublayers Elements does not
> support this. Elements 2 or 3 are more capable than PS 5.5.
> As a steady upgrader since 5.5 I would say that sophisticated users of
> scanned film originals are not missing much by stopping at PS7. There is
> adequate RAW functionality in PS7 IF your camera's raw format is covered.
> CS adds some very worthwhile filters, but there are third party
> plugins that
> perform similarly. Of course the cumulative price of plugins likely exceeds
> the cost of upgrading to CS. There are some other functional tweaks, like
> the way filters can be previewed, that are not indispensable.
> CS2 adds the Bridge program, not indispensable, and some additional filters
> like warp and vanishing point that are useful but not indispensable. The
> smart sharpen filter may or may not work better than other methods of
> sharpening for printing or less well than some expensive plugins, like the
> Nik program. Smart Objects, Adobe's version of object linking and embedding
> (the holy grail for Microsoft Office programmers 10 years ago) is
> indispensable for those who need to create high quality composite
> images and
> should have been in Photoshop many versions ago, particularly the Windows
> versions.
> I use and like CS2 but it is less stable than prior versions and in
> the real
> world, despite what Adobe prints on the box, requires more hardware
> horespower. I recently had to upgrade from an Athlon XP3200/1gb RAM (not a
> slow system by any measure) to a dual core Athlon 64/1gb RAM and the
> performance difference with large 48bit files is substantial.

I'm just building a dual core Athlon 64 3800 with 4gb Ram. Photoshop CS2 can
use 2gb RAM. Windows and other background programs then have plenty of memory.
Windows alone devours a couple hundred k of memory. With large files open
things will move very quickly. Fast memory is very cheap. 4gb cost less than
the CPU.

Deryck
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 6:18:24 PM

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

In article <3130303031383935433BF7AF69@deryck.com>, deryck lant
<deryck@deryck.com> wrote:

> I'm just building a dual core Athlon 64 3800 with 4gb Ram. Photoshop CS2 can
> use 2gb RAM. Windows and other background programs then have plenty of memory.
> Windows alone devours a couple hundred k of memory. With large files open
> things will move very quickly. Fast memory is very cheap. 4gb cost less than
> the CPU.

AMD...ick!
September 29, 2005 6:18:25 PM

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

2005-09-29, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>[...]
> AMD...ick!

O please, give it up,

-peter
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 7:59:34 PM

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

The message <290920050645259510%rag@nospam.techline.com>
from Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> contains these words:

> In article <3130303031383935433BF7AF69@deryck.com>, deryck lant
> <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:

> > I'm just building a dual core Athlon 64 3800 with 4gb Ram. Photoshop
> > CS2 can
> > use 2gb RAM. Windows and other background programs then have plenty
> > of memory.
> > Windows alone devours a couple hundred k of memory. With large files open
> > things will move very quickly. Fast memory is very cheap. 4gb cost
> > less than
> > the CPU.

> AMD...ick!

I agree. I had 4gb of DDR PC3200 RAM that I can use on the AMD board. All
the Intel 955 (for dual core) chipsets use DDR2 RAM. The British mags are
raving about the Athlon dual core much faster at present in all respects
than current affordable Pentium dual core (single threading and 1mb cache)
I thought I would find out what all the fuss was about. Only chip and board
- no big deal. The express graphics card I can use next time.

Deryck
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 11:25:30 PM

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

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:45:25 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <3130303031383935433BF7AF69@deryck.com>, deryck lant
><deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm just building a dual core Athlon 64 3800 with 4gb Ram. Photoshop CS2 can
>> use 2gb RAM. Windows and other background programs then have plenty of memory.
>> Windows alone devours a couple hundred k of memory. With large files open
>> things will move very quickly. Fast memory is very cheap. 4gb cost less than
>> the CPU.
>
>AMD...ick!

Silly boy.
Anonymous
September 30, 2005 12:58:05 AM

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

kashe@sonic.net wrote in part:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:45:25 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
> <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in part:
>
>>AMD...ick!
>
>
> Silly boy.

I have an AMC computer. I overclocked my Ambassador sedan to a b1tch1n'
Javelin w/the "Go" package & 401ci V8. Wooopht!!!

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
The Julio Franco of rsfc.
!