Elements 2 vs 3

[jeff]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?'"

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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