Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Page 2

Paul Foxton · 02-17-2006, 12:49 PM

Hi Joan,

My girlfriend uses photoshop professionally in her job. She has had some quite serious problems with CS2, and finds it buggy.

She says that CS, the previous version, is fine though, and recommends that you get that, upgrading to CS2 if you want the extra features after it has been out for a while and has the bugs ironed out.

For what its worth, I use version 6 and am more than happy with it, but of course everybody's requirements are different.

Hope that helps.

Paul

Lacey Lewis · 02-17-2006, 01:14 PM

Sorry that I can't give you any advice on the CS2, but I use 7 and I think it is great. I had another version before that, I am guessing it was 6, and this one has some very useful tools that the other did not.

Can I ask a question too... what is meant by a publishing program? I've worked with printers and have used Photoshop alone, or I have used Corel Draw alone. What would a publishing program do that Photoshop can't?

John Reidy · 02-17-2006, 02:23 PM

Hi Lacey

Since I'm the one who mentioned a publishing program I thought I should answer.

I used the term "publishing program" to describe a program like QuarkXpress. Quark is a program that many professionls use to create catalogs, magazines, etc. It allows you, the creator, to make various size pages, number of pages and the handling of type in conjunction with hi-res images. With Quark you have many automatic ways to handle type -wrap around, surround, set up tabs and more. You can import hi-res images as lo-res files you can then crop and size without changing the hi-res image. All of this is done in Quark and is a relatively low size file.

When you deliver it to the printer you deliver the Quark file, the hi-res images and the fonts you used.

To do this in Photoshop would create a huge file (if a catalog or book).

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with using Photoshop or Correll (which I've never used so can't compare) if it's working for you. I'm only trying to show the difference.

Lacey Lewis · 02-17-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Reidy

Hi Lacey

Since I'm the one who mentioned a publishing program I thought I should answer.

I used the term "publishing program" to describe a program like QuarkXpress. Quark is a program that many professionls use to create catalogs, magazines, etc. It allows you, the creator, to make various size pages, number of pages and the handling of type in conjunction with hi-res images. With Quark you have many automatic ways to handle type -wrap around, surround, set up tabs and more. You can import hi-res images as lo-res files you can then crop and size without changing the hi-res image. All of this is done in Quark and is a relatively low size file.

When you deliver it to the printer you deliver the Quark file, the hi-res images and the fonts you used.

To do this in Photoshop would create a huge file (if a catalog or book).

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with using Photoshop or Correll (which I've never used so can't compare) if it's working for you. I'm only trying to show the difference.

I think I have a better picture of what this program would do, now, thanks! I hope I didn't sound like I was challenging you, I just honestly have no idea about publishing software and what more it could possibly do!

It sounds like a real advantage for bigger projects, like books. I'll keep that in mind for my auto-biography, LOL!

Linda Brandon · 02-21-2006, 11:10 AM

Joan, I just spotted this thread, sorry. I use Photoshop CS2 because it is the only Photoshop program that will open my Canon 20D JPEG/RAW tandem shots. (The Canon comes with its own RAW editing software but I wanted to stick with the Photoshop tools.)

If you already have Photoshop CS you can buy a CS2 upgrade for around $140 (I think).

I don't know why you would need either the CS or the CS2 unless you are shooting RAW format.

Joan Breckwoldt · 02-22-2006, 10:41 PM

Thank you Paul, Lacey, John and Linda,

I haven't checked the forum for a few days so I apologize for being late wiht my thank you's to my post.

Paul and Lacey, perhaps the version 6 or 7 will do. Thank you.

Linda, well, I got a new camera for Christmas (Nikon D70s) and I haven't even downloaded any photos from it yet. With my old camera I would download the photos, edit them in the program that came with that Canon camera, then save them in jpg format. Is the RAW format better? And by better I guess I'm wondering if it contains more info? I still haven't talked to my printer. What do people use RAW format for?

So, perhaps the version 7 would work for me, assuming I can keep working in jpg format and that's enough for the printer. He had a problem with what I brought in a couple of weeks ago, I edited a photo and saved it in jpg format. I thought at the time the problem was my editing program, but maybe it was the fact that I saved the file as jpg?

Well, the more I write, the more obvious it becomes how much I don't know!

Joan

Linda Brandon · 03-16-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Foxton

My girlfriend uses photoshop professionally in her job. She has had some quite serious problems with CS2, and finds it buggy.

Paul, I can't get the CS2 Bridge function to work, I'm just wondering whether your girlfriend has the same problem.

Joan, I've been hesitating about talking about RAW because I'm still pretty new to it. It is a powerful program and my camera is such a huge advancement over my old camera that I feel like somebody who can't drive a stick shift who has just been handed the keys to a Mercedes SLR.* I keep telling myself, "all knowledge is gradual." What I do know is that the artists I know who are adept at shooting RAW take incredibly beautiful reference photos. But it is their intelligence, taste and their vision that sets up the reference photos to start with, and their skill at painting that results in a wonderful piece of art. I guess what I'm saying is that a painter doesn't need to have all this high end technology, it's just awfully nice to have around, except that of course it costs an arm and a leg**.

*Were this to happen, however, I would like to think I would figure it out pretty fast.

**This is an expression which has its origins in the portrait world, by the way - historically, painters charge more if they include an arm, and even more if they include an arm and a leg. I've probably posted this before on the Forum so I apologize if this is old news to anybody reading this.

Mike McCarty · 03-16-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linda Brandon

But it is their intelligence, taste and their vision that sets up the reference photos to start with, and their skill at painting that results in a wonderful piece of art. I guess what I'm saying is that a painter doesn't need to have all this high end technology, it's just awfully nice to have around, except that of course it costs an arm and a leg*.

My sentiments exactly.

John Reidy · 03-16-2006, 11:16 PM

Linda,

May I suggest that you take some photos in the RAW format to just play with. You'll find that it isn't as intimidating as you might think. It offers you several buttons and scales to play with (not all of them would be widely used by a portrait artist) and any changes you make never change the original.

Of course you can always stay in the jpeg format and any changes you make you can perform a "save as" which also will leave the original untouched. But then you'd miss all of the fun with the RAW format.

I'll add that the RAW format is much larger.

Linda Brandon · 03-16-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Reidy

May I suggest that you take some photos in the RAW format to just play with.

Hi, John. I have two of those inches-thick "Teach Yourself Photoshop RAW" books and at night I goof around with my photos, the books and the computer controls in between posting on the Forum, which probably explains some of my rambling posts here.