| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2004 02:05:50 PM · #1 |
Lots of people in last few months has switched from Photoshop 7 to Photoshop CS. I didn't have chance to see how does Photoshop CS look like or chance to meet it's new stuff. I use Photoshop 7 a lot, and I could say that I'm an intermediate Photoshop user. Is it worth to pay 650$? What are the advantages on CS?
Tnx in advance! |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 02:12:50 PM · #2 |
I recently asked the samw question & got a few replies. Apparently there is a full trial version available for 30 days. Also I think that CS comes with a raw plug in and has some other advantages that 7 does not. If you try it, let me know what you think.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 02:17:13 PM · #3 |
It's only $169 if you have photoshop 7.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 02:17:42 PM · #4 |
| its not for what you would probably use it for. i still use photo shop6, tho i have 7 and CS. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 02:19:39 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
I recently asked the samw question & got a few replies. Apparently there is a full trial version available for 30 days. Also I think that CS comes with a raw plug in and has some other advantages that 7 does not. If you try it, let me know what you think.
Good luck! |
I will try it eventualy so I'll let you know |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 03:27:43 PM · #6 |
i like CS a lot. very good file browser (I don't need ACDSee anymore), 16-bit editing (huge deal), some cool new adjustment features (shadow/highlight for example), a filter gallery like the one in Elements (saves time when applying/evaluating filters), and of course, the RAW converter, which eliminates the need for the cam's software (which in general suck).
the 16-bit and RAW conversion are the big sellers for me.
Some of these things can be replicated in PS 6 or 7, but are more efficient in CS. I'm allllll about the speed ;)
Pedro |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 03:31:54 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
i like CS a lot. very good file browser (I don't need ACDSee anymore), 16-bit editing (huge deal), some cool new adjustment features (shadow/highlight for example), a filter gallery like the one in Elements (saves time when applying/evaluating filters), and of course, the RAW converter, which eliminates the need for the cam's software (which in general suck).
the 16-bit and RAW conversion are the big sellers for me.
Some of these things can be replicated in PS 6 or 7, but are more efficient in CS. I'm allllll about the speed ;)
Pedro |
Have you tried the new resize wizard for printing, brilliant feature (lot easier getting th DPI now) |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 05:57:24 PM · #8 |
| Unless you use 16 bit editing its a waste of money -- simple as that. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 06:06:08 PM · #9 |
Probably not necessary for the casual user. If you have the money and intend to use it professionally it's definitely worth it.
Most people are buying because of the Raw, 16Bit, Shadow/Highlights(Raving about this one) but if you don't have a Raw format camera why bother.
The good thing about CS is that a lot of companies are buying the full version and not upgrading you should about to find a cheap or free copy of PS7 like I did :)
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 06:39:14 PM · #10 |
| I heard that on the average PC, Photoshop CS runs slower than version 7. Can anyone add to that if it's true or not? |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 07:17:08 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Unless you use 16 bit editing its a waste of money -- simple as that. |
I disagree with this. The RAW converter (which has gotten good reviews), the additional tools, e.g. shadow/highlight, the small but significant user interface refinements, the additional flexibility with brushes (hardness slider), and many more cmall changes all are steps forward.
The RAW converter alone was worth the $100 they were asking as a plug-in for 7.0, and now you get that in addition to all the other improvements for $169. While that's not inexpensive, it is still a decent value. I would not go back to running 7.0 and don't regret one cent of the upgrade cost.
I'm not a beliver in annual upgrade fever, and unless next year's inevitable upgrade is very significant I will probably pass, but the upgrade from 7 to CS was a no-brainer.
@Jason: I do not think CS runs slower; my PC is not average (3.2GHZ, 1GB RAM) but I think overall the speed is about the same.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 07:37:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
@Jason: I do not think CS runs slower; my PC is not average (3.2GHZ, 1GB RAM) but I think overall the speed is about the same. |
At those speeds you won't notice much difference, even if it's a significant percentage.
When I was running the USM filter on a 4mb file on a 40mHz Mac IIfx, we thought it was great that the time to do that had been cut from seven minutes to three minutes. On a machine like yours, cutting the time to execute the command from 3.7 seconds to 1.9 seconds (or increasing it, for that matter), won't be very noticible to the user. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 07:44:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
@Jason: I do not think CS runs slower; my PC is not average (3.2GHZ, 1GB RAM) but I think overall the speed is about the same. |
At those speeds you won't notice much difference, even if it's a significant percentage.
When I was running the USM filter on a 4mb file on a 40mHz Mac IIfx, we thought it was great that the time to do that had been cut from seven minutes to three minutes. On a machine like yours, cutting the time to execute the command from 3.7 seconds to 1.9 seconds (or increasing it, for that matter), won't be very noticible to the user. |
For the (very few) tasks I've run side by side, the time required seems to differ by <10% between 7.0 and CS; I can't be really sure there is a consistent difference.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 08:27:01 PM · #14 |
Also, may want to check this out, cannot substantiate as I haven't checked myself...
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 08:44:18 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Jason:
I heard that on the average PC, Photoshop CS runs slower than version 7. Can anyone add to that if it's true or not? |
i have noticed it runs a bit slower generating the thumbnails if there was a way to shut that off it would be better but havn't found it yet
i like CS better and wasn't a waste of money for me due to raw. Havn't messed with shadow/highlights much |
|
|
|
01/10/2004 11:53:41 AM · #16 |
I just got my hands on a new upgrade copy and this is my favorite version of PS so far. (Started at 5.5)
The file browser is so much more powerful and I find it runs a lot faster for me.
The new features that have been mentioned to this point are great and there's also a new "Photo Filter" under Image > Adjustments that allows you to simulate the effects of many different filters like warming, cooling, etc.
It was definitely worth the money for an upgrade.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2004 11:59:47 AM · #17 |
| Don't quite get what there is to rave about the shadow/ highlight tools, the features have always been in previous versions, it just took a couple more steps to select the areas you wanted to adjust... |
|
|
|
01/10/2004 12:04:20 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Don't quite get what there is to rave about the shadow/ highlight tools, the features have always been in previous versions, it just took a couple more steps to select the areas you wanted to adjust... |
True, absolutely, but required a fair amount of technique to pull off without looking PS'd. The CS Shadow/Highlight tool has it all over previous techniques in convenience, and the results are always natural-looking when used with discretion.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2004 12:07:02 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Don't quite get what there is to rave about the shadow/ highlight tools, the features have always been in previous versions, it just took a couple more steps to select the areas you wanted to adjust... |
Pecisely what i said when i brought it up the first time - nothing new, but way more convenient. If you want to convert a whole series of photos (say you took 20 shots under the same conditions) you only need ot make the adjustments once, then run each photo through it. Yes, you could create an action that would do the same, but this is far faster and more convenient.
edit: of course, if your lighting was correct the first time you wouldn't need it :)
Message edited by author 2004-01-10 12:08:05. |
|
|
|
01/10/2004 12:35:11 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Jason:
I heard that on the average PC, Photoshop CS runs slower than version 7. Can anyone add to that if it's true or not? |
CS runs significantly slower on my computer than 7. I'm running 1.8Ghz Athlon, 1GB RAM.
Drew |
|
|
|
01/10/2004 12:37:25 PM · #21 |
CS runs very slow for me when I have the filebrowser open in the background, but other than that I've not noticed too much difference, just a little. My computer is much worse than drew's, thats all I need to say :P
|
|
|
|
01/11/2004 08:44:03 AM · #22 |
I wouldn't say its much slower, it loads slower, but the processes are faster. (on my dual 2000+ 2 gig)
I beleive its faster in everyway (until running out of ram) on the notebook (3.06 512M)
there may be other differences, but so minute its not noticable.
maybe its optimized for all the later instructions not present on the older cpu's? |
|
|
|
01/11/2004 08:44:07 AM · #23 |
I wouldn't say its much slower, it loads slower, but the processes are faster. (on my dual 2000+ 2 gig)
I beleive its faster in everyway (until running out of ram) on the notebook (3.06 512M)
there may be other differences, but so minute its not noticable.
maybe its optimized for all the later instructions not present on the older cpu's? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 01:31:34 PM EDT.
