Adobe Photoshop CS2
 

Hello everyone,

Well, I'm finally ready to order PhotoShop so I went to Amazon.com to order it but it turns out I'm not sure which version. I thought the latest version was the CS2 but the few reveiws on Amazon were terrible, lots of trouble with that program. The reviewers gave it 2 out of 5 stars.

I recently had some promotional material printed, I did the set-up on my computer with a simple editing program that came with the computer. When I took the disk with the file/image to my printer, he said there wasn't enough information in the file. It turns out that the minute I start using the 'edit' button on my simple editing program, lots of information is lost. I ended up giving the printer an undedited file and he cropped it and made some color corrections himself. It worked out just fine, but in the future I would like to be able to edit my own files. Not to mention doing all the other amazing things I've been reading about that Photoshop can do.

So, I'm a bit confused and I wanted to be sure before I spent $600! There seem to be many different versions of Photoshop out there. I would appreciate any advice on which version to get. I imagine I'll also use it for what seems to be the most common use on the forum, to edit and paste photos for reference material.

Meanwhile, I'll keep searching the web for more info and reviews.

Thank you!!!!

Joan

Hi, Joan-

I've been a big fan of Photoshop for over 10 years. I currently run CS primarily for the Raw format I use in photography. I don't know if you have any experience with Photoshop. It can be overwhelming for a beginner but that's how I learned.

My concern is your publishing program. I would recommend QuarkXpress. This is a standard for printers and works well with photoshop. But beware. Quark isn't easy to learn by yourself but it can be done. Again, that's what I did.

I have had many things printed from catalogs to post cards and no printer has ever had a problem.

Hope this helps.

QuarkExpress
 

Hi John,

Thank you very much for your response. Maybe I can get away with just buying that QuarkExpress and not Photoshop (though I could probably use Photoshop too, for the reference photo situations.) Does QuarkExpress run independently from Photoshop? In other words, I don't need Photoshop to run QuarkExpress, is that right? I"ll investigate that too.

I am willing to give figuring out the program a shot. I used to be a graphic designer, but it's been a while (!) and I was using the old Adobe Illustrator program, along with some other oldies but goodies. And I'm not planning on anything very complicated, it's just nice to crop my own photos and put in my own text.

Thank you, I'll continue investigating . . .

Joan

P.S. You gave me the idea to talk to my printer and see if he's familiar with QuarkExpress, just to make sure it wouldn't be a problem for him, which it sounds like it wouldn't be.

Not cheap!
 

Just looked at QuarkExpress, it's not cheap! It must be a full publishing program since it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $600, with more expensive versions. So this would be something to use instead of Photoshop. I need to compare the two it seems.

Joan

Joan,

Unfortunately Quark is nothing like Photoshop. Photoshop's purpose is to work specifically with photographs, there manipulation and enhancement along with creating special effects. The images are imported into the Quark document which is strictly for publishing. The two serve different purposes but marry together well.

Yes, Quark is expensive. I haven't upgraded in years due primarily to the cost and my current version (4) serves my needs nicely.

If it were me I would go with Photoshop since that will give you lots of control with your images. There are other programs you can use for publishing, depending on your end use. You may look at Pagemaker. I've never used it but I have a friend who is a proffessional furniture designer and relies on Pagemaker for his publishing.

thank you
 

Hi John,

Thank you for your reply, yes it sounds like Photoshop is what I need, though I'm still a bit concerned about the poor reviews it got on Amazon and I'm not sure which version is the one to get. I assume the latest version. I'm hoping someone will give me advice on this. Sometimes the latest version of things have bugs are may be too complicated, maybe an older version will do.

Ah, Pagemaker. That was the program that I used almost daily when I was a graphic designer. Illustrator was just for images, it's all coming back to me now. Pagemaker was a great program, probably still is. I think I had the very first version of it, it was long time ago.

thank you again,

Joan

Hi Joan,
I'll be interested to follow this thread. I have been running Photoshop version 6.0 both at home and at work since I think 1999 and love it. It does everything I need it to do and the only drawback is that if you want to import files from somewhere like Adobe Studio Exchange , most of those were written and are compatable with only the newer versions. I have been contemplating updating to the CS2 version but haven't been able to justify the cost of the upgrade. Still on the fence about that one.
If you are already proficient with Illustrator, you will have no problem learning to use Photoshop.

Hello again,

If you don' anticipate using digital photography in the RAW format I would recommend Photoshop 6 or 7. They should have everything you'll need.

I agree with Heidi that if you are proficient in Illustrator you'll pick up on Photoshop easily.

CS2 anybody?
 

Thank you Heidi and John,

I usually save everything as a jpg file, maybe that was the problem with what I took to the printer. Hmm. It all looks great when I print things out at home, but as I mentioned, there wasn't enough info for the printer.

I remember reading somewhere on this forum, or maybe someone told me, that when I buy Photoshop to go ahead and get the 'big' or 'newest' one, which I took to mean the CS2. But maybe the 6 or 7 will work. I am still hoping to hear from someone who uses the CS2 version, if anybody does, mainly because I'm still wondering about the bad reveiws it got at Amazon.

thank you,

Joan

If you'll be working with a printer he'll need about a 300 dpi resolution image. I usually use an eps format. You can use a low res image in your document but you'll need to supply the printer with the hi res files so he can replace them.

Its a good idea to always ask the printer in what formats he can accept work.

Bugs in CS2
 

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

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? :bewildere

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!

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.

jpg vs. RAW format?
 

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

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.

My sentiments exactly.

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.

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.

I should be more like you, Beth. Most everything I know about computers and software is self taught which expains some of my posts, too.

Sounds like my evenings. too. Aren't we all such a bunch of wild party animals!