Adobe Photoshop CS2

[Joan Breckwoldt]

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

[Heidi Maiers]

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.

[John Reidy]

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.

[Joan Breckwoldt]

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

[John Reidy]

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.

[Paul Foxton]

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]

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?

[Linda Brandon]

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.