Q re: Adobe Photoshop Elements 11

[NER]

Hello. I am currently using a version of Adobe Photoshop (AP) that is about 200 years old. I have a 64-bit PC running Windows 7, and apparently it's time to upgrade because my version of AP is so old that my newer computer won't even upload it. I am using AP on my old computer, and wish to use it on my new computer for inverting and rotating scanned images (black and white negatives and positives), cropping images, and adjusting contrast and brightness. I need color correction capability because my negatives are developed in PMK which gives the positive a strange color on the monitor. Also, occasionally I use it to give a bit of sharpening to the image in order to match the print (my scanner is equally as old as the version of AP I have), or to spot out some defect as I would if I were working directly on a print with Spotone fluids. That is the full extent of what I need and want. So here are my questions:

1. Will AP Elements 11 do the things I need to do?
2. Will it run on a 64-bit machine and if not, do I have to go around the moon or walk on water in order to make it work on a 64-bit machine?

Thanks for your help.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Jeff Dexheimer]

2. Elements will(should) run on your computer with no trouble. 64-bit OS's recognize 32-bit software all the time.

1. That depends on your needs. Elements is only capable of editing 8-bit images. If you scan to 16-bit, you will run into trouble. However; I don't know in what ways since I have not used Elements.

[Preston]

Assuming Elements will meet your needs, download and install the 64 bit version. I think you'll get better performance running a 64 bit program on a 64 bit platform.

As Jeff says, if you're working with 16 bit files, you'll find Elements wanting.

Just a note: I have a lot of 8-bit, 1800 ppi scan files that have given me gorgeous prints up to 16x20 from 4x5 film. If an 8-bit scan will work for you, then Elements will be good program for you, and you won't have to sell the farm to pay for it.

--P

[NER]

Jeff and Preston,


I don't know the difference between an 8-bit file and a 16-bit file. I scan some of my negatives mainly for "proofing" purposes and I scan prints mainly for presentation on my website or for posting images to other websites. I do not scan to make digital prints because I still work in a traditional darkroom to turn out silver-gelatin prints. Typically I scan both 8x10 and 4x5 negatives at 100% and 300 dpi (it was recently suggested to me that I should scan at 100% and 600 dpi going forward). I have no idea how any of this translates to the 8-bit vs. 16-bit terminology you are using. I do find your answers helpful but not entirely understandable and that is completely myfault. I apologize for my ignorance in this field. Thank you very much for your efforts to help me out.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Preston]

I don't know the difference between an 8-bit file and a 16-bit file.

Color: 8-bit Vs. 16-bit

In most post-processing software, you have the option between 8-bit color and 16-bit color. The bits in this case refer to the number of possible tonal values available to each color channel (red, green, and blue) of each pixel.

With 8-bit images, you have 256 possible values for the red channel, 256 values for the green channel, and 256 values for the blue channel. And with 16-bit images, you have 65,536 possible values for each color channel.

Basically, the more possible values you have the smoother the image will be; i.e. posterization, especially in smooth-toned areas like skies, will be greatly reduced. Another thing to know is that 16-bit files are twice as large as 8-bit files. Now, this may not be an issue if you have a hefty amount of disk storage space, but it's something to be mindful of.

--P

[NER]

Color: 8-bit Vs. 16-bit

In most post-processing software, you have the option between 8-bit color and 16-bit color. The bits in this case refer to the number of possible tonal values available to each color channel (red, green, and blue) of each pixel.

With 8-bit images, you have 256 possible values for the red channel, 256 values for the green channel, and 256 values for the blue channel. And with 16-bit images, you have 65,536 possible values for each color channel.

Basically, the more possible values you have the smoother the image will be; i.e. posterization, especially in smooth-toned areas like skies, will be greatly reduced. Another thing to know is that 16-bit files are twice as large as 8-bit files. Now, this may not be an issue if you have a hefty amount of disk storage space, but it's something to be mindful of.

--P

Hi. Your explanation of 8-bit vs. 16 makes perfect sense to me. I know what posterization is and how awful it looks. (I've seen it in some of my skies but have never understood why it happens with some images and not others. I still don't understand that part, but at least now I have a grasp of the distinction between 8-bit and 16-bit because of this fine example you gave about smoothness in the scanned image.) Thanks for explaining this to me in terms I can understand. So taking into account what you've said, my first instinct is to believe that 16-bit is the way to go, and I do have a massive hard drive that could easily handle that volume of data. But Jeff said Elements 11 won't do well with 16-bit files. Should I be looking for some other kind of image manipulation software, i.e., something that will manage 16-bit work and meet my very basic needs without requiring me to take out a second mortgage on my house? Elements is something like $60. The last time I checked, the full AP package (which I assume will handle 16-bit files) was near $900 down at the local Office Max. That is way more than I would ever need, and I'd probably have to go back to college to learn how to use it! But as nice as it sounds, maybe I don't really need 16-bit, right? I mean a Bently is nice, but a Ford Fiesta will get you to the same place. You said you are able to get very nice prints out of 8-bit files scanned at 1800 ppi. So maybe I just need to change how I scan my images. Or maybe I just need to replace my scanner which is also about 200 years old. I'll think about this and try out some different approaches to scanning. I appreciate the amount of time you've taken to help me and I will bother you no more with my inquiries. Thanks very much, Preston.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Preston]

Norman,

First, you're welcome. I'm here to help however I can. Second, if you have questions, do not be afraid to ask! We're all in this together, so please continue to ask me, or any of the great folks here.

I use a stand-alone copy of Photo Shop CS6. You might want to check around to see if you can find a legitimate copy. Now, if the items you are scanning do not have large smooth-toned areas, an 8-bit file will work up to a point, enlargement-wise. If you are able, work in 16-bit simply because there is more information with which to work.

btw: Don't spend money on a new scanner unless the old one is broken and/or the quality of your scans doesn't meet your expectations; i.e. don't fix it, if it ain't broke.

--P

[r_a_feldman]

2. Elements will(should) run on your computer with no trouble. 64-bit OS's recognize 32-bit software all the time.

The problem is not so much 32 vs 64 bit, but with the operating system. I have Adobe Creative Suite CS (version 1) and have found that it does not run under Windows 7. Earlier, my copy of Photoshop 3 something (for Windows 3.1) would not run when I increased my computer's RAM above 640 KB (NOT MB)! Apparently, the program has code to check for a minimum amount of RAM, but if you have more than 640 KB, it thinks you have a negative amount of RAM.

[NER]

Norman,

First, you're welcome. I'm here to help however I can. Second, if you have questions, do not be afraid to ask! We're all in this together, so please continue to ask me, or any of the great folks here.

I use a stand-alone copy of Photo Shop CS6. You might want to check around to see if you can find a legitimate copy. Now, if the items you are scanning do not have large smooth-toned areas, an 8-bit file will work up to a point, enlargement-wise. If you are able, work in 16-bit simply because there is more information with which to work.

btw: Don't spend money on a new scanner unless the old one is broken and/or the quality of your scans doesn't meet your expectations; i.e. don't fix it, if it ain't broke.

--P

I appreciate both your advice and your assistance, Preston. Thanks very much.

Norm

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Jeff Dexheimer]

The problem is not so much 32 vs 64 bit, but with the operating system. I have Adobe Creative Suite CS (version 1) and have found that it does not run under Windows 7. Earlier, my copy of Photoshop 3 something (for Windows 3.1) would not run when I increased my computer's RAM above 640 KB (NOT MB)! Apparently, the program has code to check for a minimum amount of RAM, but if you have more than 640 KB, it thinks you have a negative amount of RAM.

My comment was more in reference to current software, ie Elements 11, not 10 year old software.

[Harley Goldman]

Norman,

I use a stand-alone copy of Photo Shop CS6. You might want to check around to see if you can find a legitimate copy. Now, if the items you are scanning do not have large smooth-toned areas, an 8-bit file will work up to a point, enlargement-wise. If you are able, work in 16-bit simply because there is more information with which to work.


--P

This strikes me as really good advice. I also have a stand alone copy of CS6. Given the new subscription-based program for future copies of Photoshop, I plan to use CS6 for a long, long time to come. I used CS3 until quite recently and it worked just fine for me. I can't see paying a monthly fee for using Photoshop.

I think it is worth the up-charge to work in 16 bit. With 8 bit, you are sacrificing a lot of data. If only Elements allowed for 16 bit. But then, a whole lot of people would switch over is my guess.

[NER]

This strikes me as really good advice. I also have a stand alone copy of CS6. Given the new subscription-based program for future copies of Photoshop, I plan to use CS6 for a long, long time to come. I used CS3 until quite recently and it worked just fine for me. I can't see paying a monthly fee for using Photoshop.

I think it is worth the up-charge to work in 16 bit. With 8 bit, you are sacrificing a lot of data. If only Elements allowed for 16 bit. But then, a whole lot of people would switch over is my guess.

Thank you, Harley. I hadn't thought much about the distinction between Elements and CS6 until I read your post. As I mentioned earlier, my needs in software are very limited because I am using it only to prepare images for the web, not for the purpose of making digital prints. So the fundamental questions I need to research and answer are which of the options available to me will perform best on my computer, and which has the minimal features I need at reasonable cost. Thanks to Preston, I do understand the distinction between 8-bit and 16-bit, and I'm convinced that 16-bit will give me better looking images especially, I presume, with the color depth on my monitor being 32-bit. I've seen some images on the web with qualities that have just absolutely knocked my eyes out. I assume their creators are able accomplish that kind of rendering because they're using larger files, i.e., 16-bit files rather than 8-bit files, and because they may have a few other things going for them that I clearly do not have in my work flow. I would like my web images to look as fine as possible. For whatever reason, the images on my site never look as good as the corresponding silver-gelatin prints, and I experience a mix of shock, wonder, and supreme discouragement when I see images on the web that look as good or better than my 8x10 prints in terms sharpness and subtle tonal variations, for example. Sometimes these encounters make me think I should just throw my camera into the Pacific Ocean now and give up, but I have held back from that occasional impulse because I think maybe, just maybe, my weakness is in my scanning and/or image management software. Like you, I have no interest in paying an annual fee to use PS, so I really appreciate you mentioning this and I am also happy to read your endorsement for a stand-alone copy of CS6. That was very helpful. Thanks again.

Norm

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com