CS3 v. CS5 - Any reason to upgrade?

[Lenny Eiger]

I think you're right on the money, Frank.

I'm a dedicated Mac user and I had to upgrade because I got a new Intel Westmere machine. I had held off as long as I could, even tho' I heard it was so much faster and blah, blah, blah. Sure it's faster. Here and there, with the few things they fixed. Nothing on many fronts. About 10% overall. It's not twice as fast.

I can't stand the CS 4-5 curves dialog. They should have left an option to leave it the way it was. And with all due deference to the PC users here, I don't really like an app that makes my Mac look like a PC.

There was a big difference between CS2 and 3, worth it to upgrade, certainly. But after that, I wouldn't if you don't have to. You probably do have to - to keep your upgrade pricing, as someone else mentioned. But you don't have to like it. I certainly don't.

Lenny

I've used Photoshop, Freehand, and Pagemaker since versions one, bought plenty of fonts, and appreciate Adobe's pioneering role in putting graphics and imaging in the hands of designers and photographers.

But nowadays they are a pig of company and they have lost any of my remaining loyalty. Their upgrades are bogus and not worth the money. They profit by doing legalized extortion.

They are as bad as Quark used to be!

The time is ripe for a true Photoshop competitor to come to market. Not GIMP or some programmer's hobby app, I'd gladly pay a few hundred for a really clean, well-built tool. It is really a shame nobody has offered this yet.

I imagine Adobe has an army of lawyers to beat up any competitors.... they are bastards.

[JeffKohn]

Most of the improvements in CS4/CS5 were in regards to Camera Raw and Bridge. Photoshop itself hasn't really seen much improvement for photographers, a lot of the improvements have been more focused towards video, 3d, and graphics design. So if you're scanning film and/or have the latest version of Lightroom for raw conversion, the value proposition of Photoshop CS5 is questionable.

Starting with CS4 Adobe started revamping the UI, but for the most part these changes have been a wash. Some may like them more than others. I'm split, some of the changes are OK or even welcome, some of them are a step backward. I don't care for the tabbed windows or the docked levels/curves interface, personally.

The content-aware fill in CS5 works slightly better than the healing brush in most cases, and every once in a while works amazingly well; but it fails miserably just as often, and is by know means the magic bullet that all the pre-release hype proclaimed. The HDR support has improved with CS5, but there are better standalone tools for that. I've never been a fan of the pano stitcher in Photoshop, PTGui or Autopano Pro are a far better investment if you're serious about pano work.

[Ed Richards]

Lots of good info! Thanks! Unlike Kirk, who has to get shots even if some clown has parked in front of the building he needs to shoot, I mostly do not shoot if there is something in the way. But perhaps I would take more chances with CAF available.

I sure could have used CAF for one recent shot where I found that my 47mm xl could see my finger holding a filter.:-)

[Frank Petronio]

CAF is nice for areas that are simple and repetitive, like grass. But complex layered areas = useless. So it's nice and helpful, but "it depends".

[Kirk Gittings]

Most of the positive experiences I am relating here come from my commercial work-digital captures of architecture-NOT my b&w film based personal photography for which CS3 (or 2?) would be fine (with the advent of Adjustment Layers and a full 16 bit workflow-that is all I need for scanned b&w film). Another thing I find in CS5 that is a great improvement is the enhanced selection tools. For making selections around complex objects like leafy trees it is a substantial advance IMO. Also the Puppet Warp tool is invaluable for correcting the omnipresent out-of-kilter tilting street lights and flagpoles. People tell me that CS5 has a much superior (ie believable/natural look is what I am after) HDR program than before but I have yet to try it as I am happy with the Enfuse plugin in Lightroom.

[Brian Ellis]

I just upgraded from CS4 to CS5 a short time ago, mainly to stay in line for future upgrades. Except for that I'd have to say the upgrade was a waste of $149. The only two new features that I'll likely find useful are Content Aware Fill and the related Content Aware functions and the improved noise reduction. The improved HDR would be useful except that I don't use Photoshop's HDR, I use Photomatix. There's a few little tweaks here and there that are o.k. - e.g. the grid that appears automatically with some of the tools is nice - but they're very minor things for me.

The first version of Photoshop I bought was PS4 back around 1999. I've bought every upgrade since except for PS6 or 7. For me CS5 has the fewest useful new features of any of them.

If anyone is on the fence about upgrading to CS5 you might consider joining Lynda.com for a month for $25 and watching the two videos that explain the new features in some depth so you can get an idea how useful they'd be for you. Plus there's a ton of other very useful Photoshop tutorials on Lynda.com so even if you don't get CS5 you can learn a lot for your $25.

[gnuyork]

I would't spend the money with upgrades unless I needed to for the OS . I don't do anything different in CS3,4,5 etc, that I did with 7, though whatever version came out with the healing tool was a nice feature.

I used to always get the latest upgrade with all my software, not just PS... and in the end I don't think it makes much of a difference other than when you need it for an upgraded OS.

Luckily I get Adobe software and Apple software for free (legally) through work. I've had access to the CS5 production suite for quite a while now, but I haven't even bothered to install it. So that's what I think about CS5 anyway...

[John NYC]

The "content aware fill" option in CS5 for the spot healing tool was alone worth the price of the upgrade for me... as I use it to clean up large 8x10 scans.

I use a Mac and have had zero issues with the program. In fact, CS4 used to crash on me fairly often and CS5 does not. 2007 model "white" macbook with 4 gigs of RAM. (Yes, I need a better computer... it is on the list.)

[Struan Gray]

I upgraded from CS3 to CS5 a month ago, running on a white plastic MacBook with 2GB of RAM. CS5 is slower to start, but chugs along at the same sort of speed once open. The content aware fill does make spotting scans a joy. It annoys me that there is still so much code that can only handle 8-bit data, but Adobe's priorities are not mine.

Bridge CS5 is noticeably slower than CS3, Illustrator about the same.

Every time I look at alternatives I come back because of Photoshop's selection, masking, tone control and spotting tools. I still run CS3 on a dual G5 desktop for printing under OS X 10.4 (I, and my wife, run some legacy code for things other than photography) so the printing hassles of the new versions haven't bothered me.

[patrickjames]

I have always hated Bridge, so that is a non issue for me regardless of what they do to it. I actually uninstall it so I never even have to look at it. I use Lightroom for most everything these days. The content aware fill sounds nice but I have been retouching things for so long now that I know what to expect. I am usually many clicks ahead of my computer and I almost never have to go back. I might upgrade when they hit 6 just so I don't have to pay an arm and a leg since I use the other programs in the suite as well. I am with Frank though, I think it is a scam what they do. There is very little added value these days from one version to the next, although relative to other things, it isn't that much money. Though, if someone came out with a viable alternative, I would buy it. I thought about trying Gimp out, but it seems like too much of a hassle to get it installed on my mac.