Do you really NEED Photoshop?

[Ed Eubanks]

Here's a big question I've been wondering lately-- how much do you really NEED Photoshop (ANY version, let alone the latest)??? I have currently 3 different photo-editing programs on my PC, and none of them are the full Photoshop: I have an older Corel PhotoHouse that is a "knock-off" (which I used to use frequently, but not so much lately), GIMP (which I have only used twice), and Photoshop Elements 2.0 (which I use almost exclusively). I have found that PS Elements can do pretty much everything I want to do, so I have never given serious thought to buying the big one.
It seems to me, though, that everyone who posts here uses Photoshop-- even those who are not (or don't purport to be) professional photographers or artists. So I ask you: why buy Photoshop when you can get something like Photoshop Elements? Is there one big reason, a hundred (thousand?) small ones, or no real reason at all apart from the "status".
Let's be honest here-- do you really need the full version of Photoshop?

[Kirk Gittings]

It is a good question. If I had too buy photoshop my answer still wouldn't change (as my university gives it to me). Absolutely yes! It is a professional level tool that has features that I cannot get anywhere else and I could not get the results that I need without it.

[matthew blais]

I think you answered your own question to some extent in saying that it does for you "pretty much everything you want to do". But, from someone who has been using it since version one and for nearly 12 years, the full version blows away the consumer freebie they give in the "elements" form. But I use it with a whole bunch of plug-ins (extras) that I purchased for my design business, and I done't think many of the plugs will work with the elements version.

I speak as someone who tried to do stuff with the elements version after being used to the full on daddy and was frustrated. Maybe you won't need it...but try it if you can.

Once you try it and see what it can do that the other versions don't, you'll be amazed-and probably will buy it.

Kinda like using a disposable camera for all your life then discovering a leica...or something like that.

Then again, if you don't know what your missing, your not missing anything.

[Ralph Barker]

Although I use the full version of Photoshop, Ed, I'm not sure that everyone needs or benefits from all of the features. For lots of people, even some who have the full version, PS Elements or one of the other good image editing programs may work just fine for a lot less investment.

For those who need the additional features, such as working with, and saving layers, and exchanging real Photoshop files with graphics professionals, however, the full version is a good investment.

[Paul Butzi]

I don't know what features are in Photoshop Elements, so it's tough to comment on what features might be enough to make it worth popping for the full Photoshop CS.

Previous versions of what I'll call 'photoshop lite' (the free version) were missing features like 'curves' and 'layers', and serious color management

They could pretty much strip out everything from Photoshop EXCEPT curves, layers, and serious color management, and I'd still be able to use the result effectively to do serious printing.

Take away any one of them, though, and I'd be in a serious world of hurt.

On the other hand, my Mom uses Photoshop Elements and seems perfectly happy with it. She doesn't do critical printing, though, nor does she exchange data with other people doing serious printing.

So in the end, the answer is always going to be 'it depends on what you do'.

A good way to find out if there are features you might want to use would be to take a class on Photoshop (such classes are offered everywhere nowadays, it seems). If nothing else, it would get you some time on a computer with the full version and you can judge for yourself.

[Leonard Evens]

Any photoeditor, such as Photoshop Elements, without a curves tool places severe limits on what you can do.

But the Gimp, which I use, does have such a tool. It works fine for editing 4 x 5 scans.

So the answer is that you don't need to use Photoshop.

[bob moulton]

As a photographer I do not need the myriad controls that Photoshop CS offers. I am neither a web designer nor a graphic desgner. So yes I agree I do not need all that Photoshop CS offers.

But, by analogy I am also a Humanities, Photography and Literature professor. I do not use all the features of the library or all of the many encyclopedias that I can access. I do not use all that is available through my favorite search engines either. But I am unprepared to buy into a mini-encyclopedia or a low carb Google or Yahoo if that means sacrificing the available material that I need and use.

Would I be like a Photoshop CS(or whatever) that allows me to use 16 bit or in the future 32/64 bit files when I manipulate and print my LF 4x5 B/W negatives and my growing number of digital files created in my DSLRs? you betcha!

But only if I can retain the features and lower the cost of purchasing this new Photoshop for Photographers and its coming upgrades and new editions.

[Jeff Rivera]

I wouldn't want to be without 16 bit support or LAB mode. Other than that, elements is fine.

[Michael E. Gordon]

Something not yet mentioned is full ICC compliance and color management ease. I cannot imagine giving up the efficiency and control of Photoshop for any of the lesser programs.

[QT Luong]

It's a bit like asking if one really needs a Sinar P2 instead of an entry-level Calumet monorail. Given enough time, there is no job that the Sinar does that couldn't be done by the Calumet. However, for a productive studio the choice would be clear. PS CS has many features that improve productivity. This might not be indispensable or useful for someone who does not need to prepare many images.

[David R Munson]

Yes. I feel I need PhotoShop in all its glory. Could I do solid work without it? Well yeah. But I value the tools it provides as well as the time it saves over other working methods enough that I wouldn't want to be without it.

[Bill_1856]

I have PS7 on the Mac, and PS Elements on the PC. I find myself using only PS Elements, but perhaps after 50 years in a real darkroom I know exactly what needs doing.

[Darin Cozine]

I'vw been a long time GIMP user. It does everything I need it to do and more. However it looks like wingimp.org is now selling the software, which really makes it a pain to get the latest version. (you would have to download the source and compile it)

[Chad Jarvis]

Remarkably no one needed it for the first 150 years of photography.

[Bob._3483]

This question can be answered by completing the following questionnaire:

1) Are you a professional who has to deliver on budget and on time to put food on your table?

2) Are you a financially well endowed amateur?

3) Do you know how to obtain knock-off (warez) versions of Photoshop?

.

If your answer to all the above is "No" then PS Elements (or a different program altogether) will do you just fine...

If your answer to any of the above is "Yes", then by all means go for it (except in the case of the 3rd question of course, which would be totally wrong and really naughty and entirely reprehensible and quite illegal and possibly send you to hell for eternity (there - I think that's my get-out clause covered))....

Cheers,

[Ole Tjugen]

I have tried the full PS thingie - and didn't find it worth the exorbitant price. So I now use PaintShop Pro instead - at a fraction of the price it has all the functions I need. It's also significantly faster...

For things like resizing and making pics for the web, I use Irfanview. On the usability/cost scale, it is infinitely better than PS!

[Ralph Barker]

I think the humanities analogy Bob Moulton mentioned is a good one. It is entirely possible, for example, to write a novel using a vocabulary of say 150 words - English-Lite, you might say. Having the entire dictionary at one's disposal, however, is probably a real benefit. Then, it's a question of whether to use a pocket Webster, or the Oxford unabridged.

[Max Wendt]

Photoshop Elements is really quite good - MUCH better than the previous "LE" versions (and light-years beyond PhotoDeluxe). If you're able to do what you need, then don't worry about it.

Yeah, 16 bit is pretty awesome, but it wasn't even until the most recent version of Photoshop that the support was full enough to be completely useful (yes, I know it was useable enough in the previous version, but still very limited).

<soapbox> And not to get too "fire and brimstone" on you Bob, but there's no get-out clause that covers even mentioning 'warez' software. Aside from the fact that it's often broken and barely functional, it's stealing. Sorry. There are many, many ways to get a huge discount on software (educational, church, etc...). </soapbox>

[Tony Galt]

I have used PhotoShop at work, but at home I use an excellent program called Picture Window Pro produced by Digital Light and Color (do a Google on that name and you'll find their website). This is a very sophisticated program designed strictly for photography and not general graphics like PhotoShop. I have found nothing that I need to do with 4x5 or with digital camera files that I would require PhotoShop to do. Picture Window Pro costs about $99 and has gone through a number of versions which have improved it over time and added useful features. It was designed and programmed by the fellow that invented Lotus 123, one of the early spreadsheet programs. He is also an amateur photographer. The website included a number of white papers he has produced to guide users through the program's features and there is also a discussion forumn. Particularly, it has sophisticated sharpening, masking and image cloning tools.

[Leonard Evens]

Darin,

Wingimp.org certainly has the right to sell the Windows version of the Gimp for any price it can get, and perhaps their offer is a reasonable deal given that they provide a service. The prices do seem to be a bit high to me. But unless they are violating the GPL, it should be perfectly legal for anyone else to buy their distribution and then offer to give it away or sell it for less. I would be surprised if someone hasn't already done it. A brief search of the web suggests I'm right.

Of course, it you use Linux, you don't have to worry about such matters. I've always felt I should buy Linux distributions from time to time to suppose those companies which distribute it, and I think people should make contributions to gimp.org, which can be made through their website. But you don't have to keep paying through the nose for every little update.

[jantman]

I will admit that I've used GIMP on Linux, just to see what it's like. It was...interesting. I'm a big fan of Open-Source, so I enjoyed using it. However, under Windows or Mac, I wouldn't think of using anything other than full Photoshop, nor do I know anyone who does.

Then again, especially in my generation, where most photographers do digital, and we've all known our email address ad long as we've known our phone number, not many people pay for software.

[Robert Skeoch]

I just updated from photoshop 7 to CS. I use the full version for the automatic batch features and the expanded colour range.

[pico]

Photoshop has one thing that is very handy - the ability to read, manipulate, and write HUGE files (over 2gb). LF people might find it handy.

Otherwise some features missing from Elements include slices, nonsquare pixels, onscreen proofs, better color features, CMYK separations at the push of a button, layer comps, pan-stitiching. And others that I can't think of offhand.

Elements can use actions from Photoshop to greatly expand its usefullness. There's a book on it.

[Jim Becia]

"Remarkably no one needed it for the first 150 years of photography."

--Chad Jarvis, 2004-08-21 05:17:36

Same with horses, airplanes, computers, etc. We got along fine without them also for the first thousands of years. Photoshop and the above mentioned things just make it a bit easier for some of us.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Picture Window Pro from Digital Light and Color (http://dl-c.com) should also be mentioned as low cost but very capable alternative. I used PWP for several years before buying Photoshop for the ability to use plugins and layers. Those are the two major features that I see PWP as missing. In many ways I think it is actually superior to PS.

[CXC]

I use a wet darkroom exclusively, so no PhotoShop for me, ever. Apparently I am the last one.

I am, of course, a (rank) amateur.

[Michael Chmilar]

The Onion (http://www.theonion.com) has a funny "In the News" headline this week:



Photoshop Actually Bought.

[George King]

I must not need PhotoShop. I've had it on my computer for at least five years and almost never even open the program.

But then I use digital only for listing items for sale on ebay, and posting a few other small jpeg files to the web.

Of course, I'm basically a dinosaur in that the newest camera I own (other than my coolpix) is 30 years old, and many of them are 50. In fact, my most recent camera purchase (last week) was a 1954 Rolleicord. Heck, I've never even owned (or even wanted) an SLR.

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

Color correction, dodge&burn, contrast masks, unsharp masks - yeah, I find PS useful. Layers, large files (I am currently working on a 7.5 GB file as I am writing this) would be missed with PS Elements.

[tim atherton]

Just take colour work for example.

In the full version of PS you can make the sort of local adjustments to colour/contrast/saturation/cast etc that were really previously only available in the wet darkroom to the B&W photographer (abviously not colour - but I think you know what I mean). These can easily be made as globally or as detailed as you want. But it requires the use of layers which most chapers versions don't have.

A simple example I was working on. A cityscape of an old bank building shot early in the morning. The building facade is in shadow and the morning light is behind the building. The range of brightness between the building front and the sky behind is about at the extremes of the colour material I was using.

You can increase the contrast of the scene and lighten the building front sufficiently to make it look good (to my eye) but by that point the sky is compeltley blown out. But by doing those adjustments to levels and curves in a series of layers, I can then go back with the paintbrush on those layers and very easily "burn" (actually erase the effect of the layers) to whatever degree I want around the building to add as much detail back in the sky as I want - all very easily. And I can do this kind of thing using either a huge brush for the whole sky, or a very small brush to bring back lost shadow detail in trees and foliage or whatever.

I shoot a lot on Astia - using these techniques I often get a much wider effective "range" than I have been used to with transparency film - I can get much more shadow and highlight detail in any one print than I ever got printed on Cibachromes for example

(Of course it works just as well in B&W - giving me infintiely more control over dodging/burning and contrast than I ever had in the darkroom).

I'm not trying to set up a digital vs trad workflow though - rather why the full version of PS allows you to do much much more than the basic versions.

The other thing is (yes you get big file sizes...) but you can do most of this in a 16bit version of the file in PS CS and thus you aren't throwing away information before you even start