If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Hey guys...recentlly Ive had alot of people tell me that they use Photoshop Elements...As I understand it, its a stripped down version of the regualar PS...How can this be better? The things Ive seen done with this program are amazing..should I concider switching?
Depends on what you want, and what you intend to do, and on how much you are prepared to invest.
As I have neither Elements (you're talking about Elments2 I suppose), nor Photoshop CS (the version that's for sale right now. I use PS7), I cannot specify things.
I rarely use PS' pro-print (offset) options, I never ever opened ImageReady which I consider unnecessary. But I love the rest of PS.
Yet if I didn't have PS, I wouldn't go for Elements but for Paintshop Pro.
The things Ive seen done with this program are amazing.
JessFox, the amazing things you've seen have nothing to do with the program, but the amazing qualities of the artist. There is no magic program that makes amazing things, sorry to disappoint you.
Perhaps this has a ring of truth to it, however some apps make for getting things done in a more expediant manner than do others, via Tool options and workflow...
Tools, workflow, they can make "better" art, but they don't make "amazing" art (that's what we were talking about).
The point I'm trying to make is that you can make amazing art with both Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.
I can only assume that JessFox already bought Photoshop, since he talked about "switching". So I don't understand Gidge why you have the need to create confusion? Every Photoshop user will tell you that buying Photoshop Elements when you already have Photoshop is a waste of money. With my earlier comments I tried to convince JessFox that he should avoid a mistake like that.
If you ask me, I think Elements is quite powerful, but lacks some of the features that are useful for the more professional users.
...which was exactly the question, Elysian.
So please, if you know in what ways PS is more powerful that elements, tell JessFox.
It is a question that may be asked again, and it would be good for me to know what Elements lacks that Photoshop has.
Gidgit is also right: Photoshop 7's brushes are more powerful than PS 6's, but many people prefer the workflow of Painter for natural media, or Project Dogwaffle.
Otoh: PS CS 16 bit support is better than PS 7's, so this leads automatically to a better workflow.
We are used to have adjustment layers, duplicates that can be open at the same time, layer sets, Lab mode, Curves, etc... These things have been created to give a good workflow.
And it is not so that someone on an old, rusted bike can win a Tour de France from Lance Armstrong.
Inspiration you say? Yes. Holy Inspiration. Inspiration is not influenced by any workflow or medium or whatever. But it has to be translated into matter. Be that paint, pixels, sculpture, music or dance. And the carbon (physickal body) must be a carrier of that inspirational flow, as must be the artists' tools.
Yes, with a pocket knife you can create outstanding wood sculptures. But a set of good chisels does offer more options and variety in cuts.
Yes, with a pocket knife you can create outstanding wood sculptures. But a set of good chisels does offer more options and variety in cuts.
Same goes for digital apps.
Very well put Erik [righton] Thank you
@ Elysian... hey bud, sorry if I wasn't clear in my post, in no way was I meaning to suggest that Elements was the better of the two apps... I mean it is pretty much a no brainer that PS is by far the better of the two apps eh... Like duh... [confused]
When I was talking about expediance and workflow I was refering to PS having the large edge here... I mean due to the allowances of user definable fx, it would be far more expediant to do something in PS... to gain some of the same fx in Elements would call for many more layers, if said fx was possible at all, even with said extra layers... Bottomline is, PS has the better tools by far... and thus once realized, becomes the app, which would call for the least amount of work, to gain the better result...
Sorry if I managed to confuse any, my bad... lol
and yea, it helps to be artistically inclined for sure, but even at that, ( and this is where the perhaps come into play ), it helps even more from that point, when ya have the right tools for the job...
Good tools don't automatically make you a good artist (read ?good?), they can only make you better. It's up to JeffFox who to believe. I'm just trying to avoid that JeffFox is going to waste money, just because he saw some, what he calls, amazing PE art.
It's not very detailed, but what I can remember of PE 2 is the following features it lacks:[list][*] quick mask[*] actions and scripting[*] history brush[*] imageready[*] less powerful brushes[*] color management[*] cmyk[*] healing and patch tool[*] layer masks[*] curves[*] channels[/list:u]PS has some extra features that are more focused on professional users. But also PE has features that PS is lacking, but then you have to think more about things like red eye removal, better help, easier accessible tools, etc. Both programs look very much the same actually and which one is more powerful all depends on what you want to do with it. The reason why I use PS and PE has more to do with history; PE was not available when I started to use PS.
And Gidge, no need for excuses, the internet has always been a great place for confusing. Thanks for taking the time to clear things up. [righton]
JessFox, I hope that this info was helpful. if you have any more questions, just let us know.
I tried Photopaint9 once. It came with my first puter (1999, a Presario) and when I sold it less than a year latr, all CDRom's went with it as those progs belonged to it. Also, it was in Flemsh/Dutch which is a real horrorshow whenit comes to puterspeak.
Photopaint was too complex for me then: I dabbled a bit in effects, but didn't understand in depth what was happening. Now, when I recall how it functioned, I must say that it had a splendid transparancy tool.
Basically, it all comes down to being able to isolate one pixel from the rest (eventually all pixles at the sma place on different layers) and changing its X,X,X settings (in RGB or Lab) or XXXX (in CMYK). The moment I grasped this, it all became clear. After this, it's only a question of finding an app that work along the lines of your own creativity.
Same applies to 3D, but there it're points and normals in a virtual 3D space instead of pixels
Photoshop Elements 
Linear Mode
