Adobe Elements 8???

[theduck619]

I ran across a good deal on Elements 8 and wanted to know if anyone had experience running it on Snow Leopard?

There is a good deal on 10 as well, but I thought 8 might be better to cut my teeth on

 

[mom2rtk]

I ran across a good deal on Elements 8 and wanted to know if anyone had experience running it on Snow Leopard?

There is a good deal on 10 as well, but I thought 8 might be better to cut my teeth on

Just curiuos what and where your good deals are. I'm sitting here looking at my well-worn copy of Elements 2.0 and wondering if it would be nuts to install it on my new computer or go looking for a deal on a newer version...... Ok, everyone..... stop laughing at my outdated software. I upgraded my computer AND phone in the last month. One step at a time..........

 

[boBQuincy]

One of the problems with older versions is that the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw will probably not run on older versions of Photoshop or Elements. This becomes a problem when we buy a new camera and it is not supported by older versions of ACR.

If we do not use RAW then this is not an issue but if our camera supports RAW then we should definitely be using it.

 

[mom2rtk]

One of the problems with older versions is that the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw will probably not run on older versions of Photoshop or Elements. This becomes a problem when we buy a new camera and it is not supported by older versions of ACR.

If we do not use RAW then this is not an issue but if our camera supports RAW then we should definitely be using it.

I don't do anything with my RAW files in my ancient elements program, only the occasional jpeg I choose to shoot. Over the past year I have learned more and more about LR3 and use it the vast majority of the time now.

Those of you with LR and Elements (a decently respectable version)........ what things do you still choose to do with Elements?

 

[theduck619]

One of the problems with older versions is that the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw will probably not run on older versions of Photoshop or Elements. This becomes a problem when we buy a new camera and it is not supported by older versions of ACR.

If we do not use RAW then this is not an issue but if our camera supports RAW then we should definitely be using it.

So, in your opinion I should only shoot in RAW and use a software that supports it?

 

[wbeem]

#!: Get the current software. Not only does it contain improvements and new features, but it will also contain support for modern cameras that may no longer exist in some older versions of the product. Software companies don't continually update old versions.

#2: RAW is a file format, not a religion. That said, I prefer to shoot in RAW most of the time because of the flexibility it provides in post production. JPEG is a compressed format that throws away information. RAW contains all of the information, which means you have a wider range to adjust exposure, white balance, etc.

However, RAW does not do any editing of the file, so you need to add that in post processing later. Your camera will add tweaks to color, contrast & sharpness when it creates a JPEG file. RAW doesn't (that's why they call it RAW). So you have to add those things in post to make them look appropriate.

 

[mom2rtk]

So, in your opinion I should only shoot in RAW and use a software that supports it?

I really wish I had the foresight to shoot in RAW + Jpeg back when I didn't know anything but RAW. It would be so nice now that I know a little (emphasis on little) more to be able to go back and make more adjustments to those photos.

#!: Get the current software. Not only does it contain improvements and new features, but it will also contain support for modern cameras that may no longer exist in some older versions of the product. Software companies don't continually update old versions.

#2: RAW is a file format, not a religion. That said, I prefer to shoot in RAW most of the time because of the flexibility it provides in post production. JPEG is a compressed format that throws away information. RAW contains all of the information, which means you have a wider range to adjust exposure, white balance, etc.

However, RAW does not do any editing of the file, so you need to add that in post processing later. Your camera will add tweaks to color, contrast & sharpness when it creates a JPEG file. RAW doesn't (that's why they call it RAW). So you have to add those things in post to make them look appropriate.

So are you saying I shouldn't install elelments 2.0????? But I now have an updated computer and phone. If I get TOTALLY updated, I feel like I will have completely lost touch with my inner out-of-date geek!

I'm thinking I might hold off installing and force myself to learn even more about LR3. You know, before they come out with LR4.

 

[wbeem]

I really wish I had the foresight to shoot in RAW + Jpeg back when I didn't know anything but RAW. It would be so nice now that I know a little (emphasis on little) more to be able to go back and make more adjustments to those photos.

Me, too. I have some old shots that I would love to tweak more than I can, but I had the wrong white balance. However, there's one trick that always works if you have a good photo with a bad color problem you can't correct - change it to black & white.

So are you saying I shouldn't install elelments 2.0????? But I now have an updated computer and phone. If I get TOTALLY updated, I feel like I will have completely lost touch with my inner out-of-date geek!

I'm thinking I might hold off installing and force myself to learn even more about LR3. You know, before they come out with LR4.

Lightroom has been going on a 50% sale quite a lot recently. I don't know if they're feeling the pain compared to Aperture's $79 price tag or if it means a new version is coming and they want to hook users into paying again for an upgrade. Either way, keep an eye out for the $150 price drops on Amazon or B&H Photo.

 

[boBQuincy]

So, in your opinion I should only shoot in RAW and use a software that supports it?

RAW is the output from the camera with as little processing as our cameras allow, in most cases it is not much processing. RAW files are usually either 12 or 14 bits (4096 or 16,384 pieces of data for each pixel) compared to 8 bits (256 pieces) in JPG. In other words a RAW file is the best our cameras can produce.
We can either choose to throw away much of our data or to keep it (and there are reasons for doing each although the reasons for RAW greatly outweigh the reasons for JPG). Far from a religion, it is pure mathematics.

 

[mom2rtk]

Me, too. I have some old shots that I would love to tweak more than I can, but I had the wrong white balance. However, there's one trick that always works if you have a good photo with a bad color problem you can't correct - change it to black & white.




Lightroom has been going on a 50% sale quite a lot recently. I don't know if they're feeling the pain compared to Aperture's $79 price tag or if it means a new version is coming and they want to hook users into paying again for an upgrade. Either way, keep an eye out for the $150 price drops on Amazon or B&H Photo.

Well, it won't matter to me. If I never moved from PE2, then the odds of me moving from LR3 to LR4 are pretty slim. I'm a late adopter when it comes to all things technological........ Maybe when they get to LR11????

 

[photo_chick]

I ran across a good deal on Elements 8 and wanted to know if anyone had experience running it on Snow Leopard?

There is a good deal on 10 as well, but I thought 8 might be better to cut my teeth on

The older software is not going to be any "easier" to use. I'd get the newer version. The older versions of Elements didn't have many of the features that the newer versions have.


As far as RAW.. you can make all the same kinds of changes to a jpeg that you can with a RAW file if you know how, you can end up with identical images in the end just taking a different process to get there. It's just much, much, much easier with a RAW file. And if you don't know what you're doing with the jpeg you'll end up with an artifacted mess really quickly.

 

[theduck619]

Thanks everyone for the input.

 

[wbeem]

Well, it won't matter to me. If I never moved from PE2, then the odds of me moving from LR3 to LR4 are pretty slim. I'm a late adopter when it comes to all things technological........ Maybe when they get to LR11????

Well, keep in mind that Photoshop Elements and Lightroom do different jobs. If you don't have Lightroom, Aperture or some other DAM, it's worth investigating to organize your photos. I'd be a mess without Aperture.

 

[manning]

Unless you are a pixel peeper or professional RAW is overkill.

JPG is good for the everyday casual photographer. A lot of professionals more times than not don't bother with RAW. Somerimes you need it most of the time not.

 

[mom2rtk]

Unless you are a pixel peeper or professional RAW is overkill.

JPG is good for the everyday casual photographer. A lot of professionals more times than not don't bother with RAW. Somerimes you need it most of the time not.

I'm not a pixel peeper or professional, nor do I play one on TV. But I like shooting RAW because I aspire to have great images, and I'm not good enough to make them come straight out of the camera that way! I love the extra latitude I have at home in front of the computer to adjust white balance and exposure.

 

[wbeem]

Unless you are a pixel peeper or professional RAW is overkill.

JPG is good for the everyday casual photographer. A lot of professionals more times than not don't bother with RAW. Somerimes you need it most of the time not.

RAW has nothing to do with peeping at pixels or being a professional. It has to do with preserving information in your photographs so you can make them look their best. It's very possible to get some great photographs in JPEG. Many sports photographers shoot in JPEG because they need the speed of the lower file size.

Those same sports photographers will use RAW when shooting other subjects. Why? Because of the benefits it provides.

Besides, who really wants to be an everyday, casual photographer? Who doesn't want to have better pictures? Why wouldn't someone want to use an available option if it can help them make better photographs?

 

[wbeem]

As far as RAW.. you can make all the same kinds of changes to a jpeg that you can with a RAW file if you know how, you can end up with identical images in the end just taking a different process to get there. It's just much, much, much easier with a RAW file. And if you don't know what you're doing with the jpeg you'll end up with an artifacted mess really quickly.

You can make the same "kinds" of changes, but you don't have the same amount of information to use. It may seem like a nit, but it's an important one when you need to push that slider further to correct a white balance or exposure problem.

 

[photo_chick]

You can make the same "kinds" of changes, but you don't have the same amount of information to use. It may seem like a nit, but it's an important one when you need to push that slider further to correct a white balance or exposure problem.

That's a really simplified view. And the way most people see it who don't know what can really be done with a jpeg. I had the same argument with someone far more skilled at photoshop than I am and he totally proved me wrong and showed me just how far you really can take a jpeg if you know how. Yes, RAW files have more color information to start with. But that's not all there is to it when it comes to digital imaging. You can accomplish the same end result with a jpeg if you know how. It's just a different way to get there.

But like I've said before, RAW is most certainly much easier because you can just slide that slider where you need it and that approach doesn't work with a jpeg. That's why I work with RAW, I like that ability to quickly and efficiently make major global changes to an image file.

 

[wbeem]

That's a really simplified view. And the way most people see it who don't know what can really be done with a jpeg. I had the same argument with someone far more skilled at photoshop than I am and he totally proved me wrong and showed me just how far you really can take a jpeg if you know how. Yes, RAW files have more color information to start with. But that's not all there is to it when it comes to digital imaging. You can accomplish the same end result with a jpeg if you know how. It's just a different way to get there.

But like I've said before, RAW is most certainly much easier because you can just slide that slider where you need it and that approach doesn't work with a jpeg. That's why I work with RAW, I like that ability to quickly and efficiently make major global changes to an image file.

If it's a simplified view, it's because it's a simple truth. There is more information in a RAW file than a JPEF file. While it may be possible to jump through hoops to change colors in a JPEG file, it takes a lot of selective editing with layer adjustments when you get to the limitations of the JPEG data file. I can turn skin any color I want with Hue/Saturation or Selective color, but I'd rather just tweak a slider.

 

[boBQuincy]

As far as RAW.. you can make all the same kinds of changes to a jpeg that you can with a RAW file if you know how, you can end up with identical images in the end just taking a different process to get there. It's just much, much, much easier with a RAW file. And if you don't know what you're doing with the jpeg you'll end up with an artifacted mess really quickly.

I have read some of your other posts on this subject and can see where you are coming from. As we get down to the pixel level it is possible to make just about any change to a JPG that we wish. This includes changing or adding things that were not even there, as an example see Bert Monroy's works that did not use a camera at all. As you note, it is "much, much, much easier" with a RAW file. After creating an image purely in PhotoShop I might even add a few more "much"es in there!