I've used Lightroom and may still have it. Mostly, I've used CaptureOne for the last few years. But with a Hybrid workflow, there are a number of plug-ins for Photoshop that I'll admit might be handy for converting scanned negatives. So I'm thinking about Photoshop. Thought I saw that CS3 was now available "free", and wondered whether this was really true? Bloated or worth it? Just curious. Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
Photoshop - if I must
-
H
- Thread starter JWMster
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I don't know where you found it, so I can't say for sure if it's safe or whatever. I haven't seen any free and legal versions of PS, though I also haven't looked.
I can say that I used CS3 for a very long time, and it's pretty good for most things photography related. The biggest issues I can think of between it and the newer PS versions, as it relates to general photography is, it doesn't have all of the fancy automatic subject selection, content-aware replacement, or the better enlarging algorithms of the newest versions. That being said, you can pretty much do anything you need to with it, it'll just take longer and be a good bit more difficult. And I wouldn't be surprised if several of the plugins you find won't work for it, since it's such an old version, it's likely not supported.
Now, I never use Lightroom, even though I have the Master Suite. It's very user friendly, but it's no where near as powerful as Photoshop, and I have a ton more experience using PS. Plus, I have my own file management system, so Lightroom doesn't really help me there. I know a lot of good photographers who prefer Lightroom though. But even then, they seem to use both, because there are certain things you just can't do in Lightroom. I think they just prefer Lightroom for it's ease of use and only go into PS when they need something that only PS can provide. But they almost always start off in Lightroom.
I can say that I used CS3 for a very long time, and it's pretty good for most things photography related. The biggest issues I can think of between it and the newer PS versions, as it relates to general photography is, it doesn't have all of the fancy automatic subject selection, content-aware replacement, or the better enlarging algorithms of the newest versions. That being said, you can pretty much do anything you need to with it, it'll just take longer and be a good bit more difficult. And I wouldn't be surprised if several of the plugins you find won't work for it, since it's such an old version, it's likely not supported.
Now, I never use Lightroom, even though I have the Master Suite. It's very user friendly, but it's no where near as powerful as Photoshop, and I have a ton more experience using PS. Plus, I have my own file management system, so Lightroom doesn't really help me there. I know a lot of good photographers who prefer Lightroom though. But even then, they seem to use both, because there are certain things you just can't do in Lightroom. I think they just prefer Lightroom for it's ease of use and only go into PS when they need something that only PS can provide. But they almost always start off in Lightroom.
MattKing
Moderator
Current plug-ins are probably designed for current versions of Photoshop, and may not even work with CS3.
CS3 may not like current versions of operating systems - or maybe the other way around.
For example, as I understand it, the latest IOS version will not work with 32 bit applications.
CS3 may not like current versions of operating systems - or maybe the other way around.
For example, as I understand it, the latest IOS version will not work with 32 bit applications.
Matt and Jim: Thanks. Yes, FWIW, I tried PhotoMechanic for it's library as it came highly recommended, but at the time, it seemed more trouble than it was worth. In retrospect 3 or 4 years later, a dedicated library system like PM independent of photo editing would have simplified life. I didn't have the patience at the time or see the need, but I do now as Capture ONE - wonderful as it is - seems a little too opaque on it's image file management. I've adjusted to keeping my original images in my own directories, and letting CaptureONE simply manage the edits.
But ColorPerfect and some of the B&W add-in seem attractive to me for assisting with negative scans. So I'm re-examining the whole. This is about as much fun as a root canal. My initial brush with a very, very early Photoshop was all pixel management and I ran from it. That was probably 15 years or more ago? No idea. And I've learned a lot about editing from Lightroom and CaptureOne. The latter is very powerful, but they keep tweaking the interface in ways that are a tad annoying. As I'm beginning to do a lot more with layers and/or levels, it's time to man-up and re-examine. Photoshop might be it as I really doubt that GIMP is going to be easier. Yes I looked at that, too, long ago when I was toying with Linux machines, but found I didn't have the patience or engineering skills to want to mess with what at the time was basically unfinished software that expected the user to design their own interface. As a guy who likes to think he shoots film to spend less time with black box computers and more with dumb but efficient film cameras, this just didn't fit my purposes.
So I really want to thank you guys for your input. Kind of scarey needing to look at this again.
But ColorPerfect and some of the B&W add-in seem attractive to me for assisting with negative scans. So I'm re-examining the whole. This is about as much fun as a root canal. My initial brush with a very, very early Photoshop was all pixel management and I ran from it. That was probably 15 years or more ago? No idea. And I've learned a lot about editing from Lightroom and CaptureOne. The latter is very powerful, but they keep tweaking the interface in ways that are a tad annoying. As I'm beginning to do a lot more with layers and/or levels, it's time to man-up and re-examine. Photoshop might be it as I really doubt that GIMP is going to be easier. Yes I looked at that, too, long ago when I was toying with Linux machines, but found I didn't have the patience or engineering skills to want to mess with what at the time was basically unfinished software that expected the user to design their own interface. As a guy who likes to think he shoots film to spend less time with black box computers and more with dumb but efficient film cameras, this just didn't fit my purposes.
So I really want to thank you guys for your input. Kind of scarey needing to look at this again.
Sean
Admin
I'm on a mac and couldn't bring myself to pay for photoshop, so am using Acorn. It's a pretty decent well known clone and has a free trial: https://flyingmeat.com/acorn/
That being said I mostly just use it for website graphic imaging and such. I was snapping some birds at the bird feeder the other day with a cruddy old digital cam (with an old 300mm plastic barrel zoom and through a dirty window) and ran it through acorn levels and unsharp mask and it seemed to work as good as levels and unsharp in CS. I didn't want to waste much time on it, was just documenting the types of birds that show up.
here is a before after attached if curious..
That being said I mostly just use it for website graphic imaging and such. I was snapping some birds at the bird feeder the other day with a cruddy old digital cam (with an old 300mm plastic barrel zoom and through a dirty window) and ran it through acorn levels and unsharp mask and it seemed to work as good as levels and unsharp in CS. I didn't want to waste much time on it, was just documenting the types of birds that show up.
here is a before after attached if curious..
Adobe has a photography bundle that is just LR and PS that is ~$15-20 a month or something like that. LR is more of a image catalog manager with Adobe Camera Raw built in, and PS is for when you need it. I get that people can’t stand paying a subscription, but at the same time, for ~$15-20 a month you *always* have the latest version. That’s ~$200 a year to always have the latest version. Remember when PS wasn’t subscription? How much did it cost? And you still had to pay to upgrade it reasonably regularly to support newer OSes, etc. I’ll take the subscription any day over that. Best move Adobe ever made.
This is almost guaranteed to be true. I ran CS4 until two operating systems ago (Mac OS X) at which point CS4 stopped working because of compatibility issues. And so, I no longer use Photoshop. I do, however, use Lightroom extensively (I bought the standalone version)
Any instance you find online (and I saw MANY) of "free" offerings of CS3 are pirated copies being distributed illegally. It is not worth downloading - you could easily be downloading malware in the process. Just get GIMP and be done with it.
Wait, I don't get it. You asked about a really old version of Photoshop, CS3. And you complained that GIMP years ago was hard to use. GIMP is free. Have you tried it today? Where are you going with this? Why are you asking us?
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of digital anything and even I find GIMP pretty easy to use. Granted, I also don't need it to do very much for me but the things I need it for seem pretty intuitive to me. Kodachromeguy makes an excellent point: it costs you nothing to try it and see how much it's changed since you used it last.
I've found that PS Elements has most of what I need from Photoshop. For more major editing, I use On1. It isn't completely intuitive, but they have great tutorial videos.
Why am I posting this? Not because I'm after free. I'm on CaptureOne's monthly plan. But I am HYBRID with a digital printing flow to Espon SC printers. I'm curious about some of the film negative conversions out there... which work ONLY with Photoshop. Specifically....ColorPerfect as I've read good things about it. I've used Vuescan and a Nikon Coolscan 8000, but this is on it's way to the deadpile (i've repaired it 2 or 3 times a year: servos, door, etc) and have acquired a Negative Solutions hardware to that end as "the next step". Yes, I go hot and cold on DSLR scans, but mostly I'm done with the endless grinding and slow process a 20 year-plus Nikon machine involves, and I'm not particularly planning on a Howtek scanner to bust my budget either. So software solutions are on the diet. GIMP doesn't look like it does this, and yes there was a thread here on this process that spoke of Photoshop CS2 as public domain software and yes, I'm leery of that. I"m thinking I may simply have to break down and step up to Adobe's flagship like it or not. Glad to hear folks are having fun with GIMP and yes, I see DxO's got Silverex plugins for B&W, but I wish the same plugins worked with CaptureOne.
Guess the answer is that CS2 or CS3 aren't really public domain like I thought I'd read, and if I go this route, I have to spend. Worse things could happen.
Last I heard Adobe had an issue with how their software was handling the authentication system in Photoshop CS3, and decided that it was more cost effective to just disable the system than attempt to deal with customers who could no longer install or use their legally purchased software.
In effect it is the "Farmer's stand at the end of a driveway" approach to distributing software rather than bearing the cost of a shop clerk. Except in this case the supply is unlimited and someone who comes along and ignores the honour system can't clean the whole thing out.
If you don't have a license for the software then using it is violating Adobe's Copyright and all that jazz. The fact that the only barrier against using the software is tracking down where Adobe has put the download link recently doesn't actually change anything.
That said, I find the Photographers Bundle from Adobe to be a pretty sweet and bearable deal. Even the full Creative Cloud option isn't that hard of a pill to swallow if you have a use for a few of their software titles.
In effect it is the "Farmer's stand at the end of a driveway" approach to distributing software rather than bearing the cost of a shop clerk. Except in this case the supply is unlimited and someone who comes along and ignores the honour system can't clean the whole thing out.
If you don't have a license for the software then using it is violating Adobe's Copyright and all that jazz. The fact that the only barrier against using the software is tracking down where Adobe has put the download link recently doesn't actually change anything.
That said, I find the Photographers Bundle from Adobe to be a pretty sweet and bearable deal. Even the full Creative Cloud option isn't that hard of a pill to swallow if you have a use for a few of their software titles.
I have Lightroom and InDesign on my Adobe CreativeCloud. Switching to Photoshop is something I've resisted, but probably shouldn't. Seems it's what grown ups do. Okay, I get it. Lightroom isn't the best and I've been very happy with CaptureOne's "roll your own", but I'm after more plug-ins these days and avoiding some of that if I can. Just trying to solidify the direction. Reviews of GIMP are still pretty consistent with my impression of it as unfinished. Most LINUX is like that: Great if you're a software engineer and wants a custom interface; kind of a pain otherwise. On the whole, I want less computer and more photography. But service costs being what they are, we have to do this stuff ourselves for the most part.
I've been using a 15 year old version of Paintshop Pro (pre Corel), however I also have Corel Photopaing and GIMP and am happy using either instead. For RAW files I jave Corel After Shot Pro.
Ian
Ian
For several years now, I'm very happy with my Adobe subscription; always up-to-date and always working; I don't need to own it.
I use Corel as well, tried the subscription version of LightRoom, my preference is Corel.
Well, you need to give GIMP another look. I have been using it on and off since the beginning and I can say with confidence it is light-years above what it used to be. Easy, brainless Windows installer and decent interface with a good online community for help with problems.
Not perfect but neither is Adobe...
Not perfect but neither is Adobe...
I'd agree, I've used Gimp quite a lot it's a very capable program, in recent years it's leapt way ahead of its early versions.
It's like Libre Office (Open Office) and a few other Open Source/Free programs a very credible and useful alternative to the over prices Microsoft and Adobe products.
Ian
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 868
- Format
- 35mm
Gimp is (still) my main photo editing program, but I've been trying out Darktable, which is very powerful and great when there are a lot of images to be edited. I'm still climbing the learning curve on it, however.
In the US, I pay $10 per month for Adobe's Photography Plan, which includes both Lightroom and Photoshop. For a while Adobe was experimenting with some (higher) pricing options by adding more cloud storage, but according to <this link> you can still get the Photography plan for $9.99/month.
Last edited:
PS is easier than playing with alternatives..and it's better. I'm a photographer, not a geek. $10/mo is nothing.
If you are interested in Photoshop Elements as a standalone software package, meaning not a monthly subscription, there is a Black Friday sale for USA customers for $59.95:
https://www.adobe.com/products/elements-family.html?promoid=V2XYKZ3B&mv=other
I am not sure about customers in other parts of the world. BEWARE: Most functions only work on 8-bit files. You can import a RAW file and convert to 16-bit TIFF, but most of the editing functions are only on 8-bit. It is clearly aimed at the more casual user. But still, it accepts filters such as DxO filmpak and will let them operate on the 16-bit file.
https://www.adobe.com/products/elements-family.html?promoid=V2XYKZ3B&mv=other
I am not sure about customers in other parts of the world. BEWARE: Most functions only work on 8-bit files. You can import a RAW file and convert to 16-bit TIFF, but most of the editing functions are only on 8-bit. It is clearly aimed at the more casual user. But still, it accepts filters such as DxO filmpak and will let them operate on the 16-bit file.
The beautiful work we see in Ian's Media shows WHY he's happy with his approach.
I wonder if he finds his approach equally rewarding in color?
CS3 when compared to the current PSCC it is positively archaic. There is so much missing in that version (I had CS4) that now I wold be struggling if I went backwards. Especially as most of my files are in RAW, the RAW conversion is very very good and caters for new cameras as and when they are introduced.
Yes it cost per month but when you consider that buying new full disc say every 4-5 years would probably cost around $600 it isn't quite so bad. Think of it as a credit sale with no interest applied. Apart from that when there is an update, it is available free as part of the package and annually there is a major update of the whole programme also part of the package. I started out with PSCC 2017 and now have recently uploaded PSCC 2020
Yes it cost per month but when you consider that buying new full disc say every 4-5 years would probably cost around $600 it isn't quite so bad. Think of it as a credit sale with no interest applied. Apart from that when there is an update, it is available free as part of the package and annually there is a major update of the whole programme also part of the package. I started out with PSCC 2017 and now have recently uploaded PSCC 2020
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |