Adobe CS upgrade?

I was very dissappointed with what I've read about the new Photoshop CS:

1) VERY discouraged by not allowing many of the new tools to work with JPEG files.
2) Some of the new tools do not appear to work very well.

3) No real 'upgrade' of some older tools -- it must be easier to add on new stuff

4) You know they are reaching the bottom of the barrel when they take features from Photoshop Elements and call them 'new'!

5) Everyone will probably buy one, if for no other reason than to work with layers on 16 bit images.

6) They have still missed the boat on their tools -- even with the new Histogram feature --- why not have sliders or something to achieve a white point (like for mixed lighting!?!) instead of a 'click' to white.

7) They still have not integrated curves and levels --- Check out Nikon's scanner software --- this is REALLY easy.

8) Image Size command still sucks -- why not integrate a stairstep algorithm here? What is Adobe smoking?

--
Thom--
I need a Photographer's assistant (female preferred) --- e-mail me.
-- .

Thomas Karlmann said:

I was very dissappointed with what I've read about the new
Photoshop CS:

1) VERY discouraged by not allowing many of the new tools to work
with JPEG files.

Click to expand...

Tools work on Jpeg files what you read was noise reduction is only in RAW support. New Filters like Lens blur and others will work on jpeg.

Thomas Karlmann said:

2) Some of the new tools do not appear to work very well.

Click to expand...

Which ones what article are you referring too.

Thomas Karlmann said:

3) No real 'upgrade' of some older tools -- it must be easier to
add on new stuff

Click to expand...

All the old tools that did not work on 16bit images have been updated.

Thomas Karlmann said:

4) You know they are reaching the bottom of the barrel when they
take features from Photoshop Elements and call them 'new'!

Click to expand...

I sort of agree that Photomerge in elements was not very good I don't think Photomerge in photoshop will compete with Panorama tools but it is better that what was in elements for you can preserve the images in layers and improve on what photomerge was able to do.

Thomas Karlmann said:

5) Everyone will probably buy one, if for no other reason than to
work with layers on 16 bit images.

Click to expand...

Yes because the old tools have been updated but you claim the were not.

Thomas Karlmann said:

6) They have still missed the boat on their tools -- even with the
new Histogram feature --- why not have sliders or something to
achieve a white point (like for mixed lighting!?!) instead of a
'click' to white.

Click to expand...

Again this seems only to be available in there RAW support. If you want high quality you should be using RAW. There are other new tools for bring out shadows and hilights which will help but you state there is nothing new.

Thomas Karlmann said:

7) They still have not integrated curves and levels --- Check out
Nikon's scanner software --- this is REALLY easy.

Click to expand...

Can not comment here fdon't have the bread for Nikon hardware and software.

Thomas Karlmann said:

8) Image Size command still sucks -- why not integrate a stairstep
algorithm here? What is Adobe smoking?

Click to expand...

There are two new interpolation algorithms which they claim are as good as stairstep but are faster.

Thomas Karlmann said:

--
Thom--
I need a Photographer's assistant (female preferred) --- e-mail me.
-- .

Click to expand...

--
JJMack

JJMACK said:

Thomas Karlmann said:

I was very dissappointed with what I've read about the new
Photoshop CS:

1) VERY discouraged by not allowing many of the new tools to work
with JPEG files.

Click to expand...

Tools work on Jpeg files what you read was noise reduction is only
in RAW support. New Filters like Lens blur and others will work on
jpeg.

Click to expand...

I was really thinking here about the RAW conversion tool (I have Camera Raw). I was REALLY hoping that once it was integrated into PS that they would allow the conversion tools to function with JPEGs. Too bad.

MissMouse said:

MissMouse said:

2) Some of the new tools do not appear to work very well.

Click to expand...

Which ones what article are you referring too.

Click to expand...

I read the review posted and just came away from the reading feeling that the new tools didn't seem to 'WOW' the reviewer -- he found better solutions in other tools. Why, for example, come out with yet another substandard stitching tool? This is not what I expect from an expensive program the PS -- I expect them to 'get it right'!

MissMouse said:

MissMouse said:

3) No real 'upgrade' of some older tools -- it must be easier to
add on new stuff

Click to expand...

All the old tools that did not work on 16bit images have been updated.

Click to expand...

The 16 bit enhancement is probably the strongest feature, or cynics might ask 'why didn't we have this berfore?'.

MissMouse said:

MissMouse said:

4) You know they are reaching the bottom of the barrel when they
take features from Photoshop Elements and call them 'new'!

Click to expand...

I sort of agree that Photomerge in elements was not very good I
don't think Photomerge in photoshop will compete with Panorama
tools but it is better that what was in elements for you can
preserve the images in layers and improve on what photomerge was
able to do.

MissMouse said:

5) Everyone will probably buy one, if for no other reason than to
work with layers on 16 bit images.

Click to expand...

Yes because the old tools have been updated but you claim the were
not.

Click to expand...

By 'old tools' I was also referring to some of the older filters in PS. The 16 bit isn't an updated tool, for me, but allowing me to use existing tools on more types of files.

MissMouse said:

MissMouse said:

6) They have still missed the boat on their tools -- even with the
new Histogram feature --- why not have sliders or something to
achieve a white point (like for mixed lighting!?!) instead of a
'click' to white.

Click to expand...

Again this seems only to be available in there RAW support. If you
want high quality you should be using RAW. There are other new
tools for bring out shadows and hilights which will help but you
state there is nothing new.

MissMouse said:

7) They still have not integrated curves and levels --- Check out
Nikon's scanner software --- this is REALLY easy.

Click to expand...

Can not comment here fdon't have the bread for Nikon hardware and
software.

Click to expand...

Nikon simply overlays curves with a histogram -- this simple move really helps to define where to set the endpoints without going to a separate levels tool layer.

MissMouse said:

MissMouse said:

8) Image Size command still sucks -- why not integrate a stairstep
algorithm here? What is Adobe smoking?

Click to expand...

There are two new interpolation algorithms which they claim are as
good as stairstep but are faster.

Click to expand...

Hmm -- that would be interesting, and time saving --- hope it's true!

Thanks for your comments.

MissMouse said:

JJMack

Click to expand...

--
Thom--
I need a Photographer's assistant (female preferred) --- e-mail me.
-- .

Thomas Karlmann said:

JJMACK said:

Thomas Karlmann said:

I was very dissappointed with what I've read about the new
Photoshop CS:

1) VERY discouraged by not allowing many of the new tools to work
with JPEG files.

Click to expand...

Tools work on Jpeg files what you read was noise reduction is only
in RAW support. New Filters like Lens blur and others will work on
jpeg.

Click to expand...

I was really thinking here about the RAW conversion tool (I have
Camera Raw). I was REALLY hoping that once it was integrated into
PS that they would allow the conversion tools to function with
JPEGs. Too bad.

Click to expand...

I have read articles where other had the same hopes. Then I though about it and feel you and the others have false hope. To me it looks like a hopeless situation. By the time you get a jpeg image from a camera the 10bit or 12bit Mosaic color image has been interpolated into 8bit RGB color image with camera white balance and EV settings applied. This image is also sharpened and saturated according to camera setting. Then this image has jpeg artifact added to it determined by the amount of compression the camera uses. Too much data has been lost and much degradation has been added. What can Photoshop dooooo. Use Voodoo

--
JJMack

I totally agree. When it comes down to it why would anyone want to use a lossy format that's been processed already in the role that RAW serves.

Dave

JJMACK said:

I have read articles where other had the same hopes. Then I though
about it and feel you and the others have false hope. To me it
looks like a hopeless situation. By the time you get a jpeg image
from a camera the 10bit or 12bit Mosaic color image has been
interpolated into 8bit RGB color image with camera white balance
and EV settings applied. This image is also sharpened and saturated
according to camera setting. Then this image has jpeg artifact
added to it determined by the amount of compression the camera
uses. Too much data has been lost and much degradation has been
added. What can Photoshop dooooo. Use Voodoo

--
JJMack

Click to expand...

JJMACK said:

Thomas Karlmann said:

JJMACK said:

Thomas Karlmann said:

I was very dissappointed with what I've read about the new
Photoshop CS:

1) VERY discouraged by not allowing many of the new tools to work
with JPEG files.

Click to expand...

Tools work on Jpeg files what you read was noise reduction is only
in RAW support. New Filters like Lens blur and others will work on
jpeg.

Click to expand...

I was really thinking here about the RAW conversion tool (I have
Camera Raw). I was REALLY hoping that once it was integrated into
PS that they would allow the conversion tools to function with
JPEGs. Too bad.

Click to expand...

I have read articles where other had the same hopes. Then I though
about it and feel you and the others have false hope. To me it
looks like a hopeless situation. By the time you get a jpeg image
from a camera the 10bit or 12bit Mosaic color image has been
interpolated into 8bit RGB color image with camera white balance
and EV settings applied. This image is also sharpened and saturated
according to camera setting. Then this image has jpeg artifact
added to it determined by the amount of compression the camera
uses. Too much data has been lost and much degradation has been
added. What can Photoshop dooooo. Use Voodoo

--
JJMack

Click to expand...

It's very simple JJ -- some images simply do not deserve the time to go deeper, and 4x6 is all they will ever need to be in the album. In this case, going through curves and creating whites always seems to be overkill and time-excessive. Although I have not done this much, the CR screen seems to have some potential for quick color balance fix for these types of shots.

After saying this, I do feel far more control and comfort using curves. In curves I know** I'm creating a white. With those sliders in CR, I'm not sure what's going on -- but they just don't seem to be correcting the color balance for me -- I keep looking to align the right edges of the live histogram and it doesn't happen. I WISH there were R, G, & B sliders there instead -- far simpler and more intuitive than what is there now.
--
Thom--
I need a Photographer's assistant (female preferred) --- e-mail me.
-- .

Dave Cluck said:

Dave

JJMACK said:

I have read articles where other had the same hopes. Then I though
about it and feel you and the others have false hope. To me it
looks like a hopeless situation. By the time you get a jpeg image
from a camera the 10bit or 12bit Mosaic color image has been
interpolated into 8bit RGB color image with camera white balance
and EV settings applied. This image is also sharpened and saturated
according to camera setting. Then this image has jpeg artifact
added to it determined by the amount of compression the camera
uses. Too much data has been lost and much degradation has been
added. What can Photoshop dooooo. Use Voodoo

--
JJMack

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think there are situations in my Wedding work where, at least with my present hardware, I have situations where I like the potential to shoot, say, 20 shots, knowing that none of these is going in the album at larger than 4x6. Fewer CF cards, etc. I can easily change that rez on the fly to where I need it!

If I'm shooting landscapes or family portraits --- then** I completely agree with you -- use raw and get the max the camera can provide.
--
Thom--
I need a Photographer's assistant (female preferred) --- e-mail me.
-- .

Raw processing of JPEGs is a contradiction in terms.

A raw file is data that comes directly off the camera's sensor and must be processed in order to be useful as a photographic image. The advantage of this is that the processing can be done by a more powerful (better) programoutside the camera because there is not the need to be ready for the next shot and a desktop or laptop computer is much more powerful than the computer in a camera.

A JPEG has already been processed by the computer in the camera and some parts of the image discarded in order to reduce file size. This "ruined" file is not a good candidate for raw image processing because it has already been irretrievably damaged.

George Burke