Elements 10 v Picasa help please

[ukwoody]

Hi all, I'm just upgrading from my Fuji bridgecam to a Pentax K-5. I dont want to really shoot in RAW much (thats another issue, not for discussion here) mainly JPG. I currently use Picasa and occasionally faststone for the limited processing I do.

However Elements 10 is available at a really silly price, so I was wondering about upgrading. What benefits would I gain please? Is it worth it?

Many thanks
Woody

--

After 10 years of picture taking - you'd have thought I'd have learnt to remove the lens cap...

 

[Jim Cockfield]

Why not just try it and see what you think?

You can download a trial version to test drive without buying it first. ;-)

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html

--
JimC

 

[clanthar]

One benefit: Elements won't severely damage every photo you edit by stripping the file's ICC profile like Picasa does. Worth it.

Joe

 

[rsn48]

Much steeper learning curve with Elements (its just a junior Photo shop), with Picassa though much easier to use, is "challenged" in many of its options.

Elements is more like the pro team, picassa is the high school team. However if you aren't going to shoot in RAW, I'm not sure its worth getting Elements.

--
Photography is, indeed, an inclusive language. Ansel Adams

 

[keeponkeepingon]

One benefit: Elements won't severely damage every photo you edit by stripping the file's ICC profile like Picasa does. Worth it.

I thought unlike elements picasa was non-destructive?

 

[clanthar]

One benefit: Elements won't severely damage every photo you edit by stripping the file's ICC profile like Picasa does. Worth it.

I thought unlike elements picasa was non-destructive?

Last time I checked Picasa would leave photos untouched if used only for it's database function. However, if you used Picasa's editing function to alter a photo, lighten it for example, then, when Picasa re-saved the photo it would strip off the referenced color space (ICC profile). That may be OK for some folks, but we photographers consider that effectively destroying the photo.

Caveat: it's been a few months since I took at look at Picasa.

Joe

 

[AnandaSim]

Hi all, I'm just upgrading from my Fuji bridgecam to a Pentax K-5. I dont want to really shoot in RAW much (thats another issue, not for discussion here) mainly JPG. I currently use Picasa and occasionally faststone for the limited processing I do.

Picasa does RAW as well, Faststone less able I think. Picasa treats RAW and JPEG seamlessly so it gives ease of use without changing your method of work.

I'm curious why you use Faststone - can you tell me? Picasa works differently from Faststone and swapping between them is cumbersome.

However Elements 10 is available at a really silly price, so I was wondering about upgrading. What benefits would I gain please? Is it worth it?

If it is a really silly price and you are able to more than afford it, yes, get it. Picasa is to me a cataloguing tool, quick touch-up tool. For an intense tool where you want to sit down for a while and "work" the photo, Photoshop and others like it, give you a whole lot more control and features. The two can work together - you can still use Picasa as the first tool to catalogue, assess and so on (Picasa plays safe with originals) - see:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=39870281

So for the quickie where you want to deliver to web gallery (assume sRGB standard) or you want to print or you want to use standard retail printing (assume sRGB again) or you want to email small sized versions, Picasa is fine. If you are lucky enough that on your machine Picasa recognises Photoshop as one of the photo editors, whilst looking at a shot, you can right click and open in Elements for that one shot where you want more intense workout.

If you are into a photo career or want peer level recognition of your skills, again Photoshop (and again you can download the trial to see whether you enjoy it) is worthwhile. However, if you just want something more intense than Picasa, PAINT.NET and The Gimp are free but they don't have the "class" and rezpect that Photoshop have.

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

 

[keeponkeepingon]

I've moved on from picassa to lightroom but still use faststone in my RAW workflow.

It's very quick at displaying my RAW files from my T2i/550D. Faster than picasa was when I was using it (3.8 may be better).

Also the multimonitor support in faststone is excellent. It's great for quickly going through an SD card and deleting the horrible stuff before doing an import into LR.

I still have a copy of elements 9 that I keep "just in case" there is an edit I can't do in LR. I used it the same way in picasa as an "editor of last resort" when picasa could not handle something.

Regarding stripping ICC profiles: I don't think Picasa saves your image to disk unless you explicitly tell it to or export. By default your images are not touched, unless something has changed recently?

 

[clanthar]

I've moved on from picassa to lightroom but still use faststone in my RAW workflow.

It's very quick at displaying my RAW files from my T2i/550D. Faster than picasa was when I was using it (3.8 may be better).

Also the multimonitor support in faststone is excellent. It's great for quickly going through an SD card and deleting the horrible stuff before doing an import into LR.

I still have a copy of elements 9 that I keep "just in case" there is an edit I can't do in LR. I used it the same way in picasa as an "editor of last resort" when picasa could not handle something.

Regarding stripping ICC profiles: I don't think Picasa saves your image to disk unless you explicitly tell it to or export. By default your images are not touched, unless something has changed recently?

I agree that you have to save an edit to disk in order to experience Picasa's destructive behavior. Don't use Picasa to edit photos and don't save any edits to disk and you're fine. If you do however edit a photo in Picasa and save that edit, Picasa will trash it.

Joe

 

[AnandaSim]

Regarding stripping ICC profiles: I don't think Picasa saves your image to disk unless you explicitly tell it to or export. By default your images are not touched, unless something has changed recently?

Your original is still not touched. If you do a save the original is moved to .picasaoriginals. Excerpt from the post I referred to:

The other kind of change is where you hit 'Apply' button. Red Eye, Retouch, Text tools have an Apply button, and once you click it, changes are saved to the file, and a backup is created in .picasaoriginals. Those backups are made every time you save. If you have a photo named photo.jpg, initial save will put 'photo.jpg' into .picasaoriginals. Subsequent saves will create 'photo.1.jpg', 'photo.2.jpg' etc. /

I agree that you have to save an edit to disk in order to experience Picasa's destructive behavior. Don't use Picasa to edit photos and don't save any edits to disk and you're fine. If you do however edit a photo in Picasa and save that edit, Picasa will trash it.

Yes, clarification Joe. Picasa will save a new, manipulated image but the original is not trashed. Secondly the icc profile is for people who are using a colour managed workflow to ensure that their displays, printers and web browsers have a consistency and understanding - particularly if you are shooting aRGB or Pro Photo RGB .

There are many people who don't use any colour management (as I understand) and display devices, printers, web browsers for that mass market are set to default to sRGB.

I would expect someone who is dedicated enough to use aRGB would not be going near tools like Picasa or Faststone.

I just saw a embed copy of the ICC profile:
http://cpanforum.com/threads/2873

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

 

[AnandaSim]

I've moved on from picassa to lightroom but still use faststone in my RAW workflow.

It's very quick at displaying my RAW files from my T2i/550D. Faster than picasa was when I was using it (3.8 may be better).

Faststone is quick to display the RAW files but as far as I understand, it does not render the RAW unless you have set an option. It reads the embedded JPEG.

Faststone does not care about monitoring a folder like Picasa where there are virtual albums concept, face tagging, photo tagging and so on.

Also the multimonitor support in faststone is excellent. It's great for quickly going through an SD card and deleting the horrible stuff before doing an import into LR.

Ouch! Each of us has his/her own ways and we live by that. But I would myself not work off an SD card. I've had accidents - usually human, and deleted files off the SD that I do not want to delete. Some accident could happen with a failed write as well.

I myself, always make a full copy of all the files onto hard disk and work off the hard disk. The SD card is not erased or formatted until the next shooting session, allowing me the peace of mind that if I really muck up the photos on my hard disk, I can go back to the SD card.

I still have a copy of elements 9 that I keep "just in case" there is an edit I can't do in LR. I used it the same way in picasa as an "editor of last resort" when picasa could not handle something.

LR? Lightroom? Why would you use Picasa to manage and tweak files when you have LR? LR is a much more sophisticated tool.

Regarding stripping ICC profiles: I don't think Picasa saves your image to disk unless you explicitly tell it to or export. By default your images are not touched, unless something has changed recently?

See the post I referenced.

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

 

[Guidenet]

Hi all, I'm just upgrading from my Fuji bridgecam to a Pentax K-5. I dont want to really shoot in RAW much (thats another issue, not for discussion here) mainly JPG. I currently use Picasa and occasionally faststone for the limited processing I do.

However Elements 10 is available at a really silly price, so I was wondering about upgrading. What benefits would I gain please? Is it worth it?

Hey Woody. If you don't wish to learn how to process your own photos and don't want to learn much about the settings, I'd suggest Picasa because it's very easy and doesn't need much. I'm a little surprised at going to a K5 instead of a Kr which would probably better fit your style.

If Elements is really that cheap or Silly priced, I'd get it in case you're ever interested in learning that other half of photography which includes controlling your work from pressing the button to the final image. You need RAW for that, IMO. The more trivial in-camera software is good enough if you don't wish to learn that other half and any inexpensive or free touchup software is fine.

I think quality software should be considered more like a quality camera or lens. The algorithms for demosaicing, the lens profiles, the pixel level control and so much more of a quality photo editing software makes a real difference in the long run and is behooves a good photographer to learn this part just like he might learn how f/stops work or any part of exposure. You just shouldn't scrimp on software if that half of photography is interesting to you. If it isn't, just get and use the cheapest or free.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 

[clanthar]

Regarding stripping ICC profiles: I don't think Picasa saves your image to disk unless you explicitly tell it to or export. By default your images are not touched, unless something has changed recently?

Your original is still not touched. If you do a save the original is moved to .picasaoriginals. Excerpt from the post I referred to:

The other kind of change is where you hit 'Apply' button. Red Eye, Retouch, Text tools have an Apply button, and once you click it, changes are saved to the file, and a backup is created in .picasaoriginals. Those backups are made every time you save. If you have a photo named photo.jpg, initial save will put 'photo.jpg' into .picasaoriginals. Subsequent saves will create 'photo.1.jpg', 'photo.2.jpg' etc. /

I agree that you have to save an edit to disk in order to experience Picasa's destructive behavior. Don't use Picasa to edit photos and don't save any edits to disk and you're fine. If you do however edit a photo in Picasa and save that edit, Picasa will trash it.

Yes, clarification Joe. Picasa will save a new, manipulated image but the original is not trashed. Secondly the icc profile is for people who are using a colour managed workflow to ensure that their displays, printers and web browsers have a consistency and understanding - particularly if you are shooting aRGB or Pro Photo RGB .

I didn't say the original was trashed. The pronoun "it" in my sentence clearly refers back to the object "edit." What is the benefit of devoting time to edit and adjust a photo to improve it's appearance if the software you're using then fails to save your work correctly?

There are many people who don't use any colour management (as I understand) and display devices, printers, web browsers for that mass market are set to default to sRGB.

As for ICC profiles and the consumer photo industry: Software like Picasa is cause for considerable frustration as people see their photos change inexplicably. It's correct that the average photo consumer knows little or nothing about color management. Yet every one of their photos starts off with an embedded ICC profile identifying the color space. If they have the simplest P&S camera that costs less than $100.00 ALL their photos get correctly tagged with the reference color space. The camera industry -- mass consumer market included -- across the board does it right without exception. All RAW file converters embed the ICC profile. No software exists that will convert a RAW file to RGB and leave the file untagged. In other words you can't get an RGB photo out of a digital camera that doesn't have an embedded ICC profile. There's a reason for that and the fact that the camera user is a hobbyist or mom taking snaps at the birthday party is no excuse for ignoring that profile.

There is a common error circulating that no embedded profile is the same as sRGB and that software that ignores ICC profiles is set to default to sRGB. This is not correct. All cameras embed an ICC profile for a reason; failing to process it and/or remove it is a mistake. sRGB was created in 1995 to be a best fit match to contemporary display hardware. Since then the hardware manufacturers have embraced sRGB and attempted to bring their hardware into closer compliance. As a result an sRGB tagged photo will likely appear to change very little if the tag is removed. However untagged RGB and sRGB are not the same thing and software that fails to process the tag when it's there isn't working properly. The tag is always there now. All Apple software does it right. The iPad does it right. Firefox does it right. GIMP which is free open source software does it right. Elements does it right. LR does it right. Flickr does it right. Even Microsoft Picture Viewer does it right. Picasa does it wrong.

Joe

I would expect someone who is dedicated enough to use aRGB would not be going near tools like Picasa or Faststone.

I just saw a embed copy of the ICC profile:
http://cpanforum.com/threads/2873

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

 

[AnandaSim]

There are many people who don't use any colour management (as I understand) and display devices, printers, web browsers for that mass market are set to default to sRGB.

As for ICC profiles and the consumer photo industry: Software like Picasa is cause for considerable frustration as people see their photos change inexplicably. It's correct that the average photo consumer knows little or nothing about color management.

There is a common error circulating that no embedded profile is the same as sRGB and that software that ignores ICC profiles is set to default to sRGB. This is not correct. All cameras embed an ICC profile for a reason; failing to process it and/or remove it is a mistake. sRGB was created in 1995 to be a best fit match to contemporary display hardware. Since then the hardware manufacturers have embraced sRGB and attempted to bring their hardware into closer compliance. As a result an sRGB tagged photo will likely appear to change very little if the tag is removed. However untagged RGB and sRGB are not the same thing and software that fails to process the tag when it's there isn't working properly.

The tag is always there now. All Apple software does it right. The iPad does it right. Firefox does it right. GIMP which is free open source software does it right. Elements does it right. LR does it right. Flickr does it right. Even Microsoft Picture Viewer does it right. Picasa does it wrong.

So we have a non standards compliant world. Ok. Understood.

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

 

[NetMage]

The default for Picasa is exactly like LightRoom - you make changes stored in a sidecar and never change the original. This works as long as you stay in Picasa. You can also export your pictures to another location with changes included.

If you do save your edits so you can access the edited pictures in another program, Picasa automatically makes backups of original files and provides access methods for them.

--
-- Please remove the Quote option!
-- Why can't you edit more than once???
-- How about switching to real forum software?

 

[ukwoody]

Goshthis has turned rather technical from my initial question. I'm not really interested much in ICC profiles as I'm basically an amature that just wants to be able to adjust various features of an image, not print to proff standards.
But I really do thank you all for the input it has been helpful.

to the person who asked why I use Fastone, I quite like Faststone it gives a nice full screen image to look at, easy to crop and cut etc. Until the latest version I also found it very fast, but I think they must have changed the way it indexes and loads the images as it seems to be a little slower nowadays. I've used it for a bout 3 years and in some ways prefer it to Picassa.

Woody
--

After 10 years of picture taking - you'd have thought I'd have learnt to remove the lens cap...