Jump to content

Discount Cs3 on Win7 OK.

ollypenrice

By ollypenrice
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

I asked a while back if the discount CS3s on Amazon (£180) would be OK for WIn7 and the concensus was yes. On the net there were tales of some non Pentium chips needing a patch but since I have a Pentium I went ahead. It has just installed in the most amiable manner and seems to work fine.

Till now I have been using an ancient Ps7 which drops into 8 bit for many operations. CS3 also has some other advantages (I've used it before) but I can't say that I expect anything more than a slight improvement in the general scheme of things.

To my mind Photoshop at £180 is fine. Their prices for new versions are outrageous, though.

Happy bunny and thanks for the earlier input.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Photosbykev

Photosbykev

Posted
Posted
What do you need 16 bits for?

Are you a scientist? Are you needing more to post the images on the forums?

if you do all your post processing in 16-bit format you have the benefit of retaining far more detail and colour information. It is only for final web presentation that you need to drop back to 8 bit. The only time I go near 8 bit is for posting on-line, all of my master images are saved in 16bit tiff format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Demonperformer

Demonperformer

Posted
Posted

CCDs usually capture images in 16-bit - ie there are 65536 levels of grey from white to black. If you then process it in 8-bit, you are reducing the sensitivity to 256 levels of grey from white to black. You are therefore clumping 256 levels of grey into one. If you process in 16-bits, you are retaining the full sensitivity of the original capture.

No, I am not a scientist (although I trained as a geneticist in the 1970s), and you don't need more to post images on the forum, but the result will be 'smoother' if you process using the same sensitivity that you capture with.

[You beat me to it Kev]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smeg

Smeg

Posted
Posted

GEGL will have fullly integrated in Gimp 3.0 with the current road map, some operations are already using GEGL (check Use GEGL on the menu) - its off by default, GEGL is a 16bit engine and non destructive operations.

So, why must it be photoshop? Why not Lightroom? Its cheaper no? Why not get a Wacom and get the bundled software with it, tablets make image processing easier to do.

Wacom usually bundle, Photoshop, lightroom and or Corel.'

I wouldnt dream of doing any processing work without my Intuos or Cintiq lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Photosbykev

Photosbykev

Posted
Posted
CCDs usually capture images in 16-bit - ie there are 65536 levels of grey from white to black. If you then process it in 8-bit, you are reducing the sensitivity to 256 levels of grey from white to black. You are therefore clumping 256 levels of grey into one. If you process in 16-bits, you are retaining the full sensitivity of the original capture.

No, I am not a scientist (although I trained as a geneticist in the 1970s), and you don't need more to post images on the forum, but the result will be 'smoother' if you process using the same sensitivity that you capture with.

[You beat me to it Kev]

sorry DP lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Demonperformer

Demonperformer

Posted
Posted
So, why must it be photoshop? Why not Lightroom? Its cheaper no?

It doesn't HAVE to be photoshop. Quick check on Amazon suggests lightroom can be about £20 cheaper. One advantage of PS is that with so many forum members who use it, there is a lot of very specific help available if you have any problems.

Why not get a Wacom and get the bundled software with it, tablets make image processing easier to do.

Again just a very quick look, but unless I am missing something, they seem to come with PS Elements (which is about £100 cheaper than Lightroom). There has been a thread recently discussing the advantages of CS3 over elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garethmob

garethmob

Posted
Posted

i do like the wacom tablets, expessially for my mac as they just "work" i use CS3 on my macbook pro but i would use another packege if it was eaiser

hope the CS3 works for you olly :p id like to see some of your earlier photos processed in it, to see the comparison between the 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smeg

Smeg

Posted
Posted
The most surprising thing in this thread is that your still using a Pentium??

Must be slow.

Oh for gawds sakes, instead of paying for photoshop, send that money on a cheap laptop lol with 4gb ram. Look at all the equipment you list yet you wont even go get a decent laptop which are pennies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The most surprising thing in this thread is that your still using a Pentium??

Must be slow.

Why, what should I be using?? You're making me nervous!! It hasn't struck me as being slow and I'm not in a great rush. In fact I tend to do pre-processing on the laptops on which the data is collected because there is so much of it that transferring it to the desk machine is too boring. I do some of the donkeywork during capture as well. Once the files are stacked and calibrated I move them to the desktop. If I perform a major Ps opertation on a 9 panel mosaic it never seems to take more than a couple of seconds.

Because I make large prints up to poster size (or at least get professional printers to do so) I decided to get a '16 bit all the way' Photoshop. I'll be interested to see what effect, if any, it really has. I'm not expecting a lot but since I spend so much time getting the data I don't want to compromise it.

Elelments? The last time I looked at it, it was gravely lacking in vital functions but I don't know what it contains now.

I don't find new software easy to learn, to be honest. There is also an element of craftsmanship in handling the tools, or at least there is in my way of working. The way you physically move the erasor when operating in levels, for instance, requires a 'touch' which I, at least, have had to learn and refine. One of my problems with PI is that you can only communicate with it via numbers and that just isn't my way.

It is very fashionable to dismiss Photoshop but I like it and feel happy working in it. I don't mind being unfashionable! And, as stated above, when many people use it we can provide community support and share ideas easily. I just received a PI tutorial and it makes reading 13th century metaphysical Japanese poetry look like a doddle.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smeg

Smeg

Posted
Posted

I don't mind photoshop, its the price that I do mind :p

I cannot justify paying that much money for software which I can get for free, especially when I look for what I can get hardware wise for the same money and the fact I am not making money with the software, it is a hobby, not a profession lol.

Now if I was selling may large prints of the images I take, sure, I could justify paying Adobe, but even then I would prefer to use Gimp 3.0 when they go full 16bit default GEGL.

The problem isnt Photoshop its the license and its the cost and the cost of managing that license, especially if the scumbag software businesses try to get an audit done, much easier legally just to say I use free open source, the doors over there when the license auditors come ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Photosbykev

Photosbykev

Posted
Posted

If you can afford Photoshop then, without doubt, there is little out there that can touch it for general photographic post processing. There is more specialised software out there for astrophotography, like PI, which certainly has its place in the post processing workflow but the final image will always benefit from finishing in PS.

If you can't afford the software then use an alternative but don't expect to get the best out of your images.

Post processing is almost as important, if not more important, as the glassware/hardware used to capture the raw data and if you compromise on either of them then your final results will also be compromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shaunster

shaunster

Posted
Posted
Why, what should I be using?? You're making me nervous!!

Just struck me that it could be slow as thats very old now, if its working then no need to change I guess. Maybe you will see changes in 8 - 16 bit now im unsure.

On some of the functions in pixinsight the lack of power must be apparent depending on what you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whippy

Whippy

Posted
Posted

If there's enough RAM in the machine to execute the command then it should be fine, a newer processor will probably do it quicker, that's all.

There's a definate difference between 8 & 16 bit. Even between 8 & 12 bits I can see subtle differences in my lunar images.

Tony..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Budgie

Budgie

Posted
Posted
Why not buy a Wacom Intuos 4 tablet and get photoshop free?

Cos' I've already got a Bamboo tablet and I had PS CS five years before that. Then I upgraded to CS3 when I found an unregistered second hand version of CS3 Extended for sale. So I didn't pay anything like £180. :p

What is wrong with GIMP?

Dunno, never tried it.

What is wrong with Lightroom?

See answer above.

Imagine what £180 can get on eyepieces or accessories?

I didn't have any astro gear when I first got PS and astro image work is only a very small part of what I use PS for. I mainly use PS for graphic design work and producing website banners & logos.

It's really a case of using what I know, although I've also got Paint.net as a sort of backup. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smeg

Smeg

Posted
Posted
Cos' I've already got a Bamboo tablet and I had PS CS five years before that. Then I upgraded to CS3 when I found an unregistered second hand version of CS3 Extended for sale. So I didn't pay anything like £180. :p

Dunno, never tried it.

See answer above.

I didn't have any astro gear when I first got PS and astro image work is only a very small part of what I use PS for. I mainly use PS for graphic design work and producing website banners & logos.

It's really a case of using what I know, although I've also got Paint.net as a sort of backup. ;)

So try Gimp, its free lol, 2.8 will have a new single window interface like photoshop when it's out, soon.

How did you know the second hand PS wasn't registered?

I wouldn't compare a bamboo to an intuos lol, I would more compare the bamboo to a Trust branded tablet or one from Lidl.

And for graphic design, I would be using Illustrator (or Inkscape).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.