Jump to content

Narrowband

Photoshop CS3 or CC


Recommended Posts

Bit of a niche question here, but the missus is a student and we were talking about getting the Adobe student plan thing where you get the works on a discount.  I was all for it, but I just found my geriatric copy of Photoshop CS3 in a box.  Is there much new, useful features in the newest version versus the older CS3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll let others with experience of the current Adobe offering to comment on how far Photoshop has moved on with respect to Astro photography processing, but I would have thought CS3 will serve you well if you are just starting out.

I started AP processing with CS2 but went for the much more keenly  priced Affinity Photo when I felt it was time to upgrade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tomato said:

I’ll let others with experience of the current Adobe offering to comment on how far Photoshop has moved on with respect to Astro photography processing, but I would have thought CS3 will serve you well if you are just starting out.

I started AP processing with CS2 but went for the much more keenly  priced Affinity Photo when I felt it was time to upgrade.

I'm very much a "happy with 90% of the performance for 10% of the cost" kind of guy so if I can get most for free, that'll do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could try GIMP, it's free and does pretty much what PS does, though if you're used to PS it takes a bit of getting used to (shortcuts, workflow etc). I reedited my iris nebula from earlier this year the other day, and managed to get more of the faint dust out of the image, I think because I was able to process it in 32 bit mode in RGB.

I've seen the Camera Raw feature in latter versions of PS is used a lot in processing.

Edited by Elp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both CC and CS3. For astrophotography there is nothing I miss when in CS3 (where I sometimes work because I haven't found the mental energy to transfer all my actions!)  This despite my sometimes quite elaborate processing. I would just dust off your old CS3.  In fact I prefer the multiple images screen in CS3, come to think of it. And the shortcut to 'feather selection,' which I'm always using, is 2 fingers instead of  3.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP doesn't mention what his missus will be using it for or her experience level. Very generally speaking, the biggest advances have been in Photoshop's context-aware tools and editing features whilst in Camera RAW- which not everybody necessarily has a need for. For non-astro work I'm still perfectly happy on CS6 and that's coming from someone who used to (but not anymore) use PS professionally. To clarify I've never done any kind of astrophotography - I'm purely visual. Certainly if her experience level is low then CS3 will more than suffice for now. That's because the PS learning curve is steep and it's not an intuitive piece of software to randomly experiment by pressing buttons.

On a side note, for anyone who is familiar with the PS interface already, and wants a free online alternative - without having to learn a new UX - then head over to www.photopea.com which has been going for a good few years now. The 'Open' and 'Create New Project' interface will be an unfamiliar mess, but once into the editing stage the interface is 100% pure Photoshop from yesteryear.

Also, if your CS3 happens to be a Mac version, you'll probably find it won't install on Catalina or more recent macOS. 
 

Edited by Jules Tohpipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jules Tohpipi said:

OP doesn't mention what his missus will be using it for or her experience level. Very generally speaking, the biggest advances have been in Photoshop's context-aware tools and editing features whilst in Camera RAW- which not everybody necessarily has a need for. For non-astro work I'm still perfectly happy on CS6 and that's coming from someone who used to (but not anymore) use PS professionally. To clarify I've never done any kind of astrophotography - I'm purely visual. Certainly if her experience level is low then CS3 will more than suffice for now. That's because the PS learning curve is steep and it's not an intuitive piece of software to randomly experiment by pressing buttons.

On a side note, for anyone who is familiar with the PS interface already, and wants a free online alternative - without having to learn a new UX - then head over to www.photopea.com which has been going for a good few years now. The 'Open' and 'Create New Project' interface will be an unfamiliar mess, but once into the editing stage the interface is 100% pure Photoshop from yesteryear.

Also, if your CS3 happens to be a Mac version, you'll probably find it won't install on Catalina or more recent macOS. 
 

Cheers for that,

The other half doesn't actually want Photoshop at all.  I work a rotation away from home and it was our 10th anniversary so I converted the dining room into a sewing room for her.  Part of that was a projector on the ceiling so she can project the patterns onto fabric for cutting.

She wants Adobe acrobat or something so she can stitch patterns together into appropriately sized single documents for projecting.

Getting Photoshop is her way of getting me to agree to the full bundle lol.

I've stuck cs3 on the computer and it runs.  I'll have a play and see how I get on.

Im using vintage glass and a DSLR so getting chromatic aberations sorted is one of the main things I'm looking for at the moment.

I also grabbed a pixinsight free trial so I'll be giving it a spin too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Cheers for that,

The other half doesn't actually want Photoshop at all.  I work a rotation away from home and it was our 10th anniversary so I converted the dining room into a sewing room for her.  Part of that was a projector on the ceiling so she can project the patterns onto fabric for cutting.

She wants Adobe acrobat or something so she can stitch patterns together into appropriately sized single documents for projecting.

Getting Photoshop is her way of getting me to agree to the full bundle lol.

I've stuck cs3 on the computer and it runs.  I'll have a play and see how I get on.

Im using vintage glass and a DSLR so getting chromatic aberations sorted is one of the main things I'm looking for at the moment.

I also grabbed a pixinsight free trial so I'll be giving it a spin too.

Oh, I see what you mean now - the penny didn't quite drop the first time!

I never really used Photoshop in that way before. I'm vaguely aware that PS has an auto feature for CA removal (lens correction filter I believe it's called) but it can also be done relatively easily with a mask, some blurring and layer blending. But it's only a passing knowledge of that aspect. There's usually some free online tutorial for every scenario in PS.

If your wife is au fait and knowledgeable with pro-orientated software then yes it could be worth going for the full Adobe subscription - for both your benefits. But equally, those with little or no knowledge often point at the most famous software names and go "I want that!" Meaning she could be overwhelmed with the complexity of the UI and workflows and ultimately be much better off with simpler software that does more hand holding. If it is some simple image stitching then Adobe might be the audio equivalent of getting a 128-channel mixing desk in to make a compilation tape - if you see what I mean :)

Ultimately a decision either way rests upon current software experience and the complexity of the tasks. Or making sure you don't tie-in to a long contract with Adobe initially.   
 

Edited by Jules Tohpipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest stick with what you have, I use older and also use Takumar lenses so have to process out the red/green halo issues around stars. Doing a highlight selection, expanding and feathering then blurring and minimising and colour correcting usually sorts it out.

PS from a beginners point of view honestly I would say is quite difficult to use as it's not that logical and takes time to get used to. Once you have however it becomes second nature. The only other issue with older versions is whether the UI scales up to higher res monitors, mine doesn't so everything is tiny but I can literally use it via shortcut use only.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pay just over £8pm for the latest edition of Photoshop & Lightroom and avoid any faffing around plus I keep getting offers of trials of other Adobe software, to me thats a good deal but each to their own. As the DK say 'Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death'.  I'm on the latest Macbook so the old software probably wouldn't work anyway

Recalling Photoshop v? many years ago it now feels easier to use as well obviously improved

I have the full Acrobat through my business but I wouldn't buy it as an individual, expensive for what it is.

Just add acrobat to your photoshop sub and everyone is happy?

FWIW, I don't pay for Pixinsight since I have the early adopter licence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been using Photoshop CS3 for years, it serves me well.  Only more recently I have been unable to use StarExterminator and noise Exterminator which don't work with CS3, but I have other methods I can use instead.

I refuse to pay monthly for software.  

Carole 

 

 

Edited by carastro
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Elp said:

I would suggest stick with what you have, I use older and also use Takumar lenses so have to process out the red/green halo issues around stars. Doing a highlight selection, expanding and feathering then blurring and minimising and colour correcting usually sorts it out.

PS from a beginners point of view honestly I would say is quite difficult to use as it's not that logical and takes time to get used to. Once you have however it becomes second nature. The only other issue with older versions is whether the UI scales up to higher res monitors, mine doesn't so everything is tiny but I can literally use it via shortcut use only.

That's been massively helpful.  I'm at least moving in the right direction!  A quick 5 minute 'try clicking on things till it looks like it it's moving in the direction I want' attempt and the CA is at least reduced (to be fair a lot of the stars now look rubbish, but this was just to see if I can reduce the CA).  A Bit more experimenting with the layers/blends/etc and I think this is something that I can work with.  Now to learn and optimise (aka the fun bit).

5 minute process.PNG

285294719_10160401115644673_1377492366826259041_n.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 08/09/2022 at 12:03, Ratlet said:

That's been massively helpful.  I'm at least moving in the right direction!  A quick 5 minute 'try clicking on things till it looks like it it's moving in the direction I want' attempt and the CA is at least reduced (to be fair a lot of the stars now look rubbish, but this was just to see if I can reduce the CA).  A Bit more experimenting with the layers/blends/etc and I think this is something that I can work with.  Now to learn and optimise (aka the fun bit).

5 minute process.PNG

285294719_10160401115644673_1377492366826259041_n.jpg

Watch your black point. Don't bring it in so far because this is black clipped. There should always be a bit of flat line to the left of the histogram peak.

59116969_M33clip.JPG.09506192e3f89e36b059bf939e5ee75f.JPG

Olly

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.