Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is Photoshop CC worth upgrading to  (Read 5402 times)
Les Sparks
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« on: June 22, 2013, 09:57:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Because it's clear that, at least in the near term, the next upgrade to Photoshop will be Photoshop CC, I downloaded the trial to see if it was worth the $120 upgrade price (1 year). So far I haven't seen anything that really blew my socks off. Perhaps with more use or someone showing how to get best from CC I'll learn to better use of the program. For example, I've tried shake removal, the tool that seems to get the most press from Adobe, and didn't find it useful. My shaky photos were still shaky. Smart sharpen, another thing that Adobe points to, didn't seem as useful as Focus Magic or Lightroom's capture sharpening.
Are there hidden goodies that I've missed?
So what to others find?
Les
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2013, 10:20:57 AM »
ReplyReply

So what to others find?
ACR 8.1 w/ unlocked features...
Logged
Rajan Parrikar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 858



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2013, 02:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I subscribed to the CC. The updates in Photoshop CC from CS6 are incremental thus far but useful. I dig the new Upright feature in both LR5 and ACR. The Radial Filter is another good feature as is the one-click feature to detect sensor spots.
Logged

Alan Gilbertson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2013, 03:10:10 PM »
ReplyReply

The new ACR-as-a-filter is terrific, from my point of view, as are the additions to ACR itself (which are built into Lightroom 5 too, of course, so they're not necessarily a reason to upgrade to CC). I tend to agree about shake reduction -- it works reasonably well on some images, but you're still trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It's not going to make an exhibition-quality image out of a soft original.

One problem that tends to be a bit annoying with every release is that the marketing folks punch up the sexy (but not necessarily useful) stuff, and tend to ignore things that are really useful, such as the improvements in Select > Color Range and in Liquify. Sync settings is really useful if you work with different machines. I have a laptop for when I'm on the road, and being able to synch back and forth is handy.

I'm also happy about the improvements in typography, even if they don't really go far enough, but those wouldn't necessarily be of interest to photographers.
Logged
Les Sparks
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2013, 10:16:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I appreciate the replies to my question.
Just to refine my question a bit to better reflect the decision that I will have to make. Choice 1. CS6, LR5, and various plug ins.
Choice 2 Photshop CC with or without LR5 and plug-ins.
Does Photoshop CC offer significant or worthwhile improvements over choice 1 to justify a long term marriage to subscription mode CC?
Or another way to look at my upcoming decision:
Does Photoshop CC provide benefits that cannot be obtained from the combination of LR5, Photoshop CS6, plugins such of Focus Magic, Topaz Clarity, various NIK plugins, etc.?
I realize that for some people a specific feature of CC means go to CC and that the decision finally comes down to personal choice and needs. However, right now there is a real lack of information about the benefits of new or tweaked features of CC to allow an informed decision. Almost all the discussion about CC has been about the switch to subscription only and not about how well or not it works as a photo editing program.
I realize that I can download the trial CC (have done so) and work with it (I'm doing that). However, it's not always clear that I'm getting best out of CC because there is not a whole lot of documentation and best practices information.
Les
Logged

Rajan Parrikar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 858



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2013, 01:03:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I appreciate the replies to my question.
Just to refine my question a bit to better reflect the decision that I will have to make. Choice 1. CS6, LR5, and various plug ins.
Choice 2 Photshop CC with or without LR5 and plug-ins.
Does Photoshop CC offer significant or worthwhile improvements over choice 1 to justify a long term marriage to subscription mode CC?

My answer: thus far, no.  CS6+LR5 (Choice 1) puts you at the top of the game.  
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2013, 02:00:31 PM »
ReplyReply

My answer: thus far, no.  CS6+LR5 (Choice 1) puts you at the top of the game.  

Got to agree. Shake Reduction could be real useful but I'd prefer to do this in the raw processing chain so hopefully we'll see that in LR6. Sync is kinda neat but you can do that yourself with a bit of work. If you ignore ACR for LR5, not a lot to recommend assuming you have CS6.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2013, 08:17:49 PM »
ReplyReply

The shake reduction tool that comes with Focus Magic works great as a plug-in with CS6 and CS5. Has anyone compared it to the shake reduction tool in CC?


Logged
Ray McGuinness
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2013, 09:37:32 PM »
ReplyReply

My personal favorite,after a few weeks of use is Shake Reduction.  I find Shake Reduction extremely useful for a particular purpose. I have slide film pictures from the 50's and 60's that are of course irreplaceable. Kodachrome in those day's was ASA(ISO) 12, and later on 25. Coupled with my  slow f 3.5 lenses of that era I have a lot of soft images. Shake Reduction on Photoshop CC has worked very well with these images. Some of the soft images revealed that the images were out of focus and not victims of camera shake, but most are correctable. I use Topaz inFocus and it is great for certain images such as 6x7 scans on Epson flatbed scanners but does not work well on camera shake images.  I have not used Focus Magic because it is not available for Intel Macs.
Logged
Rob Whitehead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2013, 11:33:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm finding that it boots quicker and is more stable than the CS5 install I upgraded from.

Although I don't love the CC concept in theory, in practice I'm very content with my upgrade.
Logged

Carpe lucem
Jack Hogan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2013, 03:29:56 AM »
ReplyReply

The new ACR-as-a-filter is terrific, from my point of view...
When using the new ACR as a filter feature, does ACR actually ever go back to Raw data or is it just working on rendered data (as it would on a Jpeg in previous versions)?  If the latter virtually anything ACR can do can also be done in PS, so what are the ACR tools that make this feature terrific, other than the familiar interface?
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3868


« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2013, 03:51:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I have not used Focus Magic because it is not available for Intel Macs.

Hi Ray,

They're supposed to be testing FocusMagic for Intel Macs right now. You can check at the bottom of the page here, leave a message and get notified when the public beta testing starts.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 09:20:21 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651



« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2013, 04:38:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the problem (if, indeed, a problem it be) will come as new updates appear. CS6 will never have any more updates. CC will have continuous updates in small increments (unlike the old practice of waiting for enough "improvements" to justify the release of a new version)

I don't want to re-open the old debate about CC. That horse has already been flogged to death. My own personal position is that I will stick with CS6 for ever (or, at least, until I am persuaded that I really need more and that the only way to get it is CC).
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2013, 09:02:16 AM »
ReplyReply

When using the new ACR as a filter feature, does ACR actually ever go back to Raw data or is it just working on rendered data
ACR does not work on raw (=predemosaick) data even when not used as a filter in PS... it does demosaick before any operations that you control through UI - so do not kid yourself.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2887



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2013, 09:54:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Irrelevant distinction in this context?

When using the new ACR as a filter feature, does ACR actually ever go back to Raw data or is it just working on rendered data (as it would on a Jpeg in previous versions)?  If the latter virtually anything ACR can do can also be done in PS, so what are the ACR tools that make this feature terrific, other than the familiar interface?

It works on the rendered data, and the advantages are ACR's familiar interface / parameters. Also, replicating adjustments like Clarity in PS is beyond a lot of people.
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2013, 10:09:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, replicating adjustments like Clarity in PS is beyond a lot of people.
they shall take even cheap Topaz products over that Clarity slider any time of the day.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3868


« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2013, 11:48:27 AM »
ReplyReply

they shall take even cheap Topaz products over that Clarity slider any time of the day.

Oh yeah, Topaz Clarity is sooo much better. Really, it is! I even hear many people say that they have not touched their Nik Pro Tonal Contrast plugin since they started using Topaz Clarity. But as John said, this is all not that relevant when considering a subscription or not.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1332


« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2013, 01:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The shake reduction tool that comes with Focus Magic works great as a plug-in with CS6 and CS5. Has anyone compared it to the shake reduction tool in CC?
I'm a long-time user of Focus Magic, but I have just now tried Shake Reduction in Photoshop CC and I like it.  I assume it is a deconvolution program.  It works beautifully on my files that show slight camera movement, and in the advanced mode it lets me place a couple or more areas for computing the nature of the movement.  With the Blur Trace Bounds, Smoothing and Artifact Suppression Sliders it seems fairly easy to figure out the greatest degree of "sharpening," while having control over what could be unpleasant artifacts.

After only a couple of tries on a few images, I now prefer it over Focus Magic.  It is also much simpler to get good results than Topaz In Focus, which has a learning curve I've yet to master after months of trying.

And yes, I'd love to have Shake Reduction at the ACR or LR Development stage with raw files.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1194



« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2013, 07:47:43 PM »
ReplyReply

For me the vastly improved quality of shadows in smart sharpen was worth the introductory monthly price to me, not sure if I will continue if they double the price after a year.
Logged

robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 348


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2013, 05:12:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The fact is that Photoshop is a mature product, meaning that major improvements will be few and far between.  That is what makes the subscription model so onerous.  You are essentially paying rent for something you used to own and would possibly update infrequently, if ever.  It's obvious why this new business model is attractive to Adobe, but for the rest of us--not so much.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad