Photoshop Elements

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The Todal, Feb 27, 2012.

  1. The Todal

    The Todal Guest

    I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    versions 2 and 9.

    Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.

    Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For example,
    when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality, and
    when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option. Is
    it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or v.9?

    Many thanks for any views...
     
    The Todal, Feb 27, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Todal

    me Guest

    On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:11:09 -0000, "The Todal" <>
    wrote:

    >I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    >versions 2 and 9.
    >
    >Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >
    >Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    >produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For example,
    >when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality, and
    >when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option. Is
    >it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or v.9?


    Why not just download the trial of the latest version and see for
    yourself?
     
    me, Feb 27, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Todal

    The Todal Guest

    "me" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:11:09 -0000, "The Todal" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    >>versions 2 and 9.
    >>
    >>Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >>
    >>Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    >>produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For
    >>example,
    >>when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality, and
    >>when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option. Is
    >>it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or
    >>v.9?

    >
    > Why not just download the trial of the latest version and see for
    > yourself?


    I don't know what the latest version is but I don't want to upgrade from v.9
    having only just bought it.

    I can't see for myself whether there is a difference, which was why I asked
    my question.
     
    The Todal, Feb 27, 2012
    #3
  4. The Todal

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 27/02/2012 10:35, The Todal wrote:
    > "me"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:11:09 -0000, "The Todal"<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    >>> versions 2 and 9.
    >>>
    >>> Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >>>
    >>> Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    >>> produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For
    >>> example,
    >>> when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality, and
    >>> when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option. Is
    >>> it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or
    >>> v.9?


    The later version may have slightly better adaptive algorithms for the
    more complex operations but the JPEG encoding should be the same.
    >>
    >> Why not just download the trial of the latest version and see for
    >> yourself?

    >
    > I don't know what the latest version is but I don't want to upgrade from v.9
    > having only just bought it.
    >
    > I can't see for myself whether there is a difference, which was why I asked
    > my question.


    I would be very surprised if they were any different at baseline level -
    Adobe has used a particular set of custom quantisation tables for JPEG
    encoding since the year dot. I haven't used Elements but if it is like
    the full Photoshop there will be JPEG quality levels 1-12.

    You should be able to do image arithmetic (if not in Elements then in
    some other program like PSPro (evaluation version)) and then expand the
    difference histogram. The main differences tend to be in better
    retouching options and magic wands to find outlines of objects.

    ISTR level 7 is best avoided since it swaps between 2x2 chroma
    subsampled and full sampled colour at that point with a loss in visual
    fidelity. All the other steps increase in quality monotonically.


    At the highest quality setting you can encode line art without any
    significant or obtrusive artefacts being visible even to an expert.
    Stretch the contrast enough and all bets are off.

    If you really want to know encode a 16x16 test image with each version
    and then binary compare the files. My guess would be that the later
    version has more colour management guff and adverts for Adobe in the
    header but that is all.

    Some other programs offer finer gradations of quality and a realtime
    display of size against artefact tradeoff. It depends how hard you want
    to push the quality vs size optimisation.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 27, 2012
    #4
  5. The Todal

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:11:09 +0000, The Todal wrote:

    > I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    > versions 2 and 9.
    >
    > Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >
    > Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will
    > actually produce a better result, as distinct from having more options?
    > For example, when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without
    > losing quality, and when improving an underexposed photo by using the
    > fill-in flash option. Is it likely that the result will be exactly the
    > same whether I use v.2 or v.9?
    >
    > Many thanks for any views...


    To check whether two files are "exactly the same" *nix systems have a
    'dif' command - for binary files, it reports whether or not they are
    identical.
     
    ray, Feb 27, 2012
    #5
  6. On 2/27/12 PDT 2:11 AM, The Todal wrote:
    > I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    > versions 2 and 9.
    >
    > Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >
    > Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    > produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For example,
    > when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality, and
    > when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option. Is
    > it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or v.9?
    >
    > Many thanks for any views...


    If you are shooting in RAW, then yes, strides have been made in
    conversion algorithms.
    If you can't see any differences in your JPEG manipulations, for all
    practical purposes, they aren't there.
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 27, 2012
    #6
  7. The Todal

    The Todal Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:jig7u5$lvg$...
    > On 2/27/12 PDT 2:11 AM, The Todal wrote:
    >> I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    >> versions 2 and 9.
    >>
    >> Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >>
    >> Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    >> produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For
    >> example,
    >> when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality,
    >> and
    >> when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option.
    >> Is
    >> it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or
    >> v.9?
    >>
    >> Many thanks for any views...

    >
    > If you are shooting in RAW, then yes, strides have been made in conversion
    > algorithms.
    > If you can't see any differences in your JPEG manipulations, for all
    > practical purposes, they aren't there.
    >


    Thanks for that.

    And I think I need to study the manual for version 9. In version 2 there is
    a "fill in flash" option that works very well to brighten an underexposed
    foreground. There is no direct equivalent that I can see in version 9. In
    version 2 you can reduce the size of a photo by adjusting the height or
    width in pixels. For some reason in version 9 you have to adjust it in
    picas, centimetres or inches.
     
    The Todal, Feb 28, 2012
    #7
  8. The Todal

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:48:05 -0000, "The Todal" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    >news:jig7u5$lvg$...
    >> On 2/27/12 PDT 2:11 AM, The Todal wrote:
    >>> I use a digital SLR and have Photoshop Elements (paid for, naturally)
    >>> versions 2 and 9.
    >>>
    >>> Version 2 seems to be more basic and also slightly easier to use.
    >>>
    >>> Does anyone here know whether later versions than version 2 will actually
    >>> produce a better result, as distinct from having more options? For
    >>> example,
    >>> when re-sizing a photograph to make it smaller without losing quality,
    >>> and
    >>> when improving an underexposed photo by using the fill-in flash option.
    >>> Is
    >>> it likely that the result will be exactly the same whether I use v.2 or
    >>> v.9?
    >>>
    >>> Many thanks for any views...

    >>
    >> If you are shooting in RAW, then yes, strides have been made in conversion
    >> algorithms.
    >> If you can't see any differences in your JPEG manipulations, for all
    >> practical purposes, they aren't there.
    >>

    >
    >Thanks for that.
    >
    >And I think I need to study the manual for version 9. In version 2 there is
    >a "fill in flash" option that works very well to brighten an underexposed
    >foreground. There is no direct equivalent that I can see in version 9. In
    >version 2 you can reduce the size of a photo by adjusting the height or
    >width in pixels. For some reason in version 9 you have to adjust it in
    >picas, centimetres or inches.


    That's true if you resize by "Image Size", but you can crop to any
    pixel width.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 28, 2012
    #8
  9. The Todal

    DaveS Guest

    On 2/28/2012 5:48 AM, The Todal wrote:

    > And I think I need to study the manual for version 9. In version 2 there is
    > a "fill in flash" option that works very well to brighten an underexposed
    > foreground. There is no direct equivalent that I can see in version 9. In
    > version 2 you can reduce the size of a photo by adjusting the height or
    > width in pixels. For some reason in version 9 you have to adjust it in
    > picas, centimetres or inches.


    I don't have 9, so I can't say for sure, but 8 lets me choose from:
    percent
    inches
    cm
    mm
    points
    picas
    columns

    Do you mean to say that they've gone from 7 choices to none?

    Dave S.
     
    DaveS, Feb 28, 2012
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bryce
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    467
    Bryce
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. wes
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    606
  3. Dana Laffit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    Dana Laffit
    Aug 22, 2003
  4. BobS
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    508
  5. Eric Babula

    Photoshop Elements/Premiere Elements

    Eric Babula, Jul 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    923
    ASAAR
    Jul 28, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page