Advice on Adobe Photoshop version

[Quark]

Hi All,
Just getting together the software that I need to image deep sky with my 450D. I have just purchased Images Plus and was looking at PS2.

While looking around an educational software site I have become a bit confused with the number of different versions of Adobe image processing software. Is "Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended" suitable for astro work. Is it just an updated version of PS2 or completely different?

Regards
Quark

[[1ponders]]

As long as you get a version later than 7 then you should be fine. 7 didn't work with 16bit Tiff files with all its functions. All versions later than 7 do. If you want to work with Canon Raw files than CS3 works np.

[Quark]

Thanks Paul,
Education Software.com have Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended Educational for $479 and I just wanted to check that it would do the job.

Can not find a version number for it. I assume it is the latest version.
Regards
Trevor

[[1ponders]]

4 would be. 7 is ancient, like 4 years old :lol:

[RB]

Isn't PS2 a game console? :lol:

Quarky, get CS4, it's the ultimate and you'll also have the latest RAW converter along with some slick new features.

[Quark]

Thanks Andrew,

Yeh, come to think of it, the PS2 is that thing my lad seems to be permanently connected to to:D.

Regards
Trevor

[Ian Robinson]

Mmm http://tryit.adobe.com/au/cs4/student/?sdid=DQPBE

which one of these do you chaps use / recommend ?

see http://www.studentdiscounts.com.au/product/search/adv_srch_content.shtml?Srch_mode=Ad vanced&product_name=creative+suite&sid=&page_id=1 .

[Quark]

Hi Ian,

I think Photoshop CS4 Extended is the go. I was looking at just this program but I see that it can be had bundled with other applications. I suppose it pays to look around and check what the most cost effective way of ending up with CS4 is.

Regards
Trevor

[Quark]

Ian,
This is where I was looking for Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended Education (Windows)

http://www.edsoft.com.au/shop/p13523/Photoshop-Ext-CS4-11-Win-Student-Box/product_info.html?gclid=CKOT_JG-rZcCFQsQagodf3Pqhg

http://www.educationsoftware.com.au/

Cheers
Trevor

[Ian Robinson]

Looking at what each does - Extended does stuff few astrophotographers need see http://www.adobe.com/ap/products/photoshop/compare/

I don't see the value of spending a few hundred $ for features you'll never need.

Now if I download the trial version , and then can only get a crack for it :D I'm mightily fed up with paying top dollar for applications that are nearly always full of bugs never live up to expectations or the hype.

$479.00 is a lot dollars to pay for one application (CS4 Ext), so is $299 (CS4 Ext SE).

[Omaroo]

Photoshop, and especially CS4 is PURE functinality. I've used it (Photoshop) professionally in the publishing trade since 1990 (Version 1.0). Since version 3 (about 1994), I have never really encountered a bug - ever. "Full of bugs"?? - sorry, but that's simply not true. You seem to be hung up on the "hype" and "bug" bandwagon. You're obviously on the wrong train! CS4 is a $299 upgrade, and the full price is around $1500. The whole Creative Suite is up around $five grand - and worth every penny. There is a huge amount of development and testing that has gone into the Suite. It's used every day by ad agencies and publishers to create material worth millions in print. We don't use second rate software.

[Ian Robinson]

I certainly will not be paying $1500 for ONE APPLICATION no matter how wonderful it is.

[Omaroo]

Go buy something cheaper and you get what you pay for. The key to any software being worthwhile is having a use for it - where nothing else will do the job. Photoshop is best of breed within its market - no argument from anyone. $1500 is a trifling price for the time it saves those who understand its use and have the need. There is nothing else around that does it as well as it does.

Not willing to pay $1500? That's one of the CHEAP applications out there. LOL! I suppose you wouldn't pay the US$80,000 I just paid for some preflight software either - but I paid it in a flash. It is going to change my business.

[TrevorW]

Hey guys it's all relative if you've got the $$$ and it does what you want then buy it.

If you ain't got the $$$ then make the best of what you can get for free.

Thanks for the insight re PS7 which I got for nicks, I was wondering why I had to convert my 16 bit TIFF files to 8 bit to get layers etc to work.

Cheers

[Ian Robinson]

You had a business reason to spend up , and I presume that was a multiuser licencing fee.

I have no such reason to spend even $1500 on one application, and can not justify the expendature.

The price people are expected to pay for these apps , no wonder people pirate them.

[Omaroo]

No - one app, one seat. Just illustrating the fact that if you have a need - you are glad to pay.

If you don't have the need, you aren't willing to pay, and may resort to pirating instead. That's criminal and punishable by law. Your call.

[Ian Robinson]

I presume your capex calcs gave a very quick payback (under 2 years) and you've arranged to depreciate it (tax wize) over 2 or 3 years too.


Not exactly compares oranges to oranges here BTW .

[Omaroo]

1) ROI in 4 months.

2) True - as I said - for illustrative purposes only.

Some people who are in to astrophotography could never justify to themselves what you or I may pay for our mounts or telescopes either. Do you actually need yours? One could argue that you don't - but you'll defend your spending choice with whatever you need to - to do just that.

I use Photoshop (personally paid for - not a business expense) because I LOVE working with it. It gives me huge joy to see what I can create using it. I would NOT get the same joy from a $1500 expenditure on accounting software. It is useful, but not what I'd call fun. Others would disagree!

There you are - explained in a nutshell. Creative software thats really good is worth the expense for me, personally. If all I wanted was to stack a few images, clean them up and tweak curves I'd use something cheap and dedicated like ImagesPlus. I can't see that software doing it for me creativly though. Others may not have the "creative bent" that some of us do - and I could understand that to you software is a necessity only - and is not worthy of your time or money. There are "alternatives" to Photoshop, some, like the GIMP are even free (well, GPL license anyway) but they all fall short in areas that are important to me. GIMP for all its clunky wonderousness can't even separate to CMYK for printing. It's nice, but it ain't serious - yet.

Cheap doesn't mean better value - because it isn't unless you are satisfied with the short-list of features.

Anyway - sorry to the original author of this thread. We've digressed and I apologise. I'm out before this thread finds itself locked.

[iceman]

Please do not discuss pirated software or pirating software on IceInSpace.

Ian, if you don't want to buy Photoshop then don't. You don't need to reply to every second post arguing against something you don't have and don't use.

[Bassnut]

Well, Im with Chris. Nothing else compares with PS, and if yr serious about astro imaging, you simply must have it, period. I have spent FAR more time learning how to use it than the rig hardware, and FAR more time in processing images than taking them. Its the one tool that really can turn sows ears into silk purses. The cheaper your rig, the more you need PS, the more you need to learn it insideout and the more time you spend using it.

As far as which version, CS2 is fine 16 bit processing is important (but Russel Croman uses an 8 bit version, v6 or something, go figure?, although he obviously streches in astro apps 1st). Later versions just have features for astro that save time, nice, but not essentiall.

[Merlin66]

Mike,
Many thanks for pulling the post... I was trying to edit it at the same time.
I do not believe in pirated software; honest mistake.
Moral of the story... don't let the kids help, and if it's too good to believe, don't.