Photoshop vs Elements

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Even though Photoshop Elements is a simplified version of full-fledged Photoshop, it’s still a very powerful piece of software and is likely to suit the needs of both beginners and aspiring amateurs. It combines user-friendly interface with a very large amount of tools available. Obviously, I was only able to cover a small portion of all that’s possible focusing on the simple and quick adjustments – we didn’t even get to Layers, let alone catalog-based Elements Organizer. But, hopefully, you found this article useful in your choice of Photoshop versus Photoshop Elements for your post-processing needs.

Well, a lot of people have this question especially photographers..
Even more so when comparing the gigantic difference in prices.

Elements is available at $59
PS CS6 at $589.99 & the extended version at a whopping $899.99!

Here is the full comparison by Photographylife (previously Mansurovs)
Photoshop vs Photoshop Elements

And here is a comparison from Adobe-
Adobe Photoshop family - Comparison guide
 

Eye-level

Banned
Why pay get open source software and spend your time manipulating pictures and taking them instead of pouring over internet reviews...if you suck guess what? Elements and/or PS ain't going to help you one iota...only make your poorer...literally...
 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Very true.
GIMP rules the roost when it comes to open source (can easily compete with the more expensive programs when you've learned it all, so i've heard)
 

Eye-level

Banned
My latest workflow... JPG out of the camera into GIMP...convert to a bitmap bmp...manipulate then resize...save as a bmp...post as a bmp...

I am squeezing a WHOLE lot of information out of the bmp's...GIMP and Windows Photo Gallery are doing the rest...

I implore you folks interested in the RAW vs JPEG debate to go take a look at bitmaps... ;)
 

HotHits

Senior Member
New-bee here, I'm using Gimp, Light Room 5, CS6 teacher-student-extended and I got a long way to go but I'm having fun;)
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
My latest workflow... JPG out of the camera into GIMP...convert to a bitmap bmp...manipulate then resize...save as a bmp...post as a bmp...

I am squeezing a WHOLE lot of information out of the bmp's...GIMP and Windows Photo Gallery are doing the rest...

I implore you folks interested in the RAW vs JPEG debate to go take a look at bitmaps... ;)

My camera can't shoot bitmaps, only raw, jpg and tiff. Bitmap is the output after processing. Jpg is a lower information compressed camera output. Raw is every bit of info the camera is able to gather. I'm not going to get into a debate between the two as I know exactly what I use and why. Each to their own, heck I wouldn't see it as my place to criticise some for going to the supermarket in a Ferrari.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
All I have to say about BMP is that I have never once heard a serious photographer speak about using it anywhere in their workflow. I've never heard of a graphics company asking for it when reproducing work. I am sure it has its uses and advantages, there's got to be a reason why it's a standard that the photography community at large has completely avoided. TIFF, JPEG and GIF are the only standard formats discussed. Again, there has to be a reason BMP is not in there. But if you're happy with it, go with it. I suspect you'll always need to convert to one of the above formats to share your images anyway, and god forbid you find a piece of software you want to use down the road because conversion will be time consuming.

And I have to say that it's absolutely ridiculous to think that people are buying software to post process their images because they just happen to be poor photographers trying to salvage something. That's pretty freaking ignorant.
 
Top