Post by OrcaBob on Sept 10, 2009 20:06:14 GMT -5
(Note: This is a redirected discussion from the "Composite Poster" thread in Sports Photography, since this part of the discussion diverted from a pure discussion of sports photography. Orcabob.)
Keep in mind that I was using Elements 4.0, so my experience may no longer be totally valid.
In general, Elements had the same look-and-feel as Photoshop CS, so it was a wonderful introduction to CS, which is a notoriously complex tool. they share many basic but powerful editing concepts, such as color channel curves, layers, and smart selection tools.
An unexpected benefit of Elements is a big discount on an upgrade to full CS. Elements costs $80 at Costco and it can result in several hundred dollars off a full CS package.
With respect to sports photography, my two biggest issues with Elements were:
Workflow was the dealbreaker. At a typical soccer game, I shoot 600-800 frames. Due to the nature of the shots, I can't look at a thumbnail and tell at a glance if the shot contains anything useful. With Elements, I had to open every shot and process or reject it one... at... a... time.... It took me 3-4 days to process a single game. With CS3 and its accompanying Bridge and the fantastic RAW Interface, I can evaluate and process those same shots hundreds at a time. I can do mass changes (e.g., the whole shoot was done with the wrong color-temperature) and at the same time make totally individual changes (e.g., each shot needs to be cropped differently and some shots can even be rejected). I can then either save the images direct to finished JPG files or I can send them on to Photoshop CS for further editing.
In short, it took 3-4 days to process a soccer game's shots. It took sometimes as little as 6-8 HOURS to handle the same in CS3/Bridge/Raw Interface... with a lot slicker editing.
It's completely possible to postprocess an entire 800-shot game's worth of photos and never actually open them in Photoshop CS.
Another shortcoming of Elements 4.0 was a limited ability to "punch up" a dark image. I don't have a Nikon D3, only a D80, so my night sports shots struggle to keep up with the light. Depending on the venue, I'm sometimes shooting a full 2-3 stops too dark. Elements 4.0 struggled to bring up the image close to 2 stops. CS can handle a far greater range and with more delicate controls.
There are many other differences, but those were the two biggies for me as a sports photographer.
I've been using CS3 and Lightroom, but never tried Elements. How different is Elements from CS3? The reason I'm asking mainly is that I've been using a student copy of CS3 which expires sometime this month. So, I'm debating on whether to bite the bullet and purchase the full version or go with Elements. I definately don't want to sacrifice functionality though.
Keep in mind that I was using Elements 4.0, so my experience may no longer be totally valid.
In general, Elements had the same look-and-feel as Photoshop CS, so it was a wonderful introduction to CS, which is a notoriously complex tool. they share many basic but powerful editing concepts, such as color channel curves, layers, and smart selection tools.
An unexpected benefit of Elements is a big discount on an upgrade to full CS. Elements costs $80 at Costco and it can result in several hundred dollars off a full CS package.
With respect to sports photography, my two biggest issues with Elements were:
- inability to handle pro workflow
- limited ability to "punch up" an image
Workflow was the dealbreaker. At a typical soccer game, I shoot 600-800 frames. Due to the nature of the shots, I can't look at a thumbnail and tell at a glance if the shot contains anything useful. With Elements, I had to open every shot and process or reject it one... at... a... time.... It took me 3-4 days to process a single game. With CS3 and its accompanying Bridge and the fantastic RAW Interface, I can evaluate and process those same shots hundreds at a time. I can do mass changes (e.g., the whole shoot was done with the wrong color-temperature) and at the same time make totally individual changes (e.g., each shot needs to be cropped differently and some shots can even be rejected). I can then either save the images direct to finished JPG files or I can send them on to Photoshop CS for further editing.
In short, it took 3-4 days to process a soccer game's shots. It took sometimes as little as 6-8 HOURS to handle the same in CS3/Bridge/Raw Interface... with a lot slicker editing.
It's completely possible to postprocess an entire 800-shot game's worth of photos and never actually open them in Photoshop CS.
Another shortcoming of Elements 4.0 was a limited ability to "punch up" a dark image. I don't have a Nikon D3, only a D80, so my night sports shots struggle to keep up with the light. Depending on the venue, I'm sometimes shooting a full 2-3 stops too dark. Elements 4.0 struggled to bring up the image close to 2 stops. CS can handle a far greater range and with more delicate controls.
There are many other differences, but those were the two biggies for me as a sports photographer.
