Author Topic: Photoshop CS2 or CS3 (Read 7817 times)

vonkara · « **on:** March 05, 2008, 18:23 »

I would like to know if I'm better to buy CS2 or put more money and get the latest CS3 to upgrade my old 6.0

What is the difference between 2 and 3 and what I gain compared to my 6.0 ?

Any help would be appreciated as I hardly have info's using google to compare these products

leszek · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2008, 21:41 »

More of 16 bit processing and if I am not mistaken - inclusion of new RAW conversion (I think it came from RAWShooter engine - pity it is only a partial implementation - although with some enhancements too).

hatman12 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2008, 01:43 »

I've used both and I wouldn't spend my own money to upgrade to CS3. Try to find an inexpensive copy of CS2 and spend some time with it first, because its bound to be a whole different ballgame compared to photoshop 6.

Jimi King · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2008, 03:56 »

eBay's usually pretty good for CS2, that where I got mine. I was lucky enough to get one still shrink wrapped.

Stay away from the educational copies though (unless you know something that I don't that'll get around that).

pauloresende · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2008, 03:57 »

Save you money, buy CS2. There are some small differences from the CS2 to CS3 but the big difference is going from version 6 to any CS version

MikLav · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2008, 06:22 »

Beware that the latest versions of Adobe Camera RAW are only supported by CS3. For example RAW files from Canon EOS 40D can't be processed with CS2...

Other than that there is some difference in advanced functionality - you can easily find it on adobe website where they provide side by side comparison. But if you are moving from version 6 this functionality is unlikely to be of great importance for you.

16-bit processing is already quite good in CS2.

CvanDijk · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2008, 06:50 »

I was lucky that I could buy an educational version of adobe design premium CS3, because I'm still following courses on university. But if I haven't had that option I would have choosen for CS2.
Maybe when I can work better with CS3 (i'm still learning every day), I see the difference, but for now, CS2 would have been Ok, especially when you see the price difference.

vphoto · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2008, 07:27 »

more options: buying cs2 and upgrading from cs2 to cs3 costs less that buying cs3.

JerryL5 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 06, 2008, 09:11 »

There may be legit dealers on e-bay, but it is fairly easy to buy software
that is counterfeit. A case in point, I double checked the seller and he had
a good rating, and serial numbers that could be registered.
The product I purchased still turned out to be counterfeit.
Tip offs are no manual, not shrink wrapped, no original box, no eula.
It is always best to buy from a real business, and if you own a product,
there is most always an upgrade path to a better version that won't
break the bank.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2008, 10:36 »

Hello Vonkara,
I bought Photoshop cs1, this version is ok and enough for me.

vonkara · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2008, 12:17 »

Thanks everyone. You give me all wonderful opinions that I wasn't expect when I started the tread. I think to buy the CS2 version and keep my old 6.0 on my computer for the time I learn the CS2 version.

Quote from: tilo on March 06, 2008, 10:36

Hello Vonkara,
I bought Photoshop cs1, this version is ok and enough for me.

Hi Tilo, it's good to see you here.

Waldo4 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2008, 19:51 »

Quote from: MikLav on March 06, 2008, 06:22

Beware that the latest versions of Adobe Camera RAW are only supported by CS3. For example RAW files from Canon EOS 40D can't be processed with CS2...

Other than that there is some difference in advanced functionality - you can easily find it on adobe website where they provide side by side comparison. But if you are moving from version 6 this functionality is unlikely to be of great importance for you.

16-bit processing is already quite good in CS2.

Aren't updates to the ACR supported cameras available well after the fact? For example, I got CS2 about 6 months ago, though my 350D was supported by it from the get go, several cameras were not, though the update done while registering brought the product up to date with all the RAW formats on the market.

vonkara · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2008, 20:35 »

But do I'm OK when I work on RAW whit Nikon NX and then convert to jpg and work whit the jpg in CS2? Or I miss some feature that CS2 have and NX doen't have?

snurder · « **Reply #13 on:** March 08, 2008, 20:58 »

Aren't updates to the ACR supported cameras available well after the fact? For example, I got CS2 about 6 months ago, though my 350D was supported by it from the get go, several cameras were not, though the update done while registering brought the product up to date with all the RAW formats on the market.
[/quote]

Not really. The newest cams like Nikon D3 and D300 are only supported in the ACR 4.x versions, which can only be handled by CS3. To me this is stupidity and personally I'm through with the upgrade mania. Keeping CS2, and have switched to Bibble for Raw processing. As I sometimes do retouch for other photogs, it is important for me to keep current with raw processors.

Another cost effective option for those starting out is to just get PS Elements. Current versions will support the new cams, and Elements has grown up a lot as far as features. Although I would just personally like to do what I want to do straight away instead of having to be asked stupid questions by dummied up software.

Lightroom another good option for RAW currency, although have not used it since the inital release.

As fas as having to upgrade to CS3 for features, there is little if anything new that I want or need.

basti · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2008, 04:20 »

To the SW licence guys - using Photoshop for microstock is commercial, so any Photoshops bought under educational licences are illegal. Theres exactly written in the licence you cant use it for commercial purposes.

In case you dont need the latest ACR formats I would stick with CS2. CS3 also requires much stronger HW to run properly and under Microsoft Vista its complete disaster in case you dont have very strong PC.

Susan S. · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2008, 05:31 »

Quote from: basti on March 09, 2008, 04:20

To the SW licence guys - using Photoshop for microstock is commercial, so any Photoshops bought under educational licences are illegal. Theres exactly written in the licence you cant use it for commercial purposes.

Actually not true. see this page http://www.adobe.com/uk/education/purchasing/faq.html on Adobes site: (quote from Adobe's FAQ on education licensing)
"Student question

"I'm very interested in buying the Education version of Adobe Creative Suite, but first I want to know if the software can be used to produce work for paying customers once I am working in the industry, or do I have to buy a different version of Creative Suite once I'm working in the industry?”
Answer

Good news! You can use Adobe Education software (any title!) to produce commercial/professional paid-for work when you leave school, or even while you are in school. In this regard, Adobe does not limit how student software is used. So students can use it to learn and to make money!

(Of course, students must agree to the terms of the End User Licensing Agreement — which appears during installation — just as every software customer must do.)"

I went from photoshop CS educational to CS2 full version - I'm a teacher in a tertiary education institution - and I own an educational version of Illustrator CS2 - and I checked the terms of use very carefully (including a phone call to Adobe). (I think the macromedia products like Flash are different and have different licensing conditions, despite being now owned by Adobe)

Edit to add: there is a new even cheaper Student edition available for CS3 products (at least in Australia) and that does not allow commercial use.

basti · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2008, 17:22 »

Oh I see - here in czech was CS2 for students for about $1000 but commercial use was not allowed.

The Corey · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2008, 23:36 »

If you are using an Intel Mac, or a duel core processor, go with CS3. Without all of the details why, CS3 runs better on Intel Macs (the Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, and newest iMacs) and utilizes duel cores much better. I didn't think I would notice the difference but CS3 is so much faster on my Mac Pro and Mac Book Pro. If you are running a single core PC or older generation Mac and don't have the money to spend definitively go with CS2. The only thing you will want to consider is that if you are legit, and plan to continue upgrading to newer versions in the future, you only have so many versions before you have to start over again and buy new. For example you can't get a free copy Photoshop 5 and expect to get away with buying the upgrade CS3. In fact I don't think you can upgrade from PS7 to CS3 but please correct me if I'm wrong.

epixx · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2008, 23:37 »

The two reasons why I upgraded form CS2 to CS3:

- Much easier b&w conversion

- I use a Mac, and PS2 flows as fast as dried concrete on an Intel Mac

Apart from that: not many important improvements for my everyday work.

digiology · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2008, 10:49 »

Go for CS2 (if your PC)

I upgraded PS3 to PS7 with no problems but that was many moons ago. I am only running CS1 on my Intel MacBook Pro and honestly, even running under emulation, it works fine. Most of my photos are processed with Lightroom anyways. (I only find Illustrator a little clunky)

I use CS2 & CS3 at work on a G5 tower.

Waldo4 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2008, 23:50 »

Quote from: epixx on March 09, 2008, 23:37

The two reasons why I upgraded form CS2 to CS3:

- Much easier b&w conversion

- I use a Mac, and PS2 flows as fast as dried concrete on an Intel Mac

Apart from that: not many important improvements for my everyday work.

How much easier can the B&W conversion get? In CS2 either use straight Lum and convert to grayscale or emphasize parts by using the channel mixer. Either way it is simple. I am curious as to how much easier it can get?

epixx · « **Reply #21 on:** March 15, 2008, 09:49 »

Quote from: Waldo4 on March 13, 2008, 23:50

Quote from: epixx on March 09, 2008, 23:37
The two reasons why I upgraded form CS2 to CS3:

- Much easier b&w conversion

- I use a Mac, and PS2 flows as fast as dried concrete on an Intel Mac

Apart from that: not many important improvements for my everyday work.

How much easier can the B&W conversion get? In CS2 either use straight Lum and convert to grayscale or emphasize parts by using the channel mixer. Either way it is simple. I am curious as to how much easier it can get?

The convert to b&w function in CS3 has separate sliders for 6 different colours plus 8 standard filters and the possibility to create your own custom filters. All of it with preview. It's a completely different world.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #22 on:** March 27, 2008, 08:16 »

If you want to save money go with CS2, but if you want a few extra bells and whistles go for CS3. Or, you could always get CS2 and wait for the next version to come out. The upgrade usually works for 2 or 3 versions back.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photoshop CS2 or CS3 (Read 7817 times)

vonkara

leszek

hatman12

Jimi King

pauloresende

MikLav

CvanDijk

vphoto

JerryL5

DiscreetDuck

vonkara

Waldo4

vonkara

snurder

basti

Susan S.

basti

The Corey

epixx

digiology

Waldo4

epixx

graficallyminded

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors