[MW Forums]

Photoshop CS3 packs refinements and additions that will please digital imagers of every kind. There’s room for some interface polish here and there, but CS3 is also the most refined version of Photoshop yet. more

[NeoX]

I'd like to know how it runs on a MacBook. I use a MacBook daily and it would be great to take PS on the road with me.
Anyway you could test it on one of your MacBooks?
Thanks,

[dansterpower]

Thanks for the excellent, and very detailed review.
I am upgrading my CS2 to the Master Suite in July when it ships and I can't wait, especially after your review.
After this review, I'll probably upgrade a few other boxes using CS2 as well.
Looks like my Quad G5 is now finally outclassed: new iron on the way as well, with the new Penyron (sp?) motherboard comes out.
But a BIG MISS to Adobe for the non-dockable panels on a second monitor -- come on Adobe, 2 monitors are the norm now.
Thanks Mac World / Mac Central.
Dante

[leicaman]

Quote:

---

I'd like to know how it runs on a MacBook. I use a MacBook daily and it would be great to take PS on the road with me.
Anyway you could test it on one of your MacBooks?
Thanks,

---

It screams on a MacBook Pro. On a Mac Pro it's unbelievably fast. (The Intel version of Noise Ninja is about 5 times faster on a Mac Pro with 5 gigs of RAM than the PPC version is on a Quad G5 with 4 gigs of RAM). And from what I've heard it runs very well on a MacBooks as well. Just make sure to max the ram out.
I'm not sure why Mac World bothers with Photoshop speed tests on machines with 1 gig of RAM. The tests are pretty meaningless. My dual 2Ghz G5 with 3.5 gigs of RAM will smoke an Intel iMac with 2 gigs of RAM. But even with 2 GIGS of ram Photoshop is a different animal than it is with 1 gig. And don't tell me that's how most coputers are configured. No serious digital photographer who is shelling out money for Photoshop would be satisfied with Photoshop running on 1 gig of RAM. Especially with 10 megapixel and bigger files. If they are then they have more time on their hands to shoot rather than work on their Mac.
As for asking what the Legacy checkbox in Brightness/Contrast means, it is actually not important. Because for years and years - long before pro photographers moved to "digital" we filmies were using Photoshop as well - we knew the basic rule that any pro using Photoshop has known for more than 10 years - do NOT USE Brightness/Contrast for any reason!
It clips the crap out of highlights and shadows. And that's what legacy means. You want to clip your highlights and shadows - which no person in their right mind woud do with such a crude tool - then click the checkbox at your own peril. There are lots of features in Photoshop that Adobe wishes they could throw away to make the program less complex. But whenever they contemplate such a thing beta testers and consultants scream bloody murder. And in spite of common knowledge that Brightness/Contrast should never be used for any reason, some people insist on ruining their photos with it, and Adobe accomodates their wishes. More software companies should be so concerned with making their customers happy.
So Adobe has done the smart thing in this case. They actually made it useful again. It works like people used to think it did, but didn't. It doesn't clip highlights or shadows no matter how far you drag the sliders. But to let those, who have for so many years messed up their photos the way they wanted with the legacy method, Adobe has left it in. Just have to check the legacy box to use it. Better that than allow newcomers to Photoshop learn the hard way after badly color correcting large numbers of photos only to learn they shouldn't have with a dialog box that should have long ago been put out of its misery.
There seems to be an error in the article, BTW. CS2 and much earlier versions of Photoshop's Curves dialog box have had black, gray and white point droppers. So I'm not sure what Mr. Heid is referring to with that reference to a new ability to set white and black points.
As for aligning layers, that alone is worth the price of the extended version if you ask me. It's simply amazing.
I just talked wtih a manger at Adobe today and he tells me there are going to be more options for upgrades in the future compared to what is available today. So there may indeed be an upgrade option from Standard to Extended in the future. Up to this point, if you buy Standard, there is no direct upgrade path to the Extended version - which is nuts if you ask me. Offering such an upgrade path will prevent a lot of hard feelings when people find out they wish they had gone for Extended version. And it should help Adobe's bottom line too!
I agree that though not quite perfect, this is the most compelling upgrade to Photoshop in several versions. And I was a big, big fan of CS2.

[Mandrake]

One thing has to be mentionned ... Adobe pricing policy ....
In Europe the price is twice as the ones mentionned in the review ...
it's a real shame ! I wonder how many will pay for it ....

[OtherSide]

Not only photoshop is way more expensive in Europe than it is in the US. Also the Creative Suites. For example, Creative Suite 3 Design Standard upgrade pricing in the US starts at US$399 (excluding sales tax), in Europe it is 699 euro (excluding VAT). That is almost twice as much, without even counting the exchange rate (and the fact that VAT is usually more than double the US sales tax). If one converts the European price excluding VAT to US$ the 699 euro equals US$ 950. In other words, we Europeans have to pay 2.4 times as much for the same English language upgrade from CS 2 Design Standard to CS 3 Design Standard.
I think it is high time that MacWorld's journalists look into these kind of extortion practices. Some price differences are perfectly acceptable, but letting Europeans pay more than twice as much for the same English language product is unacceptable. There is really no excuse. Compare for example with Apple's upgrade pricing for Final Cut Studio, which starts at US$ 499 in the US and at 419 euro excluding VAT in Europe (equals approximately US$ 565). Apple's price difference is perfectly reasonable, Adobe's is not. Adobe is treating it's European customers very, very badly with this kind of pricing. I think some investigative journalism is warranted...
david

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Not only photoshop is way more expensive in Europe than it is in the US. Also the Creative Suites. For example, Creative Suite 3 Design Standard upgrade pricing in the US starts at US$399 (excluding sales tax), in Europe it is 699 euro (excluding VAT). That is almost twice as much, without even counting the exchange rate (and the fact that VAT is usually more than double the US sales tax). If one converts the European price excluding VAT to US$ the 699 euro equals US$ 950. In other words, we Europeans have to pay 2.4 times as much for the same English language upgrade from CS 2 Design Standard to CS 3 Design Standard.
I think it is high time that MacWorld's journalists look into these kind of extortion practices. Some price differences are perfectly acceptable, but letting Europeans pay more than twice as much for the same English language product is unacceptable. There is really no excuse. Compare for example with Apple's upgrade pricing for Final Cut Studio, which starts at US$ 499 in the US and at 419 euro excluding VAT in Europe (equals approximately US$ 565). Apple's price difference is perfectly reasonable, Adobe's is not. Adobe is treating it's European customers very, very badly with this kind of pricing. I think some investigative journalism is warranted...david

---

I'd be interested in that story. Someone should investigate the reasoning behind that and ask Adobe about it. Is it common across all software applications or are some developers worse than others?

[kperera12]

I have thought for many years that Adobe's pricing model is flawed. I believe even the US prices are way too high - about double what they should be. Maybe it was OK years ago when copies of the software would get shared around the office or loaned to a friend, but now that they have such strong copy protection schemes, cutting all their prices in half would seem just about right. In this day of OpenSource apps and the worldwide computer user base topping 1 billion, I bet their sales would increase by a factor of at least 5 with the lower pricing. (I remember reading about the history of Microsoft's FrontPage app in the nineties - they dropped the price 80% and saw sales increase 10,000-fold!)
By the way, I've owned and upgraded my own copies of Illustrator and Photoshop from the very beginning of each of those app's lives - So I'll probably end up shelling out for this upgrade too. But most of my friends who just dabble in design - No, they have no plans to ever upgrade at these prices.

[robertRoss]

I think the upgrade prices are an unbelievable bargain. Design Premium for $599 which includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Flash, Acrobat Professional as well as the Bridge products is amazing. That's 6 major applications for $100 each plus additions. Incredible value considering how much work it takes to program these applications and how much work we get from using them.
Of course the price differences outside of North America are another issue and relate to the 'free-trade for business' but not consumers debate. Region encoding of DVDs is a prime example of this as well.

[Grapho]

I agree with you post. If you need this software (and you are in the US), it is a bargain. I am even thinking of upgrading Fireworks. I already have my CS3 Design Premium.
One question that I am faced with is my hardware. I have a 2.3 G5 with 8GB of RAM. Should I sell it and buy a MacPro with 4GB of ram? I know I would be better off, but how much real benefit would I get from this upgrade?

[MacGeek1955]

You can always buy the new Microsoft "fake Flash" and tools to boot. That'll fix Adobe. But then again Microsoft is not well liked in Europe. Apple, hmm! They don't like iTunes either.
Just joking! You have a real point there with European pricing. Actually, US pricing isn't all that good either. I wish Adobe had a good competitor besides Microsoft. I would never buy any graphics software from Microsoft, even if it were offered. When Macromedia was around and Corel and Quark were stronger, Adobe used to offer competitive upgrades, bundles and had to be competitive on the pricing. Even Canvas has sort of fallen off the map. I like Adobe and all (except for the fact that they killed Freehand and what happened to Director?), but I'm more comfortable with technologies when we have a choice.

[jackaxe]

Quote:

---

I agree with you post. If you need this software (and you are in the US), it is a bargain. I am even thinking of upgrading Fireworks. I already have my CS3 Design Premium.
One question that I am faced with is my hardware. I have a 2.3 G5 with 8GB of RAM. Should I sell it and buy a MacPro with 4GB of ram? I know I would be better off, but how much real benefit would I get from this upgrade?

---

This really depends, do you also work heavily with video or 3D? If not and Photoshop is your main app, then you should wait until at least Leopard. Intel is releasing the Penryn and Nehalem later this year, so if anything you'll get a better deal on the current hardware. They're 45nm chips with SSE4 and higher clockspeeds of course.
<]=)

[Nobody]

cs2 is better for working with pictures and stuff

[whitedog]

Photoshop is not, nor has it ever been, for dabblers. That's what Photoshop Elements is for - and it excels all the cheap image editing programs offered with scanners and digital cameras and such (fortunately, most of that dreck is Windows only).
While there are issues of affordability for students, Adobe has long had substantial student discounts to help people who are training on their software. If you are a semi-professional trying to break into the business, take a few classes at your local junior college. You'll not only qualify for student discounts on software, but you might even learn a thing or two.