Looking at CS3, AKA Photoshop 9, I can only see a very few benefits for upgrading. Yes, merging images, better B/W conversion etc, but ...

The new ACR machine is derived from the buyout of Pixmantec's Rawshhoter software that is also being integrated with Lightroom. Curiously, at this stage, Adobe have not quite married the two up viz Lightroom and Photoshop!

What does seem to me is a possible market try out of some very important new techniques that so many of us hope might be incorporated into Lightroom.

Most importantly is the introduction of Smart Filters. Non-destructive use of Filters. This philosophy is at the base of the Lightroom experience and its coming into PS shows that Adobe may be committed to this type of editing for the future. I really welcome it.

One wonders if, has been mooted elsewhere, that the end of the road for PS is now in sight. For so long it has been the de facto for image editing and yet has also been trying to be so many things to so many different groups. The whole idea of PS being part of CS tells its own tale.

A clear delineation between photographer's needs and those of the broader spectrum of the design community are clearly needed.

A programme that is aimed fairly and squarely at the photographic community that can work with all the plugins etc. offered over recent years by many third party companies - that have mostly been aimed at photographers - can be the only answer.

Lightroom does seem to be the answer so long as it can deliver the range and creativity that photographers can take advantage of ~ but can we anticipate receiving the advantages that CS3 seems to herald in Lightroom's first release, or are we destined to have to wait a couple of years whilst Adobe sort out their marketing and so leave us in a sort of limbo?

The challenge seems to me to be to Adobe ~ to finally differentiate their market segments and thus provide for each the best products they can - which we all know would be the very best.

Well, let me stop you right there...don't PRESUME you know the degree to which Michael Jonsson has contributed to Camera Raw/Lightroom. Because certain functions (fill light & vibrance) have shown up in Camera Raw, it's not because of any direct code from RSP. The concepts may have been Michael's but the code is Thomas Knoll & Zalman Stern. Michael hasn't really settled in in San Jose yet and he's not yet done a lot of code-he's still learning the Adobe way of coding-which by default must be cross-platform. So, the Camera Raw 4 "alpha" (cause it's gonna change before release) is -NOT- derived from RSP but rather influenced by it.




Uh, Smart Filters come from Smart Layers which are already in CS2. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between metadata editing (as from Lightroom) and re-editable edits via Smart Object/Filters.



If you presume that, you would also be wrong...the public beta is just that. There's still a lot coming in CS3 that has not yet been revealed...Camera Raw 4 is merely an alpha at this stage...and while the interface and the UB compile is essentially done, that's not to say that you've yet seen ALL the features of Photoshop CS3 yet...only those that Adobe has chosen to show at this time. Just remember that photographers actually make up a relatively small % of the Photoshop user base.

BTW, Photoshop CS3 is actually version 10.x, CS2 was 9.x

I've been probing this new set of releases (Bridge, ACR, PSCS3 Beta) as well as carefully absorbing the tutorials on the NAPP site and Russel Brown's Quicktime material. It is an ALREADY impressive set of new stuff, and if as Jeff says there is more to come, it will most likely be a "must-have" up-grade. I think it is not worthwhile ruminating about who Photoshop is written for and what % of the clientele does this or that in the graphic arts. There are so many tools and such an infinite combination of permutations and combinations for using them, that whether it is photography or graphic anything else, the only limitation is the creativity, knowledge and imagination of the user.

That much said, I think Adobe may have released this a bit prematurely. There are REALLY some very annoying bugs in it that have more to do with O/S interface than anything within the operating procedures of the programs themselves. To wit:

- The new Bridge is buggy - at least in Windows XP Professional on my (new) computer. It crashed often enough on opening (the old one doesn't), doesn't always produce some of the thumbnails it should, etc. that I've reverted to the old one. This is a shame because it has nifty new file comparison features I would have liked to use.

- PSCS3 makes one's photo printer the default printer unless you go back into the O/S and reverse it each time (many people me included have more than one printer and use a non-photo machine as a default printer).

- It is pure hell to get file-association settings to stick and respond as intended allowing one to chose which application to use as the default for which type of files. One needs this flex especially during a transition period when one of the applications is still a beta. It just seems to disobey what it is told to do.

These are seemingly elementary expectations and one hopes that Adobe will attend to them sooner rather than later. I could not find a feedback loop within the Adobe Labs website for PSCS3 - I know there is a user to user discussion forum but they don't mention whether they are even monitoring its contents. They do make a point it is for users to talk to eachother, and by inference not to Adobe. Their approach to user feedback for Lightroom is much more "inviting" - unless I've missed something I should have seen.

revneil is one edition behind: PSCS3 is actually PS10. He may not be that much more up to speed concerning the changes over PSCS2.

So, you don't remember the original Bridge 1.0.0 release? It was followed by Bridge 1.01 in about 8 weeks because 1.0.0 wasn't usable (particularly on Windows).

That is part of the reasoning behind the beta...to get it in the wild and test it. We have two MAJOR OS upgrades just around the corner. Vista AND Leopard...

And, Adobe -DID- call it BETA...and it's working just like a beta will work. . .only partially and with bugs.

I guess since I've been doing alpha/beta testing for so many years, little stuff like this doesn't bother me. I'm rather pleased that Adobe decided to do a public beta and give people the opportunity to offer feedback for the first time with Photoshop.

Nobody is/will be holding a gun to your head to -FORCE- you to use Photoshop CS3.

Yes Jeff I remember it all too well, and I do understand what a Beta is all about, and I know using it is completely voluntary and I still think Adobe has been in this business long enough to at least assure BASIC O/S operational functionality before releasing it to the public - if only so that users who don't have your depth of experience won't be distracted by what you call minor bugs (but still consume nervous energy and time to work-around) and instead focus their minds on what Adobe wants us to focus on - which is the internals of the programs themselves.

Some of these functionality issues are steps backward - one expects Betas to have problems with new stuff going forward - not elememtary things that have been working properly for years in previous versions. And I take your point that they release it for user feedback which is fine, but I ask a second time, where do they provide for it? Is it the User to User Forum on Labs website, because it still isn't obvious to me from what they say whether they are monitoring that material. One would hope the whole purpose is that they would, but ARE THEY - if so they should say so.

As far as Vista is concerned - that's Microsoft and if they perform per tradition risk-averse users should wait until Service Pack 2 before installing it. Their Beta spreads right through into the commercial product we pay for, so in perspective Adobe is doing just fine, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't mention legitimate concerns and raise legitimate questions. Otherwise what's the point of the Beta? They are big boys - they can absorb this kind of discussion without going off the deep end.

All that said and done, as I mentioned in my previous post, what they've produced has great features I really like, so I have taken the trouble to avail myself of the new ACR, which does almost all the luminance and colour adjustment one needs - and better, while I stick with old Bridge for sorting and selection and PSCS2 for plugins and printing. I'll move onward from that contrived hybrid once the bugs get ironed out. But that's just me and my set-up - No doubt, like they used to say on "Naked City" back in the 1950s - eight million souls - eight million stories.

Take care.

Mark

I have to say I have had very few bugs--and that's with a system that isn't extremely high powered. The few that I've encountered have been minor annoyances. I have processed a number of files with no problems in processing. I have reported 2--a problem opening Bridge from PS--I open it separately now. I need to deal with scripts so it opens quickly. Other than that--occasionally I can't view at full pixel or full page from tool setup--only menu, but it happens only occasionally. All in all---I've found it pretty bug free for me as a beta. Much easier to deal with than LR. I love having it available--I'm using ACR fully, B/W adj. layer that gives me great control (after muti layer, much processing in the past) and printing is easy and intuitive--and quick selection and enhance edges are terrific.. I know I will buy the upgrade alreadyl I prefer working in PS to LR--since I end up there anyhow, use Imatch and Qimage or print from PS. I will get vs. 1 of LR free anyhow since I"m an RWP license holder, but I bet I won't use it.

Diane

Well said -- and it is clearly labeled a BETA version

Quick question since I don't visit the feedback forums: Are the XP print dialog bugs all reported? IE; Paper size issues, resets the default printer on PC's, does NOT hold the settings in the print set-up screen on the CS dialog page and then forces the print set-up screen to pop up immediately after hitting print in the CS dialog?

Other issues in XP include tool menus disappearing during heavy lifting; having to reduce RAM to 2G or so to get heavy photomerge to run to completion.

PS: Love just about everything else about it, even with the bugz!

Don't know...but from the Photoshop CS3 FAQs comes this:


KNOWN ISSUES:
Known issues for the Photoshop CS3 beta include the following:

* Installer fails to run on Mac (initialization appears for a second and then disappears)
Workaround:
1) Turn FileVault and "Use secure virtual memory" off in System Preferences > Security
2) Restart your computer

* Uninstalling CS3 removes the photoshop-9.jsx file and breaks CS2 Photoshop/Bridge interactions
Workaround: Re-install CS2

* The Adobe Media Gallery (available in the File > Automate menu) is non-operational in the Photoshop CS3 Beta.
Workaround:
1) Move the CS2 Presets from Adobe Photoshop CS2 > Presets > Web Photo Gallery to Adobe Photoshop CS3 > Presets
2) Move the WebContactSheetII.plugin from Adobe Photoshop CS2 > Plug-Ins > Adobe Photoshop Only > Automate to Adobe Photoshop CS3 > Plug-Ins > Automate
3) (Intel-based Macs) Select the Photoshop CS3 app and do Get Info on it and select "Open using Rosetta"
4) Launch Photoshop and choose Web Photo Gallery from the File > Automate menu

*CS2 version of Bridge/Photoshop launching CS3 versions - Workaround:
1) Quit all versions of Photoshop and Bridge
2) Mac: Delete the /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Launch/photoshop/10.0/ folder on your Desktop
Win: Delete the C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Launch\photoshop\10.0 folder on your Desktop
3) Mac: Delete the /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Launch/bridge/2.0/ folder on your Desktop
Win: Delete the C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Launch\bridge\2.0 folder on your Desktop

* Printing to non-default page sizes (Windows Only):
1. File > Print > check on scale to fit
2. Page setup > Select your paper size > Ok
3. Toggle the orientation buttons to force scale to fit to reflect the new paper size. After scale to fit reflects the proper size for your paper you can uncheck it at this point if needed.
4. Toggle centered checkbox on and off if you want the final output centered.
5. Print > Select preferences > set your page setup again to match the settings you selected in step 2 page setup
6. Print

* Fixed height palettes turns blank when dragged to the top of a second monitor
* Large cursors are not displayed on Intel-based Macs.
* The Pattern Maker plug-in is not available on Intel-based Macs
* Uninstall causes Acrobat 7 Pro and Reader to be automatically reconfigured on Windows XP.
* Interpolation on image resize is not working correctly.
* Certain plug-Ins are not being loaded on Intel-based Macs (AltiVec, PPCCore, Embed and Read Watermark).
* Camera Raw is not yet scriptable.
* Photoshop may crash on quit when running on a developer seed of Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard."
* Non-Photoshop Open EXR files fail to open in Photoshop CS3.
* PDF settings are not included. If you do not have Acrobat 8, you will not be able to save out as PDFx.
* The Adobe Media Gallery (available in the File > Automate menu) is non-operational in the Photoshop CS3 Beta.
* Unable to open a CMYK JPEG or images larger than 10,000 pixels per side if "Prefer ACR for JPEG" preference is checked.
* Recovery and fill light sliders don't respond immediately on first use. If unable to open more then one JPEG on the Mac the workaround is to check the preference option to "Prefer ACR for JPEG."
* Thumbnails don't always update in Bridge after editing raw file in PS ACR.
* TWAINBridge preventing Mac installer from working (solution: use Activity Monitor to quit that process)
* MacTel platform cannot read BMP format files
* Camera Raw dialog box cut-off at 1024x768 monitor resolution

Jeff,

Thanks for reproducing that long laundry list of "Known Issues". I would like to add another one:

*The new Bridge does not recognize any image settings creted in the old Bridge. This likely means the sidecars, which I keep with each raw file, are not being picked-up.

(To remind, I'm using Windows XP Professional on a state-of-the-art Dell 690 Precision Workstation, Xeon 5160 Dual Core Processor)

I discovered this when after sorting, rotating and labeling a whole folder of files in old Bridge, I would try once again to open new Bridge, load that folder and see how it behaves. Well, it misbehaved - I was starting all over again. Nothing sorted, nothing rotated, nothing labeled.

I basically agree with you and Jack that Adobe is due much credit and gratitude for launching this application into the public domain as a free Beta to registered CS2 customers. BUT frankly there remains in my mind a question of WHEN is the right time. The issue I'm reporting here is so elementary, i.e. backward compatibility of core functionality at least from the immediately previous version is so basic to modern programming that one wonders why such things were not checked and corrected before the BETA got released. Why the rush to publish at Adobe? Who's the competition? I just don't understand it - and I do understand what a Beta is.

Anyhow, I hope the bug I mention just above gets reported to Adobe's development team - I still don't see how to access them in a way I know the message gets there.

On my machine. I checked a preference setting, and all the sidecars did apply to the thumbs in Bridge CS3. It may work on your machine too.
I will link the setting
Click to view attachment

Thank you ever so much it worked. It was set at the default "Quick Thumbnails" when I opened it, because that seemed fine - I wanted - speed, but I guess it only picks up the old stuff with "High Quality" checked. Good to know!

It's hard to get an intelligent perspective out on the internet these days without the sophomoric gear heads shooting you down spewing out some techy minutia and repeating marketing gibberish from the manufacturer.

I agree with you. Adobe needs to delineate their market better. I personally don't like the UI influence Macromedia is having on Adobe. I'm not into the "latest cell phone grovey stuff" getting in my way. I'm much more concerned with the "meat and potatoes" of it all. In practical terms as a photographer CS3 offers nothing for me over CS2 except higher hardware resource consumption and an improved B&W conversion dialog and B&W conversion in ACR. Not much of an upgrade from my perspective. Not worth the major pain of a reinstall.

Have you tried the new photomerge?

,

Add to that the expense of the inherent bugs that will be in the new software. Just more time and expence for not much gain. It took Adobe more than a year to reasonably clean things up from CS2 and Bridge 9.0 - 9.0.2. After a years investment in scripting and action automation of our workflow not the kind of dark waters we want to just jump into just because the pallets come out the side.

On the other hand I love the basic concept of Lightroom but it's execution and practicality in it's current state leaves a lot to be desired. Not there yet for me. Maybe in a few years they will sort things out. I hope. Seems like what we all really need.

As always, it boils down to time and money. The less time a software manufacturer makes for us on the computer the more money we spend. After all, thats the name of the automation game isn't it?

If they would have added (just to ACR)

- The ability to repair blown channels (saturation/de-saturation mask sliders with auto)
- B&W conversion (they did this one)
- Noise reduction capabilites at least on par with the current state of the industry
- Output Sharpening/Interpolation (print and otherwise) that is best in the industry or at on par with the industry.

I would upgrade in a heartbeat. I would be the first in line. This kind of stuff is real time and money stuff.

I'm betting that, regardless of features, this will be a "must have" upgrade for many people who either:

1.) Have an intel mac now and want performance optimitzed for it.

2.) Have a PPC mac and CS1 or earlier and didn't want to spend the money on CS2 becuase in the long term, their next machine will be intel and there's no use spending so much money and then just having to respend it again. (This is where I am)

I plan on buying this, barring massive reason not to, for the second reason (as I said). I'll bet that many people are in those two boats and, as a result, Adobe can probably get away with not a whole ton if they would like to do so simply because they know they have a captive audiance. I'm not saying this is what they are doing, at least I hope not, but I am willing to bet that they know they will ship gazillilons regardless.

Understand that I have not seen the beta yet and therefore have no idea what it offers, this is just my thinking on the situation. That being said, thank goodness I can get education discounts.

-mac

Good point.

That's too bad, because I find the RSP conversions far more detailed and sharper than the ACR versions.

Matthew, hard to second-guess anybody about what they SEE, but I have to admit I find this perplexing for two reasons: (1) Adobe bought Pixmantec, so they must know from the inside-out what RSP is capable of doing, and (2) the people involved with the development of ACR have the most experienced and the finest, most innovative mathematical minds in the business - period.

But as they say - the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so could you do us a favour - to the extent this is capable of revealing anything - take an image (raw file) you consider typical/representative; convert it in the new ACR, and convert the raw file again using RSP, do a screen capture of each conversion and post them on this website. It's probably best not to intervene with any adjustments for one set, and do another set with what you consider to be typical adjustments, but make them the same for both converters, do the screen captures and post them on the web. Of course, you need to make sure the background settings for example in terms of sharpening, noise reduction etc. are either turned off or the same for both. I for one, and I'm sure other readers of this thread would be curious to see exactly what you are seeing.

I'm referring to the old ACR vs RSP.

I haven't used the new ACR, not wanting to disrupt the workflow on my PS computer right now. . .

The "new" ACR is as now sharp and detailed as RSP IMO... In fact, I am back to using it as my standard converter, though it maintained the same ACR UI. FWIW, the updated sharpening and detail conversion parameters appear to be used in LightRoom too.

Cheers,

You can also bring tiff and jpegs into the ACR window for adjustment (if you have old scanned images for example) so that the vibrance and other features are available. I only had a chance to play for a day as I can't get phone activation, but I think this may well mean I need to re-look at a number of my old MF and LF files.

Mike

anybody have experience on similar PC than I have?
AMD 2500+ barton, 1GB RAM, windows XP
As i try it but it was really slow.ACR4 adjustments wasn't realltime and so on.
I dont have this problem with CS2.
I am wondering if it is not due RAM and scratch disk settings or I just have so outofdate PC.

I'm not an expert on PC configuration, but I use one and have had some experience with a 4 year old one that had 1.5 GB RAM and new one that can access 3GB RAM out of the 4 GB installed. Firstly, be sure that your scratch disk is on a separate physical hard drive from your C drive, otherwise they compete with eachother and slows everything down. Secondly, you may be RAM-limited. I found my former PC would not work Lightroom properly, and many of the new ACR features are similar to Lightroom. I don't know if the code is the same, but it may be reasonable to infer that ACR4 is quite RAM intensive. I think it safe to say that 1GB RAM is just not adequate for efficient performance of recent PSCS versions. If you can increase the RAM this is usually the first recommendation the gurus make for improving performance. If that doesn't help much, it means there are other constraints that may point to a computer up-grade. I crossed that bridge last month and I'm glad I did. It's like night and day.

When working on a black and white image CS2 uses a hard to spot grey cursor. Any change in CS3, or any workaround recommendations?

I will need to try different scratch disk settings, now I have it little strange. I installed CS3 and set up scratch disk to my second drive as I running low on first one.

AD RAM
I remember that huuge change when I ad 512 to my first 512 mb ram so I know what you talking about. But so far I found I am more limitated with CPU than with ram. Most of my photos I just correct in ACR and than play some action in batch. Mostly when I am zooming in acr (CS2) my CPU is burning to 100perc to show me 1:1 zoom.
Thats why in the spring (or later) I will need to think if its not worth to buy complete new PC and leave this to my girlfriend.

Anyway, thank you for help

You are welcome. I would tentatively suggest it sounds as if you do need a new PC to better handle these new resource-intensive application versions - as for what is suitable for your girlfriend to use - no advice!

I've had a look at the new release, but will stick with CS2 9.

I can't see the point in spending more cash on another upgrade of a program, when I have only probably used 10% of this ones capabilities.

I think Photoshop already reached it's pinnacle, and now Adobe are just trying to justify another release with new features that are not needed by the majority.

On my 2 GB, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 HHD's (one for scratch only) PC - the ACR4 is very slow. Actually falling behind my adjustments. I was correcting JPG's - just to check out this new feature. Eventually PS3 Beta crashed - as I kept steaming full speed thrrough ACR4.
My guess is this is not a hardware problem, just beta code - not ready for prime time as of yet. I still love the ACR4. I use only ACR3.x for all my raw work and look forward the the advanced imaging tools in ACR4. Adobe could still add a real sharpening tool , such as a true Unsharp Mask - exactly like the Photoshop tools. I really don't understand a 1-100 slider for sharpening. Seems underdeveloped?

CS3 beta does have a Macromedia look to the user interface (workspace). I guess that will take some time to seem better.

Overall, CS3 seems to be just better for fine art photographers. The stable final code will add the promised speed (hopefully!) and make this upgrade a major step forward.

I do hope Adobe refines Bridge a bit more. Actually with Bridge, less is more. My wishlist for Bridge is just simple, stable and speedy.

My experience is not the same. My computer is a Dell 690 Precision Workstation with a 3 GHZ Xeon 5160 Dual Core processor and 4 GB RAM (of which only 3 are accessible on a 32 bit Windows XP system). I'm using ACR4 routinely now and I find the response is seemless.

Well, each to his/her own of course about an up-grade decision, but to go from there imputing wasteful motives to Adobe is a bit off the wall if I may suggest. On what authority are you assessing what the "majority" "needs"? Who is this "majority" and how do you define what they "need"? Don't you think Adobe does market research to find out what users would like to have, their own developers included? I think they will be out of the up-grade business the day this "majority" you have in mind stops buying their up-grades, but we're into the 9th version now and that shows no sign of happening any time soon. The reason is that there enough people amongst this "majority", me included, who may not use a high percentage of the program's capabilities, but still find the new stuff they develop useful enough to justify the up-grade. And frankly, when you think about it, more often than not what you "need" gets defined by the people who respond to these "needs" before you even knew they existed. That is what marketing has been all about for centuries. It was best enunciated back in the 1700s by the French philosopher-economist Jean-Baptiste Say with his famous theoretical proposition that "Supply creates its own demand". But back where I started - if you personally don't "need" any of these innovations - of course, as the ING Man says in the TV ads "Save Your Money".

Well said Mark. Using myself as an example, the new photomerge capabilities are so much improved, that IMO it makes the price of the upgrade worth it by itself. (Yet, I do consider myslef somewhat of a power user of other PS tools ) If one considers just the cost of some of the 1st class software dedicated to stitching, you actually get the entire CS3 package for LESS than one of those single-function software products...

Cheers,

I left out a major feature that absolutely needs to be part of Photoshop (ACR). Custom camera profiles. This is one I really don't understand. How many white papers have we seen from Adobe regarding the industry standard color management chain in ones workflow. Well in this respect Adobe has the initial link missing. I'm getting perfect color out of ACR now because I went through the extremely tedious and time consuming process of manual calibration (a la Bruce Faser). This process can become so subjective considering all factors and the Fors script has never worked for me. It's rather ludicrous I believe. Why the reluctance by Adobe. The calibration tab needs to stay it's wonderful but they need to make it relative to the camera profile that one selects.

To those who say that camera profiling is useless well I respectfully disagree. I have two basic calibrations one for daylight/overcast and one for the studio. My color is dead on neutral always. Of course we can start with semantics and ...what is neutral? ect.. But then we are adults here aren't we?. I think the folks on Madison Ave. know what neutral is.

If you want to get creative with color neutral is a much better starting point, period. None of the standard camera profiles included with any of the raw converters on the market these days are neutral and in a sense artistically interpretive. That's cool. Product distinction via a look is important in marketing. I have no problem with that. But, the profiles out of the box in ACR get the the prize for the weirdest interpretations in my not so humble opinion. ACRs saving grace is the calibration tab I guess. It's ironic because other that this ACR is the finest converter on the market today.

I also have made CS3 my normal working software, mostly because of ACR 4. OTOH, I am using an 8GB / dual Xeon 5140 system under x64, so it may not qualify as a typical installation. I do find CS3 seems to make better use of my available resources. Just for ACR 4 this will be a must-do upgrade for me.

As far as RS vs. ACR, I found RS a bit less natural-looking than ACR, but that could be just me. It felt like it was applying the PS Shadow / Highlight kind of processing. The new ACR fill / recovery functions look more organic and natural to me. Obviously all these observations are highly subjective.

Just read through this thread for the first time. As far as I'm concerned, the H/S palette in ACR4 is reason enough to upgrade. There is an excellent introduction to the changes in ACR4 here>

http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/acr4.htm

...which those who haven't yet downloaded the beta might like to read.

The writer's comment (in the paragraph headed 'The H Tab') that......

"....the HSL/Grayscale tab hides one of the most useful photographic innovations since the introduction of the RAW file! This tab allows us complete control over the color in our photographs."

......is not an understatement. There will be many occasions now when I will use CS3 simply for the Healing Brush and the Clone Stamp tool! ;-)

Allowing total pre-conversion, non-destructive colour correction is just fantastic. Add in the additional two channels in H/S (now eight to CS2/CS3/Lightroom's six) coupled with the nine point colour sampler and ACR4 is simply a must have for any colour geek.

I LOVE it!

D.

ps....Islandbuck, I too have never found Fors of any use. A one size fits all approach is just not on. I too use the Fraser method. But, unlike you, I correct every time I shoot in studio. Used to take me about 20 minutes between ACR3 and CS2 (the inadequate H/S in ACR3 meant that I had to finish the job in CS2). I then ran an Action to apply the results to all the other images. Now, in ACR4, I can do everything. Takes about 10 minutes. Wonderful!

In my opinion, default camera profiles are a waste of time. You will never, ever, capture a Gretag CC exactly the same way twice, even in studio. Much better to correct the capture of the CC each time, IMHO. That takes all the variables of different lighting (softboxes warmer than reflectors etc...) surroundings and casts from products etc..into account. Just my tuppence worth.

D.

Given that I haven't found straightforward questions to either of these questions, I'm guessing that the answers will be 'no'. But here goes:

Has Adobe (or the more accurate end of the rumor mill) been any more clear than 'Q1 or Q2 of '07' for a release of CS3?
If you buy PS CS2 now, do you get a free full upgrade to PS CS3?

Considering that I'm still using PS CS, I'm anxious to upgrade! (I'm looking forward to HDR for architectural shots to get interior and exterior lighting without endless masking and the improved merge will be helpful, along with the obvious CS2 features!)

Not more specific on the release...other than the 2nd Q of 2007. So take your pick...April, May or June!

You have to bite the bullet and wait as you will only qualify for a free upgrade if CS2 was purchased within 30 Days of the CS3 release.

Been using the Beta CS3 and Adobe Camera Raw is fantastic with interior architectural shots. With Highlight Recovery and Fill Light sliders HDR is not even needed.