Re: [Leica] Re: Photoshop 5 LE files darker than they look

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

It's interesting that anyone here would worry about paying $600 for the full
version of Photoshop when most of them have dropped 3-4 times as much for each
of several Leica lenses that they probably own, not to mention the camera
bodies.  You're likely to get more use out of Photoshop than out of any one lens
(unless you have only one lens).

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 22:05
Subject: [Leica] Re: Photoshop 5 LE files darker than they look


> > Peter Klein posts:
> > > All this means that basically Adobe has made sure that a
> > >serious photographer who uses Windows will have to buy the full
> > >$600 Photoshop, or  make the choice between:
>
> Sonny says:
> > That said, I really can't understand your complaints about
> > Photoshop LE. The program is mostly available free with
> > scanners and printers and other hardware, and the whole
> > point of LE Photoshop (or any other Limited Edition) is to
> > get you interested in buying the big package; essentially a
> > demo version.
>
> Sonny:
>
> Thanks for the advice.  I have purchased programs at academic discount
> when I worked at a university.  Taking courses isn't really an option
> for me right now timewise, but I hadn't thought of the online/auction
> route for software--thanks.
>
> My issue with LE is that so many people says it's "all most people
> need."  And while LE is bundled with scanners, etc., it also is a
> product Adobe used to sell for $99.00, a similar price to other "full"
> products.
>
> Given that, I think it's inexcusable that LE is essentially "stealth
> crippleware."  The PC gamma issue exists in both LE versions 4 and 5.
> There are numerous posts about it in the Adobe user's forum.  Adobe
> could have fixed it if they wanted to.  Also, the 1.8 gamma is correct
> for the Mac, so the progam is completely usable there.
>
> If Adobe was up-front about it, that would be one thing.  But they don't
> call the PC version of LE a "trial version that is visually crippled,"
> or some marketing-speak to that effect.  They don't put a big DEMO
> watermark on printed output.  Nor do they tell you anything about it in
> the docs.  They simply allow the display to be incorrect for PC users,
> and let you find out about it *after* you've already invested lots of
> time in learning Photoshop.
>
> Sorry, but given the gamma issue, your Leica CL analogy doesn't really
> hold.  Things looking right on the screen is not an "advanced feature,"
> it's a basic requirement of an image editing program.  It's more like if
> the CL had a rangefinder that was always slightly out of focus and not
> adjustable, and Leica neither fixed not documented it, so you had to buy
> an M to get in-focus pictures.
>
> Photoshop Elements, on the other hand, appears to fix the gamma
> problem.  It does "dumb down" the curves tool, and eliminates 16-bit
> adjustments that LE had.  But they've made a perfectly viable product
> for the home snapshooter and intermediate amateur, which has the
> gamma/color space stuff LE lacks.  If it had retained the curve tool and
> 16-bit stuff, I would probably buy it in a minute.  But then it might
> cut into full-Photoshop sales, I guess, because people like me wouldn't
> need more.
>
> Come to think of it, if I don't want to spring for full Photoshop, I
> could get Elements, and then use LE 5 as a "front end" for the 16 bit
> levels and curves adjustments.  Then once I get things basically right,
> apply the gamma correction factor, save a 48-bit TIFF file in case
> anything needs further tweaking later.  Then import the file into
> Elements, esentially converting to 8-bit, and do dodging, burning,
> spotting, etc. in Elements, where what you see is more like what you
> get.  A little awkward, but doable.
>
> Stay tuned for another chapter in the never-ending saga...
>
> --Peter Klein
> Seattle, WA