Photoshop Elements vs. Photoshop Album

[Frank Marino]

If I were about to purchase one of the referenced software packages, can you identify the major differences between them. I would like to be able to take pictures downloaded through my Canon camera (through Canon's Zoom Browser) and be able to share them by creating a CD that most people would be able to open and view either individually or in a slide show format even if they did not have all of the software I have installed on my computer. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Ray]

Frank,

Photoshop Elements' main goal is to process images, with sharing
capabilities. Photoshop Album is to archive and share, with limited
retouching capabilities. If your target audience is composed of only
computer users, Elements will make a pretty good job as it will help you
create a slideshow in PDF (Acrobat) format. People will be required to have
Acrobat version 5 or 6, I'm not sure, on their computer already installed (a
very easy process).

If, on the other hand, you'd like to create a slideshow that runs on a DVD
player (a standalone unit hooked to a TV set), then Photoshop Album *would*
be your target software. Be advised, however, that Album's VCD feature
lacks a certain quality. Pictures are sometimes very grainy or pixelated
and are not worth watching on a TV set, in my opinion. I have both products
on my computer.

So, basically, both softwares will create slideshows in PDF. But if it's
only what you're looking for, PDF slideshows, Elements does a better job
because it will let you enhance the pictures in the process, in an infinite
ways. Album will help you manage them, store them, and do basic retouching
(color correction, red eye removal, color variation, etc.). And since you
already have Zoombrowser, your need for another picture catalog software is
not a priority, you don't need another software duplicating the job of the
first one.

Don't buy the downloaded version of either, though. Go get (or buy online)
the boxed version. As a bonus, you'll get the manual (priceless for
Elements).

Ray

[Chuck Snyder]

Ray, I'll only add a few comments to your excellent review.

In my opinion, Photoshop Album is superior to the other browsers (either
Canon's ZoomBrowser, which I have removed from my computer, or Elements' own
browser, which is very simple and straightforward) if you want to start
tagging and organizing and cataloging your pictures. That's its strength;
its weakness, as Ray pointed out, is in creating a VCD of suitable quality
for TV viewing. It's hoped by all of us Album 1.0 users that the next
version will correct this relatively serious deficiency.

On the other hand, Elements is an excellent program for photo touchup and
enhancement, and I've used the PDF Slideshow capability quite regularly and
am very happy with it. If I personally was faced with choosing one of the
two packages, Elements would be my choice, hands down. But you have to
figure out what's most important to you....

Chuck

[Ray]

Chuck, I'll second that ! I could not get rid of Zoombrowser fast enough!
This idiotic interface (especially more true with incarnation number 4) has
got me completely mad. But, I understand that what pleases me might have an
adversial effect on others :)

And Amazon.com is having a special :
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006ANW9/qid=1060293981/sr=-1/ref=sr__1_etk-software/102-9623290-4000124?v=glance&s=software&n=229534[/url]

Both for 115$ - I paid 99$ for Elements and I believe 49$ for Album, each
seperated... !! It's a good deal!

Ray

[Beth Haney]

By the way, guys, I don't the blame goes to Album for poor quality images when burned to VCD and viewed on a TV screen. It's my understanding that the VCD format itself is the culprit, giving output similar to what you'd get if you recorded to a VCR tape - crappy! I can't give all the citations chapter and verse, but I was doing quite a bit of reading up on this, trying to decide if that format would be enough of an improvement over VCR to warrant trying it. The concensus from almost everything I read was "no." It seems as though the only way to get decent quality images for viewing on a TV screen is through DVD.

And if anyone has information contrary to this, please share it! I'd really like to do this but can't justify it based on what I've learned so far.

[Ray]

Beth,

VCD is not that bad for still images. The problem is Album's. It seems to
produce picture of a lower resolution and then enlarge them to the point of
being pixelated. I have another software to burn DVD / VCD / SVCD, and its
VCD / SVCD are superb. I haven't tested DVD yet because of the lack of a
burner for such format on my part :)

I remember reading there's a difference wheter you record still images or
movies in VCD format. Album seems to pick the worse and apply it to its
VCD. Something, I'm sure, will be fixed in version 2.0

A side by side comparison of Album's VCD and my other software's VCD proves
that Album has a different quality setting, under the same format.

Ray

[Ray]

I wonder if someone with Mac, running Virtual PC could use PSA without
problems?

[Barbara Brundage]

Probably, Ray, but it might make you want to throw your mac out the window, since virtual pc is usually really sloooooowwww.

[Ray]

Barbara... :(
I was counting on this for my applications what don't understand Mac...
Even on a Power Mac dual processors? (Santa might generous this season..!)

Guess I'll be running two computers for a certain time!

[Barbara Brundage]

Hi, Ray. It depends on several things, including which version of windows you load on it. It's not unuseably slow, but it's definitely slower than running mac apps on a mac or win apps on a pc. Some people think it's great, others prefer keeping a cheap pc if they have apps that must run on pc.

What apps would you be using it for?

[Ray]

Beth, my problem is that I have 3500 pictures catalogued in PSA... If I
loose that, I feel that my sanity will vanish the same way...

Note: somedays, I feel it's already gone :)

[Ray]

Microsoft Access (and other Office apps, untill I can buy an Office X
licence, but mainly Access for now), PSA, Visage Expert PDF (a printer
driver to print PDF documents from virtually any application), Novasoft Art
Explosion (it's a catalog of 175,000 clip arts). Nothing really "cpu
consumming" like games or complex calculation. I know the limitation of an
emulator. And I do have my licenses of Windows 98 / XP. So I could get a
Virtual PC with Windows 98 (less cpu consumming I suppose).

[Barbara Brundage]

Well,there is no Access for mac. Depending on what you need--if you just need a flat database, appleworks can do that. If you need a relational database, eventually you would want Filemaker Pro. The system in X can create a pdf from anything you can print, and I don't know what to tell you about art explosion. They have it for mac, too, but I presume the file formats are different. What does the windows version use?

And windows 98 is supposed to run the best under virtual pc, as far as I've heard.

[Jane Carter]

Hi Ray, Don't bother with Virtual PC, as Barbara said, it is slower than molasses running up hill. I uninstalled it, as it also had a few software conflict on my machine.

I have an old PC that won't run much, but I can use the Adobe tutorial discs that won't run correctly on Macs.

But Then there is iPhoto! It is on all new Macs, I have used it on my brother's eMac and it is nice. Album is OK too, but iPhoto should take care of all our needs.
I too, have thousands of pictures, and plan to scan in a lifetime of slides and old snapshots, so I got an external firewire HD, a LaCie one, and use that for all my originals.
I keep the "Best" and the pictures that I am working on, on the Mac but there they are on the ext HD whenever I need them. That is the easiest way and the cheapest, plus I can take it over to my brother's house or friends.
Jane

[Ray]

Barbara: I don't know what file it uses (I think it's TIFF). Nothing to be
worry though, I'm sure. The problem is the search engine (Novasoft Art
Explosion)

Jane : I plan on using what every tools are shipped with my new Mac. I
don't buy software when I don't have to. I also plan on using the included
CD-RW/DVD-R burner for storing my pictures. And showing them to my familly.
They were really impressed when they first saw a VCD full of my pictures on
the big screen we have (32"). Their jaws will all over the floor :)

Ray

[Jane Carter]

Hi Ray, The CD burners are great! There are several ways to show the pictures on the TV, but having CDs to give to family is nice. But still, I would buy an external HD if you have as many pictures as we do. My problem is sorting them all out.

A new Mac is getting very close to both you and me. I just have to decide what I need. The new G5s look great, but I wonder if I would really need all that power.

This fall I expect the prices to fall on the older models, there might be some very good buys for Macs for us. Not that my G4 isn't still doing its job, just looking at OS X and all the included goodies with a new Mac.
I hope that all our Adobe stuff is OK for X, it says so on the boxes, so lets go for it!
Jane

[Barbara Brundage]

I hope that all our Adobe stuff is OK for X, it says so on the boxes




What do you have that's different from what everyone here is using, Jane? Just curious.

Hi, Ray. Yes, I thought about the file browser, but there are several freeware/shareware cataloging utilities you could get.

[Ray]

Jane, a rule in computer : always buy the best your money can afford. If
you have sufficient funds to buy a PowerMac, go for it. In the long run,
your over powered computer will be more likely to live longer, in the sense
that when Mac OS XI (a wild guess) comes out, still your over powered Mac
will be able to handle it, and you'll save money by not having to buy a new
Mac for several years.

I did that with my last PC and I haven't upgraded it in more than 18 months,
except for the last memory module I added (because my pictures are really
fat!)

Ray

[Ray]

Or, I could return to programming and build my own one (I'm an
analyst-programer). I've not programmed (personnaly) in years, but doing
so again might prove to be fun after all! I do it, however, on a weekly
basis at my job, when problems require it.

[Barbara Brundage]

Well, it depends on what you want to do, Ray. My imac does everything I need it to do very well, and I don't yearn for a tower, myself. Different ways of looking at the world, I guess.

I've noticed that with macs, at least, people tend to be drawn to certain kinds of machines--I have a friend who always has a big noisy high-powered tower, although she mostly uses it to run the same Finale program that I was able to run on my ancient trusty performa with 16Mb of ram and a 770K hard drive. But she just likes knowing that all that power is there whether she ever needs it or not, whereas to me it seems like total overkill. Well, that's why they make different models.

And if you are on a budget, the software bundle that comes with the consumer models is mighty attractive.

You know Ray, I had my last mac for 7 years before upgrading and that's not at all uncommon for mac owners. That's why the sales figures are so misleading--macs are about 3 to 5% of sales, but about 10% of all computer users are using a mac. The rest of us just don't buy new ones very often.