CS3 - what features are new? Upgrade?

Iron Flatline · Mar 29, 2007

Hi all.

Just wondering if anyone has seen a list of differences from CS2 to CS3. I'm trying to determine if there is a "must have" feature.

astrostu · Mar 29, 2007

MacWorld posted an initial look a few days ago: http://www.macworld.com/2007/03/firstlooks/pscs3preview/index.php

karissa · Mar 29, 2007

Oyi, didn't CS2 just come out? Are they going to make people drop hundreds of dollars on their product every year just to keep up to date? Am I the only one a little frustrated by that?

astrostu · Mar 29, 2007

karissa said:
Oyi, didn't CS2 just come out? Are they going to make people drop hundreds of dollars on their product every year just to keep up to date? Am I the only one a little frustrated by that?

Um, it's been two years. CS was released in 2003, CS2 in 2005, and now CS3 in 2007. Plus, this is the largest release "ever," is the first to incorporate what it purchased from Macromedia, and is the first Universal Binary edition for Mac (so it runs natively on the Intel hardware.

And people aren't being forced to buy it. If you don't need the new features, don't get it. I, for one, am not at all "frustrated" by the new version, only by the time it took to come out.

Unreal Tuner · Apr 20, 2007

Has anybody tried CS 3 yet?

clarinetJWD · Apr 20, 2007

I tried the beta a while back...I didn't find much extra useful stuff, and ended up not liking the new interface (I had gotten so used to the current one). I'm back to CS2, it's enough for me!

RedDevilUK · Apr 20, 2007

yep.... and i cant see any difference??? mind you ive only had it 2 days.

astrostu · Apr 20, 2007

Not that I'm trying to put in a plug for MacWorld ... they just published a review of PS CS3 today: http://www.macworld.com/2007/04/reviews/photoshopcs3/index.php

sage95 · Jul 21, 2007

I know very little about photoshop but what I do use is much better in cs3 than cs2. The photomerge for panoramic stitching is much faster and much more acurate, very little in the way of adjustments/blending is needed if the shots are taken correctly (overlap, correct exposure, etc,) Also the B & W converter is much better in my opinion It was money well spent to upgrade as far as I am concerned.

lifeafter2am · Jul 21, 2007

My main reason for the update was for my MacBook Pro. It runs, sooo much better now than it did (big suprise right?). I find that photomerge does work better. I don't have to mess with them as much after the merge.

Garbz · Jul 22, 2007

Interface redesign takes some getting used to. I like it though I think it works much better when editing pictures in fullscreen mode. One thing to note is it is much more responsive on my machine. Startup time has been about quartered from CS2.

glaston · Jul 24, 2007

I've been using it since the final beta and at first it took a little getting used to.
But I agree with Garbz. The noticeable increase in speed was a much hyped feature.

But not as bad as I've heard many other people complain about.
One guy on a different board I go to used the beta and couldn't stand the brightness of the interface elements.
It can't be changed either. The canvas and background can be changed but not the toolbox, palettes or toolbars.

I like the single column toolbox, the customizable palettes with an auto-hide feature.
I also like that you can set it so that the desktop isn't right below the image, and that Photoshop doesn't lose focus when you accidentally click somewhere.

As for features other than the interface.
I really got used to the exposure adjustment layer, B&W adj layer. Since I sometimes shoot HDV CS3 has new video layers and more extensive tools for video.
It also has better healing tools and cloning features for digital matte painting.

I also like that if I plug a point and pray camera in that it will allow me to open simple jpegs in camera RAW and make adjustments as if it were a RAW file.

I think alot of people will like that.
The thing is that unless the image has the extra bit count of a RAW file those adjustments only have limited use.

With a decently exposed image from a little canon powershot 3.2mp I was actually able to still make the needed adjustments in camera RAW and not need to edit it further in Photoshop just like a RAW file.

They were very simple adjustments though. Nothing that required the flexibility that RAW affords. I was just surprised that it worked that well with a jpeg.

CS3 is a good and significant upgrade. It's not revolutionary like the hype made it seem though.
All I'm saying is that before someone runs out and blows the bucks for the extended version you might want to weigh out the benefits.
You can download a trial at Adobe.com

Cuervo79 · Aug 1, 2007

Well, I have been asking myself the same question but I have photoshop CS, I'm most certainly buying the upgrade, the question is, since now Photoshop has 2 versions (the normal one and the extended version), what benefits does the extended version have (I'm talking about a more detailed info than on the webpage)

radphoto · Aug 12, 2007

I've been using Photoshop since version 4.0, and in my opinion this is the best upgrade for photographers I've seen. It is completely worth the upgrade, IMHO. Camera Raw is now toe to toe with comparable raw processors, Bridge has a nice upgrade. Converting B&W in an adjustment layer. There are many more upgrades as well. If you can afford it, go for it.

Sideburns · Aug 14, 2007

I have CS3, and I've noticed it's a lot faster, and smoother than CS2. Also, the magic wand tool has this other selection tool grouped that will select what you ACTUALLY wished the magic wand would have selected with it that really helps...but I can't be 100% sure CS2 never had it...I just never found it, probably...lol.