Yesterday, commenter Chris Norris wrote:
I was totally okay with the extra Extended version until I read about image stacks and what that will mean for photographers. The line we keep hearing from Adobe is, "CS3 will be great for photographers, Extended is for people doing 3d and super fancy stuff that photographers don't care about." That seemed okay until I read this about stacks…. To me, that indicates that they're just going for the money with the CS3 Extended. Yeah, CS3 is great, but... if you're REALLY SERIOUS about this stuff, you should have Extended, right?
Adobe's John Nack speaks to that question on his blog today:
Now, I'll admit that seeing image stacks this way makes our marketing story a little more challenging. Didn't we say that "Photoshop Extended" is meant to offer specific capabilities to people who need them, and that we haven't withheld core photographic functionality in order to get every customer wanting/using Extended? We did say that, and it's true. Image stacks are powerful and (I think) pretty cool, but I'd feel uneasy about overselling them a core photographic tool. There's both power and potential here, but it's a little more science-fair-ish than we'd like to sell for mainstream photography work.
I'd say there are plenty of arguably "science-fair-ish" features of regular Photoshop that could be characterized as going way beyond mainstream "core photographic tools." HDR anyone? On the other hand, given the number of smart, creative people who use Photoshop, it's not surprising that someone quickly came up with an artistic use for a tool that was engineered for science. What do you think?