Workflow Differences - Photoshop vs Aperture

I am no expert. That said, everything that I have read or learned in forums, how-to books and other sources suggest that there is a difference in the recommended workflow when one compares Photoshop to Aperture.
Here's my contention: In Photoshop, I think one is supposed to crop, RESIZE, adjust the image, sharpen (USM) and then save (export).
In Aperture, the suggested workflow, if you follow the list in order of the Adjustment Hud, is to crop, adjust the image, edge sharpen and then export the image at a size of one's choosing.
I like the easy to follow Aperture workflow. But doesn't an image suffer somewhat if it's sharpened before being re-sized (as the last step during saving during export)?

I am no expert. That said, everything that I have
read or learned in forums, how-to books and other
sources suggest that there is a difference in the
recommended workflow when one compares Photoshop to
Aperture.
Here's my contention: In Photoshop, I think one is
supposed to crop, RESIZE, adjust the image, sharpen
(USM) and then save (export).
In Aperture, the suggested workflow, if you follow
the list in order of the Adjustment Hud, is to crop,
adjust the image, edge sharpen and then export the
image at a size of one's choosing.
I'm going to come at this at a bit of a tangent from the discussions so far....
First of all, the thing to know about the order of adjustments in the HUD (or inspector) is that they are not necessarily in the order you would work with them - instead think of that ordering as adjustment layer ordering, in that each of the steps in that list is performed on the image before the next one. As mentioned they are a lot like adjustment layers in that you can change any one at any time and all of the adjustments following will then be performed on the new, changed image - so you can for example duplicate a version and change the exposure and all of the color/shadow/sharpening adjustments are automatically re-applied based on the newly exposed image.
Another important thing to keep in mind for this discussion is that cropping does not actually change the size of the image - it reduces the number of pixels but leaves the pixels in the crop region alone. It is only on export that Aperture up or downsamples. Aperture also seems to do some sharpening on export, so that is where a resolution specific sharpening occurs. I'm not sure yet if it sharpens on upsampling or just downsampling.
I like the easy to follow Aperture workflow. But
doesn't an image suffer somewhat if it's sharpened
before being re-sized (as the last step during saving
during export)?
That's where you must carefully evaluate how much sharpening is OK to apply before you export. One possibility here is to make duplicate, unsharpened (or more mildly sharpened), versions for the intent of export at smaller sizes if it bothers you to export an already sharpened image. Or, if you want to print really large versions of images you may export a version, upscale that using something like Genuine Fractals, and then re-import that larger version for a last step of sharpening.
The key I think it to try some sample exports at the size you are thinking of and evaluate how they look after export with the settings you are thinking to apply (like sharpening).

Similar Messages

  • Using Photoshop With Aperture-Flattens Layers

    I am running into some slight issues when using Aperture 3 and Photoshop CS6.
    I have used Aperture 3 for quite some time. As part of my workflow, I use Nik Software plug-ins for quite some time. In order to fully understand the issue, it would be best to understand a bit about my workflow.
    After I go out and shoot the images, I download the images onto my internal drive so that the images are managed within the library.
    I then proceed to rate the images. When the library is imported all the photos get one star.
    I then go in and star photos that deserve a two star rating.
    With these photos I take all the two stared photos and use the NIk Define plug-in to decrease the noise of the images. After this process this outputs TIFF files that are placed into my library.
    I then make all these new TIFF files that have the noise lessened to three stars.
    Previous to my new workflow, I would go from here utilizing the NIk plug-ins and then further rating the images.
    New Workflow:
    From here I enabled Adobe Photoshop CS6 is an external editor.
    I would export the images I would want to work on in Photomatix Pro to my desktop. After using Photomatix, I would open up the file in Photoshop without importing into Aperture.
    After all my work is done in Photoshop, I would reimport the photo back into Aperture 3.
    While the file was in Aperture 3, I would reopen it in Photoshop.
    The file would show as my layers being applied but not shown. I think it was a flattened image file.
    What I would like to do:
    Be able to reopen with Photoshop photos in my Aperture library but continue preserving the layers from Photoshop.
    Would I need to save the files as PSD files in order for this to work? Any thoughts?
    Anyhow for device would be appreciated.

    leonieDF wrote:
    Aperture does not handle layers, as far as I know. If you import an image with layers, as tiff or as psd, the layers will be preserved, but not displayed with transparency, since Aperture does only handle RGB. If you export the original (master), your layers will be preserved, but if you adjust the image in Aperture and export the edited version, then the resulting file will no longer have layers, all will be flattened.
    If you Aperture only use as a database and not as editor, your approach should work, but if you want to use Aperture's editing tools and export versions, then the layers will be gone.
    Sorry to revive this old thread, but I have a follow up question on exact subject...
    I have run into the same issue and understand your explanation. I have confirmed that I can import a layered master to Aperture, its layers are preserved and if I export it later the layers are still there.
    What I am really surprised about is that if I edit in Photoshop from Aperture, the file opens up in Photoshop, but the layers are not there. Is this right or avoidable?
    Thanks

  • Photoshop or Aperture?

    Which is better/more recommended? Photoshop or Aperture? I use photoshop sometimes but have never used Aperture. What is the main difference between these two? Thanks

    They are not the same
    Photoshop is photo editing software
    Aperture is digital asset management software
    Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_asset_management
    They are two complettely different things
    Allan

  • Aperture workflow using Photoshop

    All,
    To those pro digital photographers out there, or anyone doing high volume and/or serious adjustments (beyond what Aperture can provide), I am interested in what the workflow looks like for those who are using both Aperture and Photoshop.
    I am now in my fourth day of using Aperture, and I feel I've been brought to a crossroads of deciding whether to use Aperture at all, despite the fact that I love some of its features, and I'd like to use it. Here are the parameters acting on the situation:
    1) I must have the ability to edit my RAW, original photos on open (first edit) using Adobe Camera RAW.
    2) I have to have Photoshop as my image editor (for many reasons, just assume its non-negotiable).
    Seems simple enough. But these things are my hurdles:
    1) Inability to get at my Aperture files on the filesystem.
    2) Inability to save from Photoshop directly into Aperture. This is very important if I decide to "Save As..." from Photoshop or do something like create a Picture Package which saves as a new PSD.
    3) Inability to open into Camera RAW.
    4) Inability to save layers in PSD files in Aperture.
    I am trying to be the optimist here and keep an open mind. But honestly, if Photoshop is an integral part of your workflow, how are these obstacles not a deal-killer?
    I'd like to hear from any of you who are using both Aperture and Photoshop together. What does your workflow look like?
    Brad

    2) Inability to save from Photoshop directly into
    Aperture. This is very important if I decide to "Save
    As..." from Photoshop or do something like create a
    Picture Package which saves as a new PSD.
    It's only a workaround rather than a proper solution, but for this bit have a look at the thread on tethered shooting, I listed the steps to set up a hot folder - any image copied or saved to that folder will automatically be imported into Aperture. There is even an option to delete the 'dropped in' file so that the folder doesn't clog up with temporary files.
    Ian

  • NEF exposure value difference in Photoshop and Aperture

    We shoot paintings with a Nikon D2X and 4 SB-800 flash units. We keep a Macbeth in the frame until we get an LAB value of around 85-90 (RGB around 230, 230, 230) in the white patch. Until recently we have used Nikon Capture to control the camera and then opened the images in Photoshop (by way of Adobe Camera Raw) to read the exposure values. On our last shoot we moved to Aperture. Testing had previously shown a variation in the range of three LAB points for previously shot NEFs between Aperture's raw interpreter and Adobe Camera Raw. When we returned to the office and began to process the images we discovered that NEF files opened in Aperture showed the LAB exposure of 85-90 we saw in the field, but when the same NEF files are opened in Photoshop, the white patches are blown out. If we open them in Aperture and transfer them to Photoshop as TIFFs the exposure is the same as Aperture shows -- 85 to 90. As an experiment we opened one in Nikon Capture NX. The values match Photoshop and not Aperture.
    If anyone is interested in helping on the diagnosis, here is a link to one of our NEFs with the offending white patch:
    http://www.catalogueraisonne.org/tmp/2008-06-19_144.NEF
    Does anyone have an explanation of this huge difference of exposure values between Adobe and Capture NX on one side and Aperture on the other?

    Hi,
    Well I've downloaded your NEF file but I'm afraid I'm not seeing the difference that you are. I've loaded the image into Capture NX2, Aperture 2.1, and Lightroom 2 Beta (which is, in effect, using the ACR engine. There is a slight difference in values between them all, but only very slight. Aperture gives readings of 95.3% for luminance; LR gives me R:98%, G:99% and B:99% and Capture NX 2 gives me Readings that average 254 (which must be 99%). None of them are therefore technically blown out, however both LR and CNX2 show them the white patch as blown out if you switch on the lost highlights indicator. Aperture doesn't show them as blown out.
    So the difference range is a matter of 4% roughly, which I think can simply be put down to slight differences in RAW converters and the contract curves that they apply.

  • What is the difference between regular Aperture software and the app? If I were to buy an app or a software as a hobbyist, what should I buy??? Little confused between the two...Please advise.

    Dear All,
    I am a newbie to MAC world. Being an ex-PC guy, I am used to CDs and traditional software. I want to buy Aperture as my main photo editing software. I have been using DXO and Photoshop in the past. I downloaded Apeture trial version and I am comfortable with it. If I were to buy it, should I buy an app or traditional software CD. I edit approx. 4-5 pictures a day, just for personal use though. Please advise.
    Regards,
    Gurpreet.

    That's a function of your Credit Card not of the Software
    But you're right, I was vague. Whether you buy from the App Store or the Disk makes no difference to the functionality of the software. It's the same.
    Regards
    TD

  • How to make Photoshop save Aperture imported JPEG images as JPEGs

    Recently, I upgraded from Photoshop CS 5 to CS 5.1.
    My point and shoot cameras record in JPEG format. Often, I'll import those photos into Aperture and then tweak them in Photoshop using the Edit in External Editor command. My preferences for the external editor in Aperture were set to 8-bit, Photoshop
    With Photoshop CS 5, I would edit the photo and choose Save and the edited photo would be saved back to Aperture as a new version, in a JPEG format.
    Now, using Photoshop CS 5.1, when the imported image from Aperture is converted into a PSD file and when I save back to Aperture, I end up with a PSD file.
    How can I revert to how it was before? JPEG image in Aperture, opened in external editor Photoshop as a JPEG, edited in Photoshop, then saved back to Aperture as a new version JPEG?
    (Though this question is approached in this forum, a solution to my question is never found as each dicussion ends up going off-topic from the original question)

    clapperincus wrote:
    Any further ideas from anyone who's experienced trying to open a JPEG from Aperture in Photoshop as a JPEG?
    Like I said before, you cannot open a jpeg as a jpeg, the file must be decompressed to open in PS or in Aperture, and that has always been the case.
    I do not know how it used to work, but I tested and you are correct that with PS 12.1 and with Aperture 3.2.2 a JPEG sent to open in external editor (PS) is opened into your choice of lossless format and then goes back to Aperture in the lossless format you chose.
    IMO this is the way it should be, because every save into JPEG loses image data, so such saves should be limited to the final export, in this case when the image actually leaves Aperture. If the file was compressed as a JPEG  when leaving PS, decompressed and edited in Aperture, then compressed again to export as JPEG from Aperture, unnecessary additional image data loss would occur.
    It is always better to save the application of lossy compression until the very last step in a workflow because other usages (printing, for instance) may occur before applying the lossy compression.
    -Allen

  • Best workflow - iPhoto + Photoshop (Elements) or simply drop iPhoto?

    Hi everyone.
    I am an amateur photographer but I like to take good pictures and have them look at least semi-pro. My wife and I have been using iPhoto for years to organize our photos. Some basic editing is also done in iPhoto.
    However, the biggest reason to use iPhoto is the ease of organization and the sharing features (share via email, Facebook, etc. right from iPhoto).
    I am ready to move to Photoshop (via Photoshop Elements, I don't need the full program). But I am not sure it is easy to go from iPhoto to Elements.
    Would you recommend:
    1. using iPhoto + Elements (how? right click a picture in RAW and "edit with external editor"?)
    2. simply organize and edit it ALL with Photoshop Elements and forget iPhoto (is there an easy way to import the iPhoto Library with at least some of its organization elelemtns like albums, RAW pictures and dates into Adobe Bridge or Elements?)
    Please help, what would be the best workflow?
    Maybe Lightroom or Aperture? (which don't seem to offer the same features as Photoshop or Elements)...

    We need to clarify a few things.
    You cannot edit a RAW file.
    A RAW is a dump from the camera's sensor. All the data that the sensor "saw" is poured into this container. Nothing can be done with this data. It can't be printed or anything else. All that can be done is to process this data into a usable form - that is to a recognised graphic format: jpeg, tiff, png etc.
    In a point and shoot camera this process is done automatically by the camera. With high end P&S and with dSLR you can either have it done for you in the Camera or do it yourself.
    When you use Aperture you are doing it yourself... Processing the RAW into a working format.
    So, in the iPhoto version you would send the RAW to the Elements, +process it to a jpeg (or whatever)+ and save that jpeg to the desktop and then import it.
    Oddly, iPhoto and Aperture share exactly the same engine for processing RAWs. You've just got more fine control (read: knobs and sliders) with Aperture. If you're content to process your RAWs in iPhoto then it's the same machinery as Aperture.
    With Aperture here's what happens:
    You import the RAW and process it. Aperture records your processing decisions +in a database+ and next time you view the pic applies them live as you view it. (This is why the Hardware requirements for Aperture are much higher than for iPhoto). Again, if you want to print, Aperture makes a printable version on demand.
    There is nothing to be gained (that I know of) from sending the RAW to Elements from Aperture.
    If you want to further edit in Elements Aperture will send a processed tiff to Elements for work (or psd - it's a setting in the Preferences).
    1. I have a lot of pictures which were RAAW and I edited in iPhoto without knowing it would convert them to JPEG as soon as I hit the "edit" button. Now, when I import to Aperture, will Aperture import BOTH the original RAW file AND the edited JPEG version?
    iPhoto did not convert those files to Jpeg. It preserved the RAW and processed the file and saved the output as a jpeg. Want to see your actual RAW? File -> Export: *Kind: Original*.
    Yes, if you use Aperture's Import iPhoto Library option it will bring it all over. But experiment first, because some folks don't like this and prefer to only bring over the RAWs and re-process them in Aperture.
    3. Will Aperture preserve the organization I had in place (e.g. tags, albums, faces, etc.)?
    Yes and No. I'm fairly sure that it brings over Events and Albums. It definitely brings over tags and keywords. It certainly does not bring over Faces. Faces are not part of any standard metadata at this time, and Aperture (and LR) has no way to work with them.
    My advice always when considering a change like this is to download the trial, import a couple of hundred pics and explore and see what happens when you press this button or that.
    Regards
    TD

  • Photoshop vs Aperture (need opinions)

    I would really appreciate the opinion from users of Both. While I have become more proficient with Aperture than I ever thought possible, I find myself struggling in trying to achieve certain results in my photo post processing. Things like desaturating layers is quite impossible on Aperture and I have been told by many of Photoshop's rich feature set for such things (not to mention other keen tools). I think that Aperture remains one of the best tools for cataloging and level of post processing.
    *What are your thoughts people?*
    Thanks,
    Pierre - Toronto

    In an earlier post I analyzed thusly:
    Group A
    Aperture is Apple's pro app for RAW images capture management. Lightroom is Adobe's pro app for RAW images capture management. iPhoto is Apple's free entry-level app for images capture management.
    Group B
    Open-source GIMP or inexpensive Adobe Photoshop Elements are for basic to intermediate image editing, adequate for most photogs. Very expensive full Adobe Photoshop is for pro graphics work and very advanced image editing. Other free and/or low cost editors are also available. Many folks consider the open-source GIMP a superior app to PSE.
    Two apps are needed. Digital photographers ideally should own and learn reasonable competence with one app from each of groups A & B above. Note that Aperture and GIMP/PSE are in different groups.
    IMO the evolution of a digital photog is to start with iPhoto and quickly outgrow it. After that I recommend that the next step is to own both Aperture and GIMP or PSE.
    If one advances to the point of doing really advanced graphics work the upgrade from GIMP/PSE to full Photoshop is easy enough, just expensive and with very substantial additional learning curve. I use the full Design Premium Creative Suite, and the upgrade to CS4 from CS3 is so expensive I am staying with CS3.
    Bridge is Adobe's pro app that comes with full Photoshop and manages files handling within the Creative Suite. I do not include it in Group A above because it is far inferior to Aperture and Lightroom for digital photographers managing DSLR image capture.
    Bridge is a file-management app, not a database. The folks who like Bridge are usually very experienced Photoshop graphics folks (often coming from a long history with film scans, which involves totally different workflow than modern DSLR capture) rather than primarily digital photogs.
    Note that PSE should not be used for RAW image conversion because the RAW conversion engine in PSE is a compromised version of ACR, not the complete version of ACR found in full (very expensive) Photoshop. Use Aperture or camera vendor (e.g. Nikon) software for RAW conversion prior to PSE edits if PSE edits are necessary. In my case for 98% of pix Aperture does it all, no external editor required. Like e2photo said, Photoshop has become a giant plug-in for Aperture .
    -Allen Wicks

  • Saving a file directly from Photoshop into Aperture

    I am interested in saving a file while in Photoshop back in to Aperture. Proposed workflow:
    Load digital file from camera into Aperture>Drag file to CS3; edit/print>save new file in same folder as the original in Aperture.
    I would like to do this directly- I can save the edited file in CS3 to my desktop and then go to Aperture and import the file from my desktop but this seems arcane to me. Anyone know a direct route?
    Thanks in advance- Jay

    BUT, you must save the Photoshopped image using Save (not Save As using a new name or saving to a new location) so that a Photoshop file is saved back in the Aperture library. It would be nice if you could use the Apple-Shift-O to open in Photoshop, and save back as a Jpeg automatically, but we're not quite there yet.
    Those full size Photoshop files will swell your library size pretty quick, which is a good thing; you'll begin to appreciate non destructive editing more fully

  • Workflow using photoshop elements as external editor

    Hi.
    I am very satisfied with aperture 3. I think it is an excellent program, and the organization of pictures are excellent. I love all the editing options as well. However I looked at some tutorials on photoshop elements 9, and really like some of the editing options there, so I am thinking of buying that program. I would like to use aperture 3 as my main photo editing program and organizing all my pictures via aperture 3. However on some pictures I would like to use elements to edit (remove unwanted persons and do on). As I understand it, i will have to set up aperture 3 so that elements will be my external editor. Will the changes I make in elements then be saved in the project library in aperture 3.
    Can anyone with experience on this elaborate?

    Gunfighter, how did you do it? The only options the "home" screen provides are (1) welcome screen opens on start, (2) organizer starts behind welcome screen or (3) editor starts behind welcome screen. Surprisingly, when I start Elements 9 on its own, the welcome screen doesn't show and the program immediately opens in the edit mode. However, when I'm in Aperture and go to external editor, Elements 9 immediately opens with the welcome screen and the picture never transfers from Aperture to Elements; very frustrating! Appreciate any help you can provide.

  • RAW editing workflow with Photoshop Elements 6

    I have been using the following workflow with RAW images in iPhoto and editing them in Photoshop Elements 6. It seems to be working fine. Does anyone see a problem with my workflow???
    I choose to edit in external editor (Elements 6), and the image opens in Camera Raw. I make my edits here because I really like the editing power of Camera Raw. After I am finished, I chose Save As and choose jpeg. The save dialog tries to save back to the Originals folder in the iPhoto Library that the RAW file came from, so I simply choose the appropriate event in the Modified folder and save it there. It replaces the jpeg that iPhoto had created when the original RAW file was imported. When I go back to iPhoto the changes are applied.
    Now I realize that I can't reopen the original RAW file again in Elements without reverting to original, but that is usually not an issue. I also realize that messing with the iPhoto Library outside of iPhoto can be dangerous. Another drawback is that I haven't been able to open multiple RAW photos from iPhoto into Camera Raw so I can apply changes all at once.
    But I can't see anything wrong with the workflow. Am I on the right track, or am I missing something?

    No, I don't believe you can do that with RAW editing. By manually replacing the first modified version with your RAW edited version iPhoto will not update the thumbnail. You will be able to see the edited version if you go to the edit mode or full screen mode. But the thumbnail will not be identical. If that's OK with you then you should be able to go with that workflow.
    If the edits are significant enough you might want to save the new file to the desktop and import as a new file.
    You can try this on a copy of the iPhoto Library. Open the library package and move the contents of the Data folder to the trash along with the Thumb32Segment.data, Thumb642Segment.data and ThumbJPGSegment.data files. Then launch iPhoto with the Command+Option keys depressed and follow the instructions to rebuild the library. Select the first three options. This will rebuild the thumbnail files and my reflect your edited versions. Again, make a backup copy of the library before trying this.
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
    I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.≤br>
    Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

  • Lightroom Workflow & Avoiding Photoshop

    There are still basic colour adjustments that I'm performing in Photoshop for which I suspect Lightroom would be able to handle just as well. But I'm still too addicted to Adjustment Layers to see an efficient way of accomplishing the same thing.
    For example, a typical case:
    I open a photo in Photoshop, and decide to do a B&W conversion. I use a Channel Mixer adjustment layer, and quickly cycle through Yellow/Orange/Red filters. I settle on Red.
    After looking at the result, I decide that the image would be a bit punchier if I increased the saturation before the B&W conversion. So I slip in a Hue/Sat adjustment layer underneath the Channel Mixer, and ramp up the Saturation.
    Hmmm. Better. Now for a little contrast adjustment with a Curves layer: I go back and forth as to whether I like the result of the Curves adjustment when it is placed above or below the other adjustment layers, and I settle on above.
    This workflow should be possible entirely in Lightroom, as LR is a non-destructive editor. However, it seems to me that in order to get the same results as above, I am prevented from experimenting as I described, as LR doesn't stack adjustments -- it just has a history.
    Any thoughts?

    Jim
    I do most of my b&w work in Lightroom, but plenty in Photoshop too, and while you've obviously got good advice from Ian, I'll add a few other thoughts for you:
    1. Create a few presets of your b&w treatments so you can preview the results of the conversions. So instead of your initial run through of the channels in PS, you simply move the mouse over these b&w preset in Develop's left panel and observe the results in the Navigator.
    2. For judging alternatives, play a bit with virtual copies as an alternative to snapshots. Ctrl ' on PC, Cmd ' on Mac is all it takes to create a VC. You can view all the variations side by side in Library, Print too, and eventually make your preferred VC the master and remove the rest (if you want).
    3. Eventually you may well decide that you do actually need to do the conversion in Photoshop. I find this is especially where you want to convert one part of the image differently from the rest - ie not because of deficiencies in LR's decision-making process.
    John

  • Photoshop or Aperture on MBA

    Anyone out there using Photoshop CS5 or Aperture on a MacBook Air? I'm looking to maybe sell my MacBook Pro, get a new iMac for the heavy lifting, but maybe buy a MBA for travel for importing, tagging, and doing light work in Aperture and maybe Photoshop.
    If you have it, or tried it, any thoughts?  Is ridiculously slow?  I have a core 2 duo MBP.  With the SSD drive I'm thinking it can't be too much slower than that.
    Thanks

    Hi Scott,
    I've used both of those programs with perfectly acceptable performance. I would however strongly encourage you to consider the 13" model with 4GB. I was quite disappointed with the screen real estate on the 11" MBA and I question the "future proofing" of a machine with only 2GB of RAM that cannot be upgraded, especially using CS5.
    My local Apple Store has Aperture and CS5 loaded up on their MacBook Airs, if you have a local store it might be worth calling them to confirm if they also have the same image on their floor machines. It's worth playing with the machine before the investment.

  • What is the difference Photoshop and Photoshop Extended with respect to registry and files

    Can someone please help with the difference between Photoshop and Photoshop Extended with respect to files installed or Windows registry.I am aware of the difference in Features.I am not concern about the difference in Features.

    True

Maybe you are looking for