Photoshop is good for editing photos, and so is the elements category, but photoshop cc is also good for drawing and art, and while elements can do it, it's very clunky. I think it should be upgraded, and on that topic, the UI for photoshop looks like it's from an outdated 3-year-old kids math game, I think it should also be more professional. This problem also goes for Premiere Elements. I understand they are kind of like a tutorial, but there's an expert mode, which needs an expert layout. I use photoshop at school, and I'm used to that amazing layout.
My question on the subject of making PSE have more of the features and look more like PS: Since the Photography plan is very little more per year than PSE with annual updates, and even includes Lightroom and all those mobile apps, plus Cloud storage, why exactly should Adobe provide Photoshop features in PSE? Photoshop Elements is designed to allow people to have a perpetual license with a "Photoshop-like" appearance and function, but it's never been meant to replace everyone's need to buy Photoshop—whether for the more professional UI or for the more professional features and functions.
Why do you think they should provide all of that to people who might purchase PSE once every few (or several) years, given that they've made getting the full Photoshop so very (relatively) inexpensive, even if it is an annual cost?
I'm just curious because this kind of request is something we see fairly often, and I'm wondering why, if you want Photoshop, you don't just subscribe to Photoshop? If you quit your subscription, you won't lose access to your PSD files since so many image editors can handle them, including LR's Library module which remains accessible for exporting and printing, even if you won't be in the Develop module for edits.
So I can't see, other than on principle, why you'd be opposed to subscribing to the Photography Plan? And if it IS on principle, why do you think Adobe should invest a great deal more money in making PSE more like PS (since actually, every year they do just that if you look at the features they keep adding), just so you don't have to purchase a subscription?
Maybe a better way to make your request would be to state here more descriptively just what is truly lacking in the painting tools in PSE and what features they might add to improve them, so the Adobe team can consider that as they upgrade PSE. You still can't expect them to simply copy what Photoshop offers professionals.
And the UI is something they get around to for all their apps from time to time, whether we like the change or not. <G> It's a very expensive process and filled with potential for productivity issues to arise. Perhaps there, too, you can give them a reason why your productivity or workflow would be enhanced with some specific instances of them changing aspects of the UI?
Is it too colorful, and the colors are a distraction, so perhaps a preference to use a non-colored UI would help? Is there too much travel distance with a mouse because they lack keyboard shortcuts for menu items, or enough choices in a context-sensitive menu? Are their features and functions too scattered throughout too many panels and menus? I don't use PSE, so I have no idea about any of this, but if you want them to change the UI, perhaps they need to know what changes you have in mind that are important to productivity and workflow.
I never said I want photoshop, I just want a more professional UI, I don’t want all photoshop features. I just want the current features to be less clunky.
Okay, I now understand that you don't want Photoshop or you wouldn't be asking for a better version of PSE. But I think you missed my main point. Just saying "be more like PS" doesn't say anything to Adobe. You need to be more specific in what actual Photoshop features you find missing from PSE that you think you should have. For painting—what Photoshop tools for painting does PSE lack that you need, whether in the way of how they behave or what they can do that PSE can't?
"Clunky," I'm afraid, is rather subjective and not very descriptive. It usually means something doesn't perform well. If that's the case, you'll get a lot more traction with Adobe if you describe what doesn't perform well and why. And if in general you just don't like PSE because it "feels clunky," then why not use PS? You don't have to use, or even want, all of the features. Most people don't.
If it's appearance that frustrates you, you still need to say what in the appearance of PSE is difficult for you? On1, Affinity Photo, Topaz Studio, DXO's Photolab, all have different appearances. I'd count them as software that professionals can and do use. So what exactly is "unprofessional" about PSE's appearance? What exactly should the Adobe team look at?
I know a lot of people who love PSE just the way it is. They aren't saying they can settle for less because what they do isn't all that important. They're saying it does what they need it to. So I'm only suggesting you give Adobe something definite to chew on when they get together to plan out their next feature list.