I’ve ben toying with getting Elements for a while and whilst I’ve finally got the spare money for it, I’m not convinced it’ll be worth it. I mostly only take photos for me (Although I have sold a few at bike races) and I’m generally very happy with how they come out. I don’t like the overy ‘processed’ look I’ve seen in some people’s pics (HDR and all that) and I don’t really like spending hours faffing with pics. Mostly, if I want to do some editing I do it with Piknik on Flickr and that suits me fine

So I need convincing it worth the cash, instead of hanging onto the money and upgrading my rather battered 400D later this year….

Hmmmmmmmm

For instance, stuff like this, I’m very happy with it. I can’t really see how PS could improve it much, to my eye anyway…..

IMG_8520 by PeterPoddy, on Flickr

What do you want software for? And have you considered Lightroom?

Elements is actually very good, I would go for it – you don’t need to go heavy handed on the processing 😉

What do you want software for?

I don’t know. What can it do for me? That’s pretty much the question I think! 🙂

How about http://www.gimp.org/ ?

Free but can be a tad tricky to use.

Pies, I’ve looked at Gimp before and I just can’t fathom out how to even download it! 😳

EDIT – Looks like it changed. And I am a bit thick!

I use DXO to process, adjust WB, apply global sharpening, adjust exposure, apply curves, straighten, crop and remove distortion.

I then, sometimes, go on to Element to do selective stuff of specific areas with layers: sharpening, blurring, exposure, curves. I’ll then occasionally remove distracting ‘things’ – anything from cars in the background, power lines to wrinkles on a lady…

The other common use I have for elements is merging panoramas and group shots.

Elements is cheap for what it is. Gimp on the other hand is expensive for what it is 😉

I would second Gimp, tricky to use yes but so can Elements if you are new to it.

Adobe use to do a product called Photo Deluxe which is free now. Has quite a few good tool in it. I installed it on my folks (who are not too hot on computers) computer and they use it all the time to cut peoples heads from one photo to another and blend them in. Even added touching up faces to remove blotches and whiten teeth.

Weather you want to do all this is another question. I rarely use any post processing and have access to full blown photoshop if I do.

I don’t know. What can it do for me? That’s pretty much the question I think!

I use Lightroom for organising (date/subject/colour/etc.) on Import, through development, and at export. Development is non-destructive and can be applied to one photo or as many as you select. It’s not very easy to describe things I don’t know what it is somebody is after, so I would suggest that you take a look on the Adobe site (link). You can even get a free 30-day trial.

It’s brilliant and amazing value for money. With it you can:

– Edit photos by moving or removing things (better than I managed it)
– Improve photos with stuff like sharpness or contrast etc, make your pictures look better or accentuate stuff to get the effect you want
– Make graphic art like logos or webpage graphics if you ever fancy it
– Make your photos look more like the way you saw it in your head and less like it fell out of the camera.

With film, half the process was taking the shot and half developing the images. With digital, if you are just using them straight out of the camera then you are doing the equivalent of sending your photos to Boots. Fine, of course, but there’s half a world of photography awaiting your discovery 🙂

+1 Lightroom – especially if you’re planning on covering more bike races. Nothing beats it IME for dealing with large numbers of photos.

– Make your photos look more like the way you saw it in your head and less like it fell out of the camera.

That’s the thing. I’ve practiced a lot and I reckon I’ve now got a good hit rate of good to poor shots. Most of my poor ones are now out of focus for some reason, or just uninteresting.
That one I’ve posted above is, I’m faily sure, just how it came off the camera. I don’t think I even cropped it. Being critical on myself the flash is a bit harsh, but if I ever get round to it, a warming gel on the flash will sort that. IIRC I only chucked about 40-50 shots away that day out of about 600

I’ll probably give Gimp a second shot I think. 🙂

Thaks for the advice so far, chaps! 🙂

I’ve sent you an email, Podster.

I’ve taught Photoshop to folk, most of whom had Elements. Elements is a great introduction to the full-fayt version, as it shares many of the same tools and functions. It’s still quite complex though, and requires patience and persistence.

For Poddy, such features as contrast control, colour balance and cropping will be useful, but some of the other features might be a bit bewildering. And try to stay away from the ‘special effects’. Speshly HDR. Done subtly, it can be quite effective, but it’s rare that it is done subtly. Some truly nasty stuff done using HDR.

Here, it’s fairly restrained and used to create a particular and unique effect, which works quite well:

Here, it’s just nasty:

Photoshop isn’t really about slightly enhancing pics to make them a bit better, cos that’s like driving a Ferrari at 20mph just to the shops and back, but it’s about using photographs as the basis of digital art and composition. And to remove blemishes from ladies’ bottoms in glossy fashion magazines.

I personally wouldn’t bother. I’ve got Photoshop and almost never use it as I prefer to try and get the shot straight from camera. Although there is a place for it in the world I can’t quite look at a photoshopped photo as a photo. Does that make sense? I fully accept that there are areas of photography and artistry which require Photoshop, but it isn’t for me and is only used in extreme cases and more or less for levels and nothing else.
Having just seen the price of Elements it might be worth a punt or send me an email to chat off board….info@simoncarter.es…

Gotta say I hate anything that has any kind of HDR effect on it – it immediately makes the shot look like it has come from a computer game like ‘Doom’ and is often a substitute for taking a good shot in the first place – you know, considering things like ‘composition’ and ‘exposure’ and ‘depth of field’.

Here, it’s fairly restrained

i just wet myself.

Well, it’s relative I spose, MrSmith! 😀 I meant relative to some of the hideous examples of overdone HDR you see around a lot.

Yes, you can see the technique’s bin applied, but to good effect, I think. I’m not that big a fan of the pic, but i can see that a particular effect was intended, and it’s been achieved quite well imo.

Someone did post a HDR shot on here a few months ago (countryside shot in Scotland I think). That one was properly wonderful but it is the only one I have ever really liked.

I don’t mind any kind of effect as long as the effect is done for the benefit of the shot, not just because everyone else is doing it.

And to show what can be done without a single effect – this is straight from the camera (digital compact), no cropping or anything (I had to move quickly as the sun/cloud was quickly moving and also had no time to compose it any better) – just pointed the camera out of the door halfway through feeding my kids.

Elf, it looks like that pic is only missing Jesus, arms wide with the light spreading from his halo. Did you shop him out?

Actually, I’m only joshing but typing that has just reminded me of kitsch-iest thing I have ever seen which a friend had given to her at christmas. I can’t do justice with a description but it was a mixture of cheap reproduction of rennaissance madonna and child, brass clock and flashing red LEDs. I would have considered overkill as a prop in Father Ted.
I guess you’d have to see it.

Although there is a place for it in the world I can’t quite look at a photoshopped photo as a photo. Does that make sense?

To me, yes it does! 🙂

ELfin, yes just seen your mail. Agreed. 🙂 But I think both of those pics you posed look ‘false’. I’m after a good pic of what’s there. And that’s not it!

MF – Nice shot 🙂

Actually, I’m only joshing but typing that has just reminded me of kitsch-iest thing I have ever seen which a friend had given to her at christmas. I can’t do justice with a description but it was a mixture of cheap reproduction of rennaissance madonna and child, brass clock and flashing red LEDs. I would have considered overkill as a prop in Father Ted.

Oooh! Can I have it? PLEEEASE???

Fair point. It’s quite a ‘sentimental’ pic, but I was just looking for something that showed the HDR technique used quite well. It’s not an easy task.

But I think both of those pics you posed look ‘false’. I’m after a good pic of what’s there. And that’s not it!

Oh yeah, I agree. But sometimes one might want to illustrate an idea or concept, and use a particular effect to ‘enhance’ an image in order to do so. I have no problem with that. As I said, Photoshop’s not just about enhancing photos.

As my photography tutor once said (although I never did really agree with him).

‘Photographers record an event, artists interpret them’.

So, by that thinking, no filters should be allowed, ever.

Aren’t artists allowed to use photography then?

I’ve heard similar tosh. I take little notice of it…

As I said, I didn’t really agree with him.

Last I heard, he was running a little B&B.

Does it accommodate people of differing sexual persuasions?

Although there is a place for it in the world I can’t quite look at a photoshopped photo as a photo.

You probably look at photoshopped photos all the time without knowing it.

Look at it this way. If you were using film and doing your own darkroom development, you’d be making choices about paper and exposure time as a matter of course to get the effect you want. Photoshop is just this. Your camera isn’t the source of truth, it’s just a computer’s choice of what you might want. Handing over half the creative process to a machine. That might be fine, but as long as you realise that what comes out of your camera can be a raw material not a finished thing 🙂

Bear in mind your camera is already processesing stuff for you unless you shoot RAW, and if you shoot RAW without putting it through some software yourself you’re being a bit silly imo 🙂

I think some of you are confusing heavily processed or altered pictures with Photoshop in general. It’s not all HDR and flashy effects.

Elf – With some elementary photo-shopping, simple electronics and an aptitude for gawdiness you could make your own. If I had time I could mock one up for you (easy now).

‘Photographers record an event, artists interpret them’.

I’m glad you disagreed with him. I don’t know of any artists or photographers who wouldn’t.

I’ve used Adobe products at work for years and really rate them. However, GIMP is free and I’ve been impressed with it at home. Its not inherently difficult to use – its just different to the way Adobe products work and there are fewer tutorials on the net.

If you can’t download the Gimp, you shouldn’t be allowed near a computer.

Pete, in the first picture there are a few subtle improvements that can be made with a simple bit of post processing. Firstly, to get an element of speed in the shot, you can add a few ‘blur lines’ around the wheels. And fire trails – not enough fire trails. Also, I see what you have done with the fork, but again that looks just too photoshopped, so I’ve put it back for you. Plus, his number was wrong too.

Here’s what it could look like after a bit of practice with top photoshop software:

Please forward any royalties to me, ta.

DrP

PMSL! 😆

Take a look at Pixlr – runs in the browser and has 90% of photoshop functionality.

i think you need to realise the difference between high dynamic range compressed into an image and tone mapping they are quite different in visual style but are both labeled under under HDR. i use HDR software in my work quite a lot, never tone mapped and image flickr style though

Does it accommodate people of differing sexual persuasions?

Knowing him as I did as a student I think he would actively encourage it.

I don’t understand that and would be grateful if you could explain please, MrSmith.

Yea, we have it on the laptop (set to use a lot of virtual memory or whatever tis refered to as when you use the HD as spare RAM but still runs acceptably quick).

Does a lot of stuff that you don’t ‘need’, but can occasionaly be usefull for removing blemishes.

a heavily tone-mapped example

technically HDR images are tone mapped but they can be done purely to compress a higher dynamic range into a printable image without affecting the colours.
i use bracketeer, it doesn’t have any tone mapping controls and can’t produce the wacky tones so is perfect for rendering brightly lit interiors without changing the colour of the fabrics/furnishings

(not my pic)

Mr S, Lordy that first pic of yours is utterly FOUL!!! 🙂

HDR always makes cloud look like the sky in a doomsday film.

it’s not my pic!
i wouldn’t have uncorrected barrel distortion in an interior shot either 🙂