[Closed] Photoshop Elements, is it worth me getting it?

So what you're saying is that you don't have to think about composition, simply take any old photo and change it later.

I'm saying a few things, but that's not one of them. In the example I gave, the photographer could "edit" the scene in real life, or in Photoshop. I asked you what the moral or artistic difference is between them.

What I AM saying is that a photograph is ALWAYS an interpretation - whether you do that with Photoshop, in the darkroom, or by your camera's internal processing makes no difference.

You used a very contrived example to make your point though. I would make a decision based on my point of view and the demands for taking the photo, and that's my personal decision. You will take a different path, and as I have to repeat for the umpteenth time, BOTH ARE ACCEPTABLE. 🙄 Great images don't have to be perfect, so the can of coke can stay if you want it. And as you say it's interpretation.
The point which seems to be way too complicated is that a photographer will decide on the image before they take the shot and others will change the shot at a later date to achieve their aim. IMO and my opinion, just like yours, is the correct one! 🙄

😆 😆 😆

No-one's arguing otherwise, are they?

Apparently they are

I think you mis-understand. I'm certainly not arguing that.

What I'm saying is that the technology allows people to think that taking a picture is easy and even if the picture isn't 100% perfect it can be manipulated and hey presto, I'm a photographer!!! Photography for me, is seeing the photo before you take the shot, composing, seeing the light adjusting the settings

You're a photographer if you take pictures. End of. There's no yardstick as to what is worthy of the title and what's not. That sounds a lot like snobbery to be honest.

Similarly, you're an artist if you decide what you do is art. So yes, un-made beds, piles of coal, urinals - all art. That's the beauty of it to me.

You don't need the latest gizmos, simply the eye of an artist and the ability to use the camera.

Irony? A camera is a gizmo. All cameras were once the latest thing.

The reason I am taking a contrasting position to you, Don Simon, is that you appear to be arguing from a position of a techno-luddite. Apologies if this is not the case. Personally I don't like over-processed photos (and I've seen lots of those on film as well as digital) but I won't think less of any artist for taking them.

Photography is a bit of a schizophrenic discipline. On the one hand, it's a technical pursuit appealing to those who enjoy geeky details, and on the other it's an art form with all the vagueness and flexibility that can come with.

So what you're saying is that you don't have to think about composition, simply take any old photo and change it later.

If you like, yes. Who the hell cares? I won't look down on anyone for it. I might not like it, but that (and only that) is my perogative as a viewer. You don't HAVE to do anything.

BOTH ARE ACCEPTABLE

Yep, that's what we're saying. You seem awfully disparaging of those who use PS though, which is unfair and a little bit offensive.

a photographer will decide on the image before they take the shot and others will change the shot at a later date to achieve their aim

You are still a photographer if you use PS. Clearly. Anyone using light to make images (photo + graph) is a photographer.

Here you go Mol, this is the bit where I say I have PS but prefer not to use it, not anti PS. Am I a snob? Probably. 😆
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photoshop-elements-is-it-worth-me-getting-it#post-2203813 ]http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photoshop-elements-is-it-worth-me-getting-it#post-2203813[/url]

A high tech gizmo seen earlier today. 🙄
[img] [/img]

Luddite, maybe. I just get a bit sick of people who pick up a camera and think that taking good photos is easy. Software can devalue what I believe is an art form. The photographer is the artist with the imagination and the drive. I don't begrudge the use of technology, but I do begrudge the dependance on software or technology in place of experience and skill of a photographer. More purist than luddite.
Don't be offended by my comments, raise your game. 😉

I think I also said earlier that a photograph is any image that leaves a camera, therefore the person who takes the photo is a photographer. At no point is the word good being used and this becomes very subjective.

I'm starting to get bored now. 😥

I just get a bit sick of people who pick up a camera and think that taking good photos is easy

I don't know anyone who thinks that 🙂

Software can devalue what I believe is an art form

That's where we will agree to disagree then 🙂

At no point is the word good being used

Hmm yeah, a semantic point though: If we are going around taking photos then we aspire to be photographers (often, I know I do) so to be told we cannot be one because we use PS is therefore a negative allegation, don't you think? I appreciate that you might not be doing it deliberately..!

Did Polaroid shooters have the same arguments with regular film shooters back in the dark days of film?

so to be told we cannot be one because we use PS is therefore a negative allegation, don't you think?

But I have never said that, have I?

i think you are all over analising the process of taking a photograph and what is done with it.

i don't care if you coat your own glass plates and spend days producing a platinum/palladium print, shoot digital and produce perfect files through capture/HDR/stitching/photoshop software, shoot black and white film/dev in pyro or rodinal/print using cold cathode on agfa record-rapid with a selenium bath and once through the glazing machine.

it's all about knowing what you want to shoot and how to achieve it with the tools available. real, hyper-real, unreal or unrecognisable it doesn't matter.

although it's a bit of a moot point if it's just pics of your bikes/sunsets/close ups of household objects/ your own camera equipment to show off to other flickr users.

🙄

Don Simon,

I refer you to the first pic I posted on the previous page (reproduced below for ease of reference). It's the first time I used HDR to get the image I wanted because none of the three bracketed exposures captured the entire tonal range of the scene. They either blocked in all the shadow detail so I could get the sky and reflections properly exposed or blew the highlights to reveal the detail in the dark areas. HDR let me blend three exposures to get everything the way I wanted it (it's not a great shot because the three frames don't line up exactly despite using a tripod).

Point is the image out of the camera wasn't good enough so I resorted to software trickery to produce what I wanted. As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly analogous to darkroom experimentation (dodging, burning etc) where the photographer/artist manipulated the image parameters to get exactly the desired image on print.

Camera technology moves on apace - many cameras how have an auto HDR mode which may cause purists to throw up their hands in horror, but the same purists may not think twice about relying on the firmware which gives them correct exposures every time without the need for complex calculations and hand-held light meters.

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5190031374_73f30963e4.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5190031374_73f30963e4.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5190031374/ ]323/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

HDR is actually an early dark room technique from the days of low DR film (back in 1850 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging ]apparently[/url]).

I take some photos to remember things exactly how they were: my bike by a sign post etc and I do not Photoshop these as I basically can't be bothered.

I take other photos, sunsets, panoramics and landscapes etc because they are aesthetically pleasing and I then use Photoshop to make them better. Maybe HDR, maybe removing a person/bin that was in the way.

For the OP, if Elements isn't too much of an outlay and you like to tidy up the odd photo then it's a worthy investment I reckon.

stuartie_c, I'm not too sure what your point is, but you clearly had an objective and put some thought into the final image you wanted and used the available tools to achieve the objective, which is perfect. Maybe one of the original photos with the shadows may have been better, who knows?
I am not against the technology, I am against the way people mis-use (IMHO) it.

but the same purists may not think twice about relying on the firmware which gives them correct exposures every time without the need for complex calculations and hand-held light meters.

And if I only shoot in manual? 😉

This has to be one of the dumbest photo threads ever

Agreed. On a par with the arguments about whether or not people are "real" mountain bikers based where they live, or whether they use mudguards...

And if I only shoot in manual?

Then you're as pure as the driven snow (provided you don't use the histogram... 😉 )

nedrapier - Member

This has to be one of the dumbest photo threads ever

Agreed. On a par with the arguments about whether or not people are "real" mountain bikers based where they live, or whether they use mudguards...

Hopefully you stopped reading the moment you decided that your time was being wasted, and hopefully you didn't waste too much when thinking about and writing your most constuctive contribution. But thanks for sharing your inner most thoughts.

@ stuartie_c, 😆

This thread is nothing without SimonFBarnes.... 🙁

"so to be told we cannot be one because we use PS is therefore a negative allegation, don't you think?"

But I have never said that, have I?

Well, you said ...

I can't quite look at a photoshopped photo as a photo

which is as near as dammit.

In the end I think people make images. How they do it is not relevant.

Wunundred!

I bet poor Poddy is sitting quitely weeping at how this thread has turned out... 😥

which is as near as dammit.

It's nowhere near the same. 🙄

Do you just hang around waiting to get the 100th post Fred? 😉

[img] [/img]

I am not against the technology, I am against the way people mis-use (IMHO) it.

Your initial posts on the subject seemed to strongly imply that you were against PS and its ilk. Anything is not good if mis-used, by definition almost.

You might as well read a Mills and Boon and conclude the novel is a terrible art form.

My initial post says that I have PS but prefer to not use it and I prefer to try and get the photo right first time, I also recommended that PP buy Elements and give it a try. Experience and broader minds etc. Don't try to twist what I have said. It does appear to me that while I'm happy that PS exists, you do seem to have a major problem with people who don't embrace technology blindly.

The accounts of Mills and Boon would tell me that it's a highly successful art form. I don't see the comparison you're making. Perhaps the infinite monkey theorem might explain it better, they might possibly complete the works of Shakespeare, but will they know how they got there? And could they repeat it on demand?

Don't try to twist what I have said.

Well that's a very paranoid interpretation of events, isn't it? Would it not be a little more rational to think that we have misunderstood what you're getting at through either our faulty reading or your un-clear writing? After all, that's quite common; people being nasty and devious is less so.

you do seem to have a major problem with people who don't embrace technology blindly.

That would be ridiculous. Like I said you SEEMED to be dismissing it blindly. What in my posts suggests I am advocating not thinking about things?

However if I have misinterpreted your posts then I apologise unreservedly. As an aside, when I feel my message has not accurately made the leap from my mind to my listener's, I tend to apologise for any of my own failings too and not to blame them for deliberately twisting words 🙄

Well that's a very paranoid interpretation of events, isn't it?

Would it not be a little more rational to think that we have misunderstood what you're getting at through either our faulty reading or your un-clear writing?

After all, that's quite common; people being nasty and devious is less so.

As an aside, when I feel my message has not accurately made the leap from my mind to my listener's, I tend to apologise for any of my own failings too and not to blame them for deliberately twisting words

They aren't, usually. What normally happens is that people've mis-read or I've not made myself clear.

What a strange thread.

All photos are post-processed, whether they come from a digital or an analogue camera. They always have been. How much post-processing is irrelevant.

Here's the very first photograph ever taken.
[img] [/img]

Now to get that the metal plate upon which it was effectively burnt was washed, polished, covered in ink and pressed on a peice of paper. How much washing, polishing, inking and pressing that was applied was all post-processing.

Popped on to check out the classifieds and came accross this tread which has snagged my interest. I have come to the view that slating different styles is pointless as it is no more than an expression of personal taste. I came to photgraphy about 18 months ago and whilst I have enjoyed snapping the family holiday, school sports [where this is allowed in our current day and age] etc, I have also tinkered [Photoshop Elements 7- bit out of date now] with the 'porcessing aspect of the genre. For e.g. HDR intriguesd me for a while and I have dabbled. Some of what I produced and loved I am no longer enthralled by. But done well I still believe is attractive [at least to me]. here' a subtle hdr I took last year:
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4830608856_85ace9963b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4830608856_85ace9963b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I'm now interested in playing with texture and as this is a bike forum here's one of my textred creations:

[img] [url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/5147056692_5d70a5643f.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/5147056692_5d70a5643f.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
So there you have it. Elements will improve the way your photos look. Even in the dark room photos were tweaked etc this is just the digital update. If you want simple meat and potatos tidying up Elements will do that- if you want to experiment it will do that to. It's up to you.
p.s not sure I have posted the photos successfully. If not check out [amongst others if interested]:
textured-bike
and
foxhil_hdr

here' a subtle hdr I took last year

I like the second one and neither is pretending to be something they're not.

I'm glad I found this thread, I missed it first time around.

I've often fancied trying my hand at photography. Arguments like the one here serve as a healthy reminder of why I haven't, and thus save me from spending lots of money on a camera.

Thanks, STW!

One less thing to not understand then. 😆

And the horse you rode in on.