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

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.