Photoshop Elements 9

[donoreo]

I would guess the help files use Australian spellings rather than US, as well as the software licence would be compliant with Australian law. The "Canadian" version comes with French as well and a licence agreement that complies with Canadian law. However I do not think the help files use Canadian spellings, but use US. We are somewhere in between UK and US spellings (i.e. use "our" rather than "or" as in colour but "z" rather than "s" as in realize).

[GeoffWessex]

Yes, and in the shops we buy stuff by the pound and then take it to the check-out and they charge us 'per kilogram'. Strange - but at least our distances are marked in kilometers - confuses the hell out of the Americans.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Stormsong

Discs are categorised into world zones, for some unknown reason.

That's because of films, as they sell them for different prices in different zones, they don't what you to buy a cheaper version from the USA.

[donoreo]

Originally Posted by GeoffWessex

Yes, and in the shops we buy stuff by the pound and then take it to the check-out and they charge us 'per kilogram'. Strange - but at least our distances are marked in kilometers - confuses the hell out of the Americans.

That is because of the forced migration to SI (Metric system) in the 1970's and then the cancellation of the program. I was only taught SI in school (started in 1973) but I will give my weight in pounds not kilograms.

[Markandrew]

Are we turning into button pressers, or do we take photograps.
Knowing how much dosh sits on my tripod id be gutted if i then had to go home and fix all the mistakes.
yes ive been at it for 35 years so i know alittle.
Spend moore time on location, learn to understand what the elements are doing and how to use them.
Its a better reward than cheating in photo shop.
Mark

[Dagwood]

Originally Posted by Markandrew

Are we turning into button pressers, or do we take photograps.
Knowing how much dosh sits on my tripod id be gutted if i then had to go home and fix all the mistakes.
yes ive been at it for 35 years so i know alittle.
Spend moore time on location, learn to understand what the elements are doing and how to use them.
Its a better reward than cheating in photo shop.
Mark

Many of us have "been at it" and for longer than 35yrs at that, but not all of us are as good at "it" as you obviously are. To that end some of us have found that we can now not only take a reasonably good photo but we can crop it, boost the colours or alter the exposure level, then sharpen it (which some say is a necessary evil for any digital photo) and even print it out at home. All this without chemicals or expensive enlarging or developing equipment. At the end of all this we now have photos we can feel reasonably proud of and yet still have the opportunity to explore the creative side of layers and other artistic aspects of Photoshop and Elements. Do I feel any of this is "cheating"? No, I don't, but I guess the Luddites went through the same anguish that non-cheating photographers are going through today.
Dagwood

[GeoffWessex]

Well said Dagwood.
There again, I got a library book out the other day - B&W landscapes photographed on film..... but not ordinary film..... these were on Linhof 4" x 5" cameras and similar, then developed in the normal way. It seriously makes me wonder what the heck any serious photographer is doing playing around with cameras that have a sensor that's about the size of an average fingernail. The pictures weren't printed all that large - but you could tell that they'd have been fine even on A1 or A2 paper sizes. Sharp and crisp out on the edges of the prints. All got a bit depressing.

[Dagwood]

Thanks Geoff, there again we are talking about a completely different technology. Even then they dodged and burnt ,over and under developed, so I guess nothing has ever just been take a shot and guarantee it's fine first time. I recall working in London some 30 years ago and an American director had the most beautiful A4 B&W prints on his wall. They were of the Yosemite Valley and were unsigned but were unmistakeably Ansel Adams work. "Oh" said the director " I used to spend Summers down there staying with his family. He was always giving us his rejects"
Was I green with envy!
As you say we work with tiny sensors but the technology has moved on and I for one am always amazed at the detail our little cameras reproduce. If we can enhance them a tad more with PS or PSE then I'm all for it and don't think I'm cheating any more than Ansel Adams, he just happened to be a better photographer than I will ever hope to be..........but then he had rejects too!!!
Dagwood

[GeoffWessex]

Yes, Ansel Adams was one of the great post-processors, working for several days on one good print, dividing it up into 'mapped' areas for exposure etc. But really, the pictures in the library book were edge-to-edge perfect. A medium format digital camera would match it - and possibly beat it - but even a full-frame (i.e. a sensor the same size as a 35mm frame) would have a struggle.

There's a lecturer in the local university here and he uses a 20" x 12" Linhof.... and only ever makes contact prints. (Come to think of it, how would enlargements from a negative that size be made?)
They're absolutely fantastic - except that he photographs the dullest locations and objects imaginable in his pursuit of 'Urban Decay'. What a waste!