I own CS6 and just downloaded a trial of Elements...  
As far as I can tell, it dosn't do anything that photoshop doesn't....
Am I missing somthing?

No. Photoshop Elements is kind of a Photoshop Lite.

On 8/23/13 8:12 PM, Mac Davis wrote:
> I own CS6 and just downloaded a trial of Elements...
> As far as I can tell, it dosn't do anything that photoshop doesn't....
> Am I missing somthing?
>

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:29:37 -0400, Craig Schiller
 wrote:

>No. Photoshop Elements is kind of a Photoshop Lite.
>
>On 8/23/13 8:12 PM, Mac Davis wrote:
>> I own CS6 and just downloaded a trial of Elements...
>> As far as I can tell, it dosn't do anything that photoshop doesn't....
>> Am I missing somthing?
>>
Thanks, Craig... That's what I was thinking...

It IS handy, though. It's a lot less complicated than the full Photoshop 
and can do many, if not most, tasks equally well.

On 8/24/13 1:09 PM, Mac Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:29:37 -0400, Craig Schiller
>  wrote:
>
>> No. Photoshop Elements is kind of a Photoshop Lite.
>>
>> On 8/23/13 8:12 PM, Mac Davis wrote:
>>> I own CS6 and just downloaded a trial of Elements...
>>> As far as I can tell, it dosn't do anything that photoshop doesn't....
>>> Am I missing somthing?
>>>
> Thanks, Craig... That's what I was thinking...
>
>

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:51:25 -0400, Craig Schiller
 wrote:

>It IS handy, though. It's a lot less complicated than the full Photoshop 
>and can do many, if not most, tasks equally well.
>
I did find 2 things that were pretty cool, the auto red eye and the
"reflection" filter...
Neither one would make me spend the bucks at the end of the trial,
though...

Well, for some of us who don't want to spend the bucks on the full 
version of PS (me), and probably couldn't deal with all of its 
intricacies if we could (me), it's a dandy alternative.

On 8/24/13 10:32 PM, Mac Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:51:25 -0400, Craig Schiller
>  wrote:
>
>> It IS handy, though. It's a lot less complicated than the full Photoshop
>> and can do many, if not most, tasks equally well.
>>
> I did find 2 things that were pretty cool, the auto red eye and the
> "reflection" filter...
> Neither one would make me spend the bucks at the end of the trial,
> though...
>

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:26:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
 wrote:

>Well, for some of us who don't want to spend the bucks on the full 
>version of PS (me), and probably couldn't deal with all of its 
>intricacies if we could (me), it's a dandy alternative.
>
I can see that... or Lightbox, I think they call it...

I mainly build photo albums for facebook and I might keep elements if
it ends up saving me time...
Some of the albums have over 100 pictures, taken in bar/band lighting
and have to have a lot of balancing done, so if a program can save me
20 or 30 seconds a photo, that adds up fast....

Makes sense. PSE does have a limited batch mode which *may* be of some use.

p.s. It's called Lightroom. And it's also a catalog program. Some folks 
(even PSE users) love it. I haven't seen the need for it.

On 8/26/13 2:15 AM, Mac Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:26:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
>  wrote:
>
>> Well, for some of us who don't want to spend the bucks on the full
>> version of PS (me), and probably couldn't deal with all of its
>> intricacies if we could (me), it's a dandy alternative.
>>
> I can see that... or Lightbox, I think they call it...
>
> I mainly build photo albums for facebook and I might keep elements if
> it ends up saving me time...
> Some of the albums have over 100 pictures, taken in bar/band lighting
> and have to have a lot of balancing done, so if a program can save me
> 20 or 30 seconds a photo, that adds up fast....
>

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:01:32 -0400, Craig Schiller
 wrote:

That's part of my problem with Elements, Craig... The "organizer"...
I'm very happy with Picasa and don't want elements to reinvent my
wheel...

>Makes sense. PSE does have a limited batch mode which *may* be of some use.
>
>p.s. It's called Lightroom. And it's also a catalog program. Some folks 
>(even PSE users) love it. I haven't seen the need for it.
>
>On 8/26/13 2:15 AM, Mac Davis wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:26:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for some of us who don't want to spend the bucks on the full
>>> version of PS (me), and probably couldn't deal with all of its
>>> intricacies if we could (me), it's a dandy alternative.
>>>
>> I can see that... or Lightbox, I think they call it...
>>
>> I mainly build photo albums for facebook and I might keep elements if
>> it ends up saving me time...
>> Some of the albums have over 100 pictures, taken in bar/band lighting
>> and have to have a lot of balancing done, so if a program can save me
>> 20 or 30 seconds a photo, that adds up fast....
>>

Why is it a problem? I never use it. Many PSE users don't.

On 8/26/13 9:31 PM, Mac Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:01:32 -0400, Craig Schiller
>  wrote:
>
> That's part of my problem with Elements, Craig... The "organizer"...
> I'm very happy with Picasa and don't want elements to reinvent my
> wheel...
>
>> Makes sense. PSE does have a limited batch mode which *may* be of some use.
>>
>> p.s. It's called Lightroom. And it's also a catalog program. Some folks
>> (even PSE users) love it. I haven't seen the need for it.
>>
>> On 8/26/13 2:15 AM, Mac Davis wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:26:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, for some of us who don't want to spend the bucks on the full
>>>> version of PS (me), and probably couldn't deal with all of its
>>>> intricacies if we could (me), it's a dandy alternative.
>>>>
>>> I can see that... or Lightbox, I think they call it...
>>>
>>> I mainly build photo albums for facebook and I might keep elements if
>>> it ends up saving me time...
>>> Some of the albums have over 100 pictures, taken in bar/band lighting
>>> and have to have a lot of balancing done, so if a program can save me
>>> 20 or 30 seconds a photo, that adds up fast....
>>>