sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

I think light room is much better than element for organizing. I had trouble with elements catalog and switched to Lightroom.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

My suggestion, Valinda, work with just the basics in Elements and as the need or want increases, you'll have the resources in Elements 13 to do much more, when you are ready. You have a powerful 'tool' in Elements with options you can choose or ignore, but when you need those more sophisticated options, you will have them at your disposal.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I also use the FREE Picasa from Google for a lot of the more simple edits!! Also does a nice job of cataloging.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

For organizing, the FREE Picasa does a very good job, and can handle many simple edits, straightening, cropping, etc.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Valinda Loc: Washington

Thanks everyone! I'm looking for a tuturial on Elements catagorizing tools. It's not clear....yet...why some main catagories (people) allow sub-catagories and others (nature) don't. So much to learn......

Valinda Loc: Washington

Thanks!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I too am retired and travel a lot in an RV. I'm not new to photography, but was new to digital processing a couple years ago. Until then, I had done nothing with Photoshop, Lightroom or anything else. I organized point and shoot snapshots in Explorer with dated or named folders.

Learning new stuff has become a retirement thrill. I've taken well organized courses from skilled instructors and continue to find the excitement of discovering tools and techniques. There is enough wifi almost everywhere now so you can take courses instead of watching TV.

Do not sell PSE 13. If anything, buy Lightroom and Premier Elements to go with it. When you have Lightroom, turn off or disable Organizer.

You'll have nothing but fun.

Jana-TAS Loc: Washington

If you are wanting to organize the photos on your computer first off I would start a folder that says "Untitled-Unedited". When you first load the photos on to the computer from your camera they should go into that folder. Then after you have edited them if you want make a folder that says "Edited to be titled". If you have pets make a folder for each pet. Over time date the pictures so you know their age after you have first adopted them. If you are interested in birding make a folder for each species of bird you take a picture of, when titling them just let the number get bigger as you title. If you have a certain species that does a certain thing each year make sure you date them so you can compare year-to-year. For me that would be comparing the Pileated's bringing new baby in the summer time. For Holidays like Christmas just create a Christmas folder and then make a folder for each year and put the pics for that year in that folder. If you've taken trips just date and title the trip. For me I can think off the top of my head one would be a Grand Canyon one. So I would have titled that folder Grand Canyon and put it in the Arizona folder. If you've been taking pics for a long time but have not at all done this this will be a good project for you to work on. Then after you finish every time you go to put pictures on your computer always just load them into the Untitled-Unedited folder. Then after they are edited and titled you can move them into a specific folder.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Organize your files on your external drive or hard drive the way you want them. Don't allow any program to do it for you or you will have a blob of a mess. I have a Pictures file where I download all new images under additional files I create by category of whatever the subject matter was. After that, I import them into LR so LR knows where they are. If you need to move a file do it in LR and it will automatically happen on your external and/or hard drive. The important thing is for you to remain in control. Good luck.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It occurs you did not check into the supplied software enough, as it does includes leveling horizons and many other things. Raw processing is also better in DPP than the limited ACR version in PSE.

TheLutheran

Photoshop Elements may seem sophisticated now, but it will in fact be very limiting as you gain more experience.

In my personal opinion, if you want to optimize your shooting and get the most out of your camera, you should shoot in RAW. If you are shooting with a Canon camera, Free DPP is certainly the way to go, however its drawback is that, as a RAW converter it's not very good at culling large amounts of photos.

This is because, as with any RAW converter, you can't really evaluate the RAW image unless you open it, which makes culling rather uncomfortable, due to how long it takes for a converter to open a RAW image.

For the purpose of culling, I personally use FastRawViewer, which was recently discussed here on this very forum. It's a highly useful program, as it allows one to very quickly see what is wrong with the image through its over- and underexposure zone tools, as well as its focus peaking function. Furthermore, it is thus far the only program that shows the real RAW histogram of the image - all other viewers show the histogram of the built-in JPEG or some unknown conversion.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

With due respect, what exactly do you find so very limiting?

TheLutheran

Modern cameras provide 14 bits per channel, which after demosaicking amounts to 16 bits - Photoshop Elements does not support 16 bits. This is not just a numeric limitation, but results in noise increase. This is flat-out insufficient.

There are other differences between Photoshop Elements and full-fledged Photoshop as well, all of them being extremely important.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

You are absolutely correct. With due respect, consider how many millions of colors the eyeballs we own actually see. I will be sure to spend the money and learn PS CC when I'm selling my images to National Geographic. But, my $100 Canon ink jet might not see the difference.

I borrowed this from elsewhere on the WWW:

"1 - Elements does not need more 16 bits support than it already has : ACR module if you are serious and shooting raw, 16 bits editing for global adjustments.
2 - Even with layers in 8 bits, you can process different versions of your image in 16 bits to avoid any posterization with heavy edits. The result will be the same as if you had processed everything in 16 bits. Just try and see.
3 - Remember that your output (display or print) is always in 8 bits. (If you have output devices which support 16 bits, of course you can afford the full photoshop!)
4 - Local edits ( dodge and burn, sharpening, healing brush...) don't require 16 bits. As I said in the previous link, I still wait for conclusive evidence of the contrary.
5 - Just notice that people who stress the necessity of 16 bits never explain why (posterization risk) and just rely on 'bigger is better' .
6 - But... 16 bits is absolutely necessary for raw converters. That's why when I am using PSE with ACR my workflow is most of the time 100% 16 bits - sometimes 80% when I use layers or local tools. And my output (display or print) is always 8 bits - not yours ?"