I've had PSP from its very first edition, upgrading every other version to the present, PSPX6. In my opinion, it is the best all-around program on the market. There is very little it is not capable of. It accepts Adobe plug-ins easily. Well worth the learning curve.

Perfect Suite 8 can be used as a stand-alone program. It excels in working with layers such as changing backgrounds etc but the one thing I haven't found comparable in any other popular software is it's Resize section. Wonderful for cutting out a good section of an otherwise not so good photo and resizing it close to the original size without pixelation.

The Premium Edition would be the one I believe would be the choice for an IMac as it is for the Windows O/S. Adobe Lightroom and Aperture are programs that primarily deal with organization. The Premium Edition works with Elements and also as a Stand-Alone, however the Standard version is strictly a Stand-Alone. The price differential makes the Standard an attractive purchase if reloading an image is
acceptable. The kind of PP I do with it would not be suitable for batch processing so the Standard version was great for me.

If you are interested in PP HDR..the best, easiest and adjustable software I've found is Topaz Adjust. The amount and placement of the treatment is adjustable.

Sorry I thought a Mac version was available but this is a quote from Corel's site.

"As of this moment, Corel® PaintShop Pro is not compatible with any and all Macintosh Operating Systems. Corel® PaintShop Pro is only supported on Windows® based systems. Currently, the only Corel products that are built and supported on a Macintosh are:"

I've often thought of doing the same. I've had some very good results with photographs deemed ready for the trash pile...particularly with the aged ones, spotted and cracked where data is lost. I keep up with current versions of my "tools" and can come up with some outstanding images. Todate I've offered my services to friends free of charge although many have been willing to pay. $25 is a reasonable sum to pay to come up with a blemish free portrait or canvas ready scenic but that does not compensate for the time some might require.

Some may be willing to pay to have an ancestor's or loved ones image restored but where once PP skills were limited and not available to the masses, today..software and internet sources have leveled the playing field and amazing things can be accomplished with little graphic skills involved.

In layman's terms, there is too much light flare in your images to consider them good shots. Someone more familiar may be able to instruct on what is necessary to get the type of shot you are probably trying for. Following is a quick choice of one of mine where the lighting is more precise.

I've used PSP since its conception and have found it to be right behind Adobe in its abilities within a version or two. It's inexpensive and simpler to use. It accepts most if not all of Adobe's plug-ins.

Not only is the scanner the way to go...but the copy will probably be a lot better than the original.

You do not mention checking ink levels or that the setup is set for the correct paper type being used. Either of these things being off could cause an effect as mentioned.

Karen..I think you did an excellent job...the only critique I would have made is that mommy might have worn less "busy" clothing but then again in some of them the pattern lines emphasized the baby bump.

WOW..I'm glad these aren't pictures of me. The lady is no youngster and appears to be in pretty good shape overall. I don't know that I would crop out the lower body in the intial picture because it shows how slender she is.

I would have removed the entire background and substituted a new gradient one. The slight bulge in the waist area easily removed at the same time.

I would use Portrait Professional to reduce or hide any wrinkles and blemishes and even out skin tones. I do have to agree that the sexy expression she was trying to carry-off was not very flattering.

Here's my fix...but as mentioned a very bad image to work on...increasing the exposure brings up tons of noise. Feel free to use it.

For most basic editing, only a standard, preferable wireless, mouse is needed..anything more is gilding the lily..the only exception for me is using a mouse that brags extra battery life..and that has paid off.

For precision work, a Wacom tablet and pen is great..but it does take a little practice to be comfortable.

Go for a mouse that feels comfortable in your hand.

The copyright symbol may not get you a big fat fee in a courtroom but it does indicate that the image or article, book, song, recording or any other artistic endeavor is not up for grabs..if posted on the Internet, it will be taken down if it hasn't been authorized and can prevent its use in a commercial situation. Obviously, there are millions of pictures taken and there is no way that they can all be registered.

Today..there is no sure way to prevent any image from being "lifted" if someone wants it badly enough. disabling the right click copy function is a deterrant but it certainly doesn't stop it. Computers have a screen capture function and there are numerous more sophisticated applications to do the job if that isn't sufficient.

Not uploading images on the Internet is one way to safeguard them but also a huge exposure and potential sales opportunity is lost..not to mention the loss of the self gratification of an admiring audience. There are ways to reduce the risks. Reducing the resolution and size of an uploaded photo..plastering a visible watermark in strategic places on the image, difficult to remove and making the image unattractive to waste time on.

IF you use the the same file name...many of my duplicate files are listed under different names more descriptive than the originals.