I have both on my PC. There is nothing I have found so far in Elements that I can't do in Photoshop CC. However, there seem to be many things I am used to that just aren't in Elements. It is hard to come up with a list off the top of my head. My advice is this: it depends on your personality. Many good photographers I know who used Photoshop switched to elements, usually saying it was easier and did what they wanted, Photoshop Full edition is more complicated. I myself prefer the depth of Photoshop Full/CC, I like having all kinds of extra tools to work with. It is complicated and took me a long time to learn. Also the layout of each is different. Once you get used to one, the other layout uncomfortable. If you don't like a lot of post processing in your photos, Elements is for you. Personally I live for post processing, (using the Raw converter in CC is unmatched, so is its Panorama stitching and it can do focus stacking for instance) and CC is for me.

If I understand what others are saying, the password would be on the bottom label of the router (the unit that attaches to the computer, like an antennae, sending and receiving the signals through the air. It is just a box with electronics in it) itself. It had me up in a tree when I tried to set up wireless too. For instance when you want your laptop to communicate with the computer, it asks for a password. A camera would be the same.

Very interesting. The plane that could accompany a bomber all the way to Berlin and back right? Goering, or one the top Nazi's, said when he saw them flying with the bombers over Berlin he knew the jig was up. Can't believe how small it looks in their, like riding a bicycle in a cage or something. I can't imagine flying one all over Europe! Maybe the wide angle lens has something to do with it.

There may some "one click" programs (see above) for a simple point and shoot approach, I have to admit I have never tried them. However, I do a lot of post processing on prints I sell at a gallery and removing unwanted spots, objects etc., is just one of many things I use to enhance my photos: Of necessity is the "rubber stamp" tool in Photoshop. Once mastered you may use it if you want to just reform a cloud, or add a cloud. You can use it not only to remove but add as well. You can paint in forms, reshape them, as well as remove them. It is more accurately called a cloning tool. I tried to "paint" over unwanted areas with color but it almost always looked faked because the texture of the surrounding area did not match. The cloning tool actually allows you to "graft" an area of the image to another area. If you have a paper cup on the grass, the tool takes another area of grass that you select and grafts it over the paper cup. the tool uses a circular area and the edge can be softened to create a seamless "patch". It does not have to be just a circle, you keep the left click down and drag the cursor and it creates a grafted "brushstroke". The size of the area grafted is variable down to one pixel, and the opacity can also be adjusted to zero transparency. The latest version in the 'cloud' photoshop even shows a preview of how the graft is lining up before it "pastes" it, allowing the clean edge of a building or tree branch to be maintained without trial and error. This gives me total creative control over the operation instead of letting the computer decide and just do a "one click" removal, although I wish I had that capability on more than one occasion.

So you are saying that the video function is basically just a bunch of still photos taken in sequence using still functions and just stringing them together makes if "video". That would make sense, but when I see a video camera it is so totally different looking, form follows function and the technology is assumably very different than a DSLR.I don't think I have ever seen or heard of a prize still photo taken out of a video stream.

Of course we al want to know how you took this wonderful photograph, what kind of camera, settings etc. I think that if you click 'download' when posting, we could get this info from the exif data.

I have to admit I don't know what a 1" sensor is. Is it square? Is it bigger than full frame? As for the 10-600, I think that would be a great range and I would be interested if it were on a DX mount. I think the crop sensor is the standard of the industry, for Nikon and Canon, etc. Anything smaller is too little and anything larger too expensive. I just bought a Tokina 10-16 wide angle DX, I think it is an ignored range for a serious photoghrapher, who would also love to have the 600 range. To have that capability without having to change lenses is something I cannot imagine anyone would not want. The 98% negative comment rate here on UHH is a real eye opener, I am beginning to wonder who these people are. Just a smattering of the rest of the population of humanity who have pretty much f'ed up the world.

Yes, I would agree with the other member who recommeded trying Nikon's kit lens. I bought the D5200 when it was new and was totally satisfied with the sharpness of the 18-55mm lens that came with it. I used to use a Canon Rebel for years and before that the original Canon 5mp D60, and I used to like the Tamron 28-300zoom, but as I progressed I just never seemed to get the tack sharp pictures I was seeing online by other photographers. I finally got frustrated with the softness of the Tamron lens (I developed a habit of using Photoshop's water color filter, that seemed to be the only way to get a clean crisp edge, with the Nikon equipment I actually have stopped using it and not looked back) and have not even picked up the Canon's with Tamron once since I switched to the Nikon D5200 with the Nikkor 18-55 lens (and a Nikon 70-300, 55-200, 50mmf1.4...its called Nikonitus lens disease). I have bought some more Nikon lenses and they all seem to be superior. I did buy a Takina wide angle (11-16mm for $479) because I ran out of funds, andI am thinking it is just a tad short compared to the Nikon lenses, but it is still very fine. I see a lot of pictures online taken with the newer Tamron lenses that look great. But so far my experience is that my Nikon camera works best with the Nikon lenses. The Nikon 18-55mm lens is very inexpensive as lenses go, I have seen it new for around a $100.

Maybe they did that in response to a bunch of UHH'ers who complained about not having their work "protected" but "up for grabs", so they made it like a vault. Most of the negative arguments here are about others seeing and stealing your work because it is too open(In this case maybe it just Google saying it is reserving the right to use your photos. I expect this is a good argument and Google will be addressing that issue... maybe). I would think something that gives a privacy clause would make many users happy. I know that some sites allow viewing but no downloading. It would seem the technology would be possible for this, but maybe there is some reason that it is an expensive technology that is not cost effective for a free product. (There is that darn 4 letter dirty word again: Free)

That was a 2014 document. I would like to see the current doc that goes with the new unlimited service. It may or may not be the same. I understand everyones skepticism, but it seems like everyone is afraid their photos are the value of a Mona Lisa or something, just waiting to be ripped off to make oodles of cash for Google and the photographer getting nothing. The creative alteration clause for instance seems to be directed to the business listings on google maps, which may not be possible without it. I am sure we should be grateful for that free advertising service for our business. Seeing the unanimous disapproval by photographers here I wonder about services like flicker which not only store like google (which seems private enough for me) which show your work to the world, according to us they must be getting ripped off like crazy...??? I don't think the Google unlimited storage means that anyone can go in and fish, your would need to provide the viewer permission to download. But I have to admit I so far have not had time to investigate directly the Google system. But again, all the responses have given me the intelligence to watch out for pitfalls. I would however like to hear a good positive rebuttal argument (at least just for debate purposes) by someone who has tried it, if it is in operation yet. Free unlimited storage should have some good. (No! No! Please charge me money! This is not right! It is UnAmerican!)

Time will tell if it really is unlimited as first reported. At least after reading all the comments we know what to look out for. I am getting the feeling that the general reaction is "If it sounds to good to be true, there is a price tag on it somewhere" the present day version of "If it sounds too good to be true it usually is" The article did say and gave detailed evidence that Google had the space and technology to do it. As usual I am just agnostic: skeptical but possible, always looking for the best hope but being realistic. PS: Google does seem to have unlimited storage space for emails... they have that as a free service and have been expanding the capacity continuosly, I have used it for years now successfully, no flys in the ointment there. Ok, somebody will find some.

I beg to disagree. The world itself is free, essentially. It is companies with governments and big guns who take it and put a price on it. It WAS NOT ceated that way. The internet? Open source is free. More power to it.

Yes, serious photographers like myself would never go for a free service that steal their images and sell them to a third party and do it legally. Still, like dropbox, a big step in the right direction. I fear even showing my "good stuff" at all on the internet for I know if it can be seen it can be taken. But a photographer has to show some good stuff online to make money these days. Keep them as small and lo res as possible though. I even fear posting something on Facebook and Google+, but viewers are somewhat limited, Flicker though I have head numerous stories of photos just taken and used commercially with no acknowledgement or compensation.

My problem was my Mac aged, it had one shutdown or slowdown after another and finally refused to recognize my 2 external hardrives. I had a PC too and found that better for most usuage as it was more universal, Mac better mainly for Graphics, which as an artist is the main thing with me, but I just couldn't afford to keep the Mac upgraded. I took the external drives to a shop and they said they were fine. But in Mac format. It would cost me a couple hundred to transfer them to compatible PC.

Good point about upload speed. Dropbox takes me hours, overnight sometimes, to upload a batch of negatives with even their small limit of free storage.