I still use ps elements and I got a cd of backgrounds. Sometimes it will fill background and other times it will put a small square on picture and not fill in areas selected. 1. Lasso 2. pick background 3. select/all 4.control-c 5.close 6.new layer 7.edit-paste into/ these are the steps i use and like I said sometimes it fills in selected lasso area and other times just a small area of picture. Can someone please help??? Tracie[/quote]

I've got to assume from what you describe, that the background file is a different size than the file into which it is being inserted. In photo the fix is to resize the layer into which the background is inserted. I would assume that elements has a similar capacity. The only problem is that if the background is a low quality file, enlarging it too much may make it look pretty crummy.

I used my Canon software to process and IT WAS LIKE SHOOTING WITH A NEW CAMERA!! One question, when you convert the image from RAW to Jpeg (after the adjustments have been made), doesn't it compress and lose data? If yes, about how much of the image is compromised? I know this is not the case with TIFF files, but I'm forever emailing photos, so I do need to convert to Jpeg.[/quote]

The file is compressed, but as long as you do not continue to open re-edit and re-save it the integrity is not lost. If you want to go back and continue to edit the photo, the best option is to save it in a loss-less format (e.g. Tiff is one)

I think the basic problem that most "newbies" have is that they expect or would like the camera to do everything for them; and have trouble understanding that with modern DSLRs they are working with a modern marvel of technology, that is as much computer as camera. If one doesn't have the time, energy, or interest to learn how all the available settings interact, the best setting is full automatic; and to be prepared when the dumb computer/camera cannot figure out what the human pushing the shutter expects. There is no simple preset that works all the time. The more one is willing to compromise the results, the more one is willing to solely use the jpeg setting and avoid setting ISO, Aperture, Exposure, etc. Sure, it's complicated and confusing at first, but after a while much becomes second nature while the results keep improving. One last word: If one cannot see the difference between a "snapshot" and a well crafted photograph, ignore my advice.

and a gem that is absolutely cost free...

Resist the temptation to get in there and start firing away on the shutter. Sure, there are instances when one has no choice, but most photos can be improved by taking a few minutes to first contemplate about what one wants to say and what the scene/situation is saying.
I realize this sounds kind of Zen but it works.

All of us who have been shooting for some time have little gems we carry that cost virtually nothing but are indispensable when needed. I'll start this thread with 3 ideas
1. Wooden clip clothespins. You find this perfect nature shot of flowers but there's a weed or leaf intruding on the composition. The clothespin neatly and temporarily clips it out of the way.
2. A small spray bottle with water. Almost everything looks more attractive with water droplets on it.
3. A white business card. Not as effective as a snoot, but in a pinch it will more effectively direct your flash.
The purists who insist that I am messing with nature with 1 and 2 are welcome to be wrong.

Never before seen on the web - Ta Da! Introducing my Grandchildren to the world. Rowan age nearly 4 months, and her big brother Liev 4 years 4 months. As terrific as they are beautiful.

had to mask out an ugly background

It seems to me that Portrait Professional is one of those products you either love or hate. It is able to create an idealized version of beauty that includes modifying facial contours, softening skin and blemishes, and even changing eye color. To me, the results often look unrealistic, less like a portrait and more like surgery. Freckles disappear and are difficult to recover. If you or your clients like the "before" and "after" results you see in the PP ads or website, you will like the software. I prefer having finer control over my portraits (which I get from CS5 and some plug-ins) and a wife who is proud of the wrinkles she has earned over the years. although a small bit of software improvement is allowed.

As you can see, after changing the PPI, the image becomes smaller. If I elect to re-sample the image, then the size would not change, but that changes the parameters of the original question.[/quote]

I stand corrected, but cannot reconcile when one would NOT re-sample the image before changing the size. Why would you want a smaller sized image with a higher dpi when the printer will not reflect the change as an improvement? Conversely, why would you NOT want to know, immediately, that enlarging an image has exceeded the available pixels and that software interpolation is being applied.
I am talking about the realm of digital photography where one starts with a fairly large, fairly high pixel number. If I imported a web image (usually start around 72dpi) and want to later attempt to make a quality print (240dpi) from it then it better be very large when I first imported it, or I have to rely on software to help me.

Well logic would dictate that if you increased the PPI of your image, given a fixed dimension your image would appear smaller since the pixel density would be higher.[/quote]

I could actually research this, but where would the fun be in that. Instead I will give an answer that I am pretty certain is correct.
Photoshop sets the dpi of imported files under preferences, and one usually sets it according to the printer being used. (usually either 240 or 300). If you later change the dpi the size of the photo is not affected. A larger number crams more pixels into the same space, a smaller number reduces the number of pixels. The former may exceed the total number of pixels available in the original file, in which case interpolation is used. This is at best a compromise, and outside Photoshop software is sometimes used to provide better results. Reducing the number of pixels required is not nearly as significant an issue. My understanding is that with photos up to the maximum number of pixels captured in the original file, printing at anything greater than 300 dpi accomplishes nothing in terms of quality.

Got to agree with everything johnniejack has to say. I would add only that the more you think about what you want to create, the more you look at photos you admire, and the more you attempt to reach for perfection, the better your results will become. Photoshop gives you the ultimate tools to get them, but it is not for everyone. See if first you really enjoy the process. If it is drudgery, forget it. It's not work, if you enjoy doing it.

You are correct, it is for organization mainly, works very well with Photoshop CS5.[/quote]

My understanding, exactly. I use CS5 and after about 3 years of climbing the steep learning curve find that it gives me virtually limitless possibilities to express virtually anything I can imagine. It is expensive, it is initially terrifying, it is an anathema to all those who believe an image should never be manipulated outside the camera, and it can be time consuming; but it is amazingly powerful...and if you like doing the manipulation almost as much as the shooting, it is indispensable. I would recommend Adobe's Photoshop Elements which is probably more than enough software for most people and a good way to evaluate your interest and patience.

Live as long as I, have children and grandchildren, and I think you will agree that we are born with personalities, traits, and qualities that can be developed, overcome, and massaged, but largely determine who we are. Otherwise, I completely agree with what you say. If one does photography for personal gratification, rather than having to earn money from it, then the qualities necessary for taking great photos are far less important.

"The camera doesn't make the photo, it's the photographer who makes a great picture."

If this statement is true why doesn't everyone just use a nice point and shoot camera?

So why don't we make it easy and just shoot pictures with our phones?[/quote]

The problem with many of the responses is that the original questions have been lost in the haze of interpretation. No one has defined what makes a picture great, and I doubt that any two opinions will exactly agree. However to answer the points as originally posed, obviously from my singular perspective, from the quotes above, : The photographer is always more responsible for the greatness than the equipment, with the rare exception of where pure luck enters the equation. People use the tools they can afford and that express their creativity, assuming that "great" means more to them than simply pointing and pushing a button. Great shots, great composition, great ideas, can come from a pin hole camera... and for that matter from a cell phone. To me this entire thread is no different than asking if a great book can emerge from a stub of pencil and a some pieces of paper.