Apart from the higher cost of Photoshop another reason for getting the
much lower-priced Photoshop Elements is the fact that you will not have
to spend so many hours learning how to use it. Even so, you should
allow yourself several hours to get to grips with Elements. I've been
using mine for a couple of years and so far I've only used a fraction
of its potential. As an amateur user you may well wonder what extras
you would get with the full Photoshop because Elements probably has
everything you're likely to need - and more.
I recently found a box of large negatives of black & white pictures
taken in 1946. I scanned these with an Epson 4870 scanner at 800 dpi
and found that by tweaking them in Elements I was able to get larger
and better prints than many of the old faded prints which had been made
in 1946. However my son tells me that in 10 years time my new digital
prints will have faded unrecognisably. The longevity of dot-matrix and
laser prints is another aspect of modern technology that merits
discussion on this mailing list.
Brian Read
On 30 Mar 2005, at 14:06, GATLEY David A wrote:
> Only just read your email.
>
> I think most digital cameras costing in excess of £150.00 will do for
> most purposes. With them you can take photographs in low light
> conditions and I've been very pleased with the results I've had.
>
> The minimum you need is a four mega pixel three-times zoom.
>
> I always advice people to make the decision on the basis of the
> SOFTWARE
> SUPPLIED. If possible choose a camera that comes with either Paint Shop
> Pro or Photoshop Elements. Beware however that sometimes you will only
> get a trail version of the software - which was the case with my
> nephew.
>
> My two Nikon cameras came complete with Photoshop Elements and I can
> well recommend the Nikon Coolpix series. They sell from around £200.00
> -
> more than some camera but the software is a really big plus. They also
> come complete with a re-chargeable battery.
>
> The cost of Paintshop Pro and Photoshop Elements is around £75.00.
> These
> are sufficient for most purposes and are the two packages most used by
> serious amateurs. They are far cheaper than Photoshop (by far the best
> program) that retails for upwards of £500.00.
>
> I've now do all my photograph with digital cameras and I hope I never
> have to return to using film.
>
> David
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Leach [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 March 2005 11:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Digital photography in archives
>
>
> Dear All
>
> Has anyone any information, either from personal experience, or on
> websites or other sources, about digital document photography,
> specifically as a user of archives? In particular, I would be grateful
> for advice about the choice of equipment, and tips about achieving
> optimal results, especially working within the restraints of, for
> example, the National Archives digital photography policy, with its
> limitations on lighting and tripods, etc.
>
> Dave Leach
>
> The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely
> for
> the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
> it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message
> and
> any attachment from your computer.
>
|