Argh!

[tigertoy]

I'm looking through pictures from the trip, from June 20th.

How could I have not noticed, as I was taking them, all the crap on the lens?  I have a bunch of pictures that have composition worthy of a National Geographic spread, but pretty much ruined because there's this THING on the lens that looks like a phantom tree branch.  Not so bad if it's over a tree, but totally out of place when it's in the sky.

I know I'm sloppy when I'm in the field, but this is ridiculous.  It's like a tenth of the frame long.

Comments

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

oh yeah. *sigh*. photoshop's healing brush is my friend.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I'll be trying on some of them I'm sure, but I don't think my Photoshop-fu is up to it. (Against blue sky, not so bad, but against ripply lake or clouds, much harder.)

[sukaycirquegirl.livejournal.com]

What version of Photoshop are you using?

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Photoshop Elements 2.0. It comes with high-end Canon cameras. Maybe it's not real Photoshop, but it's got a lot more stuff than I know how to use.

[sukaycirquegirl.livejournal.com]

Elements has some really useful features and is perfectly fine for most general photographic editing/fixing/etc. I used it at home for a long time (it came w/ my super fancy Epson printer and I received another copy w/ my Epson scanner).

I use Photoshop 7 at work (they have not yet found it in the budget to upgrade our Photoshop or Flash... or even my Adobe Standard for that matter). But then at work I use it to modify screen shots for use in simulations created with Flash - so I'm not really editing "photos." I also use it to create some simple graphics, buttons, arrows, etc (for use in the same simulations).

I just got Photoshop CS at home - which I love even though I haven't even scratched the surface of what it can do.