I think what you are referring to is perspective distortion. Both Photoshop and Photoshop Elements 3.0 have a Transform function that allows correcting linear distortions in photographic images. However, I don't think any of the applications you mentioned support such a function, however I stand to be corrected if my memory has failed me.

If however there is an image size function in any of your applications, and I am sure there is, and it allows you to turn off Constrain Proportions, then you can by trial and error alter slight the height/width settings to straighten the subject. If that is successful you will need to crop the image to get the edges parallel and proportional.

There is a program called Panoramic Tools that works as a plug in to Photoshop. By itself, the program is rather difficult to understand, but there is a front end program developed by Max Lyons called PT Assembler that makes it more intuitive. Panoramic Tools does much more than just create panoramics by combining images. It can also correct perspective problems. I think PT Assembler is a stand alone program, but as David suggested, you'll probably need to upgrade your image editing programs to get the best results. Especially important if you want to ask questions on a forum where most people are using either Photoshop or Elements. Elements is a relatively inexpensive program which replaced PhotoDeluxe in Adobe's line. It also comes bundled free with most scanners and I've seen it as low as $59 retail.

Curious, how did you previously correct perspective without an expensive PC lens when shooting film because it isn't just a digital issue. It's a photography issue and digital offers the tools needed to solve the problem.

The best way to correct for perspective distortion is to compose the shot so that the camera's film plane (or CCD sensor) is parallel to the surface that you're shooting. It's not always physically possible, of course, unless your camera has tilt and shift capability. However, with a little planning, you can usually come up with a camera position that will at least reduce the severity of the distortion, if not eliminate it. Then, you can correct what's left in Photoshop. I agree with Larry Berman - Photoshop Elements would be a good investment.

David, Thank you for solvoing my problem! I can use the image size function to make the adjustment. Can you suggest a good comprehensive program I could obtain; most of the ones I have looked at have a limited description of their capabilities. Thank you again, Morgan

Larry, Thanks for the link and suggestion to update to Elements...I'm trying to learn all I can about digital and appreciate your advice. Now to answer your question about how I corrected the problem pre-digital...please don't laugh... but in "the old days" we simply tilted the printing paper holder in relation to the enlarger lens ( the opposite of what happened when the photograph was taken). Thanks for all you help! Morgan

Bill, Thanks for your reply and I will definitely update to Elements. I appreciate the suggestion. In this particular situation I was photographing tall, narrow stained glass windows from inside a small church which limited my ability to be far enough away or at the same level, as they were high up in the wall. Thanks again, Morgan

I think the consensus is that Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 is the best choice, and in terms of functional value and efficiency I definitely agree. And even though I have been using Photoshop as well as every other image editors that have tried to compete over the years, PS Elements 3.0 is undoubtedly both the best value and an application I have come to use myself as much as the full version Photoshop CS2.

I remember not too long ago I was using a Photo suite program and went to Elments 2.0. I know 3.0 is even better, but what a difference it made in what you could do. Monte Johnson.

Thanks Monte. I'll order Elements 3 based on everyones recommendations. Morgan

BTW I am curious if your user name implies you drive a Morgan. I am a bit of a sports car enthusiast (currently compromised) myself.

David, Absolutely correct! 1970 Plus 8. I knew that only a real enthusiast would catch it!

In the mid 50's when I was a member of the SCSCCA we raced a 3.0 liter Ferrari Monza and were always beat on the short courses by a guy who had a Morgan 2.0 liter. I always felt the epitome of classic sports cars was the Morgan Plus 4 drophead coupe. Now much older I compromise by driving a Saab 9 5 Aero.