Peter
Thanks for your assessment. I use Viewer only for downloading the
files to my computer so I have not really got into the usefulness of
the programme. However, I have ordered a Sigma 55-200 for my E-1 and I
shall go off and take some shots in the village today, pre-Christmas
errands permitting ... I might start a project of photographing
interesting roofs. We were returning last night from mulled wine,
mince pies and stollen (delicious, with marzipan in the middle a la
Delia Smith recipes) after carol-singing when we noticed how
interesting the roof of the church was (see www.gamlingay.org, church,
resources). Since I shall have a powerful telephoto lens to use today,
I hope, I thought I might slip along to capture that.
Enough rambling; why would you buy Studio Peter? What can it offer
that you could not do to an image in PS or the others?
Chris
On 23 Dec 2004, at 1:37, Peter Klein wrote:
> In short, Viewer is now a good, basic RAW converter. It's no longer
> the
> glacially slow crippleware it was before. You can do the very basics
> (WB,
> exposure, maybe contrast and saturation) in Viewer and convert to
> 16-bit
> TIFF. Then you can do the rest without loss in Photoshop, Picture
> Window,
> Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.
>
> I may eventually spring for Capture 1 or Studio, but for moderate use,
> Viewer is now a very usable (and free) option. A few quirks, not the
> world's fastest workflow, but quite usable.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|