Chris: I'm actually more interested in Capture 1. But there's always the
question of whether the camera manufacturer's RAW converter is better than
everybody else's, because only they know their sensor and what software
gymnastics are happening at the chip level. It's likely that Viewer is just
as good as Studio. It just doens't have all the image edit features and
the computer controlled camera operation. The old Viewer was slower than
Studio, so the speed difference might still hold. It will take a while for
all this to shake out.
Studio might be useful for quick-and-dirty one-step batch edits of photos
taken under similar conditions. You know, when you've just taken 462 RAW
photos of your daughter's ice skating team, and you just want to adjust the
white balance and curve the same way on each photo, resize to a smaller
jpeg, sharpen and be done with it. For best results, I use Picture Window
Pro and (sometimes) Neat Image, but sometimes it's nice to have one-stop
shopping. . . :-)
--Peter
Supposedly, C1 is now just as good at the Oly converters. However, I can't
try C1 yet as I'm still running Windows 98 SE at home, on a nearly 6
year-old computer that I bought from work at a rock-bottom price and souped
up a bit. If I read things correctly, C1 only runs on Windows 2000 and
up. I'll upgrade to XP when I buy my current work computer in a few months
when its lease runs out.
I'm also trying Bibble but found that it ran erratically and the colors
aren't quite right.
Oh, BTW, do you know that you don't need to use Viewer just to download
files from the camera? It acts like a flash drive when you plug it into
the computer. So you can move the files wholesale, then look at them on
the computer and decide whether to delete or keep.
And your description of post carol-singing cuisine is making me hungry!!!
--Peter
At 03:41 AM 12/24/04 +0100, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|