Yup, Irfanview looks pretty shabby as well; a Winders-only
application, I believe.
Looks have a lot to do with it. I wonder at the designer of a piece
of software if they are just managing to make the functions work and
cannot get the overall design together. But I'm not talking only
about aesthetics: the ease and logic of use are major factors in
whether I will bother with an application.
The Olympus applications are built, or at least commissioned, by a
company whose products are intended to to be used for making beautiful
images. I cannot reconcile a rubbish-looking bit of software with
that overall aim. Nor can I see how the same company comes up with
such a poorly designed workflow. Picasa looks much better, as free
applications go.
Now, you have me on the results. If Studio/Viewer produce the right
results you have to use them; but since I am incapable of spotting the
difference, Aperture (and LightZone and Picasa, along with iView and
PS) do the trick for me.
Chris
On 10 Feb 2009, at 16:48, Ken Norton wrote:
> What do "looks" have to do with it? If it's fast and functional...
> How
> about Irvanview? That's not exactly good looking either, but it
> sure is
> popular.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|