On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM, <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ---- Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
>> When it comes to the RAW conversions themselves, Olympus Studio2
>> out-converts ACR every day of the week--especially for E-3 files.
>
>
> For someone who commences ranting every time Adobe is mentioned, you sure
> seem to believe to know a lot about its capabilities.
>
> For myself, I like CS4 just fine. I liked CS2, also. Not to mention CS3. I
> suspect I'll like CS5 as well. Maybe better. <g> I spent a lot of time
> converting .ORF files in both Studio and ACR, and I settled on ACR. Same with
> .NEF files and Nikon Capture. OEM software may have the odd thing that works
> better with their own files, but by and large, ACR does me just fine. I don't
> know for sure, and I'm not going to waste the time trying to find out, but I
> suspect it's because I process each and every file individually, without a
> thought to actions and such. I'm not an event photographer, nor do I do
> portraiture or other types of photography that lend themselves to automated
> work flows that OEM software may have a leg up on. (Or Lightroom or Aperture,
> for that matter.)
>
> But--BUT--I would add that if you're not doing photography for money, the
> outlay for Photoshop is a bit much. And depending on what you do
> photographically for money, it may not be the best option. There are a lot of
> options out there. Whatever floats your boat.
>
> Still and all, Photoshop is a damn fine program with a lot of damn fine
> features. As much as I liked Picture Window Pro, I didn't hesitate to abandon
> it for Photoshop. The more time I spend with the various CS versions, the
> more I like them, and the more I respect the people who engineered them. For
> me, life's too short to continue, as I once did, trying to find workarounds
> for the things photoshop does so well.
Bob,
I told Ken that Studio 2 out-converts ACR, and if I tell him, he
thinks it's the truth -- as he should, of course. <g>
I agree with you about PS in general. My version was not current even
a couple versions ago, but it has the tools I need. I picked up
Lightroom strictly for the RAW converter feed-in to PS and was
disappointed. I was further disappointed that Deep Peeve Review would
only use ACR when reviewing Olympus cameras. I got a little more
insight into that through reading the E-P1 review more carefully than
I usually do. Since they didn't have an ACR RAW converter available
in order to compare with other brands, they used Capture One (and
something else). They deliberately avoided Studio 2 and Master
because, they said, it just makes the RAW files look like the jpgs.
With no settings changes whatsoever, that it true. But the point is
that Studio 2 allows you to change most of the in-camera settings that
control everything from sharpness to WB. It's a bit like saying
"riding in such-and-such car is no better than sitting still" when you
have refused to start the motor in the first place.
But that's fine. Now at least I understand. And it is also apparent
that Deep Peeve is looking for some kind of third-party standard
perhaps as a control. As such, I don't have any problem with ACR. If
I didn't have Studio 2, that's what I'd use for sure. And as for PS
itself, I don't think I could function without it!
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|