On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
See, youz guyz readz too much. Who gives a rat's patoot what deepee
thinks about anything? I sure don't. I quit reading their reviews a
long time ago, for much the same reason as you cite, that is, because
the reviews are not comprehensive. IMHO most of the stuff we get all
ramped up about isn't visible to the human eye, anyway. Certainly not
on a large print hanging behind glass on a wall. I prefer the old
Buddhist admonition to "take the one seat," with the caveat that it be
a comfortable seat, and not a New England church pew. <g>
Do I occasionally make a bad decision? Sure I do. Could I get
marginally better performance if I used something besides what I use?
Maybe. And then again, maybe not. But then I'm way outside the pale of
the "engineer" mentality inherent in many photographers. I know just
enough to be dangerous, and what I don't know I find someone to teach
me so I can me more dangerous still. For example, the arguments go on
and on and on and on about whether the Nikon 14-24 outperforms the
Zeiss 21mm Nikon mount WA prime. I opted for the Zeiss. One, it takes
filters. Two, it's small. Three, it's a Zeiss prime. I have not been
disappointed. I have not wished I had chosen the Nikon. I have not
read all of the exhaustive reviews and opinions, mostly because I
think they are just that, exhaust. <g>
But, then, I suppose we have to have _something_ to talk about when
we're not inspecting Nathan's PAWs for senoritas, right? And while I
do enjoy the ladies, I miss GeeBee's clouds. I never had sex with a
cloud, and I never have been able to lie around staring at a woman
without an eventual desire to try to cause something to happen. <wink>
--Bob Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|