Sue Pearce wrote:
> no, I'm the dolt, since it's so easy for everyone else.
>
At least you have Chuck and me for company.
I haven't tried it since the original beta, which I found maddening to
work with. That it was so slow, I could understand, and I assume that's
been addressed.
The thing was, I kept wanting to do things I did in PS, that were at the
basis of my way of editing and either couldn't find a way to accomplish
the same thing or found the approach to doing the same thing fell short
in ease of use or, worse, results.
I think preference between the interface models will largely boil down
to what sort and volume of photography one does and what sort of editing
one wishes to do. Also to at least some extent on one's attitude toward
post processing work. If one finds it a chore and simply wishes a decent
job done and over with, Lightroom is likely to appeal. If one views post
as a crucial and enjoyable part of the process of creating a completed
image, PS is more likely to satisfy.
As to the function of keeping track of images, that must be wonderful
for those who like its other functions. For me, it would have to chop
wood, carry water, cook and clean up the dishes - and I'd still not use
it for actual editing. All based on the first beta, so I suppose I might
try the latest. Even foods I have always disliked get a taste every once
in a while, to see if my tastes have changed.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|