>
> Yep. I started with PWP, too. And I used to keep a copy around, but no
> more. It's all PS now.
>
I have a copy of PSE 2.0 (or is it PSE 3.0?) for some random items like the
healing brush and layers. But for layers, I actually prefer THE GIMP.
On my computer, it takes two minutes for PSE to start up and another 20
seconds to open a 5MP file. PWP 5.0 takes five seconds to start up and
about three seconds to open a 5MP file.
Resizing? To scale a 5MP image (single step, cubic) 200% takes around a
minute in PSE and GIMP, and about 5 seconds in PWP.
With just 1GB of RAM, I can open and easily flip between a dozen images in
PWP, but it's choke city in the other programs with two.
But, for me, it really comes down to several usability issues: I too, am a
layers user, so PWP's omission of layering is problematic at times, but the
program does offer alternative working methods and solutions. Jonathan Sachs
is not just the programmer, but he's also the #1 user of the program and a
bloody good photographer to boot.
For me to be able to manipulate 4000 ppi scans of full-frame 35mm film in
48bit aRGB mode with just 1GB of ram in a moderately fast, but aged, laptop
without pulling my long, golden locks of hair out is saying something about
PWP.
Specific areas of strength as to why I value the program:
1. Speed and memory efficiency.
2. Scaling algorithms that work.
3. OUTSTANDING color and levels adjustment tools with an "analog character".
4. Improved JPEG algorithm.
5. Sharpening tools that don't turn the image all crunchy.
6. Masking. The masking tools are second to none.
7. Cloning tool that is almost like Adobe's Healing Brush. (better than any
other cloning tool out there).
8. Multiple versions of the file open at a time--being able to experiment at
will, mixing and matching processing steps.
9. aRGB-sRGB conversion tool that rocks. I've never been able to
successfully work my files in aRGB before and get them to convert to sRGB
without weird things happening with other software.
10. Last thing that I'll say right now, but the list does go
on--Repeatability. This not only means that I can automatically apply same
processing steps to multiple files, but more importantly, I know exactly
what to expect.
I need to draw a parallel here. In the audio world, digital rules. It
rules for very good reasons. For those of you you may think I'm some
recalcitrant cave-man in this modern world, I think my background in
professional and broadcast audio would prove you wrong. I doubt there are
ten people in the world that pushed the limits of digital audio sooner and
harder than me. Without exaggeration, and without bragging, I will point out
that there are some things that are taken for granted now which were
actually my doing. Just a case in point, I implemented the first known
multitrack computer-based surround-sound live-theatre system as well as
digitized follie for live television drama. The audio/video controI system
for the Olympic Rings musical fountain in Atlanta. The multitrack editing
methods for creating advertising spots. Two of the five largest digital
audio systems in the world for radio broadcast. Satellite Radio systems. I
also helped design a couple of the most popular plug-in audio processing
algorithms and two high-end microphones. I also designed a safety-message
system for mining operations. I was also key in the development of a digital
mixer. One particular "crown jewel", which I originally started development
of in 1987 is the audio store-and-forward with automated spot-insert system
which is used by most syndicated radio networks in the world today. My ears
may not have been "golden", but they were polished silver. I also know my
way around acoustical design. What I don't know, I know who does know. My
own personal audio gear is digital. I work in the digital realm almost
exclusively.
I say all this because when it comes to digital audio, I'm not just a
convert, but an argument could be made that I'm pretty far up the food chain
in that world.
Then WHY am I so adament that the best "affordable" mixer and EQ in the
world is analog?
http://toftaudiodesigns.com/
The reason is that there is something unique to the design which is not
easily replicated in the digital world. This has nothing to do with
technology and everything to do with replication of the flaws--the way
electrons do wierd things in the physical world. The EQ section of this
mixer (as well as the rack-mount modules) has never been satisfactorily
replicated digitally. Mimicked, but never duplicated. In fact, the EQ has
never been totally matched in the analog world by any other person. It is
not just an outstanding EQ, but for some kinds of audio, it is unmatched and
in a world unto its own.
So what does that have to do with the above mentioned software? What
Jonathan Sachs has done is replicated the analog photographic world better
than I've seen in any other software. When you make an adjustment--the
exact same adjustment as in other software, the resulting image looks
different. When you do a levels adjustment on a B&W image, it better
replicates what happens in the darkroom better than other software. PWP
allows you to adjust by feel, not just by numbers. I believe that he has
inserted some custom code into the algorithms to give the images a feel that
is not possible through standard math.
The difference is there. Just as in how there are differences in RAW
converters, I believe there is a difference in editors. PWP is the real
deal. It is a strange editor, for sure, and misses some important features,
but if you can stomach the learning curve and the alternate ways of
thinking, it is a tool which is not only unique, but able to get your images
places they wouldn't have gone otherwise.
No, I have not been paid for this review and I bought my own copies of PWP
at full price.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|