You're right. My brain is not well in gear. I hadn't thought about ACR
and I am critically dependent on it. In particular, I would need ACR to
get past the 16 bit stage. Only then am I willing to go to 8 bits which
is supposedly a limitation of GIMP.
I haven't investigated in much detail but I believe that CS5 has
improved HDR support as well as image stacking which I hope is useful
for DoF increase on macro. But in any case, I don't have CS4 and
upgrading to CS5 is no more expensive. At this point I don't even
remember what was in CS4 over CS3.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/19/2010 5:25 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 9/19/2010 10:08 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Thanks. Sounds like I should start by downloading the Windows
>> version of GIMP so I have some first hand information.
>
> I did that recently. It's way better than it was a few years ago. I
> can see how some people who use PS could find it meets their needs.
> It will depend a lot on what tools you use. I just couldn't see where
> it would do all I do in PS and could see a whole lot of time spent
> learning how to do the parts it could replace.
>
> BTW, I can't see much big improvement in CS5 over CS4. The big deal
> is supposed to be content aware healing and fill. So far, I haven't
> been impressed. The healing brush seems to me to work better the old
> way for many uses.
>
> We use ACR/PS in quite different ways. You use ACR pretty extensively
> for post, while I mostly do it in PS. What would you use for RAW
> conversion on Linux? There are RAW converters, but I'm not aware of
> anything with the range of functions you use in ACR.
>
> 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/
|