or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bikertwin

I thought you were one of the people who agreed that Aperture was a complement to Photoshop and not a replacement. Must've misremembered.
The things that you describe as so essential are all very, very recent innovations. DNG is barely a year old:http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...DNGQUOTES.html Curves and sophisticated sharpening were only added to ACR in version 3.0: mere months ago. Photographers have been using ACR without these tools for several years (since PS 7 and ACR 1).If Adobe added them to ACR 3.0, what makes them so hard to add to Aperture? I don't understand your argument. Are they useful...
This is no different from ACR. If you export from ACR to PSD, tweak it, print it, and show it to the customer, and then decide the exposure or white point need to change, you need to go back to ACR and generate it again. If you've upgraded ACR, you may very well get a different PSD. I agree that this can be an issue (as I said, I ran across it myself), but ACR and Aperture act exactly the same way in this regard. [Edit] Personally, I think the raw converters themselves...
No it doesn't sound lame to me. All the FUD you're spreading was spread the same way when DVDSP and FCP 1.0 came out. Look where they are now. Apple doesn't give in easily. Throwing more engineers at a problem doesn't solve it faster. It's the old "you can't deliver a baby with 2 women and 4.5 months" issue. No curves? No threshold on unsharp mask? These were only added to ACR in the last 6 months. If people scream Apple will add them. It doesn't make the product...
This is true of any converter, even Adobe's ACR. When you replace the 3.0 plug-in with the 3.1 plug-in, you may get different results. And if--God forbid--you use the Auto checkboxes in ACR, things could change wildly between versions. It's happened to me. Unlike other "auto" buttons in Photoshop, the "auto" checkboxes in ACR are live--they're not a one-time deal like the Auto Levels button.Excellent point, melgross. People "compare" different raw converters all the time,...
I'm guessing that what Apple did is this: they came out with a software program where the innovation (the workflow) was fully fleshed out, but the technical details (raw conversion) weren't. You have to make compromises in a 1.0 version. You just have to. If they did the opposite--spent all their time on perfect raw conversions--then there wouldn't be many workflow innovations and people would say, "You're charging $500 for what Adobe gives away (ACR)." And they'd be...
That Ars Technica review was laughable. Not useless, just laughable. He starts out by saying "it's not a Photoshop competitor" then quickly ignores *all* workflow features and concentrates only on filters. WTF? His sample images are so full of defects (blurry, blown highlights, etc.), it's hard to tell what Aperture can or cannot do with a decent image. (The thing about Aperture that Photoshop fan-boys don't get is that it's a tool for making good images great--it's not a...
I think all melgross was saying was that--enhanced or not--a caching system can't make downloading/streaming/whatever any faster. In your example, a movie that takes 3-6 hours to download is simply not watchable via streaming. If it takes 3-6 hours to download, it takes 3-6 hours to download whether that's "downloading" or "streaming". I wouldn't want to spend 3-6 hours watching a 2-hour movie as it streams. The total number of bytes is the same, regardless of "enhanced...
I guess I like to "Think Different" with my camera choice (Pentax), much as I do with my computer choice (Mac). 8)
Yeah, Apple will want to sell more Macs, but isn't there a Windows utility to access your iDisk? I remember using something like that back when I first converted. (Wow. That really sounds religious. )
New Posts  All Forums: